Yoga Sutra Study

परिणामतापसंस्कारदुःखैर्गुणवृत्तिविरोधाच्च दुःखमेव सर्वं विवेकिनः॥१५॥

pariNaama=change; taapa=acute anxiety, suffering; saMskaara=impression; duHkhair=pains; guNa=between the three gunas; vRutti=modification of the mind; virodhaat=on account of opposition or conflict; cha=and; duHkham=pain; eva=only; sarvaM= all; vivekinaH=to the enlightened;

Taimni

" To the people who have developed discrimination all is misery on account of the pains resulting from change, anxiety and tendencies, as also on account of the conflicts between the functioning of the Gunas and the Vrttis (of the mind)."

… Continue reading »

सति मूले तद्विपाको जात्यायुर्भोगाः॥१३॥

sati mUle=there being the root; tad=it (karmashaya); vipaa
=ripening; jaati=class; aayuH=span of life; bhogaaH=experiences

Taimni

“As long as the root is there it must ripen and result in lives of
different class, length and experience.”

As long as kleshas exist, samskaras in the karmashaya will continue
to ripen and bring about fruit in the form of future births. These births
will be governed by three characteristics – jati (class), aayu (span of
life), and bhoga (experiences – pleasant or unpleasant). ‘Jati’ will
determine the type of life one will have . For example, one could be
born in a poor slum area or in a posh, affluent family. Span of life
will determine the total number of experiences during the life. Death
during childhood, for example, will obviously result in few life
experiences. Under ‘bhoga’ we consider the nature of experiences –
pleasant or painful. The ‘bhoga’ does not necessarily depend upon
‘jati’ or ‘ayuH’. A person born into a very poor family could still
attain happiness and satisfaction in life.

Aranya

“As long as klesha remains at the root, karmashaya produces three
consequences in the form of birth, span of life and experience”

As long as klesha is there it is capable of producing consequences.
It does not produce result when klesha is removed or reduced to a burnt
state through knowledge.

After some discussion, Vyasa (and Aranya) conclude that:

• One karmashaya is not responsible for many births
• One karma cannot produce multiple births
• Many karmas do not produce many births
• Many karmas go to bring about one birth
• Karmashaya responsible for a birth also determines its span of
  life and experiences of pleasure and pain
• Karmashaya
  is Eka-bhavika, i.e., accumulated in one life
• Karmashaya that is operative in the same life does not produce
  another life but works in the same life as experience and/or life span
• The three results in every life have produced latencies called
  Vasana, which are eternal
• Karmashayas are of two kinds – those that must mature (niyata
  vipaka)and those that may not mature (aniyata vipaka)
• Aniyata Vipaka karmashayas may take one of these three courses:
• Karma may get nullified by a stronger karma of the opposite kind
• A dominant karma may subdue a minor karma and may not fructify in
  the next life.
• The unfructified minor karma my bear fruit in  a future
  birth.

Bryant

“As long as the root [of the kleshas] exists, it fructifies as type
of birth, span of life, and life experience [of an individual]”

Karma
can bear fruit only when the kleshas exist. Grains of rice can
germinate only when they are not burnt and the husk is not removed. At
the time of death, the karmashaya will determine the three fruits: type
of birth, life span and life experience – pain or pleasure. Karmashaya
contains impressions of deeds – samskaras – from countless previous
lives. At the time of death, the subtle body, which contains the
karmashaya, is transferred to the new body. Only the gross body is
destroyed on death. Most of the karmas will fructify in the next life.
However, some of the karmas that do not get fructified can have three
possible outcomes: they can be destroyed, they can merge with a
dominant karma, or can remain dormant for a long time. Dormant bad
karma can be destroyed by good karma. However, bad karma cannot destroy
good karma waiting to be fructified.

Pleasure and pain have a direct connection with the kleshas of
attachment (raga) and aversion (dvesha).   Raga and dvesha
come from the ego and ego is the result of avidya (ignorance), as given
in sutra 2.3.

When knowledge arises, ignorance is destroyed so the kleshas are
deprived of their base and can no longer survive. Moreover, existing
karmas in the store of Sanchita karma are burnt.

