.

Work on this text, research and description of everything on this site has been done with the sole purpose of serving me and the others that have helped me, as well as those that were interested in our discoveries. I am not searching for an approval neither am I making anybody dwell on it or rely on what I have written. A lot of the things differ from the widely accepted way of understanding and if you are not comfortable about it feel freee not to read the rest of it.

Describing this story in the form it has reached ushas a limit back in time. Going even further back in time is based only on suppositions and on nothing that has been proved to be true; there are no clear or truthful sources. What were people doing at those times,what were they thinking about,how were they thinking, how did they communicate, what did they talk about, and did they communicate by means of speech?

There are a lot of blank spots in this story and they cover vast periods of time. Even a story that has been told verbally and passed on to the generations to follow can be subject to doubt.

Describing a certain event is more or less subjectively influenced. It is normal with descriptions for truth to be distorted especially when the person telling the story defends a certain cause. Objectivity is only possible with newtral or non-prejudiced point of view. And this seems to be very difficult, even at times impossible.There is a theory that different peoples spoke one and the same language. Or languages were more or less similar, the same way dialects are similar within one and the same language. It was a couple of years ago when I came across an ancient text- I had no idea at the time that I was going to face those issues. Then due to a number of sircumstances I finally came across that text. I was looking for a new book on yoga at that time and that is how I came across the first volume of “ Yoga –  Science about Soul” by Osho. This is the first out of ten volumes that contain Osho’s comments on an ancient manuscript known as “Patandjali’s Yoga sutras”.

I was really excited by what I read and soon after that I bought the next three volumes. In fact there are only 4 volumes that have been published in Bulgaria. But that was enough for me to become interested and to start investigating that text. I have known about the existence of yoga sutras since the time when I was seriously practicing yoga – that was 30 years ago.My interest got stronger because of the fact that I paid attention to the different interpretations and translations of that same text.

Had there been no changes in languages there shouldn’t have been any differences in the various translations. There are a lot of translations and interpretations of that text and my first steps were to start comparing them. They did have certain differences in meaning, but basically they were similar. First thing that made me disbelieve the correctness of the translations and their interpretations was the discrepancy in meanings between them and the main objective that was  to be reached with the help of the text – absolute freedom. The basic idea of the translations is that by following certain rules man can achieve absolute freedom, or at least some freedom. But my experience and observations did not support  the idea.

After I read Osho’s comments I decided to find out if there were any other translations of that text. I found 5 translations in Russian and I used them all to provide a summarized translation in Bulgarian. Those translations together with the rest that I found do not differ substantially. And if those translations are correct, then the contents of most parts of this text do not make any sense.Or the other option is – the translations are totally wrong – and this is what I accepted to be the truth I was interested in finding  the text written in Sanscrit. At that time I was still  convinced everything that was written  using Devanagari script was Sanscrit. I found it written in Hindi. I learned to read the Devanagari and I started deciphering it. I took for that purpose several Sanscrit – English dictionaries and started looking up for meanings. English gave me a lot of meanings of the words which was good for my job. The numerous meanings of words translated from Sanscrit into English gave me even more meanings when I translated them into Bulgarian.

My research that followed took into consideration a couple of things. First – there are no identical things. This means one word is used to denote one thing only. Second – languages and names have changed throughout the years and centuries – therefore their meaning has changed too. So in order to understand something that was written centuries ago, one has to trace changing of words from now on backwards in time. Or in other words – every single thing is being built on top of another thing which has led to complicating things and life itself. Third – it is highly possible the language that had been used thousands  of years ago to have been just a single one.

This means  that if that is the case more and more languages should be included in the process of investigating – and what is important  these languages should be similar to the one we are looking for – the Sanscrit. There is a lot of contradictory information about Sanscrit itself as well as about the language tree, created by scientists. One of the important points is that nobody knows how this language appeared – its written form in particular. It just  appeared out of somewhere. This is what makes it different from the hieroglyphs for example. We know the whole story how they were created.Starting from knot writing going through cuneiform writing and finally getting to the hieroglyphs.

According to different sources from those times one of the last persons who knew that language was Sidharta Gautama or the so called Budha. Most probably it was at that time – 2500 years ago that Sanscrit stopped being used. I am mentioning this just to make it clear that it is impossible to find a textbook on that particular Sanscrit, and also to advise you that people that live in Indiado not know and do not use this language. A lot of Hindi dialects are being spoken there. Nevertheless Hindi does have elements of Sanscrit and Devanagari script symbols which might be useful to know in the process of researching. When I start looking for something I always try to find its source. This is exactly what I did with this text. I thought there could be discrepancies between what was written there and what I had read so far.

I started looking for any kind of information about the text – about its history, its author, any comments, its original and copies. It is known that its author was Patanjali who lived during the period between 4th century BC and 3rd century AD. This is quite a large time spanwhich made me feel dubious about it, Some people associate it with a grammar scholar called Patandjali who had lived at that time – but he was definitely not the author. Other articles may reveal that Patandjali was the grandson of the creator of the universe etc. The truth is nobody knows who is the author of the text. Also nobody can tell where the original of the text is. I managed to find a copy in Internet made by an unknown person at time unknown.Nobody knows who loaded that text and how it had been taken picture of. It is in England in a Foundation – nobody knows how it happened to be there. It is a Medical Foundation which simply collects ancient texts without ever translating them or doing any research. And the collection itself is quite imposing – about 6000 texts.

In fact it became clear that there was no original and nobody had ever claimed to have seen it in the course of thousands of years. There are thousands of copies in India, dating back to the Middle ages, but I found one copy which was a well known oneand even was considered to be the original. I have to admit it it was my mistake that initially I used these texts as a starting point, as well as all the rest of the translations. In fact the first wrong  translation and comments on it were made by Vjasa who was the first person to comment on  the sutras. All other translations made afterwards were based on the mistakes he had made and therefore are not something that is worth considering. Difference in the use of some words in those translations is of no great importance because the initial intention had been wrong. After I checked  I found out that Vjasa had had that particular text which is identical with the one on the yellow pages. One of the significant features of that text is the lack of paragraph 20 in the third part; same paragraph had been omitted by Vjasa too.

Reflections on "Theory of Slavery and Freedom" - Part 2