Showing posts with label kleshas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kleshas. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2018
Sunday, April 15, 2018
The Roots of Our Discontent (YS 2.10-14)
Everything old is new again, and everything new is old again...or so it goes. Book II of Patañjali's Yoga Sutras is, on the surface, about the way we go about our abhyãsa, or diligent practice, that we learn about in Book I. However, with only marginal scratching, below this surface we find what is the core of the Sutras, namely, why bother?
Before I began a sutra-by-sutra exegesis of the Sutras, I posted on sutra 2.16, saying that for me, at least, it is that very core concept to answer that question, "why bother?" At this point we have slowly built up to that point, but not yet. A few missing pieces, however, need to be filled in before we return to that particular sutra. And, 2.10-14 provide just such pieces. So, let's take a look.
Sutra 2.10, picking up from the previous nine, which begin Book II and introduce the kleshas, or afflictions, that plague us all at one time or another, and can be varying in their intensity and effect upon us and our practice. Moreover, the kingpin of the kleshas according to Patañjali is no less than a-vidyã, or ignorance, which then generates all other kleshas.
Sutra 2.10 then takes us a step further in true Patañjali fashion by providing a solution to our problem:
te pratiprasavaheyãh sukshmãh 2.10
Or,
They/These [kleshas] [are] subtle and are eliminated by a return to the original state [of our Be-ing, or of the kleshas?].
It is not clear which "original state" is being referred to. And, yet again, owing to the hyper-economy of sutra grammar, we could also read this as:
The subtle [kleshas] are eliminated by returning to the original state.
So, either only the subtle kleshas are eliminated in this fashion, or all of them are, and they are subtle in nature. Both from more common syntax models and meaning, I am inclined to adopt the latter. This would mean that the kleshas, being subtle, are immaterial. In other words, it's all in our mind. This fits in alignment with Patañjali's overarching artha, or goal, that is, eliminating the disturbances in the mind, such as we saw from the very onset, and as we shall see in Book IV even more dramatically.
There is a common thread throughout the Sutras with this reading in that our mind is responsible for the vast majority, if not all, of our true suffering. Now, the obvious, and valid objection to this is that we can, and do, have physical afflictions that cause us suffering in life. That being said, the Yogi/ni in practice can overcome the physical obstacles through abhyãsa. Again, no small feat, nor does Patañjali give it to us as such. Patañjali does not discount the existence of the physical, but he does place a great deal more emphasis on the mental. The Sutras could easily be mistaken for modern psycho-analysis if one is not careful about which came first...
But, what is at hand here is, whichever way we do read 2.10, what is the original state? And, how do we return to it? The answer, being no surprise, is Yoga. But, let's scratch a bit deeper with 2.11, which gives us a spoiler alert for the ashtanga steps of Yoga that are imminent in Book II. We read:
dhyãna-heyãs-tad-vrittayah 2.11
Or,
The disturbances [of the kleshas] are eliminated through dhyãna. 2.11
Dhyãna, as we have already seen, and shall see again more in detail in Book III, is profound meditation, and is the seventh "step" in the 8-step program that Patañjali is building up to, more commonly known as the 8-limbs of Yoga. But, as we saw in Book I, Patañjali is wont to give us the answer first in Jeopardy! fashion, then build up to the question as he does here. The answer: Dhyãna. The question: How do we eliminate those pesky kleshas from our practice/life? And, the follow-up question is: To what end? with the answer being: Samãdhi, which is the consequence of this 8-fold path, which culminates with the application of the penultimate step, Dhyãna.
Fair enough, but we need to get to the root of the problem, or in this case, problems, which are the kleshas. Where do they come from? Sutra 2.12 happily provides the answer:
klesha-mulah karmãshayo dristha-adrishta-janma-vedaniyah 2.12
Giving us,
The root (mula) of the kleshas is the storehouse of karma, which is the lived experience of lives seen and unseen.
Now, karma, as we well know, has crept into our modern languages across the board, and most especially in New Age, Yoga and Metaphysical/Spiritual avenues of thought. But, here's the rub. More often than not, the word karma is misused at best, misunderstood even more so. Popularly used, it has come to mean, more or less, an nearly instant "tit for a tat" or "an eye for eye" essentially, meaning if you do something bad, then something bad happens to you later in the day, or if you do a good deed, then ye shall be duly rewarded by bedtime. Not exactly.
As this has been long a pet peeve of mine, I did post on this some years ago, but it bears repeating at this juncture. Karma, on its own, and its purest form simply means <<the thing done>>, or even more simply <<action>>. In itself, it does not carry a value charge, so to speak, that is, it is neither good, nor bad, nor evil, nor anything else, it just is. Karma is what we do. Basta. So, the storehouse of karma, or karmãshayah, is merely a metaphysical ledger that holds our accounts receivable of our deeds. What have we done? Karma.
This in turn is the root of our kleshas. In short, what we do in our lives affects us. Fair enough, right? So, if this is the case, then we should perhaps take a moment to be aware of what we do and how we do it. This soon becomes the crux of the first two steps of ashtanga, Yama and Niyama as we soon shall see. For now, we just need to be aware that actions have consequences, and those consequences lead to kleshas, which ultimately lead to duhkam, or suffering, which in turn, as we shall also see in my next post (or already here) is what is to be avoided in life by Yogic practice in order to free (moksha) us from the fetters of ignorance, or avidyã. Whew, that is another mouthful...
Back to karma, however, we read that it can come from births/lives both seen and unseen. This can be interpreted again in more than one way. One reading is that this means the seen births/lives are those from our Past and the unseen are those from our Future. However, it could also mean that unlike the Buddha, who could see all of his past lives, our unseen ones could be the ones which did in fact come before us and the seen birth/life is merely the one that we are living today. Both can be read logically and grammatically from this sutra.
Moving on then to 2.13-14, we see further that karma does yield consequence, or as we see, fruits (of our labors/missteps).
sati mule tad-vipãko jãtyãyurbhogah 2.13
te hlãda-paritãpah-phalãh punya-apunya-hetutvãt 2.14
Or,
When/so long as the root still exists, its yield/fruition is the experiences of life and birth. 2.13
These fruits are either pleasure or pain, as a result of pure (virtuous) or impure (vice) [karma]. 2.14
And, further, following the grammar and not the accepted translations (which don't), for 2.13, we get something akin (not identical) to:
The consequence of our action is the experience of samsãra (cycle of birth/death)
{NB: for all of you language geeks out there, the first two words of 2.14, sati mule, are a locative absolute! ]
From this we then see that karma, our actions do yield results, and it is directly related to the nature of the action, but not the action itself. That is an important distinction because some actions can also be non-action, as we see in the Bhagavad Gita in Book 3 on Karma Yoga. Often not doing something is even more important than doing something, and vice versa. It is the effects of the karma, or action, moreover that will then add or detract from our ledger in the karmãshayah.
And, since these consequences, or fruits of action, can be pleasure or pain, hlãda or paritãpah, we can relate them directly to the kleshas of rãga, passion/desire and dvesha, aversion that we saw in 2.7-8. As such, our actions are indeed the root of these two kleshas. Moreover, because of our ignoranc, or avidyã, of the ultimate consequences of our karma, both past and present (and even future), then we are led into further disruptions of the karmic balance, leading to the anxiety of what is coming our way, namely, abhiniveshah.
So, the more that we are aware of what we do, karma, and how we do it, the less impact the kleshas will exert upon us. In other words, when we then learn to follow the precepts of the 8-fold path we are about to learn, the kleshas become irrelevant.
To answer our earlier question then, to eliminate the kleshas, we go back to the original state, the root of the klesha, which is no less than karma.
Take -home message?
Act well, live well, be well...
The result?
Stay tuned...
 |
| Only in New Mexico, though East 108 would have been interesting! |
Before I began a sutra-by-sutra exegesis of the Sutras, I posted on sutra 2.16, saying that for me, at least, it is that very core concept to answer that question, "why bother?" At this point we have slowly built up to that point, but not yet. A few missing pieces, however, need to be filled in before we return to that particular sutra. And, 2.10-14 provide just such pieces. So, let's take a look.
Sutra 2.10, picking up from the previous nine, which begin Book II and introduce the kleshas, or afflictions, that plague us all at one time or another, and can be varying in their intensity and effect upon us and our practice. Moreover, the kingpin of the kleshas according to Patañjali is no less than a-vidyã, or ignorance, which then generates all other kleshas.
Sutra 2.10 then takes us a step further in true Patañjali fashion by providing a solution to our problem:
te pratiprasavaheyãh sukshmãh 2.10
Or,
They/These [kleshas] [are] subtle and are eliminated by a return to the original state [of our Be-ing, or of the kleshas?].
It is not clear which "original state" is being referred to. And, yet again, owing to the hyper-economy of sutra grammar, we could also read this as:
The subtle [kleshas] are eliminated by returning to the original state.
So, either only the subtle kleshas are eliminated in this fashion, or all of them are, and they are subtle in nature. Both from more common syntax models and meaning, I am inclined to adopt the latter. This would mean that the kleshas, being subtle, are immaterial. In other words, it's all in our mind. This fits in alignment with Patañjali's overarching artha, or goal, that is, eliminating the disturbances in the mind, such as we saw from the very onset, and as we shall see in Book IV even more dramatically.
There is a common thread throughout the Sutras with this reading in that our mind is responsible for the vast majority, if not all, of our true suffering. Now, the obvious, and valid objection to this is that we can, and do, have physical afflictions that cause us suffering in life. That being said, the Yogi/ni in practice can overcome the physical obstacles through abhyãsa. Again, no small feat, nor does Patañjali give it to us as such. Patañjali does not discount the existence of the physical, but he does place a great deal more emphasis on the mental. The Sutras could easily be mistaken for modern psycho-analysis if one is not careful about which came first...
But, what is at hand here is, whichever way we do read 2.10, what is the original state? And, how do we return to it? The answer, being no surprise, is Yoga. But, let's scratch a bit deeper with 2.11, which gives us a spoiler alert for the ashtanga steps of Yoga that are imminent in Book II. We read:
dhyãna-heyãs-tad-vrittayah 2.11
Or,
The disturbances [of the kleshas] are eliminated through dhyãna. 2.11
Dhyãna, as we have already seen, and shall see again more in detail in Book III, is profound meditation, and is the seventh "step" in the 8-step program that Patañjali is building up to, more commonly known as the 8-limbs of Yoga. But, as we saw in Book I, Patañjali is wont to give us the answer first in Jeopardy! fashion, then build up to the question as he does here. The answer: Dhyãna. The question: How do we eliminate those pesky kleshas from our practice/life? And, the follow-up question is: To what end? with the answer being: Samãdhi, which is the consequence of this 8-fold path, which culminates with the application of the penultimate step, Dhyãna.
Fair enough, but we need to get to the root of the problem, or in this case, problems, which are the kleshas. Where do they come from? Sutra 2.12 happily provides the answer:
klesha-mulah karmãshayo dristha-adrishta-janma-vedaniyah 2.12
Giving us,
The root (mula) of the kleshas is the storehouse of karma, which is the lived experience of lives seen and unseen.
Now, karma, as we well know, has crept into our modern languages across the board, and most especially in New Age, Yoga and Metaphysical/Spiritual avenues of thought. But, here's the rub. More often than not, the word karma is misused at best, misunderstood even more so. Popularly used, it has come to mean, more or less, an nearly instant "tit for a tat" or "an eye for eye" essentially, meaning if you do something bad, then something bad happens to you later in the day, or if you do a good deed, then ye shall be duly rewarded by bedtime. Not exactly.
As this has been long a pet peeve of mine, I did post on this some years ago, but it bears repeating at this juncture. Karma, on its own, and its purest form simply means <<the thing done>>, or even more simply <<action>>. In itself, it does not carry a value charge, so to speak, that is, it is neither good, nor bad, nor evil, nor anything else, it just is. Karma is what we do. Basta. So, the storehouse of karma, or karmãshayah, is merely a metaphysical ledger that holds our accounts receivable of our deeds. What have we done? Karma.
This in turn is the root of our kleshas. In short, what we do in our lives affects us. Fair enough, right? So, if this is the case, then we should perhaps take a moment to be aware of what we do and how we do it. This soon becomes the crux of the first two steps of ashtanga, Yama and Niyama as we soon shall see. For now, we just need to be aware that actions have consequences, and those consequences lead to kleshas, which ultimately lead to duhkam, or suffering, which in turn, as we shall also see in my next post (or already here) is what is to be avoided in life by Yogic practice in order to free (moksha) us from the fetters of ignorance, or avidyã. Whew, that is another mouthful...
Back to karma, however, we read that it can come from births/lives both seen and unseen. This can be interpreted again in more than one way. One reading is that this means the seen births/lives are those from our Past and the unseen are those from our Future. However, it could also mean that unlike the Buddha, who could see all of his past lives, our unseen ones could be the ones which did in fact come before us and the seen birth/life is merely the one that we are living today. Both can be read logically and grammatically from this sutra.
Moving on then to 2.13-14, we see further that karma does yield consequence, or as we see, fruits (of our labors/missteps).
sati mule tad-vipãko jãtyãyurbhogah 2.13
te hlãda-paritãpah-phalãh punya-apunya-hetutvãt 2.14
Or,
When/so long as the root still exists, its yield/fruition is the experiences of life and birth. 2.13
These fruits are either pleasure or pain, as a result of pure (virtuous) or impure (vice) [karma]. 2.14
And, further, following the grammar and not the accepted translations (which don't), for 2.13, we get something akin (not identical) to:
The consequence of our action is the experience of samsãra (cycle of birth/death)
{NB: for all of you language geeks out there, the first two words of 2.14, sati mule, are a locative absolute! ]
From this we then see that karma, our actions do yield results, and it is directly related to the nature of the action, but not the action itself. That is an important distinction because some actions can also be non-action, as we see in the Bhagavad Gita in Book 3 on Karma Yoga. Often not doing something is even more important than doing something, and vice versa. It is the effects of the karma, or action, moreover that will then add or detract from our ledger in the karmãshayah.
And, since these consequences, or fruits of action, can be pleasure or pain, hlãda or paritãpah, we can relate them directly to the kleshas of rãga, passion/desire and dvesha, aversion that we saw in 2.7-8. As such, our actions are indeed the root of these two kleshas. Moreover, because of our ignoranc, or avidyã, of the ultimate consequences of our karma, both past and present (and even future), then we are led into further disruptions of the karmic balance, leading to the anxiety of what is coming our way, namely, abhiniveshah.
So, the more that we are aware of what we do, karma, and how we do it, the less impact the kleshas will exert upon us. In other words, when we then learn to follow the precepts of the 8-fold path we are about to learn, the kleshas become irrelevant.
To answer our earlier question then, to eliminate the kleshas, we go back to the original state, the root of the klesha, which is no less than karma.
Take -home message?
Act well, live well, be well...
The result?
Stay tuned...
Monday, April 9, 2018
Is Ignorance (truly) Bliss? (YS 2.3-2.9)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)