.

I continued my research in two directions -  one focused on the text translated into Bulgarian  by myself, the other – on the text in Sanscrit. Research on the Bulgarian translation was performed by practicing different paragraphs from the text; research on the Sanscrit text  - by means of analysis and comparison of words and syllables. So I had the original and I decided to decipher it in order to find out what had been written and to compare it to the printed copy ( that is the copy everybody refers to). So I loaded the text, maximized it because it was very unclear and time had blurred the letters. I started copying it using Devangari script of course. That was a very difficult task  and it took me a lot of time peering at those yellow pages with the text. It was almost impossible to read. Eventually I managed to decipher it and to copy it clearly. The first thing that draw my attention was that the syllables were separated from each other.That was unexpected because normally syllables are connected by a line on top of them.This is something very important not only as far as the text is concerned; it influences any further research. The Vedas are written in the same way and they date back to 3000 – 3500 years. Nobody knows the exact time when Sanscrit was created. Some people claim that it was introduced by the Ariis , whose origin is nor clear either. All these issues made me focus onto yet  another field of research – the History and Mythology of the World. One researcher advised me that symbols in the Middle Ages wre written separately with only one space the size of one symbol  in between  - the same way we write using block letters. That of course was a lie and I immediately reffered to the text to check if that was true. There wasn’t such a thing as I expected. Space between symbols was the same everywhere. So here comes the question – since there are  no clearly separated words, but only syllables how come that text had been translated or interpreted? What was the principle of putting syllables together to form words?
That was a giant step forward since I had found solid ground.And this is how a series of shocking surprises began. The discrepancies between that text and the widely accepted one were significant.
I will only mention some of the riddles and surprises:
The letter A marking beginning of words was translated by interpreters ( whenever they decided)  as a negation – such as in AHIMSA – non violence, AVIDYA – ignorance,ASTEYA – non – theft,etc.but in paragraph 1 of the text ATHA becomes AND NOW and not NOT NOW , ASANA becomes just a posture etc.
There are a couple of conclusions written at the beginning of the text and also after every chapter – nobody has ever mentioned them and they were never translated. The last conclusion after the text is the longest. It reads that the number of Samkhya Sutras is 195 – that is the number of paragraphs in the text. So it is only natural to ask – is this a Yoga Sutra or  a Samkhya Sutra?
The preface to the text begins as follows – shrii Ganeshaa yanama –there is nothing written about Patandjali and about sutras.
There are discrepancies from the beginning till the end of every paragraph between that text and the one which all translations have been based on.All these minute details  ( and sometimes not so insignificant ) are very important to me and I do pay them the necessary attention. If there are differences in the text while interpreting one and the same symbols then this means it is not functional.. This is not a novel or a short story, it is a scientific text where everything is mathematically correct.
A lot of scientists claim Sanscrit is a synthetic language. In fact what they have in  mind is the Sanscrit of the Grammar scholar Panini who lived about 2400 years ago – at about the same time or after Budha. He wrote the Grammar of Sanscrit – a volume of more than 5000 pages. This is the grammar that served as grounds for the Russian and German languages. Statistics show that there are about 14000 people in the enormous state of India that speak Panini’s Sanscrit. 2500 years ago  Budha was amongst the few that could speak  Sanscrit. Truth in fact is that even 1000 years before Budha that was a language known just to a limited number of people. I think it is important to mention this , because from now on I will be talking about another Sanscrit. This is the language nobody has used for ages but parts and syllables are to be found in  many languages that are still being used today.
As the text is written on a syllable basis (everything is in syllables divided between each other by identical spaces) I created a theory about the words which can help us find another field of research.
The syllable in Sanscrit is a combination of vowels and consonants visibly connected to each other. My theory is based on the fact  that with this type of Sanscrit syllables are words  themselves. Since syllables consist  of vowels and consonants, according to my theory letters had been the initial words or notions and while consonants were used to describe different actions, vowels were used to describe tense of actions. It was after a while that I remembered  some children start speaking using only syllables. Also the basic Mantras represent the basic syllables of  Sanscrit  which is not accidental. I am convinced the Mantra is a command exactly like every single word or thought is a command too whis is being performed and has its results in reality. The basic syllables represent the basic commands , which when combined represent new secondary commands. And since these are basic commands they should not represent secondary  notions.
