There are heights of the soul from which even tragedy ceases to look tragic; and rolling together all the woe of the world—who could dare to decide whether its sight would necessarily seduce us and compel us to feel pity and thus double the woe?1
The association [of the two, consciousness and the origin]. . . is for the purpose of seeing the origin and [discerning] the distinct nature of consciousness. From this association creation proceeds.2
This essay is concerned with the problem of suffering, specifically, suffering as the vivekin (discerner) of the Yoga tradition perceives it. In many ways the vivekin’s perspective on suffering is in sharp contrast to the variety of Western perspectives. For one thing, the vivekin does not necessarily seek to fix his social, ethnic, racial or political conditions. No servicing of our circumstances will make the world free of suffering. In fact, from the Yogic and Samkhyan point of view, the world of human experience is viewed as suffering itself (eva-sarvam-duhkham). This vision is the culmination of the arduous practice and observation of experience that makes the vivekin. The positive side, if you will, is that all of creation (sarga), as stated in the karika above, is for the purpose of seeing the origin of life and the distinct nature of consciousness. It is the distinct nature of purusa (consciousness) which will, in the end, grant us liberation from the suffering which is creation. In essence, we need suffering. Once again to borrow from Nietzsche:
You want, if possible- and there is no more insane ‘if possible’ – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable.3
The point of view of avidya (ignorance) in Yoga is comparable to Nietzsche’s “you.” Ignorance wants to abolish the suffering of and in the world; it wants to “fix” it once and for all. Would not the end of suffering in this sense extract the very reason for being from human life? Samkhya Karika 1 states that it is “because of the attack of the threefold suffering that the desire to know the means of removing it” arises. The goal of life for the Yogi or Samkhyan is knowledge (vijñana). It is suffering which prompts one to knowledge. Creation is suffering. It is suffering which gives us meaning, worth, and direction.
The discipline of suffering, of great suffering- do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness – was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?”4
Does this not remind one of the performance of the spiritual austerities (tapas) of almost all of the great religious traditions? It is out of suffering that all greatness arises. Buddhism, Yoga, Samkhya, etc. all arose out of suffering. When Nietzsche speaks of “great” suffering, one recalls Vyasa’s metaphor of the eye:
…the wise one (vidvan) is like the eyeball. Just as a fine thread fallen in the eyeball gives suffering, but not when it falls on other body parts, so this suffering afflicts only the Yogin who is like an eyeball, but not others.5
It seems that the Yogi’s suffering “is higher and worse than ever.” The Yogi is aware of the nature of experience, the dynamic of experience as suffering. The others, as Vyasa also points out, do not feel this intensely because they are not “the wise.” The others, as we will have occasion to see, are simply caught up in the search for pleasure in order to remove or avoid suffering.
The main thrust of this introduction is to establish the fact that, like Nietzsche’s “we,” the Yogis do not seek to change the world to abolish suffering. They do not, nor would they, advocate social engineering to “protect” people from the pitfalls of human life and therefore end suffering. Their compassion is a correlate of knowledge, not a pity that stems from seeing the various circumstances that people feel caught in and which are blamed for pain. Pity leads to the attempt to control the environment, change the circumstances, empower the weak.
The vision which is compassion derives from an intimate knowledge of the structure and dynamics of human experience, wherein is located that consciousness which is untouched by the movement of life, but without which that movement could not become experience. In this sense knowledge of that consciousness is synonymous with liberation. This is not to say the Yogi would not be charitable or benevolent. But it is to say that the Yogi knows these to be mere alleviation and not liberation. It is only because of the Yogi’s knowledge of the workings of human experience that compassion can arise. To see the fundamental cause of suffering, and not only its manifestations, i.e., to get at the root of suffering, allows one to develop the skill necessary to be of service to others at a fundamental level.
The only circumstance that we are caught in which causes suffering is the human circumstance. Suffering is universal. If we understood this more deeply, beyond mere sectarian feuding, community could dawn. All human beings desire happiness. We all want to be free of suffering. Perhaps we should take a lesson from the wise and look deep into the nature of human experience for the way to liberation. We could therefore avoid the interminable analyses of psychological, social, ethnic, religious, racial, and political categorization that, from a Yogic standpoint, obscure the examination required for freedom.
