Śiva Sūtra 1.07 — The Unbroken Fourth¶
1. Sūtra Number and Working Title¶
Sūtra 1.07
Working title: The Consciousness of the Fourth Pervades the Three States
This sūtra is the thesis-statement for the cluster that follows (1.07–1.12). It does not describe a new technique. It describes the governing condition of the practitioner who has crossed the threshold of 1.05's udyāma: once awake as Bhairava, the expansive, rapturous awareness of the Fourth State (turya) runs uninterruptedly through waking, dreaming, and deep sleep—not as a background witness shut behind the scenes, but as the living, self-luminous ground in which all three states occur.
2. Root Text¶
Devanāgarī: जाग्रत्स्वप्नसुषुप्तभेदे तुर्याभोगसंभवः
IAST: jāgratsvapnasuṣuptabhede turyābhogasaṁbhavaḥ
Textual note: Dyczkowski's headword reads turyābhogasaṁvit in place of saṁbhavaḥ. Both Singh and Lakshmanjoo use saṁbhavaḥ. The variant is discussed in Section 6.
3. Literal Rendering¶
Literal: Even in the differentiation (bhede) of waking (jāgrat), dreaming (svapna), and deep sleep (suṣupti)—the occurrence/arising (saṁbhavaḥ) of the expansive rapture (ābhoga) of the Fourth (turya).
Readable translation: Even when the waking, dreaming, and deep-sleep states prevail in their distinctness, the expansive rapturous experience of the Fourth State abides continuously.
Translation pressure points:
- Bhede: "in the differentiation"—the sūtra does not say the differences disappear. They remain. The Fourth persists despite and within them. This is the surgical claim.
- Turyābhoga: abhoga is not merely "experience." Singh glosses it as camatkāra—the joyous, rapturous I-consciousness of Śiva. It is not neutral witnessing. It is vibrant self-presence.
- Saṁbhavaḥ: Singh notes it can carry the sense of "abiding/remaining" in context, not only the literal "occurrence/arising."
- Saṁvit (Dyczkowski's variant): "consciousness" — emphasizes the thread of awareness rather than the event of occurrence. Both readings are valid and mutually illuminating: one foregrounds event, the other foregrounds continuity.
4. Sanskrit Seed¶
The sūtra turns on six load-bearing terms:
Turya — "the Fourth." Not a sequential fourth episode added to three, but the pervading integral awareness without which the three states could not even be known as states. It is the ever-present, self-luminous ground of the perceiving subject. Singh: "It holds together the consciousness of the other three states of waking, dreaming and profound sleep. It is the everpresent consciousness without which even the other three cannot be known as states. It is integral awareness."
Turyābhoga — The "expansive enjoyment" or "rapturous experience" of the Fourth. Abhoga = camatkāra (Singh). Not the sterile witnessing of a detached observer, but the vibrant, rapturous I-consciousness of Śiva—a living dynamism, not a blank transparency.
Bheda / Bhede — "difference / in the differentiation." The sūtra holds these two simultaneously: the differences of state prevail (bheda), yet the Fourth abides (turya). The Śaiva claim is not that differences dissolve at the moment of realization; it is that they no longer occlude.
Svasvarūpaikaghanatā (Dyczkowski) — "the compact unity and undivided Being of one's own essential nature." This is the technical definition of what turya is the reflective awareness of. When this is what one attends to, ignorance has fallen away, and the Fourth is already the operative condition.
Siddha / Sādhya (Kṣemarāja via Singh) — Turya is siddha (ever-present, already accomplished), not sādhya (something to be manufactured by technique). The upāyas do not produce it; they remove the conditions that veil its natural emergence. Unmajjana (Singh/Kṣemarāja): udyama in this context means not strainful exertion but "surfacing, emergence"—the Fourth surfaces when the practitioner has been prepared and deconditioning has occurred.
