We are in new territory, and that much is clear with the first two Sutras of Book Two on Sãdhana, or Practice. We've moved away from the castles in the sky to feet on the ground. The rest of Book Two, as already mentioned, then focuses upon the practical aspect of Yoga, namely, how to get things done. It is the Method that Patañjali is giving us to deal with the actual vicissitudes in life such as we caught a glimpse of in 1.30 with respect to 9 distractions of the mind. Now, atha, is the time to define our terms and make a plan as to how we shall proceed then to deal with the distractions, obstacles, fluctuations and so forth that plague our mind and body on a daily basis, and thus challenging our Yogic Practice.
At this point, then, Patañjali introduces the five Klesha's, or afflictions that we shall inevitably face.
With 2.3, we find a listing of them, and in 2.4, we find out which of them is the root of all the rest.
avidyã-asmitã-rãga-dvesha-abhiniveshãh kleshãh 2.3
avidyã kshetram uttareshãm prasupta-tanu-vicchinna/udãrãnãm 2.4
Giving us:
Avidyã (ignorance), Asmitã (Ego-ness), Rãga (attachment/passion), Dvesha (aversion/repulsion) and Abhinivesha (we shall deal with this more later...) [are the five] klesha's. 2.3
Avidyã (ignorance) is the field of all the rest, whether they be dormant, attenuated, intermittent or fully expressed. 2.4
As will be the case with Book Two, these are more or less pretty straightforward sutras. We have a list in 2.3 that will be followed by 5 definitions and 1 qualification in 2.4-9. The lone qualification being that of Avidyã is the bedrock of all of the other klesha's. In other words, ignorance, and here it is literally a lack of knowledge a-Vidyã (the "a" in front denotes an absence of what follows and is therefore slightly more loaded the merely the negation. As such a+Vidyã is the lack of knowledge, or Vidyã, that is ignorance, by the absence of knowledge) is what causes all of the other 4 afflictions we must face. Arguably, it is a-Vidyã that is the root cause of our suffering then, our duhkha as we shall see later.
Our five klesha's then are ignorance, Ego, attachment, aversion and abhiniveshah, all of which shall be defined in turn. Avidyã is the kingpin kleshah and they can either be dormant, or latent, attenuated/weak, intermittent/fractured or fully expressed. Nevertheless, avidyã is present as the driving force behind them.
So, let us see what this Avidyã is in 2.5, which reads:
anitya-asuchi-duhkha-anãtmasu nitya-suchi-sukha-ãtma-khyãtir-iva-avidyã 2.5
Or,
Avidyã is the concept of mistaking something temporary as eternal, impure as pure, suffering as comfort and the non-Self for the true Self.
Again, pretty straightforward.
The main point that is often pointed out here is the usage of "ãtman" for the "true Self" or Soul. Traditionally this term is used in the Upanishads and other Vedanta-type texts, which for us does not seem like such a big deal. However, for someone who is supposedly an adherent of Dualism with the Samhkhya tradition, to use the non-Dualistic term "ãtman" over "purusha" would indeed have raised some eyebrows, and it has over the years. Personally, I feel it furthers he case that we should be very cautious to label the Yoga Sutras as an exclusively Dualistic. (In fact, as we shall eventually see in Book 4, it is tenuous at best to even suggest that, but I digress as that is for later.) Take-home message here is that avidyã is deception about the true nature of things and it leads us to further kleshas as we shall see in the following sutras.
Beginning with 2.6 and the concept of Asmitã:
drig-darshana-shakhyor-eka-ãtmatã-iva-asmitã 2.6
Or,
Asmitã (Ego-ness) is mistaking the Seer and the action of See-ing as being of one and the same nature.
In other words, back to the beginning with the Seer and the Seen we saw in Book 1 at 1.3-4. This is again something that will be solved (in a non-Dualist manner) in Book 4 where we understand the mistake being made with relating the Seer (the Ego) with the act of See-ing and/or the object that is seen. Meaning, it is an illusion that there is a separation at all, and it is from the power of the concept of the Ego that promotes this illusion, something along the lines of "I am, therefor I see" which gives too much power to the Ego according to the Yoga Sutras. If we take credit for the very act of See-ing, then our Ego has outstretched its boundaries. This is akin to the concept that there is no possession, in that to say "I" or "Mine" is hubris on a universal scale. There is only "Atman" and we are all part of that. Again, a very slippery non-Dualist/Advaita slope we are on here.