Textual Context
parinama-tapa-samskara-duhkhair guna-vrtti-virodhac ca duhkham eva sarvam vivekinah
For the one who discerns, all is suffering due to the conflict of the fluctuations of the gunas and through the suffering due to parinama, frustration, and samskara.6
Yoga Sutra 2.15
So begins the Yogic and Samkhyan discussion of the causes of suffering (duhkha) in the second section of the Yoga Sutras. This sutra appears in the context of a section on kriya-yoga beginning at sutra 2.1 and extending, one could argue, up to and including sutra 2.27. Kriya-yoga includes the practices of tapas (lit. heat, here meaning austerities), svadhyaya (study of liberation texts) and Isvara-pranidhana (dedication of actions and their results to the fundamental reality or “Lord”). This Yoga is for the purpose of cultivating samadhi (unitive awareness resulting from prolonged concentration and meditation) and weakening the five afflictions (klesa). Next the five afflictions are discussed. Here are the Yoga Sutras defining them.
anitya-asuci-duhkha-anatmasu nitya-suci-sukha-atma-khyatir avidya
Ignorance is knowing the noneternal as eternal, the impure as pure, suffering
as pleasure, and non-self as self.drg-darsana-saktyor eka atmata iva asmita
I-am-ness is when the two powers of seer and seen appear as a single self.sukha-anusayi ragah
Attachment is dwelling on pleasure.duhkha-anusayu dvesah
Aversion is dwelling on suffering.svarasa-vah1 viduso’ pi tatha rudho’ bhinivesah
Clinging to life, arising even in the wise, is sustained by its own nature.Yoga Sutras 2.5-9
The citta-vrtti-s (fluctuations of the “mind”) that result from these five afflictions are considered afflicted fluctuations (klista-vrtti). These, according to Vyasa, are the field (ksetri) for the growth of the accumulation of karmic deposits or action-deposits (karma-asaya). Fluctuations not considered afflicted have knowledge (khyati) as their object.7 The vrtti-s produce action-deposits and action-deposits produce vrtti-s.
After defining the afflictions, Patañjali, in keeping with his definition of Yoga as the “restriction of the fluctuations of the citta” (yogaa citta-vrtti-nirodhah) in sutra 1.2, next provides instruction in their restriction. First, he speaks of pratiprasava (return to origin or inversion) in sutra 2.10, wherein he says that “the subtle are to be escaped by pratiprasava.” Vyasa, in his commentary, interprets Patañjali as saying that “the subtle” refers to the afflictions (klesa) that have been weakened to the point of “burned seeds,” i.e., no longer able to germinate, and are escaped by a return to the origin (pratiprasava) along with the mind (cetasi), also in return, that has dominated the Yogi’s behavior.8 The fluctuations that are produced by the afflictions are escaped by meditation (dhyana).9 So we see that the vrtti-s of the klesas are escaped by meditation and, according to Vyasa, the subtle forms of the klesas are escaped by the mind’s return to the pradhana (the origin).10
The action-deposits (karma-asayas), which are the residue of all actions (karma), be they mental, verbal or bodily, are rooted in the afflictions. The results or fruits of these deposits may be felt in an embodiment which is seen or unseen.11 Meritorious actions produce meritorious, or, shall we say, favorable results. Likewise, demeritorious actions produce unfavorable results. All actions leave deposits which may bear their respective results in this lifetime or in some future lifetime.12
Patañjali next informs us that as long as the root, i.e., the klesas, exists there is fruition of it as birth, duration, and experience.13 The type of birth experienced, the length of that birth or arguably any experience, and the nature of every experience, are all determined by the type of actions (karma) performed which have left certain types of deposits. The afflictions insure that birth, duration and experience continue. In speaking of these fruitions (vipaka) Patañjali tells us in sutra 2.14 that “these fruits are joyful, or very sorrowful (paritapa) according to whether their causes were meritorious (punya) or demeritorious (apunya).” Vyasa says that birth, duration, and experience with a meritorious cause have pleasure as a result (sukha-phala); those with demeritorious causes have suffering as a result (duhkha-phala). He adds, somewhat surprisingly, that for the Yogin even at the time of pleasure in an object or condition (visaya-sukha-kala) there is adverse suffering.14 We shall see in the next section of this essay why Vyasa says this.
