One of the ways to attain the state of Yoga is through devotion to God.
Offering regular prayers to God with a feeling of submission to his power, surely enables the state of Yoga to be achieved.
This probably is one of the most controversial sutras. There are so many interpretations to what this sutra can mean and the definition of īśvara. Yoga was derived from Sankhya, which is one of the six fundamental systems of Indian thought collectively known as darśana (vision). Sankhya was a philosophy that outright rejected God. Each of the philosophies gained significant popularity, but would fall eventually when people debated its merits and rejected them. After the time that Sankhya had fallen, Yoga philosophy was beginning to gain popularity. One of the key differences between Sankhya and Yoga is that Yoga brought in the concept of God. Although God was brought back, God was only offered as a choice. One of the ways to attain Yoga is through devotion to God. This optional choice of God appealed to some and did not to others. This again may be one of the key reasons for the fall of Yoga as a darśana. Yoga had a possibility of becoming a religion back in the ancient times. It had everything going for it. When Patañjali made God optional, this upset many people and it waned in popularity. Of course, this happened over a lengthy period of time.
In my opinion, Patañjali should have stuck with the concept of God. Making God a choice sounds like someone who cannot take a stance. I feel that he was trying to please two opposing groups of people and eventually took a fall.
īśvara pranidhānād va
īśvara – lord, from root word ‘iś’ is to own, be master of vara ‘choices’ from root word vr is to choose
pranidhānā – resolution, here it means devotion, from pra + ni + root word dhā is to put
va – or
the state of Yoga to be acheived.
This probably is one of the most controversial sutras. There are so many interpretations
to what this sutra can mean and the definition of īśvara.
Yoga was derived from Sankhya, which is one of the six fundamental systems of Indian
thought collectively known as darśana(vision). Sankhya was a philosophy that outright
rejected God. After the time that Sankhya had fallen, Yoga philosophy was beginning to
gain popularity. One of the key differences between Sankhya and Yoga is that Yoga brought
in the concept of God. Although God was brought back, it was only offered as a choice.
One of the ways to attain Yoga is through devotion to God. This optional choice of God
appealed to some and did not to others. This again may be one of the key reasons for the
fall of Yoga as a darśana. Yoga had a possibility of becoming a religion back in the
ancient times. It had everything going for it. When Patañjali made God optional, this
upset many people and it waned in popularity. Of course, this happened over huge length
of time.
Posts
I would like to propose an alternative view on the Yoga-Sāṃkhya relationship, and the role of Īśvara.
Yoga and Sāṃkhya darśana-s are some kind of non-identical twin brothers, born from the same tradition, the same parents (Kāpila, the mythical guru of Sāṃkhya is also described with the features of Hiranyagarbha, the mythical former guru of yoga), so yoga wouldn’t be an offspring of Sāṃkhya, but both of them would be two branches of the same tree. In fact, the foundation text of yoga darśana is Yoga-sūtra of Patanjali, dated between centuries II BCE and II C.E. (by different scholars), and the Sāṃkhya-Kārikā (older known text on Sāṃkhya and the foundation of the system), is always dated at least two centuries later, by the same scholars; Georg Feuerstein wrote in Yoga Tradition: “the Yoga-Sūtra is older than the Sāṃkhya-Kārikā, and therefore if any borrowing has occurred it must surely be on the part of [Sāṃkhya-Kārikā of] Īśvarakṛṣṇa”.
One of the differences between both systems is the recognition of Īśvara, some “kind ” of god (at least not an almighty one); S.Dasgupta wrote in Yoga Philosophy: “It is therefore that we find that in the Yoga sutras Īśvara is but loosely introduced, more as a matter of traditional faith than as having a place in the system of philosophy. He is introduced as only one of the alternative objects of concentration; but concentration on God is more useful than concentration in other objects…” and “Professor Garbe’s remark that Patañjali, the founder of the Yoga System, introduced the idea of a personal god in the hope that he would thus make Sāṃkhya philosophy acceptable to his countrymen is more an example of ingenious imagination than a fact justified by tradition and evidence. Had Patañjali introduced Īśvara from such prudential considerations as Garbe ascribes to him, he would surely have been a little more cautious and have given his Īśvara a place in the system of his philosophy, instead of keeping him in a floating condition”.