A jivanamukta, a person who is enlightened while still alive, must
go through the Prarabdha Karma which is the karma doled out at the time of
birth. However, since as a result o enlightenment, the Sanchita Karma
is destroyed and no future birth can take place.

Discussion

In sutras 2.12-14, Patanjali has delineated one of the most
fundamental tenets of the Hindu philosophy – the theory of Karma and Reincarnation.
While growing up, our elders would always tell us that we should do
good deeds otherwise we might be born as animals or insects in the next
life. To me, this is one of those concepts which must be accepted on
“faith” only. I don’t believe that there is a way to establish its
veracity through ‘pratyaksha pramana’ (direct perception). It is only
through ‘agama’ (scriptural reference) or possibly through ‘anumana’
(inference) that one can explain these concepts.

Most commentators have explained the term “jati” as referring to a
future birth which could be any living being – human, animal, insect
etc. However, Taimni, in his commentary talks only about human birth
and about the type of life one could have – living in a slum
versus being born in a rich family, or being happy or unhappy etc. He
seems to have taken a limited view of the word “jati”.

It is interesting to note that in Chapter 1, the focus was on
removing
the samskaras and their seeds through various stages of
meditation (sutras 17, 18, 42-51). There was no mention of kleshas in
the first chapter. In chapter 2, we are now introduced to the concept
of kleshas which are now being shown to be the root cause of the karmas
and the resulting samskaras.

Sutra 2.11

ध्यानहेयास्तद्वृत्तयः॥११॥

dhyaana=by meditation; heyaaH=(kleshas which are) to be avoided; tadvRuttayaH=their modifications

Taimni

" Their active modifications are to be suppressed by meditation".

Dhyana is given here as the means to reduce kleshas from an active to a passive state. The word ‘dhyana’ has a specific definition as given in the sutras (sutra 3.2). However,┬а in the context of this sutra, it must be understood in a broader, more comprehensive sense. We have seen that kleshas can be attenuated by ‘kriya yoga’ – tapas, swadhyaya, Ishvara-pranidhana. The current sutra states that dhyana can help suppress the modifications produced by kleshas even further. In order to achieve that result, one must practice the three elements of kriya yoga with intense concentration of the mind. Of course, meditation as defined in sutra 3.2 must also be practiced.

The kleshas must be reduced to a latent, passive state where even with a strong trigger, the kleshas will not come to the surface. Moreover, each klesha can assume multiple forms of expression and each one of these expressions must be tackled in order to eliminate the klesha.

Aranya

" Their Means Of Subsistence Or Their Gross States Are Avoidable By Meditation".

Gross manifestations of kleshas, based on asmita etc, are attenuated by kriya yoga. They are further reduced to an unproductive state by meditative insight on discriminative knowledge and then totally annihilated by dissolution of the mind. As gross dirt is first washed away from a piece of cloth and then finer impurities are removed by additional care and effort, similarly the subtle kleshas are to be removed through intense meditation.

Bryant

"The states of mind produced by these kleshas are eliminated by meditation".

Bryant’s commentary on this sutra, which is also based on Vyasa, is almost identical with that of Aranya given above.

Discussion

Based on the discussion so far in Chapter 2, we note that three stages are identified in dealing with the kleshas:

1. In the first stage, we use ‘kriya yoga’ – a combination of tapas, swadhyaya and Ishvara-pranidhana (sutras 2.1 and 2.2) – to attenuate the kleshas.
2. In the second stage, the vrittis produced by the kleshas are eliminated (turned into burned seeds) (sutra 2.11)
3. In the final stage, even the subtlest form of the kleshas are completely dissolved by dissolving the mind back into its origin (unmanifest Prakriti). (sutra 2.10).

Even though it might seem that sutras 2.10 and 2.11 are in reverse order, Patanjali has provided the end goal in sutra 2.10 and given the means to get there through this intermediate stage in sutra 2.11.

