Now, just to inform you I have just brought one very authoritative book by two great professors of Calcutta University. The book is called Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Now he says . . . "He says" means he is giving, after studying all different kinds of philosophy, he is giving a nutshell idea of each type of system. Now, just see, "The place of God in the yoga . . . the place of God in the yoga, as distinguished from the Sāṅkhya, the yoga is theistic." Yoga system was introduced by Lord Patañjali, a great authority. You see? Now they have studied. Here is two persons. And this book is very authoritative. This is the sixth edition. Just see. It has very good sale in all the universities of the world. It is a very authoritative book. And this Dr. Chatterjee and Dr. Datta, they are not ordinary persons. This is accepted by all universities. And they are authoritative persons.
Now, just . . . I am therefore reading his version. What does he say? The yoga system. Now, "As distinguished from the Sāṅkhya, the yoga is theistic." Yoga system is theistic. Theistic means believing in God.
It admits the existence of God and both practical and theoretical Gods. Patañjali himself, however, has not felt the necessity of God for solving any theoretical problem of philosophy. For him, God has more a practical value than a theoretical one. This is the version of Patañjali. You see?
Devotion to God is considered to be the great practical value, as much as it forms a part of practice of yoga. Those who are practicing yoga, they must be devotee of God. Otherwise, yoga will be a failure. You see? So in as much as it forms a part of practice of yoga and is one of the means for the final attainment of samādhi-yoga or the restraint of the mind . . . that yoga, citta-niruddha. The whole purpose of practicing yoga is to control the mind. Control the mind. Now, here Patañjali system, that unless you, I mean, conduct devotional service of Lord, or bhakti, there is no success of yoga. There is no success of yoga.
The subsequent commentators and interpreters . . . the difficulty is that wrong interpretation of the original text delude the audience. You see? So they are . . . the subsequent commentators and interpreters of the yoga reveals also a theoretical interest in God and discuss more fully the speculative problems as to the nature of God and the proof for the existence of God. They practically take up the speculative way. But Patañjali, as he is, he takes practically, that without devotion of God, there is no success of yoga. Thus the yoga system has come to have both a theoretical and practical interest in the divine will. According to the yoga, God is the Supreme Person. Now just see. This is authoritative statement. A Supreme Person. Did you ever hear . . .? You have been in so many yoga societies. Did you ever hear that God is the Supreme Person? Now just see.
According to the yoga, God is the Supreme Person, who is above all individual selves and is free from all defects. Now, the same thing, in the Bhagavad-gītā also, Lord Kṛṣṇa, He, He is telling. He is informing us about the future or of the past because He is perfect. He can see both past and future. Because we are not perfect, because we do not know . . . now, accepting it that you existed in . . . in your, in the future . . . say your age is thirty-four, thirty-five years. Can you say, thirty-six years before, where you were? You cannot say. Or suppose you live for hundred years. Can you say hundred years after where you shall be? You cannot say, because you are imperfect. Because you are imperfect.
So God is not imperfect. God is perfect being. Here yoga system also accept like that. According to the yoga, God is the Supreme Person who is above all individual . . . individual, now here you see the individual. That every . . . every living entity is individual. That, this particular word, that individual self, and is free from all defects. And because He's free from all defects, His statement is defectless. And therefore we must admit. My statement, because I am imperfect, my statement is also imperfect. I have no idea of the past and future. How can I say that in future you will be like this, or in the past you were like this? I cannot say. That, who is defectless—who can see past, future and present equally, and there is no defect—he can say.