The Yoga Sūtra in four books
The Yoga Sūtra in four books
「योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः」
「विवेकख्यातिरविप्लवा हानोपायः」
「स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा वा चितिशक्तिः」
The Yoga Sūtra starts from the cessation of mental activity and the seer abiding in its own form, and holds that ignorance wrongly conjoins the seer and the seen; in 2.26 the text directly calls unbroken discriminative knowledge the means of cutting off this conjunction, in 4.25—4.30 it returns to discrimination and non-attachment, and in 4.34 it stipulates isolation as the return of the guṇas to their source and the power of awareness abiding in its own form. The pure seer does not need to be newly made, but the complete structure of removing misidentification and attaining isolation still has an explicit function of discrimination, so ② is at present the stronger initial judgment.
Placement｜②「Direct Seeing of the Ground」 (provisionally C; the ① / ② boundary is open); the counter-reading toward ① from the originally present pure seer C
Final question｜Among the original presence of the ground, de-substantialization and the actual function of completion, which mediations are truly non-deletable? Positions are not assigned by “degree of mysticism”, nor on the strength of a single word for knowing or awareness.
T grades measure only documentary reliability: T1 = the core primary text of the object of study / text written by the person; T2 = disciples’ records, translations and editions, or texts with substantial transmissional mediation; T3 = later texts, or texts whose provenance / attribution is seriously disputed; T4 = later interpretation, hagiography, derivative schools. The specific layering is given in Sections 3 and 16.
A = a textual fact directly supported by the original; B = a strong structural inference across passages or across primary texts; C = a competing interpretation where both sides have reasonable primary-text support; D = an opposing test / evidence yet to be obtained. “The excerpt is verifiable as A” may not be passed off as “the philosophical inference is A”.
E-card directions are only of three kinds: support, limit, disputed;
modern dialogues are given as [Chinese summary of an English-translated dialogue] or [Chinese gist of the author’s original work], not as unchecked verbatim quotation.
Text level｜The sūtras of the Yoga Sūtra, as the core transmitted text of the object of study, are listed as T1; this grade does not prove a single historical author for the whole text, nor guarantee that all ancient manuscripts agree. The core Sanskrit phrases of E-01—E-23 throughout the archive have been located one by one against the unaccented SanskritDocuments transcription; what a multi-sūtra card lists is only a verifiable representative sūtra, not a claim to give the complete original. The theory that the ancient Yoga Sūtra Bhāṣya belongs together with the sūtras to one Pātañjalayogaśāstra is disputed in scholarship, and the commentarial layer is not mixed in with the sūtras as T1.
Principles of this archive: sūtra and commentary are not confused; what the person wrote and what disciples recorded are not confused; English translations and the original words of recordings are not confused. All titles, sūtra numbers, verse numbers and dialogue numbers can be traced back through the links in Section 16.
• 1.2—1.4: yoga is the cessation of mental activity, and the seer then abides in its own form; at other times it takes on the form of the activities.
• 1.5—1.51: valid cognition too is a mental activity; practice and dispassion, the various samādhis and seedless samādhi may not be confused with the final pure seer.
• 2.3—2.25: ignorance establishes I-am-ness and the confusion of seer and seen; dissolving the conjunction is isolation.
• 2.26—2.29: unbroken discriminative knowledge is stipulated as the means of dissolving the conjunction, and the eight limbs bring wisdom toward discrimination.
• 3.35—3.37, 4.25—4.34: knowledge of the seer must be distinguished from meditative powers; even higher experiences may not be clung to; the endpoint is the return of the guṇas to their source and the abiding of awareness.
Order of each card: location, text level, statement of the evidence, role in the argument, prohibited overreach, verifiable source.
The classical Sanskrit is a brief original phrase of the sūtra quoted; in Tamil works and modern dialogues, items marked [gist / summary] are not verbatim translations.
Original / checked gist: योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः｜Yoga is the cessation of the activities of the mind.
Structural role: From its opening the text stipulates yoga as the cessation of mental activity; the endpoint cannot be understood as ordinary emotional relaxation.
What it does not prove: The sūtra itself is not the same as cessation having occurred, nor does it independently stipulate the relation of separation between seer and seen.
Original / checked gist: तदा द्रष्टुः स्वरूपेऽवस्थानम्｜Then the seer abides in its own form.