We continue then with 2.7:
sukha-anushayi rãgah 2.7
Which seems very simple, but we have two very different possibilites:
1) The consequence of sukha (happiness/eudaimonia) is rãgah, or attachment/desire.
or
2) Rãgah is the result of sukha. (!)
Very different translations, and the grammar does not help us. We ultimately have to chose between 1) which is cause and effect, or a definition 2) of Rãgah. The import of this is whether sukha or rãgah is to be taken as the subject. Semantically this would mean that rãgah could be "a" consequence of sukha, or "the" consequence/result of sukha. In other words, either desire could come from happiness, or more strongly, desire is the result of happiness.
The following sutra provides the same conundrum for duhkha (suffering) and dvesha (aversion):
duhkha-anushayi dveshah 2.8
Giving us again two choices:
1) The consequence of duhkha (suffering) is aversion.
Or,
2) Aversion is the result of suffering.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but when you are looking for precise definitions, this ambiguity is large enough to drive a Yoga Truck through (Bekir, my dearly departed Yoga mentor from Austin, Texas used to say after a challenging class, "you haven't done Yoga if you didn't feel like a truck ran over you, the Yoga Truck"). We shall pick up on this discrepancy in a forthcoming post. For the time being, it is more important to realize that BOTH attachment/desire and aversion are considered kleshas. Why? Simply because they are both a form of attachment. It is the same as if someone quits smoking, drinking or whatnot but is just as consumed by NOT smoking, drinking or whatnot as he or she was by the habit/action in question. The opposite can be the same. That is Patañjali's warning to us here. Don't be fooled by thinking we are doing one thing when we may be doing another.
And, finally for the kleshas, we reach 2.9 with:
svarasa-vãhi vidusho'pi tathãrudho'bhiniveshah 2.9
Or,
Abhiniveshah affects even the wise as it is inherent to ourselves.
Abhiniveshah is usually translated as "clinging to life" and it is normally seen as a weakness amongst the ascetic scene as it is giving priority to the physical body, or life, over the immortal aspect, the Soul. Currently I am not 100% convinced by this standard translation, so I am going to leave this in the original Sanskrit as I ponder on it a bit more...so, there shall be an update on 2.9 in the near future as a result.
In summary, from these sutras 2.3-9, we have been introduced to the kinds of afflictions and given their definitions and/or qualifications. As with the vritti's, or mental disturbances, the kleshas need to be dealt with, and how we go about doing so will be the topic of the next post...
Stay tuned.
At this point, then, Patañjali introduces the five Klesha's, or afflictions that we shall inevitably face.
With 2.3, we find a listing of them, and in 2.4, we find out which of them is the root of all the rest.
avidyã-asmitã-rãga-dvesha-abhiniveshãh kleshãh 2.3
avidyã kshetram uttareshãm prasupta-tanu-vicchinna/udãrãnãm 2.4
Giving us:
Avidyã (ignorance), Asmitã (Ego-ness), Rãga (attachment/passion), Dvesha (aversion/repulsion) and Abhinivesha (we shall deal with this more later...) [are the five] klesha's. 2.3
Avidyã (ignorance) is the field of all the rest, whether they be dormant, attenuated, intermittent or fully expressed. 2.4
As will be the case with Book Two, these are more or less pretty straightforward sutras. We have a list in 2.3 that will be followed by 5 definitions and 1 qualification in 2.4-9. The lone qualification being that of Avidyã is the bedrock of all of the other klesha's. In other words, ignorance, and here it is literally a lack of knowledge a-Vidyã (the "a" in front denotes an absence of what follows and is therefore slightly more loaded the merely the negation. As such a+Vidyã is the lack of knowledge, or Vidyã, that is ignorance, by the absence of knowledge) is what causes all of the other 4 afflictions we must face. Arguably, it is a-Vidyã that is the root cause of our suffering then, our duhkha as we shall see later.
Our five klesha's then are ignorance, Ego, attachment, aversion and abhiniveshah, all of which shall be defined in turn. Avidyã is the kingpin kleshah and they can either be dormant, or latent, attenuated/weak, intermittent/fractured or fully expressed. Nevertheless, avidyã is present as the driving force behind them.
