The pain involved in pratyahara is the result of a love that the mind has for that
object towards which it is wrongly moving. Inasmuch as the direction which the
mind has taken towards the object is wrong, the affection that it has towards the
object is also wrong, and the pleasure that it derives from the object is also a
misconstrued, misconceived idea. There is some complete topsy-turvy effect that has
taken place on account of a basic error in the total attitude of the mind towards the
object. In an earlier sutra we have studied that, to the discriminative, all is pain in
this world: duḥkham eva sarvaṁ vivekinaḥ (II.15). It is to the understanding spirit and
to the mind that the painful aspect of a thing is made clear. But to an unclear mind,
this painful aspect will not become obvious. Who can ever believe that the objects of
sense are made, or constituted, in a manner quite differently from the way in which
they are seen by the eyes?
The belief in the concrete structure of an object and the stability of its position is so
intense that any kind of contrary philosophical analysis will not be appreciated by the
mind at that moment of time. Thus, while there is a need for a rational force of mind
in the bringing of the mind back from the object, there is also a need to consider the
emotional aspect, which should not be completely forgotten, because the mind is
made up of various aspects. Thinking is not the only aspect of the mind. It has the
aspect of feeling, and there is the aspect of will. They all work together in connivance.
When the mind thinks wrongly about an object, the will also works wrongly in
respect of that object and confirms that thinking, and then the feeling charges it with
the requisite force. It is like dacoits coming together; though they move in a wrong
direction, they have a force of their own, so it is difficult to encounter all of them at
once without proper precaution. The force that is behind the wrong activity of the
mind is the emotion, and unless this force is withdrawn, we cannot check that
activity.
Thus, in the effecting of the pratyahara or the abstraction of the mind from the
objects, we have to consider the thinking aspect, the willing aspect and also the
feeling aspect. What are we thinking about that object towards which we are moving?
What is the amount of will that we have exercised in fulfilling our wish? What is the
deep-seated feeling that we have got in respect of it? All these three have to be
isolated threadbare, if possible. The thinking, the willing and the feeling, though they
all work together almost simultaneously, are three different aspects, and they can be
pulled out independently like threads from a cloth. The most difficult thing to tackle
is feeling, and less difficult to encounter is the will, and still less is the aspect of
thinking. Therefore, in the beginning, it would be to the advantage of the seeker to
analyse the easier aspect—namely, the thinking aspect. What are we thinking about
that object? Why did we go towards it? What is our intention behind it? Then we can
go to the other aspect, which is the will. We have a determination for the purpose of
confirming the attitude that we have adopted on account of a thought in respect of
that object. But the deepest aspect of it is the emotion—the feeling.
No pratyahara can be effective unless all these three aspects are properly analysed
and isolated from the nature of the object. Though the mind may not be thinking
about the object, there may be feeling towards it; then there is no pratyahara. Not
only that—the thinking, willing, feeling aspect has also a subconscious element in it,
which also is to be probed into before complete mastery is gained. There may be a
subtle restlessness at the time of the effecting of this practice. That restlessness may
be due to the presence of a subconscious like for that very object from which the