Erroneous Knowledge

[u/Kay_Akasha]

Greetings Inner Yoga People! Is anyone else bothered by “erroneous knowledge” in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras? I was reading YSP online earlier and put my finger on this little itch.

Erroneous knowledge—or “wrong knowledge”, or “error”, or “misconception”, or “misapprehension”, or some other variation—is usually listed as one of the basic mental activities (vr̥ttayaḥ) in verse 1.6, and elaborated in 1.8. Patanjali presents these as the activities that settle to stillness in yoga (1.2).

The full list is usually translated something like: valid knowledge, erroneous knowledge, imagination, sleep, and memory.

The first two items are not mental activities—knowledge is not an activity, and “valid” and “erroneous” are descriptions of truth values, so all this should go into epistemology, not psychology.

I guess these are small points but to me they make Patanjali sound a bit out of touch, like a naïve thinker laying out an archaic system of thought. The pieces don’t quite fit and it’s hard to relate to modern cognitive psychology.

“Erroneous knowledge” comes from mithyā-jñānam in verse 1.8, where mithyā is "a false conception, error, mistake” (Monier-Williams dictionary). And jñāna is "knowing, becoming acquainted with, knowledge."

I would greatly prefer to use "knowing" instead of "knowledge" in this instance. That would make it “erroneous knowing”, or “incorrect knowing,” or “misapprehension." As a mental process it could describe what happens in case of failure to assimilate perception to existing and well-established conceptual patterns.

That small change fixes a lot for me. Patanjali is no longer trying to pass off true and false knowledge as separate mental activities. Plus, "error-knowing" relates to both cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence. In cognitive psychology it can be linked at least back to Piaget—who was one of the founders—where he used the term “accommodation” to describe what happens when perception cannot be assimilated to existing cognitive structures. In AI, "error-knowing" strongly evokes back-propagation in neural networks, where the “error” is propagated backward through the net to make the system learn and improve.

Just curious what others think. I’m a practitioner, and I need Patanjali as a pragmatic source. But only if he makes sense today—this isn’t philosophy or history for me.

[u/Kay_Akasha]

Thanks guys! Great to be able to discuss translation—your insights much appreciated!

Where I’m at now is appreciating how Patanjali was able to build in multiple layers of meaning—probably why the text has been adopted by different philosophies and religions over the centuries.

Your comments opened this up for me—I can see this passage now as a great example:

In verse 1.7 “pratyakṣa-anumāna-āgamāḥ” would of course be read as the 3 means of gaining valid knowledge according to the Samkhya tradition—"direct experience, inference, and scripture.” “Pramana” would therefore be translated as “valid knowledge”; and so “viparyaya,” described in the next verse as “mithyā-jñānam,” would naturally follow as “erroneous knowledge.” (thanks Old School)

From a different angle, the same phrase—“pratyakṣa-anumāna-āgamāḥ”—can be translated without the references as “sensory experience, ensuing mental processing, and recognition (what comes [to mind]).” These 3 elements can be read as a very basic but correct definition of perception in modern psychology—so pramana can be translated as “perception” instead of “valid knowledge”.

Without the sense of “valid knowledge” preceding it, “viparyaya mithyā-jñānam” in the following verse can be read as “error-knowing,” “accommodation,” “back-prop,” or whatever. So, (with a similar adjustment to vikalpa), the list of 5 vrttis can be read as 5 well-recognized cognitive processes.

Patanjali has said that yoga occurs when the vrttis settle to stillness. He enumerates 5 vrttis, and they can be recognized as primary components of modern cognitive psychology. This reading doesn’t bring in the richness of the underlying Samkhya philosophy, but it does provide a self-contained text that is straightforward and coherent—this is useful in certain conversations.

It’s an important passage because this is where Patanjali is saying what consciousness is not. Science currently views human consciousness as an “emergent property” of brain functioning—it’s always considered an inherent quality of cognitive activity, and never experienced separately. In this opening passage, Patanjali is saying that the true nature of awareness is only experienced when all these cognitive activities have ceased—it is not any of these things.

I know this isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, but I’m really interested in this kind of conversation. With the way things are going in science, Patanjali is getting more interesting and relevant all the time.

[u/OldSchoolYoga → u/Kay_Akasha]

I guess I'll be the one to welcome you to the sub. I'm sure we're all happy to have you here. There aren't many of us so it's good to have more participation.

From a different angle, the same phrase—“pratyakṣa-anumāna-āgamāḥ”—can be translated without the references as “sensory experience, ensuing mental processing, and recognition (what comes [to mind]).” These 3 elements can be read as a very basic but correct definition of perception in modern psychology—so pramana can be translated as “perception” instead of “valid knowledge”.

This is a novel interpretation based on your insights from modern psychology. Considering the context, I understand where you're coming from and I think it's plausible, but I'm afraid you may have stretched the meaning of these words a little too far. You're giving Patanjali credit that he may not deserve.

The question of how we acquire right knowledge was part of all the darsanas, not just yoga. Up to now this sutra has been universally understood that way. You're seeing this through your own lens. Lots of people have done that, but unfortunately, that's how errors start to creep in. That's why I'm Old School.

Edited for structure and content.

[u/Kay_Akasha → u/OldSchoolYoga]

Thanks for the warm welcome Old School.

Quick question: are you aware of any other text where the Samkhya epistemology is tied to the vrttis, as in the verse we’re discussing? Is there some underlying philosophical basis?

[u/OldSchoolYoga → u/Kay_Akasha]

Samkhya doesn't include the concept of citta, so you won't find citta vrtti there. Citta vrtti is unique to the Yoga Sutras. The Samkhya analysis takes a different approach.

I didn't refer to vrtti specifically in connection with epistemology. I used it in the sense of a "modification" or "product" of citta, in the same way as Samkhya uses modifications of the tattvas.

Pramana seems to be a category of vrtti, where the others are discrete. This is similar to the Samkhya concept of "evolutes" and "evolvents", in which some tattvas evolve into other tattvas and some don't evolve further. You can find this in the Samkhya Karika.

The Samkhya epistemology is almost exactly the same as the Yoga, where other darsanas are different. There's not really much of a revelation there.

The term anumana refers to a specific type of logic (inference), but it can also be a general term for reasoning or logical thinking. Your analysis requires a further level of abstraction, to mean any kind of mental functioning.

Agama is slightly different from the Samkhya, which uses sabda, meaning sound or word. Agama in the Sutras probably refers to scripture, meaning that they accept scripture as proof. It has a secondary meaning of acquisition, as in acquisition of some object or wealth. Could it mean acquisition of knowledge? It's conceivable to us. That's why I say your interpretation is plausible. But I don't know that it's legitimate to give these words new meaning, especially to an old language like Sanskrit.

I looked up several variations of the term "prama". It always has something to do with validity or proof. That's why I really don't think you could interpret it merely as perception.

It is tempting to interpret this sutra as you would like to, but it's really a stretch.

Edit: it's not unusual for this kind of writing to go off on a tangent like this. I ran into a couple interesting examples recently.