Structural role: “Abiding in its own form” is strong ①-direction evidence: the seer is not newly made by the mind.
What it does not prove: But “then” (tadā) follows directly on the relation of cessation, and cannot automatically delete the function of the preceding sūtra.
Original / checked gist: वृत्तिसारूप्यमितरत्र｜At other times, the seer takes on the form of the mental activities.
Structural role: It proposes that although the seer is originally independent, the state of being lost appears in a way resembling the mind.
What it does not prove: This only explains experiential confusion; it does not say that the pure seer really becomes the mind.
Original / checked gist: प्रमाणविपर्ययविकल्पनिद्रास्मृतयः ॥ १.६॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked;
the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: Even pramāṇa (valid cognition) belongs to the mental activities that must cease, which directly challenges the crude version of “right cognition continues to bear load”.
What it does not prove: “All mental activities will cease” does not mean “discriminative knowledge was never a function required for completion”.
Original / checked gist: अभ्यासवैराग्याभ्यां तन्निरोधः｜Cessation comes through constant practice and dispassion.
Structural role: The function of practice and dispassion is explicit in the text; that practice can be deleted cannot be inferred directly from the original presence of the pure seer.
What it does not prove: The existence of a path does not automatically decide ②; the later conditions of completion through discriminative knowledge must be checked.
Original / checked gist: विरामप्रत्ययाभ्यासपूर्वः संस्कारशेषोऽन्यः ॥ १.१८॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: The text itself distinguishes different states of samādhi, so not all meditative absorption should be equated with ultimate isolation.
What it does not prove: The so-called seedless and other types of samādhi must still be checked against 1.51 and 4.34.
Original / checked gist: ईश्वरप्रणिधानाद्वा ॥ १.२३॥｜It can also be achieved through devotion / surrender to the Lord; the Lord is a special puruṣa untouched by afflictions, karma and its fruition.
Structural role: It shows that yogic practice has multiple entrances, and that the Lord is not a single absolute self simply identical with all individual seers.
What it does not prove: Later theistic commentary may not be poured back into the text as “liberation is possible only by surrender to God”.
Original / checked gist: तस्य वाचकः प्रणवः ॥ १.२७॥ तज्जपस्तदर्थभावनम् ॥ १.२८॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtras has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: Language, sound, meaning and practice are positively placed within the text’s own system of practice, forming a local self-inclusion candidate.
What it does not prove: Placing OM as effective in practice is not the same as all speech having become an occurrence of the pure seer.
Original / checked gist: तत्र शब्दार्थज्ञानविकल्पैः सङ्कीर्णा सवितर्का समापत्तिः ॥ १.४२॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: It shows that objects of cognition, speech and memory occur at the level of the mind and can be clarified, forming a self-reflexivity directed at acts of cognition.
What it does not prove: The mirror image still belongs to mental states and cannot be taken as the physical form of puruṣa.
Original / checked gist: तस्यापि निरोधे सर्वनिरोधान्निर्बीजः समाधिः ॥ १.५१॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: Very strong counter-evidence toward ①: right wisdom arises and can cease again, so one cannot simply say that some mental content must finally be retained.
What it does not prove: Stopping the content or latent tendency of a certain wisdom is not the same proposition as deleting the discriminative function that once dissolved ignorance.
Original / checked gist: अविद्यास्मितारागद्वेषाभिनिवेशाः क्लेशाः ॥ २.३॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: Bondage has an explicit element of misidentification, so liberation cannot be merely an outward posture or an ethical norm.
What it does not prove: “Not-self” in this context refers to the object wrongly identified, and should not be directly equated with the Buddhist doctrine of non-self.
Original / checked gist: द्रष्टृदृश्ययोः संयोगो हेयहेतुः ॥ २.१७॥｜The conjunction of seer and seen is the cause of what is to be avoided (suffering).
Structural role: What must finally be dissolved is the wrong conjunction of the subject with seen nature, not the annihilation of the pure seer.
What it does not prove: The causal structure does not mean that all objects are denied existence in an absolute sense.
Original / checked gist: द्रष्टा दृशिमात्रः शुद्धोऽपि प्रत्ययानुपश्यः ॥ २.२०॥｜The seer is mere seeing; though pure, it seems to see in accordance with mental ideas.
