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’Â (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.Â
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.
Leave a Reply