Let us try to look at a practical example. Let us say that we recognize the klesha of ‘dvesha’ resulting in frequent anger in us. This anger may be directed toward a person that we were involved with in an unpleasant situation. In order to take care of the gross form of this klesha and attenuate it, we need to resort to kriya yoga and practice tapas, swadhyaya and Ishvara-pranidhana. Having practiced kriya yoga, we might feel very calm and peaceful in most life situations. However, given a certain trigger, anger might once again erupt as the seeds hiding deep down in the subconscious may fructify. To convert these seeds into ‘burnt seeds’ and make them ineffective, we will need to practice intense meditation which will lead to discriminative wisdom resulting in burning the seeds. Of course, to dissolve the seeds completely, we will have to go through the final stages of samadhi and attain the state of Nirbija samadhi (kaivalya) which will lead to dissolution back to the original source. That is when the mind is completely dissolved leaving no traces of any klesha or vrittis thereof.

स्वरसवाही विदुषोऽपि तथारूढो भिनिवेशः॥९॥

svarasavāhī viduṣo’pi tathārūḍho’bhiniveśaḥ॥9॥

Svarasavaahii=sustained by its own force, flowing on automatically; viduSho.pi= even the learned (or wise); tathaa= in that way; rUDhaH=riding, dominating; abhiniveshaH = great fear of death, strong desire for life

Taimni

"Abhinivesha is strong desire for life which dominates even the learned (or the wise)."

There are two notable points in this sutra:

The first is that the strong desire for life is established even in the learned. One needs to understand the distinction between learned (vidhushaH) – one who is merely intellectually strong, and wise.  A person becomes wise only when all the five kleshas have been completely eradicated. For a learned person who has a sharp intellect, on the other hand, the kleshas are still operative.

The second point in the sutra is that this desire for life is ‘swarasavahi’ which means it is sustained by its own inherent force. As per sutra 2.4, Avidya is the root cause of all the kleshas including ‘abhinivesha’. Since avidya is beginning-less and everyone is born with an element of avidya, it implies that abhinivesha is a part of our inherent nature. Abhinivesha is merely the final manifestation of all the kleshas.  Raga (attractions) and dvesha (repulsions) are the immediate cause of abhinivesha. Thus, stronger are the likes and dislikes, more prominently noticeable will be the desire for life or fear of death.

Aranya

"As in the ignorant, so in the learned the firmly established inborn fear of annihilation is the affliction called Abhinivesha"

Abhinivesha, the fifth of the five kleshas, arises out of loss or the threat of loss of the sense of identification of the body with the Self. This affliction is in the shape of fear, fear of death being the highest of fears. This klesha is a result of the ignorance (avidya) which is the root cause of all kleshas.

Vyasa makes a significant observation with respect to this sutra  – fear of death which is common to all creatures can only be present if there is a past memory of such an experience. Vyasa says that death was experienced only in past lives which is carried in the present life as a samskara, and hence the sutra establishes the theory of reincarnation.

Bryant

"The tendency of clinging to life affects even the wise; it is an inherent tendency"

The previous two sutras indicated that raga and dvesha are caused by positive or negative memories of any experience. In the same manner, the klesha abhinivesha is a result of the past memory of death. Since death happened in a past life, this sutra establishes previous lives.

Even a new-born worm is afraid of death. This fear is not a result of the form of knowledge mentioned in sutra 1.7 – three forms of ‘pramana’ – direct knowledge, inference and testimony. This can only be explained by a latent impression (samskara) of a previous experience of death.

This klesha is found not just in ignorant people but even in people who are learned. The reference to learned here is not to the people who have attained samadhi but to those whose learning is based on pramana, as mentioned above.

Discussion

The word abhinivesha is a compound word derived from the root word ‘vish’ (to enter), preceded by the two prefixes ‘abhi’ and ‘ni’. The literal meaning of the word is ‘strong desire to hold on to something’. In the context of this sutra it represents a strong desire to cling to life with the extended meaning of ‘fear of death’. Essentially the word may mean any kind of fear. This klesha is a result of the previous two kleshas – raga (attraction) and dvesha (repulsion). Raga leads to the fear of losing something that we desire to hold on to, or the fear of not being able to get what we strongly desire. Dvesha leads to the fear of getting something that we truly dislike (disease, for example), or the fear of not being able to get rid of something that we dislike (again disease, for example). The ultimate fear, of course, is the fear of death.