So, let us see what this Avidyã is in 2.5, which reads:
anitya-asuchi-duhkha-anãtmasu nitya-suchi-sukha-ãtma-khyãtir-iva-avidyã 2.5
Or,
Avidyã is the concept of mistaking something temporary as eternal, impure as pure, suffering as comfort and the non-Self for the true Self.
Again, pretty straightforward.
The main point that is often pointed out here is the usage of "ãtman" for the "true Self" or Soul. Traditionally this term is used in the Upanishads and other Vedanta-type texts, which for us does not seem like such a big deal. However, for someone who is supposedly an adherent of Dualism with the Samhkhya tradition, to use the non-Dualistic term "ãtman" over "purusha" would indeed have raised some eyebrows, and it has over the years. Personally, I feel it furthers he case that we should be very cautious to label the Yoga Sutras as an exclusively Dualistic. (In fact, as we shall eventually see in Book 4, it is tenuous at best to even suggest that, but I digress as that is for later.) Take-home message here is that avidyã is deception about the true nature of things and it leads us to further kleshas as we shall see in the following sutras.
drig-darshana-shakhyor-eka-ãtmatã-iva-asmitã 2.6
Or,
Asmitã (Ego-ness) is mistaking the Seer and the action of See-ing as being of one and the same nature.
In other words, back to the beginning with the Seer and the Seen we saw in Book 1 at 1.3-4. This is again something that will be solved (in a non-Dualist manner) in Book 4 where we understand the mistake being made with relating the Seer (the Ego) with the act of See-ing and/or the object that is seen. Meaning, it is an illusion that there is a separation at all, and it is from the power of the concept of the Ego that promotes this illusion, something along the lines of "I am, therefor I see" which gives too much power to the Ego according to the Yoga Sutras. If we take credit for the very act of See-ing, then our Ego has outstretched its boundaries. This is akin to the concept that there is no possession, in that to say "I" or "Mine" is hubris on a universal scale. There is only "Atman" and we are all part of that. Again, a very slippery non-Dualist/Advaita slope we are on here.
We continue then with 2.7:
sukha-anushayi rãgah 2.7
Which seems very simple, but we have two very different possibilites:
1) The consequence of sukha (happiness/eudaimonia) is rãgah, or attachment/desire.
or
2) Rãgah is the result of sukha. (!)
Very different translations, and the grammar does not help us. We ultimately have to chose between 1) which is cause and effect, or a definition 2) of Rãgah. The import of this is whether sukha or rãgah is to be taken as the subject. Semantically this would mean that rãgah could be "a" consequence of sukha, or "the" consequence/result of sukha. In other words, either desire could come from happiness, or more strongly, desire is the result of happiness.
The following sutra provides the same conundrum for duhkha (suffering) and dvesha (aversion):
duhkha-anushayi dveshah 2.8
Giving us again two choices:
1) The consequence of duhkha (suffering) is aversion.
Or,
2) Aversion is the result of suffering.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but when you are looking for precise definitions, this ambiguity is large enough to drive a Yoga Truck through (Bekir, my dearly departed Yoga mentor from Austin, Texas used to say after a challenging class, "you haven't done Yoga if you didn't feel like a truck ran over you, the Yoga Truck"). We shall pick up on this discrepancy in a forthcoming post. For the time being, it is more important to realize that BOTH attachment/desire and aversion are considered kleshas. Why? Simply because they are both a form of attachment. It is the same as if someone quits smoking, drinking or whatnot but is just as consumed by NOT smoking, drinking or whatnot as he or she was by the habit/action in question. The opposite can be the same. That is Patañjali's warning to us here. Don't be fooled by thinking we are doing one thing when we may be doing another.
And, finally for the kleshas, we reach 2.9 with:
svarasa-vãhi vidusho'pi tathãrudho'bhiniveshah 2.9
Or,
Abhiniveshah affects even the wise as it is inherent to ourselves.
Abhiniveshah is usually translated as "clinging to life" and it is normally seen as a weakness amongst the ascetic scene as it is giving priority to the physical body, or life, over the immortal aspect, the Soul. Currently I am not 100% convinced by this standard translation, so I am going to leave this in the original Sanskrit as I ponder on it a bit more...so, there shall be an update on 2.9 in the near future as a result.
In summary, from these sutras 2.3-9, we have been introduced to the kinds of afflictions and given their definitions and/or qualifications. As with the vritti's, or mental disturbances, the kleshas need to be dealt with, and how we go about doing so will be the topic of the next post...
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment