Hinduism: A Short History (49 page)

Here we deal with
yoga
only in its technical and classical sense: the Yoga system as explained by Patañjali. It is called
Rāja Yoga
, the “royal way” in contrast to
Haṭha Yoga
, the “tour de force”
²⁶
of most Western Yoga schools, or the
Kuṇḍalinī Yoga
of the Śāktas. It is also called Sāṁkhya-Yoga, because of its intimate connection with the
darśana
known as Sāṁkhya
²⁷

Sāṁkhya-Yoga
has become, in one form or another, part and parcel of most major religions of India: thus we find Sāṁkhya-Yoga combined with Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Śāktism, and most of the Purāṇas contain numerous chapters on Sāṁkhya-Yoga as a path to salvation.
²⁸
It fell into disfavor at a later time when Vedānta in one of its denominational schools became the predominant theology of Hinduism. The reasons for this development are twofold. Sāṁkhya does not base its statements on scripture; it even explicitly rates
śruti
no higher than reasoning. And Sāṁkhya did not recognize a Lord above
puruṣa
and
prakṛti
, an idea which was crucial to the theistic systems of medieval Hinduism.

The interpretation of some Mohenjo-Daro seals showing figures in what has been interpreted as yoga-posture would suggest a pre-historic root of practices later brought together in the Yoga system. The basis of the Sāṁkhya, the male-female polarity as the source of all development, does not need a specific inventor, it can easily be considered as a “natural system.” In some of the earlier Upaniṣads we find allusions to doctrines that could be termed Sāṁkhya, leaving open the question whether the Upaniṣads refer to an already developed philosophical system or whether the system developed out of the elements provided in the Upaniṣads. In order to explain the name Sāṁkhya – in modern Indian languages the word for “number” – some scholars have resorted to the hypothesis of an original Sāṁkhya which, like the school of Pythagoras, was concerned with numbers and conceived of the world as being constructed from harmonious proportions.
²⁹

The original meaning of Sāṁkhya must have been very general: understanding, reflection, discussion. The name simply came to connote philosophy or system. Kapila, its mythical founder, figures in the Indian tradition quite often as the father of philosophy as such. Later Vedānta, which assumes a different position on many basic issues, polemizes quite frequently against the Sāṁkhya-system, but there is hardly a book that does not deal with it or that would not betray its influence.

Sāṁkhya ideas may be found already in the cosmogonic hymns of the
Ṛgveda
, in sections of the
Atharvaveda
, in the idea of the evolution of all things from one principle, dividing itself, in the Upaniṣads, and also in the Upaniṣadic attempts to arrange all phenomena under a limited number of categories. The
Mahābhārata
has sections explaining the full Sāṁkhya system, though with significant differences as compared to the classical Sāṁkhya. The Great Epic makes Kapila the son of Brahmā; according to the
Bhāgavata Purāṇa
he is an
avatāra
of Viṣṇu who teaches Sāṁkhya as a system of liberation through which his mother reaches instant release.
³⁰
There is not much historical evidence for the opinion, found in some works on Indian philosophy, that as a historical person Kapila belongs to the sixth century B.C.E. The oldest traditional textbook of the school is the
Sāmkhya-kārikā
of Īśvara Kṛṣṇa, dating probably from the third century C.E. This work, which has received numerous important commentaries in later centuries, claims to be the complete summary of the entire
Śaṣṭi-tantra
, perhaps an older work. The
Sāmkhya-kārikā are
a short treatise, containing only seventy aphorisms.
³¹
The
Sāmkhya-sūtra
, ascribed to Kapila himself, is a later work, much longer than the
Kārikā
and going into more detail.
³²

