by Yogi Ananda Viraj (Eugene P. Kelly, Jr.)
Vitarka-badhane pratipaksa-bhavanam
When there is bondage due to binding, oppressive, troublesome thought, the cultivation of the opposite [is prescribed].
Yoga Sutra 11:33
“Binding thoughts” (vitarka-badhana) is a topic that demands some keen attention. More often than not, thought is viewed as “voices in the mind,” mental constructs separate from the body. A basic mind/body dualism is presupposed. Given this point of view, which, as we shall see, bears strong implications in terms of embodiment, the practice of yama and niyama is often viewed as changing the thoughts in one’s head. It is not that this is not part of the practice of pratipaksa-bhavanam (cultivation, or generation of opposites) but that this view does not provide a complete view of yama and niyama practice. It is the aim of this essay to grant insight into additional dimensions of this practice (sadhana).
An Example of Perception
First, we will provide the reader with an illustration of perception from a Yogic perspective and then proceed to draw implications from the practice of niyama and yama (hereafter cited as NYP).
Let us use the example of dirty dishes in the sink. From a less informed point of view or “theory” of perception, not perception itself, when asked to view the dishes in the sink we may simply respond that we see “dishes” or even “dirty dishes in the sink.” That is, the dishes in the sink are dirty in and of themselves. The sink and dirty dishes are independent of my perception of them. A more complete account of perception would include the perceiver. Therefore a more accurate description of perception would be that “I see the dirty dishes in the sink.” But is this account the most complete one that we can muster? For example, we could add to this account that the dirty dishes have to be cleaned. Our perception, that is, our initial and pre-theoretical vision would be that we see dishes in the sink that need cleaning.
This last version of perception takes into account not only what is but what we do with what is. Yogically speaking our past action-deposits (karma-asayas), i.e. washing dirty dishes or at least being told to wash them, is fused with the perception of them. What they are and what we do with them appear simultaneously in the act of perception. We could say that all acts of perception are historical. (at least as far as our present discussion of NYP is concerned). We know what things are and what to do with them in most acts of perception, there are of course exceptions. For example, when I am presented with a tool or device known and used in a highly specialized field, I pause before it to find out what it is which includes what it does, or more precisely, what I do with it. Knowing only the name of something rarely, if ever, satisfies our curiosity. We seek to know what it does or, what amounts to the same thing, what we do with it.
From a Yogic point of view our history or cultural background, technically known as samskaras (tendencies to act in a certain manner), vasanas (past actions that dwell, [vas-to dwell] within us), or karma-asayas (action-deposits), has been formed from informed actions or knowing-acts which took place in the past. These acts dwell within us determining our present and future perception-acts, i.e. our karma (action). From this, we can observe that the actions we take today influence our perceptions and actions of tomorrow.
Yogic Structure of Experience
Structurally speaking, we are, from a Yogic point of view, composed of 25 tattvas or aspects of experience. Buddhi (intellect), ahamkara (l-maker), manas (reflective capacity), jnana-indriyas or buddh-indriyaS (sensory-capacities), five karma-indriyas (motor-capacities), five tanmatras (subtle components of sense), five bhutas (earth, water, fire, air, space), prakrti (the origin or wholistic source of the foregoing tattvas), and finally, purusa (pure witness consciousness or seer), it is the sensory-motor capacities operating on and through the tanmatras and bhutas that provide the internal instrument, the buddhi, ahamkara and manas (collectively known as the citta) with the “stuff of experience. Experience takes place however through the presence of consciousness (purusa), so that the presentations of the tattvas become “conscious” experience. Consciousness is not an I knowing a that. Consciousness is the silent witnessing at the heart of experience, which makes both I and that components of experience. It is awareness pure and simple. It can never be observed or captured in any way. It determines that experience always goes forward. For it, even going backward is a going forward, it devours all arisings.1
We have noted that our present perceptions are joined to action through the efficacy of the past. Our jnana-indhyas (sensory capacities or knowledge capacities) and our karma-indriyas (motor-capacities; grasping, walking, speaking, procreating and evacuating) may be fused into an infinite number of possible arrangements along with the remaining tattvas, including consciousness, providing us with experience. We had to examine this Yogic structuring of experience in order to make sense of our example of the dishes in the sink in Yogic terms. Certainly we can now appreciate the various aspects (tattvas) of our human structure (tattvas) in providing us with “dirty dishes.” In short, dirty dishes do not abide in a world that is independent of their perceiver, instruments of perception, and historical background. Given that this is the case, what can now be said of NYP.
Perhaps another situational example will grant us access to the various levels or dimensions of the practice. We will use aparigraha practice. Aparigraha or nonpossession is defined as: “not making things (visaya) one’s own (a-svikaranam) because one perceives the defects (dosa) in acquiring, keeping, losing, being attached to, and harming them.2
Some time ago, a friend of mine developed a desire to own a Corvette. (For the sake of brevity we can omit the reasons why.) Each time a Corvette came within his gaze or the word “Corvette” was mentioned, it took the form of a desired object. Please recall that “desired object” also implies, at once, the desire to do something with that object. The historical realm of sensory and motor capacities along with the internal instrument (citta) are called into action in the perception of the object. “I want that car to drive it, to show it off, etc.” The object’s form as well as function are constituents of perception.