Samādhi / Vyutthāna — absorption vs. ordinary activity. The sūtra's thesis, as Lakshmanjoo frames it directly: for the heroic yogī who has achieved the development of awareness described in 1.05, there is no longer any experience of difference between these worlds. They have ceased to be two.
5. Shared Core¶
The sūtra rests on a triple claim that all three sources confirm:
First: Turya is not a fourth episode that follows the other three in time. It is the inner nature of the perceiving subject itself—undivided, pervading waking, dream, and deep sleep even when their differences prevail. Each of the three states requires an underlying witness-awareness to be known as a state at all. That awareness is not produced by any state. It is prior to all three and continuous across all three.
Second: This continuity is not mere passive witnessing. Śaiva turya is turyābhoga—rapturous, expansive I-consciousness (camatkāra)—the living self-presence of Śiva's awareness running through the instruments of body, senses, and mind without ceasing. Dyczkowski, carrying Bhāskara and the tradition of the Stanzas on Vibration, is precise: the persistence of this underlying awareness "which both perceives and acts through its instruments, the body, senses and mind, is central to the teachings." This is not a trance. It is not the suspension of activity. It is awareness intact and luminous while action and perception continue.
Third: The practical consequence is the collapse of the samādhi/vyutthāna boundary. For the established yogī, there is genuinely no difference between the state of formal meditation and ordinary waking life. Lakshmanjoo states this without softening: "He does not experience any difference between this world and the state of samādhi." The texts (Candrajñāna; Spanda Kārikā 1.3) confirm it from their respective angles. This sūtra marks the threshold of that non-difference. The three sūtras that follow (1.08–1.10) will anatomize the three states as mechanisms of obscuration—and as the terrain for yogic recovery.
6. Live Alternatives¶
Hierarchy of explanation (Why / Where / How):
Why — Dyczkowski (Ontological Engine): The governing question is: Why does turya pervade all three states? Because it is what those states appear in. Dyczkowski translates the Bhāskara/Kṣemarāja tradition in a concentrated formulation: "The Fourth State is said to be (contemplation, that is) the reflective awareness of the compact unity (and undivided Being) of one's own essential nature (svasvarūpaikaghanatā) because it pervades all (other states) of consciousness. It is consciousness, called the expanse of the Fourth State of the abiding condition in which ignorance has fallen away. It is the (inner) nature of the perceiving subject who thus abides clearly evident and extends (as one) even when division prevails due to the waking and other states."
With this definition established, Dyczkowski also issues the chapter's most bracing structural consequence—the effortlessness rule: "one who attends to his own perfectly integral nature has no need to exert himself to practise contemplation because the precept (to do so) does not apply (to him) (nor is the practise of contemplation possible) for one who attends to that which is incomplete and the locus of limitation because (his doing so) runs contrary to the attainment of fullness." This is the governing anti-mush safeguard for the entire cluster. It simultaneously forecloses false technique-religion (manufacturing turya by effort) and false quietism (licensing passivity while attending to limitation).
He also provides a compressed taxonomy: "states of recollection and others like them" are included under dreaming; "those which involve a loss of consciousness" are included under deep sleep. Subsidiary state-variations need not be treated separately.
Where — Kṣemarāja via Singh (Demarcation): Singh carries Kṣemarāja's discriminations that prevent Advaita-flattening. The key clarification is on the status of turya: it is siddha (ever-present, eternally established), not sādhya (achievable through processing). "It cannot be ordered about." The upāyas are not production mechanisms; they are preparation for its reception. When the practitioner has been "prepared by righteous living and by deconditioning our habitual consciousness, the turya emerges from its cryptic cell, so to speak"—this is udyama as unmajjana, Singh writes explicitly: Kṣemarāja "points out, it means unmajjana, udyantrta—emergence."