Yoga as a system is already dealt with quite extensively in some of the later Upaniṣads, which in fact are sometimes brief compendia of Yoga.
³³
The
Tejobindu Upaniṣad
gives a fairly detailed description of
rāja-yoga
. Many of the teachings found in it can be found word for word in Patañjali’s
Yoga Sūtra
, which has become the classical textbook, commented upon by great scholars like Vyāsa and Bhoja.
³⁴
This Upaniṣad suggests to the Yogi who is intent on realization to repeat constantly: “I am Brahman.” He is advised sometimes to affirm and sometimes to negate the identity of all things with
brahman
. “Renouncing all the various activities think thus: ‘I am Brahman – I am of the nature of
sac-cid-ānanda.‘And
then renounce even this!”
³⁵

Most Indian schools, be they followers of the Sāṁkhya or of the Vedānta philosophy, accept Patañjali-yoga as a practical and indispensable means for purification and concentration. Recently a commentary to the Patañjali
Yoga Sūtra
, ascribed to Śaṅkara, has been published from a manuscript in Madras. Many scholars assume it to be genuine, in spite of the polemic against Sāṁkhya-Yoga in the
Brahmasūtrabhāyṣa.
³⁶

The
Sāṁkhya Kārikās
begin with the aphorism: “From torment by threefold misery the inquiry into the means of terminating it.”
³⁷
Our frustrations and pains, caused by
devas
and
asuras
, fellow-men, beasts, inanimate and ourselves,
³⁸
are the stimulus for the quest for freedom from misery: Sāṁkhya offers the solution. Sāṁkhya neither denies the reality of experience nor the reality of pain accompanying every experience, but it offers a possibility of terminating this pain of experience. Rejecting all other means, the
Kārikās
establish the thesis that “the discriminative knowledge of the evolved, the unevolved and the knower is the means of surpassing all sorrow.”
³⁹

Basically Sāṁkhya defends, or rather presupposes, a dualistic realism. There are two beginningless realities:
prakṛti
and
puruṣa
, the female and the male principle, matter and spirit. Ideally, before the development of concrete existences, they exist separately in polarity. In actual existence they are combined and interacting.
Puruṣa
, pure consciousness, experiences the changes which
prakṛti
, on account of her three
guṇas
, is undergoing, as if these were his own.
Puruṣas are
originally many –
prakṛti
is originally one. The association with a
puruṣa
makes
prakṛti
, as the evolved being, manifold and makes
puruṣa
interact with it. Under the influence of
puruṣa
, out of the unevolved primordial
prakṛti
, develop macrocosm and microcosm according to a fixed pattern. Each part of it is characterized in a different measure by the presence of the three
guṇas
. Originally the three
guṇas
–
sattva
(lightness),
rajas
(passion) and
tamas
(darkness) – had been in equilibrium in
prakṛti
. Under
puruṣa’s
influence the equilibrium is disturbed and evolution begins. The first product of this evolutionary process, which simply takes its course without needing a creator or a world-soul, is
mahāt
, the Great One, also called
buddhi
, the intellect. From
mahāt
issues
ahaṃkāra
, the principle of individuation. Having the
tri-guṇa
structure, it communicates it to the further “evolutes” (i.e., the products of the evolution taking place through the interaction between
puruṣa
and
praktri):
the senses and the elements which form their object. The enumeration of the twenty-four basic elements is intended to provide a description of the universe and to prepare the ground for the way back to the source. Against those who assume that there is only one spirit in the universe, the
Kārikās
establish the following argument: “The plurality of
puruṣas
follows from the fact of individual death and individual birth, and from the fact that the organs of cognition and action are individual; moreover not all people are active at the same time and the relationship of the three
guṇas
varies from person to person.”
⁴⁰

In
devas
and saintly people
sattva
dominates; in ordinary people
rajas
, and in animals
tamas
. To dispel the objection that
prakṛti
is mere fiction because she cannot be seen, heard, touched, etc., the
Kārikās
state: “The non-perception is due to its subtlety, not to its non-existence, since it is cognized from its effects.”
⁴¹