So far we have discussed kriya yoga (action yoga) and the afflictions. We have seen what the results of the afflictions are, i.e., action and the deposits or residue of action (karma-asayas). The klesas were seen as being the roots of these deposits which bore fruit as birth, duration, and experience. These were experienced as joyful or painful according to whether the actions that produced them were meritorious or demeritorious. Even though good karma produces pleasurable results as we are told in sutra 2.14, in 2.15 we are cautioned by Patañjali. For it is in this sutra that the vision of the vivekin (discerner, distinguisher, or discriminator) is described. It is the vivekin who perceives the manner in which experience, i.e., the world unfolds and realizes that suffering is the nature of all experience. It is to this, the main theme of our essay, that we now turn our attention.
The Discerner’s Perspective: Suffering and the Manifest
Although it is somewhat unfair to characterize the vivekin‘s perspective as one that sees all is suffering exclusively, it is only in light of this vision of suffering (duhkha) that the vivekin finds the way to release from suffering. For the vivekin (discerner) the manifest order (sarva) is suffering. I emphasize the “is” for two important reasons. First, the vivekin, in realizing the manner in which the manifest functions, perceives the futility of searching for liberation through it. Second, and most importantly, the discerner’s Yogic Vision grants him insight into the impulse or primal stirring which gives rise to the manifest.15 This second reason will be the subject of the final section of this essay. We will first take up the discussion of the “reasons” or “causes” that prompted Patañjali to declare that all is suffering for the vivekin.
In sutra 2.15, already cited above, Patañjali gives us the four “reasons” why all is suffering for the vivekin. We will be examining in detail each of the four based primarily on Vyasa’s commentary with the aid of Vacaspati Misra’s Tattvavaisaradi (ca. 850 or 975 C.E.) and Vijñana Bhiksu’s Yogavarttika (ca. 1500-1600 C.E.). I hope to lend some [contemporary] relevance to their insights in the hope that the reader may examine his or her own experience through Yogic eyes. Vyasa, of course, has laid the necessary groundwork from a Samkhyan perspective. However, in translating his insights into a contemporary framework they become more accessible. Needless to say, any insight into the nature of human suffering is helpful, but when coupled with a “vision” of release we all have reason to be hopeful.
Before we enter into our discussion a few words need to be said about our translation of duhkha as “suffering” and the Samkhya-Yoga view of it. The word duhkha is derived from the verbal root dus (spoil, corrupt, bad, wrong), and kha (cavity, hollow, cave). The most common translation is “suffering.” However, other translations include “dissatisfaction,” “frustration,” and “pain.” Translators have their own reasons for choosing a particular translation. Yet, we must remember that translation is always interpretation. I have chosen “suffering” because of its generic quality. For example, “dissatisfaction” is often seen as a mild form of suffering, as in, “I’m dissatisfied with that color.” Yet, “suffering” includes dissatisfaction. “Pain” is most often viewed as physical pain, as in “no pain, no gain.” Suffering includes pain as well. Yet for all my reasons, what the Yogis meant by duhkha will only be made evident when we see how they viewed experience. Sutra 2.15 and its commentaries give us access to their view.
Now, as for the Samkhyan and Yogic view of duhkha in a general sense, we must turn our attention to the text of the father of Classical Samkhya, the Samkhya Karika of Isvarakrsna and one of its commentaries, the bhasya (commentary) of Gaudapada (ca. 500-600 C.E.).
Isvarakrsna begins his Samkhya Karika by stating that it is because of the attack of the threefold suffering that a desire arises to know the means of removing it. Gaudapada fleshes out this statement by defining the threefold suffering.
The three kinds of misery are, internal, external, and divine. The internal is twofold: bodily and mental. The bodily misery, -fever, dysentery and the rest,- is due to the disorder of wind, bile or phlegm; mental is separation from what is liked, and union with what is not liked and the rest. The external misery, due to fourfold living beings, viz., viviparous, oviparous, born of sweat and born of soil, arises from men, beasts, deer, birds, serpents, gnats, mosquitos, lice, bugs, alligators, sharks, unmoving objects and the rest. The divine misery- i.e., daiva, because it belongs to the gods or comes from heaven, that which arises with reference to these – is cold, heat, storm, rain, thunder-bolt, and the rest.16
Aside from the obvious diagnostic differences we employ today, as well as the differences in taxonomy, I think this summary by Gaudapada provides us with ample understanding of the Samkhyan view of duhkha. We will however, summarize the three.
