क्लेशकर्मविपाकाशयैरपरामृष्टः पुरुषविशेष ईश्वरः॥२४॥
kleshakarmavipaakaashayairaparaamRuShTaH puruShavisheSha IshvaraH
Aranya
"Ishvara is a particular Purusa unaffected by affliction, deed, result of action or the latent impression thereof."
Even though afflictions (ignorance etc. as defined in Chapter 2), actions, results of action and the resulting latent impressions subsist in the mind, they get attributed to Purusha. Purusha is imagined to experience these just as in a war, victory or defeat earned by the soldiers is attributed to the commander. Isvara, the special Purusha, is eternally liberated and unaffected by any of the factors mentioned above. Individual Purusha may achieve liberation from the three-fold bondage, but Isvara has no bondage and thus no need for liberation. Is there a proof for this perpetual supremacy of Isvara? Vyasa says, scriptures are the proof. The pre-eminence of Isvara is never equalled or excelled. Rishis like Kapila who were the original teachers of the religion of salvation received their knowledge from Isvara (as mentioned in the Upanishads). This perpetual cause/effect cycle – from Ishvara came the shastras and from shastras the knowledge of Ishvara – goes on eternally.
Isvara is different from both Purusah and Pradhana (unmanifest Prakriti). Yogins desirous of spiritual attainment concentrate only on the godly attributes of Isvara – omniscience and omnipotence and practice special devotion to Isvara.
The three forms of bondage are Prakritika (for those who remain merged in elemental principles – prakritilayas), Vaikarika (for the body-less discarnates who cannot reach the constituent principles) and Dakshina (for those who receive sacrificial gifts because of their attachment to objects of enjoyment).
Taimni
"Isvara is a particular Purusa who is untouched by the afflictions of life, actions and the results and impressions produced by these actions."
In this Sutra Patanjali has given us two ideas with regard to Isvara. The first is that He is a Purusa, like the other Purusas. The second is that He is not bound by Klesa, Karma, etc. like the other Purusas who are still involved in the cycle of evolution. As is pointed out later (IV-30) the Purusa becomes free from Klesa and Karma on attaining Kaivalya. In what respects then does Isvara differ from these liberated Purusas? To explain the difference, Taimni brings in the concept of Occult Science. According to this science, after the attainment of Kaivalya the evolutionary process does not come to an end but passes through many stages and culminates in the Purusa becomeing the presiding Deity of a Solar system. Isvara is the Supreme Ruler of a Solar system,.the Reality whom we generally refer to as God.
The idea of Isvara must be looked upon as being an integral part of a larger volume of Eastern philosophy which is based on the direct experience of an unbroken line of yogis and of which Samkhya shows merely one facet. The ideas in Yoga-Sutras should be studied against the background of this total Eastern philosophy.
Discussion
Kishor made an observation that as per Indian philosophy, spirituality is at an experiential level, implying that Western philosohpy is more at an intellectual level. Kailasam countered it by saying that in his opinion, even Western philosophy and also Islam do emphasize the experienctial nature of spirituality.[Maybe that is one reason why Indian philosophy is termed ‘darshanam’ – to "see" it for yourself as an experience!].
Prema pointed out that she was reading a book by Taimni titled, "Man, God and the Universe" which tries to integrate the concepts of science, religion and philosophy. Also mentioned was a book by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, the religious correspondent for NPR, titled, "Fingerprints of God". The following is an extract from one of the websites,
"Hagerty concluded that science cannot prove God — but science is consistent with God. She sees a nascent "paradigm shift" among scientists toward increasing acceptance of something beyond the five senses."Many scientists suspect that the days are numbered for a purely materialistic paradigm," she writes in Fingerprints . They believe that the evidence challenging the matter-only model is building, bolstered by research on meditation, the mechanisms for prayer, and more radical studies on the neurology of near-death experiences."
Drshta suggested a paradigm whereby we view ourselves as negative numbers, and the state of "kaivalyam" as zero. God and higher powers may be viewed as positive numbers. Our initial goal is to reach the level of zero (kaivalyam). Once we get there, we will have a clear vision to decide future actions.
We talked about the concept of God in different philosophies including Samkhya, yoga and Vedanta. As mentioned above, there is not much description of Ishvara in Samkhya. Patanjali has added surrender to God as one of the means of attaining samadhi. However, in yoga Ishvara remains an entity which is separate from both Purusha and Prakriti. In Vedanta, Ishvara is a manifestation of the supreme Brahman and is realized through ‘maya’ (the cosmic illusory force responsible for all creation).
Ishvara Pranidhana is a form of ‘bhakti’ (devotion) toward Ishvara wherein one surrenders to God unconditionally. We talked about bhakti a little more and understood it to mean total devotion/dedication to whatever ideal, principle etc that one believes in – not necessarily related to a manifestation of God or an ‘ishta-devata’ (a chosen deity). For example, my faith in Patanjali and the yoga sutras in helping me transform and guide my life would be considered a form of ‘bhakti’.
Kailasam, in a subsequent email, sent the following related to God:
"I have attempted a free translation of the paragraph I read and loosely translated during our discussion last week. This paragraph was a description of an ontological proof for the truth of existence of God. It is taken from a chapter on Yoga philosophy in a book on Indian Philosophy by K. Lakshmanan, published by Palaniappa Brothers in 1960.