Equally critical: Singh distinguishes Śaiva turya from Śaṅkara Vedānta's pure witnessing consciousness (sākṣi). "Turya consciousness in Śaiva philosophy is not merely prakāśa, not merely sākṣi caitanya, witnessing consciousness as in Śaṁkara Vedānta, but it is also vimarśa, full of turyābhoga, i.e. of rapturous experience of the perfect consciousness of Śiva." The difference matters practically: a tradition that treats turya as a neutral blank witness produces a different practice orientation than one that treats it as vibrant self-radiance. The Śaiva account insists on the second.
How — Lakshmanjoo (Oral Transmission and Execution Criterion): Lakshmanjoo supplies the operational sign. The heroic yogī (vīra-yogī)—one "with advanced development of awareness"—through the "flashing forth of active awareness instantaneously makes universal consciousness shine (udyamo bhairavaḥ)." For this yogī, "the expansive state of turya occurs in all states, waking (jāgrat), dreaming (svapna) and deep sleep (suṣupti)." Then the diagnostic sharpness: "He does not experience any difference between this world and the state of samādhi."
This is the acid test of whether the claim of 1.07 has been realized or merely understood. Lakshmanjoo is unsparing about the qualification: this happens only to a great yogī, with advanced development of awareness. Do not counterfeit effortlessness as laxity. The unbroken continuity across states is an achievement of a specific level of development. It is not achieved by believing that turya is ever-present.
Textual variant (nuance, not split): Saṁbhavaḥ (occurrence/abiding) vs. saṁvit (consciousness-thread). These readings are mutually illuminating rather than mutually exclusive. Saṁbhavaḥ foregrounds the event of the Fourth's presence even within state-differentiation; saṁvit foregrounds the continuous thread of awareness identity that runs unbroken through those states. Both are doctrinally sound; Dyczkowski's preference for saṁvit aligns with his emphasis on turya as the consciousness-thread rather than an occurrence one waits for.
7. What Is at Stake¶
The doctrinal pressure is threefold:
1. The witness-vs.-vimarśa question determines the character of the tradition's liberative goal. If turya is merely a passive witness-screen, then liberation looks like withdrawal into neutral observation—the Advaita model. If turya is vimarśa and turyābhoga, then liberation looks like the full, rapturous, embodied self-presence of Śiva's I-consciousness, active in the world. Every subsequent sūtra in the cluster (1.08–1.12) depends on this Śaiva determination: without vimarśa, the "Enjoyer/Master" of 1.11 and the vismaya of 1.12 are unintelligible.
2. The siddha/sādhya distinction forecloses a common misreading of udyāma. If turya were sādhya, then practice would logically be a manufacturing process—meditate more intensely until turya appears. But turya is siddha. Practice (upāya) functions as deconditioning and preparation, not production. This changes the soteriological model entirely.
3. The effortlessness rule cuts in two directions simultaneously. It prevents the practitioner from treating integration practice as mechanical effort applied to a pre-broken consciousness; and it equally prevents licensing spiritual laziness as though attending to limitation were the same as attending to integral nature. The asymmetry is sharp and specific.
8. Darśana / Philosophical Mechanics¶
The state-structure the sūtra engages is precisely mapped by Singh's five-point exposition of the traditional analysis:
Waking (jāgrat): body, prāṇa, senses, and manas are all active. The perceiving subject engages the external object-world through sensory input.
Dreaming (svapna): the external sensory apparatus suspends function. Only prāṇa and manas remain operative—the mind generates its own internal field, imagination producing its own seeing, hearing, moving.
Deep sleep (suṣupti): even manas ceases to function. Only prāṇa operates. There are no ideas, no constructs.
The problem: these three are interrupted. In waking there is no dream-awareness; in dream no waking-awareness; in sleep, neither. Each state depends on specific conditions that the others lack. Is there any consciousness that persists across all three?
The answer—and in the Śaiva reading this is not merely philosophical speculation but a verifiable fact about the nature of awareness itself—is turya. It is not a fourth sequential state; it is the inner nature of the perceiving subject that "holds together" all three. Without it, none of the three could be experienced as states—because states require a knower who is present across the transition. That knower is turya.
Kṣemarāja (via Singh) places this precisely: upāyas prepare the practitioner for the "emergence" (unmajjana) of what was already present but not yet an explicit, active feature of consciousness. Dyczkowski names the mechanism: "The development and maintenance of this awareness, that is to say, the Fourth State, is an important part of the practices taught in the Aphorisms." This is not a passive achievement; it requires active development and maintenance.
The logic of non-obscuration (Dyczkowski): when the yogī emerges from formal contemplation, the three states unfold with their distinctive functions—waking resumes, dreaming, deep sleep. But "because he is aware of his own unique and undivided Being, the obscuration which covers the true nature of reality engendered by these three states does not exist (for him)." The states continue to operate; their veiling power is broken. This is a precise, non-mystical description of the change in the relationship between awareness and its contents.
9. Lineage / Oral Force¶
Lakshmanjoo's contribution to this sūtra is not primarily doctrinal amplification but transmission-voice clarity. His prose is the most direct: "Such a heroic yogī experiences the expansive state of turya in the differentiated states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep." The heroic-(vīra) frame is important. It characterizes the kind of being who realizes what this sūtra describes—not a retiring monk in contemplative suspension, but one who "wanders about in this world" and whose awareness, like moonlight, fills the space around him.
Lakshmanjoo follows with the Candrajñāna citation, which he renders with directness that the printed commentaries soften: "when this heroic yogī wanders about in this world, with the rays of his knowledge, he purifies and fills it with supreme bliss right from hell (avīchi) to Śiva." This is not metaphor as decoration. The outward radiating function of turya—the way it affects what is in the yogī's field—is integral to what turyābhoga means. It is expansive by nature. The Fourth does not contract toward an interior point; it permeates whatever it contacts.
The Spanda Kārikā (1.3) citation, offered in Lakshmanjoo's phrasing: "In the differentiated states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep, that supreme consciousness of turya is found as one." The phrase "found as one"—not "established as one by force of meditation"—preserves the siddha character. It is found, recognized, encountered as already unitary.
10. Metaphysical Architecture¶
This sūtra is the organizing meta-claim for the entire S1-C cluster and, in a larger sense, for the section. The movement from 1.05–1.06 to 1.07 is the movement from ignition to continuity. The udyāma of 1.05—the sudden emergence of Bhairava-consciousness, the explosive assimilation of the universe described in 1.06—is now the prerequisite for what 1.07 describes. Turyābhoga is not sought from scratch; it is the sustained condition of one who has already undergone the 1.05 opening.
The architectural movement of the cluster: - 1.07 states the thesis: the Fourth persists across the three states. - 1.08–1.10 anatomize the three states both as bondage mechanisms (for the non-established) and as yogic terrain (for the established). - 1.11 names the pivot: the yogī who maintains the Fourth across the triad becomes vīreśaḥ—Master of Heroes, the one whose senses have been transformed from sources of distraction into instruments of unrestricted dynamism. - 1.12 delivers the mark of consummation: vismaya—wonder, not as an emotion but as the continuous aesthetic recognition of reality as one's own self-radiance.
Dyczkowski signals this explicitly: "Once the Supreme Lord had said this (He went on) to utter (the following) three aphorisms to elucidate (the true nature of) the waking and other (states) so that (all) may attain liberation in this very life." The three aphorisms (1.08–1.10) unfold from the thesis of 1.07.
The larger architecture connects back to the section's ground. Consciousness as absolute autonomy (svātantrya) was established in 1.01. Bondage was shown to be the contraction of that autonomy through the Mātr̥kā mechanism (1.01–1.04). The ignition that reverses contraction was shown in 1.05–1.06. Now 1.07 shows what stabilized non-contraction looks like in the lived temporal fabric of ordinary existence: not as a special trance state, but as a continuous, unbroken rapture that does not require the suspension of the world.
11. Practice / How to Work This Sūtra¶
What should be noticed: The fundamental practical observation this sūtra calls for is: Is there an awareness present that is not located inside any one state? During waking, is there a sense of presence that is not reducible to what any sense is encountering? During periods of increased absorption in thought (approaching dream-states), does something remain that is not itself that absorption? If not—what would it mean for it to be present? The sūtra trains attention toward the background of whichever state is in play.
What should be done, if anything: The direct practice, as grounded in the sources, is the development and maintenance of the underlying awareness-as-essential-nature while perceiving and acting. This is not a separate exercise layered on top of activity. It is attending to the presence of self-luminous awareness while the instruments (body, senses, mind) function through their normal activity. Dyczkowski: the persistence of awareness "which both perceives and acts through its instruments" is "central to the teachings." The practice is keeping the ground lit while the foreground moves.
This is also why turya is defined as "contemplation itself" rather than a technique of contemplation. True contemplation, as Dyczkowski carries it, is not a stopping of ordinary activity—it is the reflective awareness of one's integral nature that remains present whether stopping or acting.
What experiment is actually justified by the packet: Attend to the felt sense of continuity at the transitions between states: the moment of waking from sleep, the edge of falling asleep, the instant when a dream breaks. These transition-moments are where the Fourth, though always present, becomes momentarily visible because the furniture of one state has not yet obscured it. This is not a practice invented here—it corresponds to the cluster's emphasis (1.07–1.12) on the transitions and gaps between states as the operative terrain where continuity can be directly recognized before the machinery of a new state covers it again.
The likely mistake: There are two symmetrical errors, and Dyczkowski's effortlessness rule covers both.
First error: Treating turya as a production problem—believing that more concentrated effort in formal meditation will eventually manufacture the Fourth. This misunderstands the siddha status of turya. Upāya is preparation and deconditioning, not assembly.
Second error, more insidious: Taking the effortlessness claim as license to relax attention and attend to limitation as if that were integral fullness. This is directly foreclosed by Dyczkowski: "the practice of contemplation (is not possible) for one who attends to that which is incomplete and the locus of limitation because (his doing so) runs contrary to the attainment of fullness." Attending to limitation while labeling the stance "effortless" is not the Fourth. It is its exact opposite.
Lakshmanjoo's diagnostic cuts cleanly between these two errors: the acid test is whether there is a lived experience of no difference between this world and the state of samādhi. If they still feel like two, the practitioner has not yet arrived—"advanced development of awareness" is still required. Until then, the upāyas are appropriate and necessary.
12. Direct Witness¶
The consciousness reading these words is not located inside waking perception the way an object is located in space. It is what waking perception appears within. Notice now: does the sense of presence shift when the object of attention shifts? When the sentence changes, does what is reading the sentence change?
The sūtra points to what does not change across the changes of state. Not a theory of what does not change—but a recognition that something is already present that is not manufactured by the current state. The waking state will end. The awareness in which it is appearing has not yet been found to end.
Turyābhoga is not what happens when states stop. It is what remains uninterruptedly when they do not.
13. Trap of the Intellect¶
The governing trap for this sūtra is a double one:
Trap 1 — Conceptual turya: Understanding that the Fourth is the background of all states, and then using that understanding as a substitute for actual recognition. An accurate map of turya is not turya. The intellectual model of the unbroken witness can be held in the mind as a waking-state idea while binding to that idea in precisely the way the sūtra says the bound soul binds to its contents. The philosophical precision of the teaching does not inoculate against this. It may even deepen it, by making the content of the fixation more sophisticated.
Trap 2 — Appropriating the mark of the accomplished: Lakshmanjoo locates the realization of 1.07 in "a heroic yogī with advanced development of awareness." The teaching tradition is aware that the description of the result can be claimed verbally by those who have not accomplished the prerequisite. A practitioner who has not yet experienced the dissolution of the samādhi/vyutthāna boundary cannot simply decide they have, on the basis of having understood that the Fourth is siddha. The siddha status of turya means it is always already present—it does not mean it is always already recognized.