Structural role: It gives explicit textual support for the unmade nature of puruṣa, a strong candidate for ①’s first condition.
What it does not prove: Pure seeing (dṛśi) is an ontological property; it cannot be used directly to decide that discriminative knowledge (viveka-khyāti) can be deleted.
Original / checked gist: तदभावात्संयोगाभावो हानं तद्दृशेः कैवल्यम् ॥ २.२५॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: There are two structural perspectives, “for one who has completed” and “for one who has not”, and the original being-so of the pure seer alone cannot replace liberation.
What it does not prove: “For the one who has completed, the seen ceases” is not a claim that the shared world is physically destroyed.
Original / checked gist: विवेकख्यातिरविप्लवा हानोपायः ॥ २.२६॥｜Unbroken discriminative knowledge is the means of cutting off the conjunction.
Structural role: This is the core of the ② direction: rightly discriminating seer from seen is stipulated as the specific function of dissolving bondage.
What it does not prove: “Means” does not automatically mean that a cognitive content must be maintained forever after completion;
2.26 must still be tested against 4.34.
Original / checked gist: योगाङ्गानुष्ठानादशुद्धिक्षये ज्ञानदीप्तिराविवेकख्यातेः ॥ २.२८॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: It links method — purification — discrimination and isolation into a structural sequence, not merely an isolated instruction “to know”.
What it does not prove: The classification of practices cannot directly replace the definition of final “isolation”.
Original / checked gist: तदपि बहिरङ्गं निर्बीजस्य ॥ ३.८॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: It shows that even the subtlest samādhi may still not be the final position, dismantling the reading that substantializes meditation as the ultimate.
What it does not prove: The saṃyama practices of the third book may also produce supernormal powers; not all meditative power may be confused with discriminative knowledge.
Original / checked gist: स्वार्थसंयमात्पुरुषज्ञानम् ॥ ३.३५ (key phrase) ॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: In the text’s own chain of cognition, discriminating “the clarity of the mind” from puruṣa is given an important place.
What it does not prove: One particular result of a special saṃyama is not enough on its own to prove that every liberated person must pass through the same operation.
Original / checked gist: ते समाधावुपसर्गा व्युत्थाने सिद्धयः ॥ ३.३७॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: The text actively limits the ultimacy of powers and experiences.
What it does not prove: This does not mean the whole third book is irrelevant; on the contrary, it helps identify that what is finally non-deletable is not supernormal power.
Original / checked gist: तदा विवेकनिम्नं कैवल्यप्राग्भारं चित्तम् ॥ ४.२६॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: As the text nears its end it again assigns a function to discrimination, rather than mentioning it only at the entrance.
What it does not prove: The mind inclining toward isolation still does not make the mind the final subject of isolation.
Original / checked gist: प्रसङ्ख्यानेऽप्यकुसीदस्य सर्वथा विवेकख्यातेर्धर्ममेघः समाधिः ॥ ४.२९॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: Important counter-evidence: even the highest discriminative insight can become an object of “non-grasping”, so the endpoint should not preserve wisdom as an entity.
What it does not prove: Going beyond a mindset that possesses wisdom and cancelling the function of discriminating true from false are not on the same level.
Original / checked gist: ततः कृतार्थानां परिणामक्रमसमाप्तिर्गुणानाम् ॥ ४.३२॥｜The core Sanskrit of the corresponding sūtra has been checked; the English explanation is to be read according to this card’s structural role and limits.
Structural role: Final liberation includes the transformation of ignorance, karma, change and knowledge, not merely a bodily posture.
What it does not prove: “Knowledge becomes infinite” cannot be directly equated with the pure seer continuously performing ordinary cognitive activity.
Original / checked gist: पुरुषार्थशून्यानां गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः कैवल्यं स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा वा चितिशक्तिरिति ॥ ४.३४॥｜The guṇas, their purpose for puruṣa exhausted, return to their source, or the power of awareness abides in its own form: this is isolation.
Structural role: The strongest positive evidence for ①: the final state consists in the return of the guṇas belonging to prakṛti and the original abiding of the pure seer, not a new entity produced as a result of cognition.