The way in which the Yoga folks attempt to prove the existence of such a God (the chapter describes what "such" is) is important. Those who know adopt a variety of reasons to prove the existence of God. Among those, one of the best types of reasoning adopted by the philosophers of the West is the same one adopted by the Yoga folks. The reasoning is NOT that the created Universe requires a creator or that the people who suffer because of a lack of "true’ knowledge need a God of Grace for them to reach salvation. The logic flows as follows: All "things" (living and non-living, material and immaterial) are imperfect (tainted, blemished, limited, defective, etc.). <Even the experience of perfect worldly happiness is tainted by fears such as how long will it last, what will follow, and what will take it away, etc. – my sentence> The concept of imperfection has relevance only in the context of the idea of perfection, in the sense, imperfection is different from perfection. The existence of imperfect things necessarily connote the existence of a "perfect thing". If the perfect thing were to be only in our imagination and not real, then "not being real" would constitute a blemish and thus would be an internal contradiction. Hence God of perfect nature in every aspect exists! The proof can also be extended to show that there can be only One. If there were two or more and if they were identical then there is no need to treat them separately. If they were different, then the difference would be a blemish. < The last three sentences are mine.> "
We are in the process of trying to understand Patanjali with the help of commentators. It is helpful to keep a little history of the land in perspective. Patanjali lived (the controversy on this subject alone would fill volumes) and thought about the health of manas, vak, and kayam around the time in the third century before Christ when the Buddhist influence on Indian thinking was very strong. Vedas and Brahminic ways of thinking were under stress by the free wheelers. The conventional wisdom of Vedic philosophy was being strongly challenged by Buddhism which maintained that one could, by strenuous self discipline , reflection, and meditation, liberate oneself from the bonds of life and live without the fear of janma, mrithyu, jara, vyadhi. The question of God was not relevant to the lessening of human suffering. The first commentary on Patanjali’s yogasutra (available to us) is by Vyasa who lived in the sixth century after Christ, by which time the Vaidhikas had regained their primacy, especially in North India. Two centuries later, Shankara, commenting on Vyasa’s commentary, had no difficulty in giving a Vedhantika’s spin. Commentators are human beings and their comments are biased by their own emphases. We should not be surprised by this nor should we be completely taken by this. I think we have an obligation to probe Patanjali’s intent.
Patanjali (if there ever was one) was a grammarian, family physician, and a psychiatrist. He laid down a treatise on each one of his specialties. As a psychiatrist, he recognized the afflictions of the human mind and determined that the cause was the binding of Purusha with the Prakriti. He prescribed a methodology for the unhinging of the twin essences of life and maintaining the Purusha in us in an untainted state. His eight-step process leads to transcendental aloneness; a pure, unencumbered state of mind and not heaven where angels are playing the violin incessantly. He was a true scientist who also recognized that the power of focusing the mind on something noble to relieve it of its kleshas. So, he swiftly and methodically addressed this technique by providing an object of focus, an ideal, a conceptual perfection worthy of deep reverence and emulation. It is highly significant that Patanjali did not ascribe any power, duty, or responsibility for creation, protection, and destruction to this special Purusha who is just “perfect”. Subhash kept bringing this up but we did not pursue this line. I think it is an important one.
God is such an emotion-laden concept that any discussion of the subject of God is subjective, experiential, and personal. People of every culture and every historical time period, not just Hindus and Indians, have attempted and succeeded in bringing God into their lives as darshan, as a guide, as a transcendental experience, as a mentor, and as a friend. This is not proof of God’s existence. It is proof only to the person having the experience. Nothing to sneeze at; but not a proof. When we invoke the scriptures as proof of God, it is good to remember that scriptures of all the peoples of the world are not speaking about the same God.
Philosophy is a discipline of rational understanding of everything and religion is knowing by experience of the divine and its influence on the day-to-day life of mortals. Philosophy in the Western mind separated itself from religion a long time ago and definitely after Renaissance. Philosophy concerns itself with epistemology, logic, metaphysics, ethics, and aesthetics and raises important questions about the origins and evolution of matter, life, and consciousness AND the nature of reality and experience. It leaves the realms of belief systems, spirituality, and personal experiences to religion. This separation of disciplines never did take place in India. It is most unfortunate that many “western” scholars relegate the Eastern thinking to the realm of spirituality. I believe, as do a lot a people that people in India thought about important subjects in a very rational, mindful ways NOT incorporating simple beliefs as easy answers to difficult questions. It is NOT that western philosophy is rational and eastern philosophy is experiential; it is “philosophy is rational and religion (all over) is experiential, faith-based, spiritual, and transcendental”. Philosophy uses methods of logic (induction and deduction); Modern Science uses methods of observation, hypothesis, testing, and validation; and Religion uses methods of faith, meditation, and reflection. Yes, the three magisteria get into one another’s knickers often and don’t back off. Most people believe that, to the extent they all deal with the subject of human and the environment, a complete answer to any question is possible only by the synthesis of all three disciplines.
Great reading, Kailasam. I look forward to the discussion.
Just to make the reading a bit easy for those who google when they bump into Sanskrit words, I made this translation list (Kailasam, please correct any mistakes):
Manas: Mind
Vak: Talk
Kaya/kayam: Body
Janma: Birth
Mrityu: Death
Jara: Oldage
Vyadhi: Pain/desease/suffering
Klesha: Stress, Bad elements of life?
-Sunitha
The group of sutras beginning with I.23 (“Or by self-surrender to God”) introduces Isvara. This group contains 2 parts: a “surrender” part, and a part describing that to which we should surrender. My feeling is that what is important here is actually the surrendering part, which gives us another way to transcend our ego. What we surrender to is not so important (I guess), but Patanjali offers us the concept of Isvara, the perfect being, to whom we can clearly surrender ourselves with confidence.
I see this as akin to the series of sutras I.35-I.39 listing things one can concentrate on to settle the mind. The list ends with “or you can concentrate on whatever you want,” because it is the concentration which is important and not the object of concentration.