1.) Adhyatmika or personal suffering. Probably deemed by us to be the kind of suffering we have most control over. As we shall see, this limits our view of the “radicality” of Samkhya-Yoga.
2.) Adhibhautika or external suffering. Often viewed by us as that which we have little or no control over. The word “victim” comes to mind.
3.) Adhidaivika or divine suffering. Perhaps better rendered “celestial,” this suffering implies a certain degree of human control in that we can propitiate the gods, but, still strongly implies humans as victims.
Now that we have an understanding of the comprehensive nature of duhkha we may proceed to a discussion of Yoga Sutra 2.15 wherein Patañjali and his commentators speak to the causes of suffering. As we noted above there are four causes cited: parinama, tapa, samskara, and guna-vrtti-virodha. We will now examine each of these in turn.
Parinama (change, alteration, transformation into, evolution) is derived from the verbal root nam (bow) and the prefix pari (around). The connotation is that of bowing around, or some movement of turning or evolving. Although the meaning, according to the Yogis will only be derived from an examination of the commentaries, we will translate parinama as “transformation.”
Vyasa begins by saying that “for everyone the experience of pleasure (sukha-anubhava) is pierced with raga (attachment, one of the five afflictions)….” When one experiences pleasure (sukha) an action-deposit (karma-asaya), in the form of an attachment to the pleasure, is simultaneously created. This is pleasure pierced with raga. Therefore, in the transformation from pleasure to its subsidence there is suffering. The change or transformation is painful, hence, parinama-duhkha. The pleasure has subsided for various reasons or causes. The action-deposit of raga arises to find this painful and therefore one has aversion to that which causes the pleasure to subside or, in other words, one has aversion to the means of suffering. Therefore, an action- deposit of dvesa (aversion) is created. Being unable to “remove the causes of pain he becomes deluded, thus there is the karma-asaya caused by hatred and delusion (moha), also.”17
Vyasa is taking pains here to demonstrate that even in the experience of pleasure, which is, as we will have occasion to observe, dominated by the sattva-guna, there lurks an incipient suffering. The most important point for us to realize is that pleasure and attachment (raga) are correlates. The rest follows from this major observation. Pleasure, by its own nature, if you will, seeks itself. The minute pleasure arises, attachment to it arises. This in itself is enough to make the Yoga practitioner leery.
Not only must one be suspicious of pleasure, (because it implies attachment), but also we have seen that a karmic deposit of aversion is made because we dislike the means that oppose the pleasure. In our inability to remove these means, a karmic deposit of delusion (moha) is made. Keep in mind that in the moment we experience aversion, a correlative deposit is left; the same, obviously, holds true for delusion. One might say that deposits are mirror images of actions.
Vyasa next employs a rather strong statement augmenting his position. “Enjoyment (upabhogah) is not without harming beings. Then also there is a bodily (sarirah) action-deposit made by harming.” The message seems to be that given the correlation of pleasure and attachment and the implicit correlations of aversion/deposit and delusion/deposit, some harm will be brought to some other living being and therefore an additional correlation is generated, i.e., harming others/bodily deposit of harming others. He ties up this thought with, “Thus it is said that avidya (ignorance, the primary affliction) is pleasure in things (visaya-sukham).” Here we find some difficulty with the compound visaya-sukham. The word visaya has a variety of meanings. It seems as though all three of our commentators are employing the term to mean “sense objects.” As if to clarify this, Vyasa offers what might be taken as definitions of pleasure (sukha) and suffering (duhkha).
Pleasure is the calm of the satisfaction of the enjoyment of the sense capacities (indriya). Suffering is the lustfulness (or thirst) not appeased.18
The word indriya, most commonly used in Yoga and Samkhya to refer to the sense and action capacities, is used here. We may conclude from this that Vyasa and his commentators had “objects of sense” in mind when using visaya. Additionally, Vijñana Bhiksu, in his Varttika on 2.15 states that visaya-sukham (the pleasure of objects) is different from paramarthasukha (the pleasure of the highest goal). This is the desirelessness of freedom.
Next Vyasa states most clearly that sensory gratification is not the way to liberation. “By the practicing of enjoyment by the capacities, thirstlessness in not made possible.” He then explains, as if to answer an objector, “…because raga increases with the practice of enjoyment (bhoga-abhyasa) and the skill of the capacities (indriya) grows.” The more the sense and action capacities are used to obtain pleasure, the more raga increases. I have chosen to translate bhoga-abhyasa as the “practice of enjoyment” precisely because abhyasa (practice, application, repetition) leads to skill. Also, in contrast, yoga-abhyasa (the practice of Yoga) develops the skill to overcome the attachment to pleasure. From a Yogic perspective, therefore, one may be said to be practicing the klesas or practicing Yoga.19 Both lead to their respective skills. From this it is only logical to conclude, as does Vyasa, that “the practice of enjoyment is not a means (upaya),” to the correct perspective (samyag-darsana). “This then is the suffering of transformation (parinama-duhkha); it is inimical (pratikula) even in a condition of pleasure it afflicts even the Yogin.”20 In short, transformation is suffering because of the attachment that is the correlate of pleasure implying aversion/deposit and delusion/deposit.
One further point needs to be reconsidered, and that is the bodily action-deposit (sarirah-karma-asaya) that results from the harm that we bring to other living beings. Vyasa here implies that karma-asayas result from mind, as in attachment/deposits, or from bodily actions, as in harming others. Vacaspati Misra interprets ahimsa as “killing” instead of “harming.” He then quotes the Dharma-sastra which states, “A householder has five slaughter-houses, whose use fetters him: the fireplace, the grindstone, the broom, the mortar and pestle, and the waterjar.”21 The use of these five implies killing some living being. The action-deposits which result from their use require the householder to perform five sacrificial actions, the deposits of which counter the deposits left from the use of the slaughter-houses.22 So it is clear that deposits result from mental and bodily acts, and, as we shall see, verbal acts.
Tapa (heat, frustration, glow, pain, sorrow) is derived from the verbal root tap (heat). Vyasa asks: “What is the suffering of frustration?” He then declares: “Everyone has the experience of sorrow (tapa-anubhava); it is pierced with aversion (dvesa) and is dependent on conscious and non-conscious means.” As in the case of the suffering of transformation (parinama) which is pierced with attachment, the suffering of frustration is pierced with aversion. Dvesa, the reader will recall, is one of the five afflictions (klesas). When there is tapa, there is dvesa. The two are correlates.
Vijñana Bhiksu states with regard to tapa: “Earlier the experience of pleasure was spoken of as pierced with raga (attachment), and now, the experience of suffering (duhkha-anubhava) is spoken of as pierced with dvesa (aversion). This is the only difference.” So Bhiksu sees one difference between the suffering of transformation and tapa as differences in their respective deposits, i.e., pleasure/raga, suffering/dvesa. However, Vyasa has also said in his discussion of parinama that in “having hatred toward the means of suffering” karma-asayas of aversion and delusion (moha) are also left. There seems to be some overlapping of the effects of parinama and tapa. But Vyasa goes on to state: “Having in mind as a goal the means of pleasure, [one] throbs (or vibrates) in body, speech and mind.”23 Both Vyasa and Bhiksu say that parinama and tapa leave mental action-deposits (manasa-karma-asaya). However, Bhiksu says that the mental throbbing (manasam parispandanam) mentioned by Vyasa pertaining to tapa is “for the sake of performing injury with the body (kayaika).”24 So, for Bhiksu, tapa leaves not only mental action-deposits but action-deposits which incline the body toward doing harm. Vyasa could be interpreted as holding this view because of the following: “Then it either helps or harms by aiding or oppressing and gathers dharma (virtue) or adharma (vice).”25 We may safely assume that this helping or harming is directed toward others because the “throbbing” occurs in body, speech, and mind and therefore motivates the body to speak to and act with others. Bhiksu is saying that the body acts to harm because he is discussing the body’s activity strictly in the context of tapa. Deposits that result from tapa may give rise to bodily actions depending on an individual’s “reaction” to the tapa experienced. Of course, these reactions will be determined by prior actions, the circuitry of which we will be examining in the section on samskara. For now we should briefly discuss the “gathering of dharma.”