I will give you the following example – the words home and house. The basic word in this case is home because a house is a home, so is a hut, a summer house, an apartment etc.
I started comparing and analyzing  words in  the new Sanscrit  and in different modern languages.
A lot of the languages are based on the fundamental Sanscrit  and a lot of the modern words contain some of its traces too. This is how looking for similarities in the meaning of words and similarities in their syllables I started getting closer  to the basic meaning of syllables and letters in the fundamental Sanscrit. Besides every single hypothesis on the meaning of a letter has to be tested with the purpose of establishing whether its meaning is primary or there has been another one before.
So I started introducing a method of breaking words into syllables and comparing their components. I have to admit you don’t need just Sanscrit and only Sanscrit to be able to do this.Research on each language may lead to one and the same results, since our actions are aimed towards the common – all languages originate from one single language and they are being built on one and the same one. If we consider the Bulgarian language ( since it is the language we know best at the moment) we will find out  there are  a lot of words that have one and the same meaning , or have several meanings. If we want to make things clear we have to make sure we understand the language and the notions. This means we have to get rid of the words and notions that are unnecessary and misleading. Comparing two words is done on the basis of putting them together like we do with syllables , thus looking for similarities in the meaning of these words. The purpose is to find the meaning of a certain syllable since its presence in a given word renders it a certain meaning which in itself is the general meaning of the word.
But this is just one of all possible variations of words.Another possibility is that although the word consists  of several syllables it is only one syllable that renders the word its meaning and not all of them .A third option is the replacement of a certain letter with another one with the purpose of making pronounciation easier. That’s the case with the word SAZERCANIE  (contemplation).If we split the word we will get the following – the first syllable SA – though present in  many other words has preserved the meaning of a whole word and it does not lose itself or mix with the rest because it is one of the basic words.
Since it has attached itself to the other part  - ZERCANIE  S has become a Z just because it is easier to pronounce . Here ZERCE comes from SARCE  or vice versa , but if we refer to the original we would get SASARCENIE . The example shows us the repetition of one and the same syllable – SA – one of the SA- syllables has changed into ZE in order to avoid meaningless repetition. This also revaeals how meaning of  old words has been distorted in the process of creating new words. There is another example I mentioned at the beginning. It is about some of the basic words PRAZNA (empty), ZNANIE (knowledge), ZNAIA (know). There is a word in Sanscrit that has been used since ancient times up till now – this is the word
PRADJNA – translated as knowledge or wisdom.One day I started repeating that word and I did that for a long time – the symbol DJ  seemed strange to me.I think there should have been one sound corresponding to one symbol – in this case we had two. So I replaced the DJ with Z and what I got was the word PRAZNA (empty). I shared my idea in the forums and I got the answer that during Budha’s time people and Budha himself were convinced that reaching PRADJNA meant to be PRAZNA (empty) which in fact supported my own idea. The word PRAZNA consists of two syllables PRA and ZNA. PRA is part of many words but as an addition that does not lose its main meaning , although it has changed a little in the course of time.Although the meaning of this syllable nowadays is first or initial, its primary meaning has been slightly different. Following that range of thoughts I have come to the conclusion that P means accept,fill,prepare and R means a frame.Therefore I interpret PRA as prepared or fit to action or work ; ZNA is interpreted as basic notions, fundamental constructive elements, basic commands. The meaning of NA is well known to everybody – it would be more correct to interpret it as a base, or based upon, a certain place.I am not certain about the letter Z – at least not for the time being.
Later on I thought my theory about vowels representing tenses  was strange, so I started disputing it in order to check it.  Based on my personal point of view  I saw that tenses  signify direction of motion. From a human point of view  basic directions of motion are from the starting point towards infinity or outwards, and from infinity towards the starting point – that’s inwards. This is how the following notions emerged – return to your own self and depart from your own self.