In terms of the practice of aparigraha or nonpossession, we as practitioners would seek to overcome in some way this desire to possess the car. Our practice would begin with the cultivation of thoughts in opposition to thoughts carrying possessiveness. This is the practice of pratipaksa-bhavanam mentioned above. We must examine how this practice is aimed toward possessiveness and gain some insight into the manner of its operation.
Firstly, we observe that the experienced reality that prompts our practice is the perception of the car, which as we have seen implies history, mind (citta), sensory-motor capacities, and other relevant aspects (tattvas) of experience, e.g. rupa-tanmatra (form) and light. This perception is immediate. It is not a question of first seeing a car, then the type, then the recollection of the desire to possess it, and the reasons for the desire. No sequence is involved. “I simply see the car I wish to own because….” all at once. If our practice should then arise, primarily because of historical determinations, i.e. having practiced already or having already cultivated the desire to practice, it might take the form of a “recognition” of a need to employ aparigraha. This thought or recognition of the need to practice already begins the process of pratipaksa-bhavanam. However, here is where a number of dimensions of application of the practice open up or are concealed.
The next step in the application, after the recognition of the need for practice, might entail an abstraction in the form of, “I see myself desiring again, why do I do this?” Or another response may arise such as, “I must practice nonpossessiveness because attachment to objects breeds dissatisfaction.” There are a number of forms our responses may take. Our questions is, which application of pratipaksa-bhavanam is most direct and effective. The responses mentioned do indeed embody the practice of aparigraha. However, we must see if they truly get at the heart of the problem.
Our definition or prescription, if you will, of aparigraha practice entails perceiving the defects in acquiring, keeping, losing, being attached to and harming the object we seek to possess. In the aforementioned responses to the perception entailing possessiveness we removed or abstracted our gaze, visual or mental, from the Corvette and generated “wholesome deliberations” (aklista-vrtti) that were opposite in nature to possessiveness. An alternative procedure could entail remaining case or object specific, and reconstituting the initial perception with language which may take the form, “To acquire the Corvette would be a lot of work for a lot of money, to be put to a selfish end. To keep the Corvette would require a lot of maintenance and general care, and with all that it might be stolen. I would worry about it if I left it unguarded, aside from that, accidents do happen and some harm may come to it. Is all this concern or worry (dissatisfaction) necessary?” With the cultivation of this language, each time I perceived a Corvette the perception would be increasingly altered into more appropriate and unafflicted responses until such time as the craving to possess dissipated. Eventually, a “different” Corvette arises.
By training the mind to be situation specific, I mindfully attend to the present and gain more versatility in the employment of niyamas and yamas. The more abstract approach would definitely bear wholesome results but would demand a removal from the incarnate present in favor of the theoretical realm. Attachments do arise in the theoretical realm as well and we can address them in a case specific manner also, keeping us focused on the specific which is the locus of possessiveness. We do live in the concrete, embodied moment. Attachments and aversions arise in the present. The sources of these are presentations. Aversions and attachments arise, incarnately located. The practice of yama and niyama should ultimately address the specific locus of affliction (klesa). For if we limit our NYP to the more abstract and general, our awareness of the living present is not deepened. It is the observation of the present, i.e. our functioning in it, as it, that will free us of the constraints of the past.
The Diversity of Yama and Niyama
In the case of NYP diversity breeds versatility. The tenfold practice of yama and niyama could, of course, be further subdivided. Ahimsa, for example, could encompass various kinds of anger toward someone, direct or indirect. Vyasa, in the Bhasya (commentary) to Yoga Sutra 11.34 discusses this and comes to the preliminary conclusion that violence is of eighty one varieties. Finally though, he admits to it being of innumerable types. The same holds true for all ten. So, the tenfold scheme is meant as a guide to open the vision of the Yogi to the tenfold violations that occur so that he or she can then proceed to case specific intervention.
The fact that there are ten, instead of a lesser number, attests to the wisdom of the tradition in that they felt this is the minimum requirement for case specific examination and intervention. Any less might conceal some cause of affliction, any more may bog us down in analysis instead of practice.
Application
Without becoming overly concerned with the selection of the appropriate yama or niyama to suit each case in need of application, we propose a simple formula: be case-specific. Adhere to the initial perception or thought that provided the locus for the violation. The pratipaksa-bhavanam or cultivation of opposition should apply directly to the violation, not to a generalization or abstraction resulting from the violation. The language you use to oppose the violation of the yama or niyama should be appropriate to the situation. The locus of violation should determine which yama or niyama to employ. There will of course be some degree of ambiguity in that more than one yama or niyama or both may indeed apply. In such a case, assuming the definitions of the ten practices have become familiar, allow the linguistically most relevant to come to the fore and proceed to work it. Remember, the case-specific formula; attend to the violation not simply the resulting abstractions. If this simple formula is followed, your practice of yama and niyama will bring you a long way on the path.
1. Needless to say, any discussion of consciousness is problematic. What can be said of awareness itself, that does not transform it into what we are aware of? It is the living subject of experience that is never an object; it executes life, unceasingly. ↩
2. Yoga-Bhasya 11,30 ↩