So it could be possible to ask: Why Patañjali “reduced” Īśvara’s importance from Sāṃkhya-Yoga tradition? (or even why he maintains Īśvara as an actor in his yoga system), instead of Why Patañjali “added” a god to Sāṃkhya?; Mircea Eliade gave us a possible answer in Yoga, immortality and freedom: “Why, then, did Patañjali nevertheless feel the need to introduce Īśvara? Because Īśvara corresponded to an experiential reality: Īśvara can, in fact, bring about samādhi, on condition that the yogin practice Īśvarapranidhana – that is, devotion to Īśvara. Having undertaken to collect and classify all the yogic techniques whose efficacy has been confirmed by the ‘classic tradition’, Patañjali could not neglect a whole series of experiences that had been made possible by the single process of concentration on Īśvara”.
Hanuman, thanks for a wonderful comment. It was like a breath of fresh air, after the idiotic ravings of lunatics like that Kazhaki moron Borat.
Anyway, I’m not sure what is meant by the above. Samadhi is perhaps an experiential reality that confirms the existence of Isvara, but one can safely conjecture that no one who experienced that reality has ever come back down to the temporal plane to talk about it. So if it is indeed an experiential reality, it is one “experienced” only through extrapolation. This leads to a circular existential logic – Isvara proves Samadhi. Samadhi proves Isvara. I would hesitate to ascribe such a weak hypothesis to a mind like Patanjali’s.
Jai Hanuman Ki!
This comment seems like a blog post!
You know, this is the first time I am hearing that Yoga philosophy was ahead of Samkhya. I always knew there is this huge confusion of dates between yoga sutras, bhagavad gita and buddhism. They all seem to have happened within the same ballpark of time. Quite a few concepts get repeated among all three. Now I get to know even Sankhya’s dates are not clear.
Anyway, all the articles I have read say that sankhya was quite a ways ahead of yoga sutras in time. I wrote this post based on the lecture of Vedas given by Sridharan at KYM, Chennai, last year.
Here is a sample of why I think Samkhya is ahead of Yoga sutras. Bhagavad Gita which is the first official text of yoga refers to Samkhya in so many places. And then the concept of doing an action without expecting the fruits of the action is a concept, yoga sutra borrows from bhagavad gita.
Since I am not an expert on Sankhya, I will leave it at that. I understand the dates are not clear. I agree with the concept of twins rather than descendants.
Coming back to the point of the post, as why Isvara has been reduced in importance is what I am not clear either. And not just that, Isvara gets many flavors, meaning Isvara does not necessarily mean God. It could be your guru or anything else. I am getting ahead of the sutra in question.
Thank you Papi. I agree with you that Patañjali wouldn’t use that hypothesis to proves samādhi nor īśvara. However my interpretation of Eliade’s comment is different; I think that he talks about “experiential reality” because there are people who concentrating on īśvara has reached samādhi, and this doesn’t prove īśvara existence at all because samādhi has been attained by practice (abhyāsa or meditative absorption supported by one object) and not as a special gift or miraculous intervention of īśvara; I mean, reaching samādhi by concentrating on īśvara only proves that the method works, and not the existence of the supporting object (so samādhi could be attained by meditating on kṛṣṇa and that wouldn’t prove kṛṣṇa’s existence)
Anyway, it remains the issue of how do we know that samādhi has been attained. You said “one can safely conjecture that no one who experienced that reality [samādhi] has ever come back down to the temporal plane to talk about it”. Of course, I have not experienced samādhi, but this is what I think based on Patañjali Yoga-sūtras; “theoretically” samādhi is not only one state but a series of states, ranging from imperfect-knowledge-of-gross-objects (savitarka) to perfect-knowledge-of-subtle-objects (nirvicāra), and all of them are sabīja samādhi (samprajñāta yoga or samādhi with seed); and then there is still another higher state, nirbīja samādhi (or asamprajñāta yoga or samādhi without seed) samādhi. It’s supposed that at nirvicāra samādhi, purusa realizes that he is free, and arise viveka, and then you become a jivanmukti, one who has been liberated but it’s still alive, because this person still has to burn his or her past karma; But attaining the higher state, nirbīja samādhi, your mind finally will get merged (or absorbed) within the primal force, prakṛti.