The word dharma is most probably used by Vyasa in the sense of bhava of which there are eight, namely, jñana (knowledge), dharma (virtue), viraga (detachment), aisvarya (power), and their opposites. These first four are said to be sattvic or “illuminative” in nature and their opposites tamasic or “concealing.” They reside in the intellect (buddhi) and determine the nature of experience and hence the manner in which the manifest is structured. Each of the bhavas (or rupas) has its corresponding effect in the movement toward liberation from suffering. Dharma is said to lead to movement upward (gamanam urdhvam).26 Gaudapada interprets this to mean movement upward from the Pisacas (a class of demons mentioned in the Veda), to the Raksasas (also demons), to the Yaksas (a class of benevolent semi-divine beings), to the Gandharvas (originally a god who guarded the soma, later a class of sky divinities), to Indra (chief among the Vedic gods and lord of the intermediate or atmospheric region), to Soma (a most important Vedic god personifying the soma plant, a likely hallucinogenic: Soma also came to be identified with the moon), to Prajapati (“lord of the creatures,” a god who, in one of his personas, presides over creation), and finally to Brahman (the fundamental reality often referred to as the “Universal Self”). According to Gaudapada it is here, in these realms, that the subtle body (suksma-sariram) goes.27 The cultivation of dharma may be seen as a practice which facilitates meditation, for these levels or realms are movements that the subtle body makes. In other words, the Yogi or Samkhyan experiences them.28
In closing out his section on tapa, after mentioning dharma, Vyasa states that the action-deposit that is produced is “from greed (lobha) and delusion (moha), hence this is called the suffering of frustration.” I think it worthy of mention that both greed and delusion are mentioned by Patañjali in sutra 2.34 wherein he states that these, along with krodha (anger), are what vitarka (thought) consists of when it is deemed badhana (oppressive, harassing). Patañjali prescribes the generation or cultivation of thoughts in opposition to the oppressive thoughts in sutra 2.33. Also, in Samkhya Karika 47, delusion (moha) is held to be one of the five varieties of error (viparyaya), one of five possible modifications (vrtti) of the citta (consciousness of) in the Yoga Sutras.29
Samskara (putting together, forming well, forming in the mind, impression on the mind of acts done in a former state of existence) is derived from sam (together) plus kara (doing) from the verbal root kr (to make or do). Once again our translation will be determined by and make sense through an understanding of what it is that a samskara does.
Vyasa begins by asking, again: “What is the suffering of samskara?” He replies: “There is an action-deposit of a samskara of pleasure and suffering arising from pleasure and suffering.” Vacaspati Misra fills in some detail by attempting to demonstrate how the “stream of suffering” (duhkha-srota) mentioned by Vyasa functions.
The experience of pleasure (sukha-anubhava) gives rise to samskara and this to a memory of pleasure (sukha-smaranam), and this to attachment (raga), and this to movement of body, mind-organ (manas) and speech, and this to merit and demerit (punya-apunya) and this to the experience of the fruition (vipaka) and from this a vasana; this is understood as without beginning. There is a memory of pleasure and suffering relative to the intensity level (atisaya) of the samskara, from this attachment and aversion (dvesa), from these actions and fruits of actions.30
A curious feature of Vyasa’s explanation is the seeming identity or close relation between deposits (asaya) and samskara. The Sanskrit places them together, i.e., samskarasaya, in a compound, so this would read as “deposit-samskara” or “samskara-deposit.” The remains of all action (karma) may be seen in a threefold manner. First, we note that asaya derives from si, ‘to rest’. Therefore we may view a karma-asaya as the “resting” remains of an action, hence the translation “deposit.” Samskara derives from kr “make” or “do.” A samskara could be viewed as a deposit with the potential to give rise to or “make” a memory connecting the circuitry of the movement of experience, the so called “stream of suffering.” Thirdly, the term vasana, appearing in the above quotation, derives from the root vas (dwell). These vasanas which dwell in, and, in a sense as, the citta (consciousness of) bear fruit which corresponds to the actions which produced them when the proper stimulus or support activates them. Until such time, which Yogis say may be many births in the future, the vasana dwells.31 One could say, as some have done, that the three are synonymous.32
Vyasa’s summary of the cycle of action and fruition is much simpler: “So, the fruit of actions being experienced in pleasure or suffering, there is again an accumulation of action-deposits.” The fructifying past karma in turn leaves new deposits. These new deposits fructify making more deposits; and the wheel rolls on. Take note, however, there is no beginning (anadi) to this movement; we find ourselves already in it. “This so called stream of suffering (duhkha-srota), whose nature is inimical, agitates even the Yogi.” Vyasa, anticipating the question as to why a Yogi should be agitated, says:
Because the wise one (vidvan) is like the eyeball. Just as a fine thread fallen in the eyeball gives suffering, but not when it falls on the other body parts, so this suffering afflicts only the Yogin, who is like an eyeball, but not others.
