Our last post left us with YS 2.16 in the middle, which I argued is in fact The Middle Way of Yoga, in line with The Middle Way of Buddhism, which is to avoid suffering that has not yet happened. This raises the ultimate question of Pessimism (and it has been raised often) with Yoga, Buddhism and Zen, namely: If suffering is inevitable, why bother? And, is the answer to "check out" of Life? Yes, if you want to take the easy way...
However, No-thing could be more wrong if we listen to what these paths are suggesting. They are all saying to meet Life head-on, but with one simple (simple, yet very hard to do) observation: to be aware of Suffering, and how to mitigate it. Suffering, or Duhkha is indeed inevitable, but it does not mean to give up, to fully surrender oneself, or better, One's Self, to suffering. Quite the contrary.
What Patañjali, inter alia, is prescribing is a reality check. Okay, yes, we will have to deal with obstacles in life, we shall encounter suffering, and at times we shall be weak. In other words, we shall be human with all its splendor, and its frailty. Now, what do we do with that knowledge that we are beginning to acquire? For, before knowing, we are in a state of Avidyã, but, once we see the proverbial "Light", we cannot un-see it. It is there before us, and we can choose to either live with that knowledge, or turn our backs on it. The former involves the three aspects of Kriya Yoga as seen in YS 2.1: diligent work and effort (abhyãsa/tapas), self-study (svãdhyãya) and devotion to something greater than ourselves (Ishvara-pranidhãna), while the latter means merely turning back towards ignorance and to take the easy way out. But, this is hard work! Yes, and as the Buddha said, "You may leave if you wish...".
So, if you chose to stay on, let's continue.
First and foremost, we live in the world. Now, whether that world is in fact illusion and not "real" does not matter, because, we still have to function within this illusion as we are part of society and the race of human beings. So, again, we can navel gaze all we want, but at the end of the day, we need to live in the world. Book II is telling us How we can do that, and we are almost there.
However, with 2.18, Patañjali describes the "nature of things that are known" or drishyam. So, let's take a look...
prakãshakriyãsthitishilam bhuteindriyãtmakam bhogãpavargãrtham drishyam 2.18
Which gives us, rather straightforwardly from the Sanskrit:
The thing to be seen/known has the nature of illumination, action and inertia and is comprised of the elements and the senses and has the goal of liberation from worldly experience.
Being a sutra, this is highly compacted, so let's do some unpacking.
Although I have deviated at times from traditional/accepted translations and interpretations, I agree with how the first three words of this sutra have been taken, namely as the three gunas as we see below.
Prakãsha--> illumination (the driving force behind our quest for liberation), that is: Sattva
Kriyã--> action (the root of a physical Yoga practice at hand), that is: Rajas
Sthiti--> inertia (in the sense of stagnation), that is: Tamas
In other words, what is known, or seen in the world is a combination of the three gunas and exists in varying permutations. As we also saw in Book I, one of the goals in Yoga is to actually transcend the effects of the gunas via the experience of Samãdhi, which is also echoed here in 2.18 with bhoga-apavarga-artham, or "the goal of liberation from worldly experience". And, the intermediate cause of this disjunct between the "nature of things" and the "goal" is the composition of reality as we know it, which is bhuta-indriya-ãtmakam, or being "comprised of the elements and the senses". In essence, then, this sutra lays out the whole scenario for us then.
In a nutshell:
Being is an admixture of qualities, experienced through the senses, and is ultimately able to be transcended by eradicating avidyã, as described up until this point in the Sutras.
YS 2.19 goes into further detail about the gunas, in case we weren't sure that they were in fact being referred to in 2.18 (again, what is the text telling us, not what we THINK it is...?).
visheshãvishesha-linga-mãtra-alingãni gunaparvãni 2.19
Giving us:
The stages of the gunas are specific, non-specific, characterized and non-characterized.