What it does not prove: This sūtra looks back over the whole sequence of attaining the goal; the necessary discrimination of 2.26 cannot be deleted merely because no mental idea remains at the end.
puruṣa｜the pure seer, not to be confused with the mental states of citta
prakṛti/guṇa｜seen nature and its qualities, which finally return to the conditions of their own development
citta-vṛtti｜mental activities: right cognition, error, conceptualization, sleep, memory and so on all fall within them
viveka-khyāti｜unbroken knowledge discriminating the seer from the seen
kaivalya｜isolation: not an extremely secluded personality, but the endpoint of dissolving confusion
samādhi｜meditative absorption; not all kinds of samādhi are equal to ultimate isolation
Positive evidence and limits｜Positive: puruṣa / the seer is pure seeing, not a new object made by mental activity (E-02, E-13, E-23); limits: mental activity includes valid knowledge (E-04), and the highest samādhi and special powers can still be withdrawn (E-10, E-19, E-21).
Necessary distinctions｜The ontological stipulation of pure awareness / the seer ≠ the function of right discernment in the process of liberation; the withdrawal of empirical cognition ≠ the cancellation of real being.
Strict single-function deletion test｜Remove only viveka-khyāti (the function of right cognition that discriminates the seer from the seen), keeping puruṣa, the guṇas, kaivalya and the endpoint description of 4.34, “the power of pure awareness abides in itself”. Result: (1) the ontological layer is unchanged — the seer as pure seeing does not cease to exist because the cognition of the path is removed (1.3, 2.20, 4.34); (2) at the level of verbal expression 4.34 can still be restated independently, but this is not the whole structure passing the test; (3) in 2.24—2.26 the causal bridge “ignorance is the cause of conjunction → when ignorance ceases the conjunction ceases → unbroken discriminative knowledge is the means of this cessation” breaks with the deletion; (4) 4.25—4.29 again connect the insight that distinguishes the seer with the dharma-cloud samādhi, and 4.29 writes explicitly of “discriminative knowledge in every way”, not cancelling discrimination at a stroke. The break lies mainly in the structural layer of release from bondage (local function B;
whether it constitutes, for the whole text, a non-deletable final relation of right cognition is C), not in the layer of the pure seer’s existence, nor does it mean that the highest state continuously preserves a thought “I am discriminating”. The text does not directly declare the identity of the seedless samādhi of 1.51 with the isolation of 4.34, and their identity may not be treated as proven; the “non-attachment” of 4.29 is a withdrawal from possessing the highest discernment, and is not enough by itself to prove that the discriminative function that once occurred can be deleted.
Ruling on levels｜2.26 does call discriminative knowledge an upāya (means); but “being called a means” and “the means can be deleted from the complete causal structure of release” are not the same thing. The ordinary valid cognition pramāṇa listed in 1.6 belongs to citta-vṛtti and can cease at the end; without further scriptural proof one cannot conclude that viveka-khyāti is wholly identical with any kind of everyday pramāṇa. The main basis for ② is the structural link between 2.25—2.28 and 4.25—4.30, not 4.34 retaining an object of cognition. Whether the text allows other equivalent ways of breaking ignorance remains a C-grade counter-reading; overall ② (C) provisionally, with ① kept as a C-grade competing interpretation.
Self-reflexivity / self-inclusion｜1.27—1.29 explicitly place praṇava, recitation and contemplation of meaning as effective teaching and practice; 1.42—1.43 also self-reflexively explain the mixture of word and meaning. But these positively place only one kind of sound and practice; they do not explicitly say that all of this text’s own discourse and the reader’s understanding belong to the indispensable occurrence of the pure seer. Complete self-inclusion under ①’s first condition has not been proved, and it cannot pass merely because the scripture speaks of sound.
Reminder of the two conditions｜① must have both the positive built-in inclusion of thought’s own cognition / speech and the complete ultimate structure remaining unchanged once right cognition is deleted; proving the first does not replace the second.
Most delicate point｜4.34 names isolation as the return of the guṇas to their source and the abiding of pure awareness; yet 2.26 writes unbroken discriminative knowledge as the means of cutting off the conjunction, with 2.25’s “cessation of ignorance” carrying the causal bridge.
4.29 requires not grasping even the highest discernment, while continuing to write of “discriminative knowledge in every way”. The question is not whether, after completion, there is a cognitive content that can be grasped, but whether, with the function of discriminating seer from seen removed, the whole account of completion “ignorance — conjunction — cessation — isolation” still holds.