The correction is exact: stay with the actual upāya appropriate to one's development; use the standard Lakshmanjoo names—is there still a difference between this world and samādhi? If yes, the work is not complete. The answer to that question does not require honesty about one's philosophical views; it requires honesty about one's actual lived experience.
14. Upāya Alignment¶
Śāmbhavopāya — continuity.
The upāya signal here is the maintenance of the Śāmbhava condition established in 1.05. The action of 1.07 is not the ignition (that was 1.05); it is the stabilization of what emerged in that ignition as a continuous thread across the ordinary state-fabric of waking, dream, and sleep.
Singh is explicit: the Śāmbhavopāya is "for very advanced souls whose mind is already prepared for its reception." For those at other levels of development, "deconditioning our habitual consciousness" through appropriate upāya prepares the ground so that turya can "emerge from its cryptic cell, so to speak, takes possession of our normal consciousness and becomes its active feature."
This means the chapter's practice directive is not universally Śāmbhava. The Śāmbhava register describes the stabilized state the sūtra points toward. For practitioners not yet at that threshold, the appropriate upāya is what prepares them for its reception—the deconditioning described by the upāyas of 1.01–1.06. The chapter is not prescribing Śāmbhavopāya for all; it is describing its lived consequence.
15. Confidence / Source Basis¶
High confidence.
The packet is tight, mutually reinforcing, and without numbering contradictions. Three independent sources—Dyczkowski (carrying Bhāskara, the Stanzas on Vibration tradition, and Kṣemarāja), Singh (carrying Kṣemarāja's formal commentary and his own editorial clarifications), and Lakshmanjoo (oral transmission with practical precision)—converge on the same center from three distinct angles.
What each source is carrying: - Dyczkowski carries the governing ontological definition of turya and the effortlessness rule; both are drawn from the Bhāskara/Kṣemarāja convergence point. - Singh carries the siddha/sādhya distinction, the sākṣi/vimarśa Śaiva-Advaita demarcation, the udyama as unmajjana gloss, and the five-point pedagogical analysis of the three states. - Lakshmanjoo carries the heroic-yogī frame, the operational diagnostic (no difference between samādhi and world), and both canonical citations (Candrajñāna; Spanda Kārikā 1.3) in their most direct oral form.
What is thin: The packet does not yield Bhāskara's direct commentary on 1.07 independent of Dyczkowski's synthesis. The Bhāskara voice is present through Dyczkowski's carrying of it, not as a standalone passage.
What is inferred: The explicit Spanda Kārikā 1.3 citation is carried by both Lakshmanjoo and Singh, which confirms its activation. The Candrajñāna citation is similarly confirmed by both. These are commentator-activated secondary gold, not imported from outside the packet.
16. Contextual Glossary¶
Turya (the Fourth): Not a sequential fourth state following waking, dream, and sleep, but the integral witnessing awareness present in the inner nature of the perceiving subject even when the three states' differentiation prevails. It is siddha (ever-present, eternally established)—not sādhya (producible by technique).
Turyābhoga (expansive rapture of the Fourth): The active, self-radiant I-consciousness (camatkāra) of Śiva that persists uninterruptedly through all states. Not neutral transparency or passive witness; vibrant, rapturous self-presence.
Ābhoga (expanse/rapturous experience): Glossed by Singh as camatkāra—the joyous, rapturous I-consciousness of Śiva. Used interchangeably with turyābhoga in this context.
Svasvarūpaikaghanatā (compact unity of one's own essential nature): Dyczkowski's technical term for what turya is the "reflective awareness of." Attentiveness to this integral fullness is the condition in which the "precept to practise contemplation" no longer applies.
Siddha (ever-present, already accomplished): Used to characterize turya as not something produced by upāya but already given in the structure of consciousness. Contrasted with sādhya (achievable through technique).