Much like Kant's predilection for categories, Patañjali here is given us a mere listing of how the gunas appear. They can be specific or general (individual or group-based) or distinguishing or non-distinguishing. In other words, they can be individual characteristics (adjectives) of a person, place or thing (a noun, such as you or I) or they can be generalized to a group of nouns (such as humans in general). Again, Freud and Jung now garner the credit for something said many, many, many years ago...
Moving on, we arrive at 2.20-22.
drashtã drishi-mãtrah shuddho'pi pratyayãnupashyah 2.20
tad-artha eva drishyasyãtmã 2.21
kritãrtham prati nashtam-apyanashtam tad-anya-sãdhãranatvãt 2.22
Or,
Although pure, the Seer is merely the instrument of See-ing, and witnesses images (of the mind). 2.20
The purpose of that (See-ing) alone is the essence of the thing to be seen/known. 2.21
Although the Seen (reality as we perceive it) is destroyed for one who has accomplished this goal (a Buddha, for example), it is not destroyed as it is still common (experience) for others. 2.22
Hmmm...time for breaking a few things down into normal language.
For 2.20, it is pretty clear. No matter how "pure" the Seer is, he or she is still only the instrument of witnessing the world as we know it through the senses and the elements as described in 2.18. So, this is better than not knowing, but is still limiting for the path of the Yogi, that is, being bogged down by the senses. If the Seer and the Seen are still viewed as separate, we still have suffering.
In YS 2.21, we are then told that ultimately these two are essentially and inextricably connected. We only have one because of the other, and even that is not quite the story as we move closer and closer to the dissolution of the distinction between the Seer and the Seen in the forthcoming sutras to be discussed in the next post...
Finally, with 2.22, we answer the question that can be begged, "okay, if the world is illusion, than why do we still "see" it?" Good question.
2.22 could slightly be seen as a cop-out, so the jury may need to take a break for a moment before arriving at a verdict because it tells us that, "well, if Buddha or some other enlightened Being transcends the division and obtains the goal of Yoga, the visible/illusory world still exists because, for all intents and purposes, it is a communal hallucination/delusion."
As expected, some people may take issue with that. And, it does in fact put us in a rather uncomfortable Catch-22 that becomes the basis of Zen and is the core of Taoism, which is: If you know it, you can't say it. If you say it, you don't know it...
And, with that, we are at a critical crisis, or decision, to go on, or to give into the illusion....
To be continued.
However, No-thing could be more wrong if we listen to what these paths are suggesting. They are all saying to meet Life head-on, but with one simple (simple, yet very hard to do) observation: to be aware of Suffering, and how to mitigate it. Suffering, or Duhkha is indeed inevitable, but it does not mean to give up, to fully surrender oneself, or better, One's Self, to suffering. Quite the contrary.
What Patañjali, inter alia, is prescribing is a reality check. Okay, yes, we will have to deal with obstacles in life, we shall encounter suffering, and at times we shall be weak. In other words, we shall be human with all its splendor, and its frailty. Now, what do we do with that knowledge that we are beginning to acquire? For, before knowing, we are in a state of Avidyã, but, once we see the proverbial "Light", we cannot un-see it. It is there before us, and we can choose to either live with that knowledge, or turn our backs on it. The former involves the three aspects of Kriya Yoga as seen in YS 2.1: diligent work and effort (abhyãsa/tapas), self-study (svãdhyãya) and devotion to something greater than ourselves (Ishvara-pranidhãna), while the latter means merely turning back towards ignorance and to take the easy way out. But, this is hard work! Yes, and as the Buddha said, "You may leave if you wish...".
So, if you chose to stay on, let's continue.
First and foremost, we live in the world. Now, whether that world is in fact illusion and not "real" does not matter, because, we still have to function within this illusion as we are part of society and the race of human beings. So, again, we can navel gaze all we want, but at the end of the day, we need to live in the world. Book II is telling us How we can do that, and we are almost there.
However, with 2.18, Patañjali describes the "nature of things that are known" or drishyam. So, let's take a look...
prakãshakriyãsthitishilam bhuteindriyãtmakam bhogãpavargãrtham drishyam 2.18
Which gives us, rather straightforwardly from the Sanskrit:
The thing to be seen/known has the nature of illumination, action and inertia and is comprised of the elements and the senses and has the goal of liberation from worldly experience.
