Or, attainment comes through devoted surrender to Īśvara.

An Alternative Means Introduced

Sūtra 1.23 introduces, with the single connective vā ("or"), a further means to samādhi distinct from the fivefold cultivation just described: Īśvara-praṇidhāna, devoted surrender or orientation of practice toward Īśvara. The brevity of the sūtra, just two words, belies the significance later commentators assign it, since it opens an entirely new strand within Book One that runs through 1.24–1.29 before the text returns to more general discussion of obstacles and remedies in 1.30 onward.

Vyāsa on the Force of "Vā"

Vyāsa reads the disjunctive vā as indicating that Īśvara-praṇidhāna functions as an alternative path available to those for whom the fivefold cultivation of 1.20, even applied with the intensity discussed in 1.21–1.22, proves difficult, offering a complementary route rather than an additional requirement layered onto everything already described. Vācaspati Miśra develops this reading, treating devotion to Īśvara as capable of producing samādhi directly, through the grace and clarity such orientation brings to the mind, rather than merely supporting the other methods as a secondary aid.

Praṇidhāna as More Than Devotion

Vijñānabhikṣu, and later Vivekananda in his own commentary, both stress that praṇidhāna implies more than passive belief; it denotes an active dedication of one's actions and their results to Īśvara, a theme that resurfaces explicitly among the niyamas at 2.1 and 2.45, where Īśvara-praṇidhāna is again named as a direct means to samādhi. This repetition across both Book One and Book Two signals its importance within Patañjali's overall scheme, distinguishing it from a merely optional footnote. Ian Whicher notes that scholarly debate continues over how central this theistic element is to what is otherwise a broadly Sāṅkhya-based metaphysics; some readers, following Vijñānabhikṣu's more theistic Sāṅkhya-Yoga, treat Īśvara-praṇidhāna as integral to the system's soteriology, while others, following a stricter classical Sāṅkhya reading, treat it as one optional means among several, compatible with but not required by the fivefold path of 1.20. The following sūtra, 1.24, immediately supplies Patañjali's own definition of who or what Īśvara is, anchoring this otherwise open term in specific technical criteria rather than leaving it to unconstrained theological speculation.

An Optional, Not Mandatory, Path

Sūtra 1.23's use of vā signals that Īśvara-praṇidhāna functions as one viable approach among several rather than a universal requirement for every practitioner regardless of temperament.

Devotion as Active Orientation

Vijñānabhikṣu's reading of praṇidhāna as active dedication, not passive belief, suggests a practical orientation: directing effort and its results toward something beyond narrow self-interest, structured by the specific definition of Īśvara given in the next sūtra.

Working With This Approach

1. Consider whether devotional orientation feels like a natural, sincere complement to concentration practice, rather than adopting it out of obligation.
2. If drawn to this path, dedicate the intention behind practice sessions rather than only their technical execution.
3. Read the following sūtra's definition of Īśvara carefully before assuming any particular theological content applies here.
4. Treat this as compatible with, not opposed to, the fivefold cultivation described in 1.20, should both resonate.
5. Reassess honestly whether this orientation deepens steadiness and clarity, or introduces distraction through unclear belief.

Understood this way, 1.23 offers a documented alternative within classical Yoga's own textual tradition, not an imported addition foreign to the system Patañjali is building across these sūtras.

A frequent misreading treats Īśvara-praṇidhāna as compulsory for every practitioner, when Vyāsa's reading of the connective vā explicitly frames it as an alternative available especially to those who find the fivefold cultivation of 1.20 difficult, not a universal precondition layered atop everything else. A second misunderstanding assumes praṇidhāna means simple belief or passive faith, whereas Vijñānabhikṣu and later Vivekananda both stress its active sense of dedicating one's efforts and their outcomes, closer to sustained orientation than static assent to a proposition. A third error imports later devotional theology wholesale onto this term before consulting Patañjali's own definition, supplied immediately afterward in 1.24, which specifies precise technical criteria for what Īśvara means within this system rather than leaving the term open to any tradition's preferred deity. Some readers also treat the presence of this sūtra as evidence that classical Yoga is fundamentally theistic in the same sense as bhakti traditions, overstating its role; Ian Whicher's account of ongoing scholarly disagreement shows that the text supports more than one defensible reading of how central this element is to the system's overall metaphysics. Reading 1.23 together with 1.24, rather than in isolation, keeps its claims anchored in Patañjali's own definitions rather than in imported theological assumptions from unrelated traditions.