Unmajjana (emergence, surfacing): The sense of udyama in this context, per Kṣemarāja via Singh. Emergence of turya as an active feature of consciousness when the practitioner has been sufficiently prepared, not egoic exertion.
Vimarśa (reflective self-awareness): The dimension of Śaiva turya that distinguishes it from Advaita's pure witness consciousness (sākṣi). Turya is luminous (prakāśa) and reflexively self-aware (vimarśa)—hence the full rapture (turyābhoga) rather than mere transparency.
Samādhi / Vyutthāna: "Absorption / rising up from absorption." The boundary between these two is dissolved for the established yogī—the mark of realization of what this sūtra describes.
Saṁvit (consciousness): Dyczkowski's textual variant for saṁbhavaḥ, emphasizing the continuous thread of consciousness-identity rather than the event of turya's occurrence. Mutually illuminating with the standard reading, not opposed to it.
17. High-Impact Endnotes¶
Note 1 — The Spanda Kārikā 1.3 citation: Both Singh and Lakshmanjoo cite this verse as direct confirmation of the sūtra's claim. The Spanda Kārikā tradition—the "Stanzas on Vibration"—is one of the earliest and most rigorous doctrinal statements of the Kashmir Śaiva position on consciousness. The fact that this verse is double-activated by two independent source-streams (Singh's printed commentary, Lakshmanjoo's oral teaching) gives it the highest weight of any secondary citation in the sūtra's packet. Its language—"that supreme consciousness of turya is found as one" across all three states—carries precisely the siddha connotation: the Fourth is found, not made.
Note 2 — The Candrajñāna citation and outward radiation: The moonlight image is not decorative. In the Kashmir Śaiva frame, the realized yogī does not withdraw into inner absorption; the light of turya radiates outward and affects the field the yogī inhabits. The range of the image—"from avīchi (hell) unto Śiva"—insists on totality. The Fourth is not a partial or selective pervasion. When it is genuinely operative, it fills the entire range of reality the practitioner moves through. This has an implication for how the practitioner in the intermediate stages should orient: not toward a shrinking inner silence, but toward an expanding, permeating presence.
Note 3 — The effortlessness rule as doctrinal anti-virus: Dyczkowski's full formulation—"one who attends to his own perfectly integral nature has no need to exert himself to practise contemplation because the precept (to do so) does not apply (to him) (nor is the practise of contemplation possible) for one who attends to that which is incomplete and the locus of limitation because (his doing so) runs contrary to the attainment of fullness"—is among the most precise statements in the tradition on the paradox of why practice and non-practice must both be held correctly. The sentence does real doctrinal work as a two-sided constraint: it does not authorize laziness or passivity; it diagnoses impossible practice. The impossibility is structural, not moral: attending to limitation with the intention of attaining fullness is logically self-defeating because the attentional act already confirms the presupposition (limitation) that fullness would dissolve.
Note 4 — Sequence marker: Dyczkowski closes his exposition of 1.07 by signaling the movement into 1.08–1.10: "Once the Supreme Lord had said this (He went on) to utter (the following) three aphorisms to elucidate (the true nature of) the waking and other (states) so that (all) may attain liberation in this very life." Lakshmanjoo: "Now, in the next three sūtras, the author explains the three states of consciousness, waking, dreaming, and deep sleep." The thesis of 1.07 is immediately followed by its detailed unpacking. The cluster has internal necessity.
Note 5 — Singh's point (4): "living sub specie aeternitatis": Singh's rendering of the practical result of turya integration uses the Spinozan phrase sub specie aeternitatis—"under the aspect of eternity." He is not importing a foreign philosophy; he is reaching for adequate language for a state he is describing from the Kṣemarāja tradition. What he is pointing at is genuine: when turyābhoga runs through all states, temporal fragmentation (which state comes next, which "level" one is reaching) loses its hold. The practitioner lives within an unchanging dimension even while the states change. Whether one uses Spinoza's phrase or the Śaiva vocabulary makes no doctrinal difference; Singh's readerly bridge here is useful.