The word ‘vidushaH’ is the genitive case of ‘vidvat’ or ‘vidvAn’ which literally means one who knows. There is some disparity in interpretation of this word among the commentators. Some have stated that it refers to one who has attained samadhi. Others believe that it only refers to one who has knowledge of the scriptures but has not realized the self yet. I tend to agree with the later view. If, indeed, a person has become knowledgeable  as a result of samadhi, then there should be no more fear for that person.

अनित्याशुचिदुःखानात्मसु नित्यशुचिसुखात्मख्यातिरविद्या॥५॥

anitya=non-eternal; ashuchi=impure; duHkha=misery, pain; anaatmasu=non-Ataman; nitya=eternal; shuchi=pure; sukha=happiness; atma=self; khyaatiH=knowledge; avidyaa=ignorance

Taimni

"Avidya is taking the non-eternal, impure, evil and non-Atman to be eternal, pure, good and Atman respectively"

The main theme of this sutra is that the Atman in its purity is fully aware of its real nature. Progressive involvement with matter deprives it of this Self-knowledge increasingly; it is the lack of this self-awareness which is called Avidya. This Avidya is brought about by a transcendent power inherent in the Ultimate Reality called Maya. It is only through a process of evolution from the gross matter toward pure consciousness that the self can realize its true nature resulting in Kaivalya. Avidya does not refer to the lack of intellectual knowledge, but the lack of understanding of the essential nature of Self. The four attributes mentioned in this sutra are:

• Eternal: state of consciousness which is beyond the limitations of time and space
• Pure: purity of consciousness which is unaffected by matter which imposes on it the limitation of the three gunas
• Blissful: the state of Ananda which is inherent in Atma. Dukha (suffering) is a lack of this Ananda.

All these three attribute stem from not recognizing Atma as the pure self.

Aranya

"Avidya consists in regarding a transient object as everlasting, an impure object as pure, misery as happiness and the not-Self as Self"

To take the earth, the sky with the moon and the stars as permanent, or the heavenly beings as immortal is Avidya since all these are impermanent. The human body is impure because of its place of origin, its secretions, disintegration etc whereas regarding it as pure is Avidya. Comparing a woman to the moon or honey etc to praise its beauty is Avidya since both are impermanent. The false cognition of pain as pleasure is taken up in sutra 2.15 – "the discriminating person understands all worldly objects as sorrowful because they cause suffering… and also because of the contrary nature of the gunas. Considering one’s own body and mind as Purusha is avidya. Avidya is not simply lack of knowledge but in fact it represents wrong cognition. Normally there is more of wrong cognition compared to right cognition. However, when discriminative knowledge happens, right cognition dominates. Avidya is just a form of modification of the mind. Avidya is not a simple error like taking an oyster for silver, but is that wrong cognition which is opposed to liberation.

Bryant

"Ignorance is the notion that takes self, which is joyful, pure, and eternal, to be nonself, which is painful, unclean, and temporary."

Avidya is confounding the nature of the soul with that of the body. The body is painful (dukkha), unclean (ashuchi), and temporary (anitya), unlike the purusha which is joyful, clean and permanent. Vyasa contends that the body is unclean due to its location – in its embryonic form it is close to mother’s excrement etc; its origin is sperm and blood; and its excretions are discharges from various outlets of the body – urine, feces, mucus etc. However, to consider this body as pure and beautiful is "avidya". In the same vein, Buddha also advises his followers to consider the body and impure and obnoxious. The body, thus, should not be considered a suitable place to seek happiness if one is interested in attaining enlightenment.

The non-self (an-atman) mentioned in the sutra refers to not just the body or the mind, but also to animate accessories like spouse, animals etc or the inanimate objects like furniture or food.

In the Yoga and Samkhya tradition, the experience of liberated purusha is equated with absence of suffering rather than being blissful. In the Vedantic tradition, however, the soul is considered as pure and blissful. Bryant admits to having a vedantic slant in his translation and understanding of this sutra. Bryant goes on to make the argument that even Patanjali has subscribed to the vedantic (upanishadic) view of the soul that it is of the nature of bliss. On the other hand, since the state of Kaivalya is beyond the mind and thus cannot be expressed in words, it is generally considered only as pure consciousness without any content or attributes, including bliss.

