स्वस्वामिशक्त्योः स्वरूपोपलब्धिहेतुः संयोगः॥२३॥
sva = being owned (Prakriti); svaami = the owner (Purusha); shaktyoH = of their powers; svarUpa = of the nature; upalabdhi = recognition; hetuH = cause; saMyogaH = union
Sw. Satchidananda
"The union of Owner (Purusha) and owned (Prakiti) causes the recognition of the nature and powers of them both"
Union is necessary for the Purusha to realize himself with the help of Prakriti. When apart, they don’t express themselves. Through the Prakriti we realize that we are the Purusha.
Bryant
"[The notion of] conjunction is the means of understanding the real nature of the powers of the possessed and of the possessor"
Purusha is the owner, swami, and is conjoined with the owned, sva, or the Prakriti, for the sake of experience. Perceiving the worldly objects is experience and perception of the real nature of the seer is liberation. Ignorance is the cause of the union between the seer and the seen whereas true knowledge dispels ignorance. Vyasa adds that true knowledge is not the real cause of liberation, but technically it is the absence of ignorance that results in liberation. Full liberation is a step beyond discriminative intelligence and involves complete separation between purusha and buddhi.
Vyasa next enumerates eight different viewpoints found in various ‘shastras’ (ancient texts) as to what constitutes ignorance (adarshana), as opposed to knowledge (darshana). I am giving below a brief outline of these viewpoints. Please see the book for more detailed explanations.
- Is ignorance the result of the play of the gunas?
- Is ignorance due to the mind which fails to recognize the distinction between prakriti and purusha even though it has the capability of getting knowledge?
- Is ignorance the result of the gunas not recognizing experience and discrimination which remain latent?
- Is it the latency of ‘avidya’ (wrong knowledge) at the time of dissolution which is reactivated in the next creative cycle?
- Is it the latent impetus that impels movement in prakriti itself?
- Is it the very power of prakriti to reveal herself to purusha that is the ultimate cause of ignorance?
- Is it the characteristic of both prakriti and purusha? Prakriti, or buddhi, shows ignorance as it needs purusha for its functioning. Purusha, too appears to have ‘adarshana’ as it needs to provide illumination to the buddhi.
- Is ignorance, paradoxically, ultimately knowledge itself?
All these viewpoints contain some element of truth. According to most commentators, the fourth option above represents the view of yoga and is elaborated further in upcoming sutras. One common element in all is the contact of purusha with the gunas of prakriti.
Discussion
Bryant has chosen to use the word ‘ignorance’ for ‘adarshana’ which can be very confusing. Usually the word ignorance is used for ‘avidya’ which is one of the main kleshas. Also, in option #4 above, ‘avidya’ in fact is mentioned as the cause for ‘adarahana’. A more appropriate translation for adarshana would be non-perception. Some commentators have decided to leave adarshana untranslated or used some word other than ignorance.
In sutra 2.17 Patanjali states that "union between purusha and prakriti is the cause of the suffering that can and should be avoided". Now in sutra 2.23 we note that "this union between purusha and prakriti is REQUIRED to understand the true nature of the powers of both purusha and prakriti". So, it seems as if this union is both good and bad depending upon how we look at it. My understanding is that it causes suffering when we are only interested in the ‘experience’ of the material world. On the other hand this union can lead to kaivalya if start working on developing discriminatory wisdom and finally realize the separation between purusha and prakriti.
I would love to know your views as to how you see this current set of sutras 2.17 thru 2.25 or so.
I think Vyasa uses the word Adharshana with a specific force to make a point in philosophy. I translate the word to mean, functionally, the non-happening of transcendental knowing (experience). I can explain myself only with the help of concepts and terminology which were explained by Immanuel Kant in his attempt to get a compromise between the Empiricists ( Hume)and the Rationalists ( Descartes). He distinguished between phenomenon and noumenon as in phenomenal world which is the sensed and interpreted world and noumenal world which is a construction of thought only. Worldly experiences are phenomenological to human and the experiencing of that experience is made possible by a structure which can be apprehended only by thought. There is phenomenological understanding made possible by transcendentally experienced knowledge which is achieved through a) concentrated reflection ( meditation), b)meditation guided by a Guru, and c) knowledge by Providential Grace. Although these two types of knowledge are conveniently compartmented, in reality, there is a continuous interchange among them for ultimate enlightenment. I think this is the real significance of the sutras YSP II 18 and 19. Our candidate for the noumenon is the Sankhya model of the P & P and the Evolutes. The apprehension of this model and its elements is possible only by transcendental knowing which is the basis for phenomenal knowledge ( experience). In a state of Adharshana, one does not recognize P & P. One of the methods for acquiring the skills for transcendental knowing is through the practice of ashtanga yoga.