Knowing
prakṛti
as
prakṛti
is becoming free from her; for
prakṛti
is not only the means to bind
puruṣa
but also the means to free him. If a person is able to analyze experience in such a way as to differentiate
puruṣa
from
prakṛti
in consciousness, seeing in
prakṛti
the reason for the contingence of all things and the basis for all change and multiplicity, he or she is free. Though
puruṣa
is free by nature, he is incapable of acting and thus unable to free himself when associated with
prakṛti:
“Certainly no
puruṣa
is in bondage and none is liberated nor has he to undergo any changes; it is
prakṛti
, dwelling in many forms, which is bound, freed and subject to change.
Prakṛti
binds herself sevenfold and through one form she causes liberation for the benefit of
puruṣa.”
⁴²

The
Kārikās
compare
puruṣa
and
prakṛti
with a lame man being carried by a blind man: it is the seeing lame one that directs the blind walking one and realizes his own purpose. In another simile the
puruṣa
is compared to a spectator observing a dancer. After the dancer has shown all her skills, she cannot but repeat her performance over and over again. When the onlooker becomes aware of the repeat performance he loses his interest. And the dancer, seeing that the spectator pays no more attention to her, ceases to dance. Although the union still persists, nothing more is produced from it.
“Puruṣa
, because of former impressions, remains associated with the body, just like the potter’s wheel continues to rotate for a while without being impelled again, due to the impulse received before.”
⁴³

When the separation from the body finally takes place and the aim has been fulfilled,
prakṛti
ceases to be active and
puruṣa
reaches
kaivalya
, aloneness, perfect freedom. By doing away with objective sense perception, by tracing back egoism and discursive reasoning to
prakṛti
, by coming to know the true nature of
prakṛti, puruṣa
becomes emancipated. Spirit, having been restless in connection with matter, realizes matter to be the cause of his restlessness. By realizing the nature of
prakṛti
as contrary to his own nature and recognizing all objective reality as but “evolutes” of
prakṛti
the spirit becomes self-satisfied and self-reliant. The very dissociation of
puruṣa
from
prakṛti
is his liberation.

The practical process of discriminative knowledge leading to the actual achievement of the “isolation” of the
puruṣa
is proposed in Patañjali’s
Yoga Sūtras
. Yoga is not mere theoretical knowledge but it also implies physical training, exertion of will-power and acts of decision, because it deals with the complete human situation and provides real freedom, not just a theory of liberation.

The
sūtra
itself – a short work of but 194 aphorisms – is clearly structured into four
pādas
, with the subject-titles
samādhi
(“trance”),
sādhana
(“means of realization”),
vibhūti
(“preternatural accomplishments”), and
kaivalya
(“ultimate aim”). The first
sūtra
, defining the aim and meaning of Yoga as
citta-vṛtti-nirodha
(“cessation of all changes of the mind”), goes to the very core of Sāṁkhya metaphysics.
Citta
is identical with the
mahat
of the Sāṁkhya, the first evolved, whose changes ultimately cause all suffering. For
citta
the cessation of all changes means merging into
prakṛti. prakṛti
then becomes again undifferentiated and dissociated from
puruṣa:
the
puruṣa
achieves
ekāgratā
, one-pointedness,
kaivalya
, aloneness, being-with-himself-only, being nothing but consciousness. The changes that may affect
citta
are enumerated as five-fold: perception, delusion, imagination, deep sleep and memory.
⁴⁴
The means to do away with them is
abhyāsa
and
vairāgya
, the dialectic interaction of positive effort and renunciation. The
Yoga Sūtras
introduce
īśvara
, the Lord, as one of the supports of concentration.
Īśvara
is defined as a
pūruṣa
, untouched by suffering, activity and
karma
. He is the teacher of the ancients and is denoted by the sign Om, whose constant repetition is recommended to the Yogi to attain
kaivalya.”
⁴⁵
The Lord is also a help in removing the obstacles that hinder self-realization: sickness, suffering, indecision, carelessness, sloth, sensuality, false views, and inconstancy which cause distraction. In the company of these distractions come pain, despair, tremor, hard and irregular breathing. For the purification of the mind the
Yoga Sūtra
recommends truthfulness, friendliness, compassion, contentment together with indifference toward happiness and unhappiness, virtue and vice. Breath-control, too, is advised.