The term ‘sukha’ (ananda) is used in the vedantic tradition as an inherent characteristic of the soul. In the Bhagavad Gita, the ananda (bliss) associated with the soul is described as ‘akshyam’ (imperishable), ‘atyantikam’  (infinite), ‘uttamam’ (the highest), and ‘ekantika’ (absolute). In the Upanishads, the bliss associated with the experience of purusha/soul is mentioned as being ‘immeasurably’ more pleasurable than anything attainable through association with prakriti (the world of matter).

The Sanskrit word ‘avidya’, because of the prefix ‘a’ literally means the ‘absence of vidya or knowledge’. However, Vyasa points out that avidya should not be taken to mean absence of knowledge but wrong knowledge – perception of reality which is the opposite of true knowledge. For example, the word ‘mitra’ in Sanskrit means a friend. But ‘amitra’ (a-mitra), with the prefix ‘a’, does not mean absence of a friend, but in fact may mean ‘an enemy’. Thus the kleshas do not represent just absence of the right knowledge, but in fact they imply the afflictions caused by wrong knowledge. 

Vyasa seems to equate avidya with the vritti ‘viparyaya’ (wrong cognition – Sutra 1.8). However, it must be realized that avidya is at the root cause of all vrittis, including ‘pramana’ (right knowledge).

The most common example of avidya in the vedantic literature is that of mistaking a rope for a snake in dim light and being afraid of it. This ‘avidya’ is removed as soon as enough light is made available to clearly see the rope. In the same manner, ignorance is taking one thing for another. In yogic terms, it is mistaking the mind-body complex for the ‘purusha’. It is the light of ‘viveka’ (discrimination) that can remove this darkness/ignorance.

Discussion

In his translation of the sutra, Bryant has attached the attributes of ‘joyful’, ‘pure’ and ‘eternal’ to the ‘self’. He then defines avidya as taking the non-self with all the opposite attributes of ‘painful’, ‘unclean’ and ‘temporary’, as this self. In his defense, he makes the assertion that he likes this translation because of his vedantic slant where the pure self is depicted as being full of ‘bliss’ (ananda). It is worth noting that in translations by other authors that we have seen, there is no effort to identify the ‘self’ as having any attributes. Instead, the other translators define avidya as taking the non-self as self, impure as pure etc.

If we take a closer look at the sutra and understand it from the grammar point of view, it is easy to see why Bryant’s translation is in error. The first part of the sutra ‘anityaashuchiduHkhaanaatmasu’ has the ending ‘atmasu’ which is the plural for ‘atman’ in the seventh case. That means all the four should be taken together and equated one-by-one with the corresponding opposites of ‘eternal’ etc. If we were to take Bryant’s translation of  ‘atma’ being a singular noun, the word ending would be ‘atmani’. It is, therefore, clear that in order to uphold his vedantic slant, Bryant has ignored the true meaning of the sutra.

The other major point that we discussed was the fact that Vyasa, in his commentary, declares the human body to be impure and unclean because of its contents etc. Patanjali, in sutra 2.40 goes on to say that "when established in ‘shaucha’ (cleanliness), one develops disgust for one’s own body and a distaste for contact with others’". I have reflected on the sutra 2.40 in the past and have never been able to understand why and how one can develop disgust for one’s own body. The word ‘disgust’ to me implies that it is a label that is based on identification with the ego. The whole point of the yoga practice is to transcend the ego so we can recognize our true self. If we cling to this ego by declaring the body to be unclean and impure, how is it possible to ever transcend that ego? So, as far as my understanding of the notion of the body being ‘unclean’ is concerned, I still have more work to do to truly understand this concept as put forth by Patanjali and Vyasa.

During our discussion, we were reminded of this very popular shloka which is recited at the beginning of every ‘pooja’ –

"Apavitra Pavitrova Sarvavastham Gathopiva Yasmareth Pundarikaksham Sabahaybhyanthara Suchihi"

"Whether impure or pure, under all conditions,  whoever remembers the Lord, becomes purified inwardly and outwardly."

Thus we see that in the Bhakti tradition, the body, irrespective of whether it is pure or impure,  is considered as a temple which is used in the service of God.