Okay, for many, this post is going to be a disappointment...Why? Because the vast majority of the modern Yoga world believes that Yoga is and has always been based upon the physical aspect of the ãsana and consequently misuse, misquote and unfortunately mistranslate Yoga Sutra 2.46 (and by extension, 2.47-48). So, if you don't want your view of ãsana as the core of Yoga to be challenged, you can skip this post (or, pose) and continue on as you were...Or, you can join me here to see what Patañjali actually says and how it fits into his concept of the ashtanga of Yoga.
As always, You May Leave if You Wish...
And, so here we are.
Yoga Sutra 2.46 is a sticky subject because you will have people contorting themselves into ashtavakrasana and the like to try and prove that Yoga has for "thousands of years" been around in the form that we know it today. K. Pattabhi Jois's assertion that the Surya Namaskar was found on an ancient palm-leaf scroll has long-since been debunked, inter alia, and yet, it is highly pervasive within the Yoga word that ãsanas are the path of Yoga...I'm sorry to say, this is just not true.
Even as a strong advocate of the physical aspect of Yoga (ãsana practice is indeed part of my daily life), I will not agree with what is simply not there. The concept of "Yoga" has been around for thousands of years, but in many, many different iterations and contexts, and 99% of the time in ancient scripts and references, it is primarily referring to the mental, spiritual or meta-physical, not the physical.
So, if you are still with me, and are still curious as to what Patañjali actually says, let's take a look at this/these troublesome passages, beginning with 2.46, though which we shall also soon see, is probably not the complete Sutra...but, don't shoot the messenger!
And, the shot heard around the world is:
sthira-sukham-ãsanam 2.46
This is most commonly translated as: Ãsana (posture) should be steady and comfortable...
However, this is not really what is going on.
sthira-sukham is a compound, not a dual, which is what would be necessary here for this translation. Rather, it is more logical with the Sanskrit construction to translate this as:
Ãsana (sitting) is comfort (sukha) in stability (sthira).
Um, wait a second! Why sitting? Because mnemonically, the verbal root <<ãs>> literally means to sit on one's ...
And, why not steady AND comfortable? Because, grammatically, sukham agrees with ãsanam and is modified by sthira...seriously. We cannot know the case of sthira, but most likely it is: locative (in), genitive (of), dative (by/from) or instrumental (with)...giving us candidates such as:
comfort in stability
comfort of stability
comfort by/from stability
comfort with stability
It absolutely does NOT mean a physical posture that we know today such as Natarajasana (as much as I admire that pose) at least not in Patañjali's time. It could only mean a seated position, fit for meditation. Period. There are no and's if's or but's about this. The concept of ãsana as a posture does not come around into the Yoga parlance for nearly 1,000 years with the advent of Hatha Yoga from the 15th-century (Patañjali is at least 1,000+ years before) haṭhayogapradīpikā, or, Light on Hatha Yoga, where actual ãsanas are enumerated and described, but again, nearly all of them are seated positions.
To complicate things, we then move to 2.47, which opens up a whole new can of worms...
prayatna-shaithilya-ananta-samãpattibhyãm 2.47
which at first glance gives us:
By way of absorbing the mind in the infinite/cosmos and relaxation of effort. 2.47
Fine, except for one thing...it is a pretty convincing argument that 2.46 and 2.47 are actually only ONE sutra, not two. Why?, the trembling power yogi/ni might be asking right about now... Again, because it makes sense both grammatically and logically...so, let's put them together as:
By deep meditation of the Infinite and relaxation of effort, ãsana becomes comfort in stability.
In other words, when one becomes intensely absorbed in meditative thought, releasing the physical exertion, the seated position of meditation becomes a source of comfort in its rooted stability...
Which then leads us nicely into 2.48:
tato dvandva-anabhighãtah 2.48
or,
From this/then, one is not afflicted by duality. 2.48
Hello??? What's that?? Not afflicted by duality? Isn't Yoga based upon a dualistic system of thought???
Ummm, it is starting to look more and more like it is not, especially as we are again moving towards the synthesis of Samãdhi and the singularity of Kaivalyam...
In short, Yoga was not founded upon the basis of physical ãsanas, and, the way the wind is blowing, according to Patañjali's own words...it is looking more and more like advaita, or non-duality, as duality is again based upon avidyã, and once we achieve viveka, or discretion, that duality falls away through the process of dhyãna, or intense, singular meditation...
And, so, Patañjali gives very little attention, space, consideration and word count to ãsana, and it does not actually become a significant aspect of Yoga for another 1.5k years...
But, remember, as Luke Skywalker says, "Breathe, just Breathe..."
As always, You May Leave if You Wish...
And, so here we are.
Yoga Sutra 2.46 is a sticky subject because you will have people contorting themselves into ashtavakrasana and the like to try and prove that Yoga has for "thousands of years" been around in the form that we know it today. K. Pattabhi Jois's assertion that the Surya Namaskar was found on an ancient palm-leaf scroll has long-since been debunked, inter alia, and yet, it is highly pervasive within the Yoga word that ãsanas are the path of Yoga...I'm sorry to say, this is just not true.
Even as a strong advocate of the physical aspect of Yoga (ãsana practice is indeed part of my daily life), I will not agree with what is simply not there. The concept of "Yoga" has been around for thousands of years, but in many, many different iterations and contexts, and 99% of the time in ancient scripts and references, it is primarily referring to the mental, spiritual or meta-physical, not the physical.
So, if you are still with me, and are still curious as to what Patañjali actually says, let's take a look at this/these troublesome passages, beginning with 2.46, though which we shall also soon see, is probably not the complete Sutra...but, don't shoot the messenger!
And, the shot heard around the world is:
sthira-sukham-ãsanam 2.46
This is most commonly translated as: Ãsana (posture) should be steady and comfortable...
However, this is not really what is going on.
sthira-sukham is a compound, not a dual, which is what would be necessary here for this translation. Rather, it is more logical with the Sanskrit construction to translate this as:
Ãsana (sitting) is comfort (sukha) in stability (sthira).
Um, wait a second! Why sitting? Because mnemonically, the verbal root <<ãs>> literally means to sit on one's ...
And, why not steady AND comfortable? Because, grammatically, sukham agrees with ãsanam and is modified by sthira...seriously. We cannot know the case of sthira, but most likely it is: locative (in), genitive (of), dative (by/from) or instrumental (with)...giving us candidates such as:
comfort in stability
comfort of stability
comfort by/from stability
comfort with stability
It absolutely does NOT mean a physical posture that we know today such as Natarajasana (as much as I admire that pose) at least not in Patañjali's time. It could only mean a seated position, fit for meditation. Period. There are no and's if's or but's about this. The concept of ãsana as a posture does not come around into the Yoga parlance for nearly 1,000 years with the advent of Hatha Yoga from the 15th-century (Patañjali is at least 1,000+ years before) haṭhayogapradīpikā, or, Light on Hatha Yoga, where actual ãsanas are enumerated and described, but again, nearly all of them are seated positions.
To complicate things, we then move to 2.47, which opens up a whole new can of worms...
prayatna-shaithilya-ananta-samãpattibhyãm 2.47
which at first glance gives us:
By way of absorbing the mind in the infinite/cosmos and relaxation of effort. 2.47
Fine, except for one thing...it is a pretty convincing argument that 2.46 and 2.47 are actually only ONE sutra, not two. Why?, the trembling power yogi/ni might be asking right about now... Again, because it makes sense both grammatically and logically...so, let's put them together as:
By deep meditation of the Infinite and relaxation of effort, ãsana becomes comfort in stability.
In other words, when one becomes intensely absorbed in meditative thought, releasing the physical exertion, the seated position of meditation becomes a source of comfort in its rooted stability...
Which then leads us nicely into 2.48:
tato dvandva-anabhighãtah 2.48
or,
From this/then, one is not afflicted by duality. 2.48
Hello??? What's that?? Not afflicted by duality? Isn't Yoga based upon a dualistic system of thought???
Ummm, it is starting to look more and more like it is not, especially as we are again moving towards the synthesis of Samãdhi and the singularity of Kaivalyam...
In short, Yoga was not founded upon the basis of physical ãsanas, and, the way the wind is blowing, according to Patañjali's own words...it is looking more and more like advaita, or non-duality, as duality is again based upon avidyã, and once we achieve viveka, or discretion, that duality falls away through the process of dhyãna, or intense, singular meditation...
And, so, Patañjali gives very little attention, space, consideration and word count to ãsana, and it does not actually become a significant aspect of Yoga for another 1.5k years...
But, remember, as Luke Skywalker says, "Breathe, just Breathe..."
No comments:
Post a Comment