Priority of examination｜First check whether the positive and negative material within the same core text is misaligned between the path layer and the completion layer; then check whether renderings and T levels have been used asymmetrically.
Placement｜②「Direct Seeing of the Ground」 (C), with ① a C-grade substantive competitor and the ① / ② boundary open. The text establishes the methodical role of discriminative knowledge in the structure of release; but the stipulations of the final state in 1.51, 4.29 and 4.34 leave reasonable counter-readings to the overall proof that “the function of right discrimination is non-deletable in the complete ultimate structure”. It is not required that discriminating thought be retained at the end.
Derived from the structural chain｜The basis for ② is that 2.25—2.28 and 4.25—4.30 set discriminative knowledge, which removes ignorance, as a necessary mechanism — not “there are powers, there is meditation” or the occurrence of the word “seeing”. The candidacy for ① rests on the original nature of the pure seer, seedless samādhi and the return of the guṇas, but the deletion test has not yet passed at the completion layer. ③ is not the main task: the text gives a structure of liberation with isolation as its endpoint.
Special limit｜② holds only if there really is a non-deletable function of “rightly recognizing the ground” at the end; ① cannot be established directly by the word for pure awareness as ground, nor by ignorance having been withdrawn.
It builds self-misidentification, the working of the mind, the arising of suffering and liberation on a rigorous distinction of seer and seen and a chain of the cessation of cognition; at the same time it limits the absolutization of meditative powers, linguistic representation and higher knowledge.
Strongest counter-argument: The pure seer is originally pure; the deletion test for ① has already passed
Adjudicated reply: It passes only at the layer of ontological existence; 2.26 directly sets discriminative knowledge as the means of dissolving the conjunction, and 4.25—4.30 again connect it with completion.
Evidence boundary: This objection must be read together with the relevant T levels, the positive and negative E cards, and the strict deletion test of Sections 8—11; a single item does not constitute an automatic change of position.
Strongest counter-argument: All mental activities must cease, and discriminative knowledge is also an activity, so ② is self-contradictory
Adjudicated reply: One must distinguish discrimination as the function that dissolves ignorance from not retaining cognitive latencies at the end; de-substantializing the function is not the same as the function never having been necessary.
Evidence boundary: This objection must be read together with the relevant T levels, the positive and negative E cards, and the strict deletion test of Sections 8—11; a single item does not constitute an automatic change of position.
Strongest counter-argument: 4.34 only speaks of the return of the guṇas to their source; there is no “must know”
Adjudicated reply: The final sūtra presupposes the practice completed throughout the text and cannot be cut off from 2.26; to classify at ① one must explain how 2.26 can be deleted.
Evidence boundary: This objection must be read together with the relevant T levels, the positive and negative E cards, and the strict deletion test of Sections 8—11; a single item does not constitute an automatic change of position.
Strongest counter-argument: The Yoga Sūtra Bhāṣya proves the only reading of the sūtras
Adjudicated reply: The relation of sūtra and commentary and the authorship of the commentary are themselves disputed; the commentarial layer cannot replace the original space of multiple meanings in the sūtras.
Evidence boundary: This objection must be read together with the relevant T levels, the positive and negative E cards, and the strict deletion test of Sections 8—11; a single item does not constitute an automatic change of position.
Strongest counter-argument: The Lord (God) is the final ground, and the text should be classed separately as a theistic type
Adjudicated reply: 1.23 calls surrender to the Lord one path; 1.3, 2.25 and 4.34 still take the isolation of the seer as the main endpoint.
Evidence boundary: This objection must be read together with the relevant T levels, the positive and negative E cards, and the strict deletion test of Sections 8—11; a single item does not constitute an automatic change of position.
Strongest counter-argument: Supernormal powers and extraordinary consciousness are the highest liberation
Adjudicated reply: 3.37 says explicitly that powers can become obstacles in samādhi; extraordinary experience cannot serve as the complete structure.
Evidence boundary: This objection must be read together with the relevant T levels, the positive and negative E cards, and the strict deletion test of Sections 8—11; a single item does not constitute an automatic change of position.
With No.30 the Upaniṣads and No.31 Śaṅkara: Yoga takes the misidentification of seer and seen and discriminative knowledge as its main mechanism; the non-dual identity of brahman and self in those two cannot be transferred directly as Patañjali’s ontology.