“The apprehension of this model and its elements is possible only by transcendental knowing which is the basis for phenomenal knowledge ( experience).”
Kailasam, I would like to understand the above statement better. Maybe we can go over it in the session tomorrow. I understand that the Sankhya model is best understood through transcendental knowing. But how that is the basis for phenomenal knowledge is not clear to me. I’ll see you tomorrow!
This sutra resonates with the statement “Shiva is shava (a corpse) without Shakti”.
There is nothing much pure consciousness can do, except just be itself, if there is not field of activity where it can act. Prakriti (the Swa) provides the field where the Purusha can really exhibit his super-powers and ‘just play’.
Similarly and reciprocally, Prakriti, which is inherently inert, has no value if there is no one to appreciate its value.
Its like when a child is playing with a lump of clay and making forms out of it. Just as the child or the lump of clay alone can do nothing, but when they come together into ‘contact’, it is only then that the play can begin and various enchanting forms come into existence. And then the nature of the child as the creator and the nature of clay as having the capability to take various forms – both come into manifestation and appreciation.
So the ‘contact’ or ‘samyoga’ of the child with the clay is the cause which defines the child as the creator and the clay as the created. Without ‘contact’ – the true nature and power of both the child and the clay remain unmanifested and unappreciated.
that’s a great example, Veneet (I just assumed your name from your email!). Thanks for sharing it. For me the confusing part was how to justify the two apparently divergent statements – the “samyoga” is the primary cause for all “klshas” and at the same time you need the “samyoga” to realize the true nature of both Purusha and Prakriti. The way I have now come to terms with it is that it is the samyoga at the level of ego (asmita or ahamkara) that is the cause of suffering. On the other hand, the samyoga at the level of ‘viveka’ leads to ‘apavarga’ or realization of the true nature of Purusha. Let me know what you think. Thanks.
Samyoga is said to be a cause of the heya (heya-hetu). But it is not the primary cause. It is an agent or an instrumental cause. In the next sutra itself it is said that the cause of ‘samyoga’ is Avidya. And we find that Avidya is previously said to be the nurturing ground of kleshas. [cf. Avidya kshetram uttareshaam…].
So the picture is:
Heya Dukkha (caused by) -> Samyoga (caused by) -> Avidya
So it appears that Samyoga will cause suffering only as long as the Avidya (or kleshas) exist. Once the kleshas are uprooted, then the samyoga does not lead to dukkha or suffering, but rather to the realization of the Swa and Swami as is said in this sutra.
Subhash ji, I’m also understanding things at my own end. So let me know if this seems to solve the difficulty. 🙂 The Yoga-Sutras are a great text.
That is also the way I now understand it. Since Avidya leads to the other kleshas, topped by the ego, samyoga while the ego is still active leads to suffering. On the other hand, as you have mentioned, when the ego (and avidya) is uprooted then we are left with pure viveka. Samyoga at that level leads to the understanding of the nature of purusha and prakriti (swa and swami).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and wisdom. I look forward to your ongoing participation.
I think there is a slight problem with this: when vivekam goes to work samyoga disappears in the sense it does not exist in any form. A form of resolution may be: when an experience is experienced as worldly, samyoga is in play and when the process is used to interrogate the elements of the inner structure which make that experience possible, the perceived union between P&P disappears. P&P can be identified as separate.
The way I understand is that for vivekam to work, samyoga has to be there. Which means that the light of Purusha is needed for viveka to shine through and allow the ahamkara to subside. Only when ahamkara fully subsides and the three gunas are back in their “unmanifest” state of balance can the separation between P and P become clear.