The sabīja samādhi would be that state of consciousness that allows you to come back (and talk about your experience), the state described by saints, or mystics (Ramana Maharshi or Saint Theresa of Ávila), the moment called “Peak experiences” by the american psychologist Abraham Maslow, which is experienced by Self-actualizing people.
Also, Hanuman, feel free to educate us on Sankhya on this blog : )
Hi Sraddhā, you’re right about the comments, but it’s just enthusiasm… And as long as I know, you are also right about the evolution of Sāṃkhya-Yoga tradition; it’s the systematization of this yoga tradition (expressed in Yoga-Sutra) which precedes in two centuries to Sāṃkhya systematization (reflected in Sāṃkhya Kārika). But both of them, merged in Sāṃkhya-Yoga tradition (the so called “tree”) probably developed since a long time ago, along with Bhagavad Gita (and others chapters of mahabharata, specially Mokṣadharma).
I think that you addressed a central point: what is this īśvara?. This is a mystery that probably will begin to be unveiled by Patañjali in the next sutra…
Thanks, Hanuman. I didn’t realize there were so many flavors of samadhi, and that certainly explains the experiential reality side of things. I still don’t buy it as proof of Isvara, but at least it’s a tenable idea.
As for the so called “peak experiences”, new advances in neuro-psychology have shown that many of these are rooted in chemical imbalances in the brain. It’s even possible to simulate these using drugs – as every 60’s acid dropping hippie knows. In the end, it’s all chemistry. To paraphrase Tina Turner – “What’s free will got to do with it?” Where does that leave Isvara? And where’s Patanjali when you really need him?
Papi, I agree with you; it’s possible also to reach higher states of consciousness through breathing (Holotropic Breathwork) according to Dr. Grof; and even using some herbs or mushrooms, as shamans know since more than 6000 years ago.
“Where does that leave īśvara?”, in my opinion, inside the people, where chemistry can reach him and wake him up… mmmm, but I have no idea if Patañjali would agree on this point.
That’s true. Another technique is rhythmic head-banging. Sufi mystics have been doing it for centuries, and even today it is used by qawwali musicians and other Eastern art forms to elevate the practitioner to a higher plane of consciousness (or higher chemical state). So when a grunge rocker is head-banging with his electric guitar, he is merely following a time honored tradition of getting in touch with his inner Isvara.
Very elegant idea! That’s an Isvara I can believe in.
The oral tradition mentions an ancient and lost text which was named the “sāmkhya sutra” written much before the “sāmkhya kārikā”. This text is supposed to have influenced the “yoga sutra” which is based on practice and which missed some theory/philosophy.
Having read the “yoga sutra” and the “sāmkhya kārikā” I can say that they share lots of ideas including the tattva enumeration system and the most important concept : the purusha/prakriti split. Of course, I cannot personaly say which one influences the other one most.
As I said before it is important to note that the “yoga sutra” are based on practice, so Patañjali could not ignore people having reached the samadhi by devotion to a God .
On the other hand the “samkhya karika” is based on logical thinking and it should be very difficult (probably impossible) to prove the existence of a God like this.
Another point can be mentionned : some schools, such as the shiva siddhanta, have added a “God layer” of tattva-s on top (or in the bottom, depending on the way we look at them) of the ones defined in the “sāmkhya kārikā”. I don’t know very much about these tantric schools but it seems they have integrated the sāmkhya kārikā enumeration with no (or very little) modification, making the dual system of the sāmkhya “managed” by a unique God.
Last point, already mentionned by Sraddha : it’s not needed to be devoted to a God to reach the state of yoga.