With No.33 Ramana: both oppose taking the activity of the mind as one’s own nature, but one explicitly speaks of the return of the guṇas, while the other leads the enquiry into the false self toward non-duality; this is a comparison awaiting verification, and formal grading follows each one’s own texts.
Discipline of comparison｜The positions of different archives can only be compared through the same functional deletion test, and may not be upgraded because someone seems more mystical, closer to some tradition, or on the strength of later sayings.
The Yoga Sūtra starts from the cessation of mental activity and the seer abiding in its own form, and holds that ignorance wrongly conjoins the seer and the seen;
in 2.26 the text directly calls unbroken discriminative knowledge the means of cutting off this conjunction, in 4.25—4.30 it returns to discrimination and non-attachment, and in 4.34 it stipulates isolation as the return of the guṇas to their source and the power of awareness abiding in its own form. The pure seer does not need to be newly made, but the complete structure of removing misidentification and attaining isolation still has an explicit function of discrimination, so ② is at present the stronger initial judgment.
What is non-deletable, and the dispute｜If the function of “rightly discriminating seer from seen” is deleted, the pure seer as ontological ground still exists (E-13, E-23), but the removal of ignorance and the cessation of conjunction stipulated in 2.25—2.28 lose the explicitly written proper cause; the chain in 4.25—4.30 by which discrimination tends toward isolation also breaks. The break lies at the layer of the structural function of attaining liberation, not at the layer of the pure seer’s existence. The opposing side can use 1.51 and 4.34 to argue that discriminative wisdom is finally withdrawn; this proves that the result need not permanently keep a stretch of mental thought, but does not directly prove that the discriminative function was never necessary.
Final six-position placement｜②「Direct Seeing of the Ground」 (C); the competing interpretation toward ① C, the ① / ② boundary open.
Textual verification｜The Sanskrit of the Yoga Sūtra has been checked against the unaccented section of https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_yoga/yogasuutra.html: 1.6, 1.18, 1.42, 1.51, 2.25—2.28, 3.8, 3.35, 3.37, 4.26, 4.29, 4.32 and 4.34 are all marked with short phrases on the E cards; other sūtras not excerpted on grouped cards are still located by sūtra number, without claiming completed collation across base texts. 2.26, “discriminative knowledge is the unbroken means of release”, corresponds directly to the sūtra viveka-khyātir aviplavā hānopāyaḥ, and there is no need to mix a whole passage of the ancient commentary in as sūtra text.
Unaccented Sanskrit transcription of the Yoga Sūtra｜https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_yoga/yogasuutra.html
SOAS research discussion on the authorship of the Yoga Sūtra and its oldest commentary｜https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/event/authorship-yoga-sutra-and-its-oldest-commentary
St Andrews reference overview of classical Yoga｜https://www.saet.ac.uk/Hinduism/Yoga
Review of text levels｜This archive gives T1 only to the sūtras of the Yoga Sūtra (as the core evidence of the text studied), without proving that the sūtras must come from the pen of a single historical person. In the commentarial tradition the Yoga Sūtra Bhāṣya may belong together with the sūtras to a composite Pātañjalayogaśāstra, which is also disputed;
this archive does not treat the commentary as proven words of Patañjali, pending independent review of its T level. The Sanskrit text follows the lines without Vedic accents in SanskritDocuments, and collation against facsimiles of the key editions has not been completed.
Evidence still lacking｜No systematic collation against ancient manuscripts / facsimiles of original editions; no word-by-word check of all divergences between English translations and the original language; where research is insufficient, limitations are kept at C/T2, and completed collation is not claimed.
Archive status｜Chinese content v1.3 (2026-10-22); this version includes the C-grade reasonable disputes marked in the text, and does not represent completed collation against all documentary facsimiles.
Retained criterion question｜The relation of 2.26, “unbroken discriminative knowledge is the means of cutting off”, to 4.34, “the power of awareness abides in itself”: is discrimination effective only on the path, or is it a functional transformation that cannot be deleted from the complete structure of isolation? 1.51 also says that even the latent tendencies produced by wisdom must cease, which guards against misreading ② as continuous thinking at the end.
Content check｜Evidence E-01—E-23 continuous; objections R-01—R-06 continuous.