Being a sutra, this is highly compacted, so let's do some unpacking.
Although I have deviated at times from traditional/accepted translations and interpretations, I agree with how the first three words of this sutra have been taken, namely as the three gunas as we see below.
Prakãsha--> illumination (the driving force behind our quest for liberation), that is: Sattva
Kriyã--> action (the root of a physical Yoga practice at hand), that is: Rajas
Sthiti--> inertia (in the sense of stagnation), that is: Tamas
In other words, what is known, or seen in the world is a combination of the three gunas and exists in varying permutations. As we also saw in Book I, one of the goals in Yoga is to actually transcend the effects of the gunas via the experience of Samãdhi, which is also echoed here in 2.18 with bhoga-apavarga-artham, or "the goal of liberation from worldly experience". And, the intermediate cause of this disjunct between the "nature of things" and the "goal" is the composition of reality as we know it, which is bhuta-indriya-ãtmakam, or being "comprised of the elements and the senses". In essence, then, this sutra lays out the whole scenario for us then.
In a nutshell:
Being is an admixture of qualities, experienced through the senses, and is ultimately able to be transcended by eradicating avidyã, as described up until this point in the Sutras.
YS 2.19 goes into further detail about the gunas, in case we weren't sure that they were in fact being referred to in 2.18 (again, what is the text telling us, not what we THINK it is...?).
visheshãvishesha-linga-mãtra-alingãni gunaparvãni 2.19
Giving us:
The stages of the gunas are specific, non-specific, characterized and non-characterized.
Much like Kant's predilection for categories, Patañjali here is given us a mere listing of how the gunas appear. They can be specific or general (individual or group-based) or distinguishing or non-distinguishing. In other words, they can be individual characteristics (adjectives) of a person, place or thing (a noun, such as you or I) or they can be generalized to a group of nouns (such as humans in general). Again, Freud and Jung now garner the credit for something said many, many, many years ago...
Moving on, we arrive at 2.20-22.
drashtã drishi-mãtrah shuddho'pi pratyayãnupashyah 2.20
tad-artha eva drishyasyãtmã 2.21
kritãrtham prati nashtam-apyanashtam tad-anya-sãdhãranatvãt 2.22
Or,
Although pure, the Seer is merely the instrument of See-ing, and witnesses images (of the mind). 2.20
The purpose of that (See-ing) alone is the essence of the thing to be seen/known. 2.21
Although the Seen (reality as we perceive it) is destroyed for one who has accomplished this goal (a Buddha, for example), it is not destroyed as it is still common (experience) for others. 2.22
Hmmm...time for breaking a few things down into normal language.
For 2.20, it is pretty clear. No matter how "pure" the Seer is, he or she is still only the instrument of witnessing the world as we know it through the senses and the elements as described in 2.18. So, this is better than not knowing, but is still limiting for the path of the Yogi, that is, being bogged down by the senses. If the Seer and the Seen are still viewed as separate, we still have suffering.
In YS 2.21, we are then told that ultimately these two are essentially and inextricably connected. We only have one because of the other, and even that is not quite the story as we move closer and closer to the dissolution of the distinction between the Seer and the Seen in the forthcoming sutras to be discussed in the next post...
Finally, with 2.22, we answer the question that can be begged, "okay, if the world is illusion, than why do we still "see" it?" Good question.
2.22 could slightly be seen as a cop-out, so the jury may need to take a break for a moment before arriving at a verdict because it tells us that, "well, if Buddha or some other enlightened Being transcends the division and obtains the goal of Yoga, the visible/illusory world still exists because, for all intents and purposes, it is a communal hallucination/delusion."
As expected, some people may take issue with that. And, it does in fact put us in a rather uncomfortable Catch-22 that becomes the basis of Zen and is the core of Taoism, which is: If you know it, you can't say it. If you say it, you don't know it...
And, with that, we are at a critical crisis, or decision, to go on, or to give into the illusion....
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment