What a Wonderful World It Would Be... (YogaSutras 2.30-34)

And, so it begins.

Having built up both a goal of liberation (moksha) from the suffering (duhkha) of life's challenges and our reactions to them, Patañjali then gets down to the nuts and bolts of his 8 limbs of Yoga, (which could be considered 7-steps + Samãdhi in one reading) and for the next 25+ sutras, things are pretty straight forward. The esoteric nature of Book 1 and the philosophical arguments of the beginning of Book 2 are quickly forgotten as we look into just what the 8 limbs (ashtanga) of Yoga are, and why should we care in the 21st century.

Let's begin then with identifying the first and second limbs, that of the Yamas and the Niyamas in sutras 2.30-33:

ahimsã-satya-asteya-brahmacarya-aparigrahãh yamãh 2.30

jãti-desha-kãla-samaya-anavicchannãh sãrva-bhaumã mahãvratam  2.31

shauca-santosha-tapah-svãdhyãya-ishvara-pranidhãnãni niyamãh 2.32

giving us:

The Yamas are: ahimsã (non-violence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacarya (disciplined conduct) and aparigrahah (lack of avarice). 2.30

Unconditioned by one's birthright, location and time, they are universal, and known as the great vow. 2.31

The Ni-Yamas are: shauca (good hygiene/clean), santosha (contentment), tapah (discipline/austerity), svãdhyãya (self-study) and Ishvara-pranidhãna (reverence for a higher power). 2.32

Starting with the Yamas, then, we are off and running. Yamah and Ni-Yamah are often pitted against each other as being personal versus societal restraints and observances. As such, the pesky concept of morality comes into the picture, which is completely absent in the text. So, with respect to staying true to the words, I do not support that division, much less that there is an ethics to this. These are practical words of advice. Following the Golden Rule that Kant loved so much, if we do unto others as we would do unto ourselves, we get pretty close to the overall meaning of Yamah and Ni-Yamah as a complemental unit.

We will take the Yamas and Ni-Yamas one-by-one in a forthcoming post, so it is suffice to say that both 2.30 and 2.32 are merely lists.

However, ..., we cannot gloss over 2.31 so quickly.

Taken quite literally, 2.31 is the shot heard across India...Most texts, and especially "philosophical" and/or "religious" texts from India are highly male and caste orientated. Either they are expressly for male Brahmins (Vedas and so forth), or they are of second-highest caste, the Warrior caste (to which the Buddha belonged as well as Arjuna from the Bhagavad Gita). Yet, in 2.31, if we are to take Patañjali at face value, the Yamas are beyond gender, class and are timeless. Again, the Golden Rule or Kant springs to mind, or better yet, the age-old chestnut of sensus communis, or what we more or less know as: common sense. In other words, the Yamas, as we shall see, just make SENSE! It is not whether they are good or not, but to quote Louis Armstrong, "what a wonderful world it would be" if we all lived our lives with these in mind.

Here, in the Sutras, then they are called "the Great Vow," which sounds rather ominous, but since this word/phrase does not get repeated, nor elaborated upon further, it again merely reinforces the reading of the Yamas (and ultimately the Ni-Yamas) as just being a good idea...We shall soon see how we can apply each of the 5 Yamas and 5 Ni-Yamas to our daily lives and Yoga practice, but first, we need to deal with one (with a very important caveat) more aspect of them in sutras 2.33-2.34 (which looks daunting, but is actually quite tame):

vitarka-bãdhane pratipaksha-bhãvanam  2.33

vitarkã himsãdayah krita-kãrita-anumoditã lobha-krodha-moha-purvakã mridu-madhya-adhimãtrã duhkha-ajñãna-ananta-phalã iti pratipaksha-bhãvanam 2.34

Or,

WHEN the mind is disturbed by improper/negative thoughts, opposite thoughts are to be cultivated. 2.33

"Violence and so forth are such negative thoughts, and they can be done, made to be done, or allowed to be done, guided by greed/avarice, anger or delusion and being mild, moderate or severe, they yield the fruits of endless suffering and ignorance", such is the way to cultivate opposite thoughts. 2.34

In 2.33, the reason I have put "WHEN" in all caps is for the emphasis of the grammar. This is a locative absolute, which does not imply "IF", but "WHEN" we are plagued by negative thoughts, this is our solution. That is to say, we WILL have negative thoughts at times, so instead of throwing in the towel and giving up to Pessimism, Patañjali uses a variation on a very well-known Indian philosophical trick. If you cannot define something, then you define what it is not...this is known as Neti, Neti, which is actually na+iti, na+iti, which means, neither this, nor that. And, we shall see what the Neti that we need to be aware of when those plaguing thoughts come at us as we learn in 2.34.

Violence, or himsã and the like are such negative thoughts. This is important to pause upon as this is setting up the next 10 sutras, beginning with a-himsã, which means "absence of violence/harm" with the short "a" in front of himsã. So, instead of thinking I should not harm, we need to think about what would happen if we do harm/violence to ourselves or others, and how that can happen. It can be done by us, through an agent, or we can allow it to happen (such as watching someone suffer without helping), and it can be mild, moderate or severe and it can be caused by greed, anger or delusion. So, there are many permutations to the level and kind of himsã and so forth. It is not merely black and white, but many shades are considered. And, what happens then if we do not adhere to the Yamas and Ni-Yamas? Then, the fruits of such actions are eternal suffering (duhkha) and ignorance (a-jñãna, synonym of a-vidyã). In other words, the two things that the Yoga Sutras are trying to eradicate, suffering and ignorance, will come back at us in spades if we do not pay attention to the first two limbs, the Yamas and the Ni-Yamas.

But, again, they are not obligatory, but they are simply concepts of good advice and common sense as we shall see next...

So, stay tuned!

Shall The Truth Set You Free? (YS 2.23-2.29)

As we edge ever closer to the most familiar aspect of the Yoga Sutras, that is the ashtanga, or eight-limbs path of Yoga, Patañjali begins to ever so deftly fine-tune just what it is this 8-fold "solution" is supposed to be dealing with. As already mentioned, Book II is chiefly about setting up the "How?" in response to the "What?" of Book I, which is where we end up with 2.29. But first, a few more tweaks here and there, starting with 2.23, which reads:

sva-svãmi-shaktyoh svarupopalabhi-hetuh samyogah  2.23

giving us

Samyogah, or union, is the cause of understanding the true form of the powers of the Seer/Knower/Possessor/Atman (svãmi) and the Seen/Known/Possessed/Prakriti (sva).

This is an interesting sutra for a few reasons. First and foremost, the ambiguity of sva and svãmi is troublesome. The majority of commentaries take the lead from Vyãsa and say that they are Prakriti (Nature) and Purusha (Soul or Atman), but context would dictate choosing Seen/Known and Seer/Knower...Not a insurmountable difference, but the grammar is the next thing that is interesting. Shaktyoh is a proper dual genitive. This may not mean anything to someone uninterested in Sanskrit grammar, but it affects the MEANING of the sutra greatly.

If Shaktyoh were not dual, it would mean that sva-svãmi was a compound, but since it is a dual, it means that they are separate entities...which would support the Dualist reading of the Yoga Sutras, claiming that Purusha (the pure) is separate from Prakriti (the tainted)...Except, as we soon see in the following sutra, this concept is based on ignorance...

Samyogah is the means through which one understands the "true" nature of sva-svãmi's powers. And, as we see very soon in 2.25, that starts to look very Non-dualistic in nature, rendering a completely different reading than the tradition has passed on to us for centuries.

Let's look further at 2.24-25 then:

tasya hetur-avidyã   2.24

tad-abhãvãt samyogãbhãvo hãnam tad-drisheh kaivalyam  2.25

or,

Ignorance (avidyã) is the cause of this (samyogah). 2.24

Kaivalyam, or absolute singularity, is the freedom from that (ignorance) for the Seer, due to the absence/non-being of ignorance, which yields the absence of samyogah. 2.25

Hello????!!!

How these two sutras get ignored for nearly two thousand years is truly beyond me. Let's see why this is such a major bomb drop...

We already know from 2.3 that avidyã is the root of all our klesha's or obstacles, so it is no surprise that here it is now the root/cause of the (mis)perception of sva-svãmi, and especially then in 2.25, we see that the removal of samyogah leads to Kaivalyam, or absolute One-ness/singularity.

What does this actually mean?

Nothing short of meaning that the goal of Yoga is the annihilation of Samyogah...!

Huh?

Kaivalyam, which is, as we shall see, the subject of the 4th and final book/chapter of the Yoga Sutras. It is not only the ultimate Yoga, it is the Yoga that transcends (Sam)Yoga itself.

Again, huh?

To go forward, we once again need to go backwards, back to the beginning. In 1.2 we are introduced to the well-known definition of Yoga as being the cessation/tempering of the mind's wanderings/fluctuations/behaviors, namely quieting the storm in the Mind's Eye. When that happens, as in 1.3, we see that then one is established in the "true" nature (svarupe) of the Seer. In other words, when Yoga happens, we know the "truth" which turns out to be there is no duality between the Seer and the Seen...and, when that happens, it is a state of Kaivalyam, or One-ness and total singularity. That is a far cry from the standard dualistic reading of the Yoga Sutras that has pervaded through time...However, 2.25 is literally staring us in the face saying the complete opposite--Duality is Ignorance (avidyã)...Singularity (Kaivalyam) is Truth (vidyã).

There is no ambiguity in these two sutras...

A comparison of the Ancient Greek concept of "Truth" might be an interesting side note here to give some more perspective.

The Greek word for Truth is αλήθεια, a-letheia.  You may notice something similar here, that pesky short "a" at the beginning, which in Indo-European languages means "not" or "absence of" as in a-vidyã...absence of knowledge=ignorance (the short "i" functions the same way here...).

However, in the Greek, it is somewhat more peculiar. A-letheia is the absence of "forgetting" from the absence of lethe, which is the state of being oblivious. To drink from the waters of Lethe in the underworld of Hades caused one to forget everything. The removal of that state is then considered "en-lightenment" or re-knowing the truth that was forgotten.

For Patañjali, this is not all that different. In the normal state of Be-ing for us, we are guided by ignorance and to pursue Yoga is to remove that veil of avidyã which is the cause of all of our sufferings in life as we saw in YS 2.10-14, and a re-turn to our original state (vidyã), or that which has been forgotten, shall set us free from the cycle of the karmic debt. In other words, we have covered up (to paraphrase Heidegger) our original state (svarupa) with layers upon layers of nonsense and illusion (avidyã and kleshas) which persists as the filters in our lives, the samskaras, which in turn lead to the agitation of the mind (vrittis), which then causes suffering (duhkham).  From YS 2.11, we saw that it is Dhyãna (which we shall soon see is the 7th limb of ashtanga), or intensive meditation, that shall calm these vritti, leading to peace of Mind...

So, when we un-forget via the process of Yoga, as with a-letheia, and remove the illusory concept of duality (Samyogah) between the Seer and the Seen, we arrive at the truth/Truth, or Kaivalyam...The Catch-22 here is that once we are "there" there is no longer a here, nor there, and again as we saw in the previous post with Zen (Dhyãna) and the Tao, if you know it, you can't say it, and if you say it, you don't know it...

Okay. Now what? How do we get there/not there? Glad you asked.

YS 2.26-28 bring us to the bottom of the first step...so let's continue.

viveka-khyãtir-aviplavã hãnopãyah 2.26
tasya saptadhã prãnta-bhumih prajñã  2.27

or,

The means (upayah) of liberation (hãna) is a non-wavering discerning of discrimination (viveka). 2.26

The true insight (prajñã) of this (tasya/upayah) is the highest ground and is seven-fold. 2.27

With 2.26 hot on the heels of 2.25 and the introduction of the concept of Kaivalyam, a very non-dualistic term, it is interesting then that viveka, or discriminative power is considered to be the very means of liberation. Why is this interesting? Viveka is literally the crown jewel of Advaita Vedanta, or Non-Dualism as espoused by Shankara. It is only by constant discernment that there is ultimately no divisions or dualities that one "sees" the "truth".

[Interesting Zen side note again: the phrase Upaya Kaushalya, or "skillful means" is the linking phrase between Yoga and Buddhism, and ultimately Zen Buddhism, with a nod to the Bhagavad Gita... In the Gita at 2.50, Yoga is defined as karmasu kaushalam, or "skill in actions". For Zen, the phrase means that the path of enlightenment can be reached upaya kaushalya, or by any expedient means, meaning, whatever works. The well-known Zen dojo in Santa Fe, NM is thus called Upaya]

Non-wavering discerning discrimination then is the expedient means for the Yogi/ni pursing the diligent practice with reverence of Abhyãsa.

In my reading of 2.27, I again deviate from the norm. Following the grammar, tasya (of it) is usually taken as "of him/the Yogi", but there has not been a mention of the Yogi anywhere to corroborate that reading. The last noun is upaya from 2.26, so I take it as the true insight/knowledge (prajñã) of upaya is the highest ground and is seven-fold. There are numerous speculations about this seven-fold nature, but they nearly all ignore 2.28-29. So, let's turn to that and then re-turn to 2.27.

YS 2.28 reads:

yoga-angãnushthãnãd ashuddhi-kshaye jñãna-diptar-ã-viveka-khyãteh 2.28

giving us,

From the practice of the limbs of Yoga, and in the destruction of impurity, the lamp of knowledge [goes] to the discerning of discrimination. 2.28

In other words, more or less.

Practice Yoga, and you shall see the Truth (and the Truth shall set you free...).

And, then 2.29 (trumpets, please):

yama-niyama-ãsana-prãnãyãma-pratyãhãra-dhãranã-dhyãna-samãdhyo' shtãv angãni 2.29

The eight limbs of Yoga are: Yama, Niyama, Ãsana, Prãnãyãma, Pratyãhãra, Dhãranã, Dhyãna and Samãdhi. 

And, this is what many have been waiting for, the 8-limbs of Yoga according to Patañjali. But, wait! What about that 7-fold issue from 2.27?

2.26 introduces us with the Upaya, or means to liberation, 2.27 then says that there is a highest state of knowledge of this, and it has seven stages, and then 2.28 tells us the practice of the limbs of Yoga leads to this knowledge and finally, there are 8 limbs...Considering Dhyãna is the seventh, it is not much of a stretch (no pun intended) then to consider Yama-->Dhyãna as seven-fold, with Samãdhi, the highest goal/ground of Yoga to be the knowledge of the means towards eradicating avidyã. In other words, the 8th limb is the prãnta-bhumi from 2.27, which now makes sense, whereas before it stuck out like a sore thumb and all of the commentaries do all kinds of contortions to make it work, but again, it doesn't. As we saw, Dhyãna, not Samãdhi is the key. Samãdhi is the result...Dhyãna (Zen) is the final stage of upaya, the means, and Samãdhi is the resulting state, which ultimately is Kaivalyam, solving our questions of How? of book II with the 8-limbs and What? of Samãdhi from book I.

The remaining sutras of Book II and several of Book III (a very dubious and I believe artificial break) are now dedicated to the 8-limbs of Yoga which we all know and love...

So, the journey of the Yogi/ni officially begins. Now we shall see how to put all of this Theory into actual Praxis and see how the Yoga Sutras can apply to our modern-day world...

Stay tuned!

Beginning to See the Light(ness) of Being (YS 2.18-22)

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.