This poignant analogy brings home the point that the Yogi, unlike most people, is extremely sensitized to the movement of experience. By contrast Vyasa proceeds to describe the experience of the others. He writes (somewhat laboriously when translated):
But the other, who abandons the suffering obtained over and over brought about by his/her own actions (karma), and who acquires [suffering] again and again, and who is as if ubiquitously pierced by modifications of the citta (mind, consciousness of) through manifold vasanas without beginning, and who from avidya (ignorance, one of the five afflictions) follows the ahamkara (I-maker) and mama-kara (my or mine-maker) which are to be relinquished, is born again and again into the threefold frustration (tapa) from both types of causes, inner and outer. This being so, the Yogi who sees himself and the multitude of beings carried away by this stream of suffering without beginning goes to the correct perspective (samyak-darsana) for refuge, which is the cause for the destruction of all suffering.
Many important points are made here. The “others”, that is, the non-Yogis, are constantly acquiring and ridding themselves of suffering brought about by their own actions. This point cannot be overemphasized.33 Vyasa then notes that this suffering is related to a citta that is “ubiquitously pierced” (samantatas-anuviddhyam) with all kinds of vasanas from beginningless time. The ubiquity of the vasanas is an extremely important notion. It relates to the image of the “stream of suffering” which undergoes great diffusion leaving no experience “dry” and agitates even the Yogin. The ubiquity of the vasanas in the citta is in fact synonymous with the fruition of the karmas that make more deposits that swell the beginningless stream of suffering.
The “other” also follows the I-maker (ahamkara) and my or mine-maker (mama-kara). This binds the other to the suffering of asmita (I-am-ness), one of the five afflictions, which results from the confusion of the power of seeing (consciousness, purusa) with the power by which one sees (buddhi, intellect). One then identifies the movements of parinama, tapa, samskara, and guna-vrtti-virodha with I-ness which is the antithesis of the samyag-darsana (correct perspective). Vyasa says that I and my or mine-making are to be relinquished. Vijñana Bhiksu points out that consciousness (atman, purusa) is free of ignorance, I-am-ness and the other afflictions. The wise person, or in this case one who discerns (vivekin), knows the difference between the four movements of suffering and consciousness. It is this ability to know the difference which, as we will examine, constitutes the samyak-darsana.
As a result of adhering to the perspectives of I and mine, the other “is born again and again into the threefold suffering.” The reader will recall our discussion of the threefold suffering, internal, external and celestial. Vyasa states that suffering has two causes, inner and outer. Both Vacaspati Misra and Bhiksu interpret this to mean the internal and external causes of threefold suffering, i.e., personal (internal) and that caused by animals and celestials (external).
Next Vyasa strongly hints at the foundation of the Yogi’s compassion. He says that the Yogi sees himself and the multitude of beings (bhutagrama) “taken up” by the stream of suffering which is without beginning. In Yoga Sutra 1.33 the Yogin is enjoined to “form in the mind” (bhavana) compassion in response to those who suffer. The Yogi’s vision of seeing himself and others in the stream of suffering offers the radical foundation and justification for this practice. Tov see in this manner is an undeniable realization of the need for compassion.
It is because of the vision (drstvam) of the stream of suffering that the Yogi seeks refuge in the correct perspective. Samyak-darsana (correct perspective) derives from sam (with) and añc (bend) yeilding “bend with,” or “going with” or even “correct” or “accurate;” darsana is from drs “see.” The meaning therefore becomes “correct seeing” or “correct perspective.” It is this perspective or way of seeing which destroys suffering. We will discuss the manner of this destruction in the last section of this essay. However, before we enter into a discussion of guna-vrtti I think it important that we give more attention to vasana and its mode of operation.
In Y.S. 4.11 Patañjali states: “Since they [the vasanas] are held together with cause (hetu), fruit (phala), recipient (asraya) and stimulus (alambana), if these dissolve, they dissolve”34 The meaning here is that if these four necessary conditions of the vasanas go out of existence so do the vasanas. Vyasa, in his commentary on sutra 4.11, says:
From dharma comes pleasure (sukha); from adharma comes suffering; from suffering aversion (dvesa); from this results strife (prayatna). Throbbing (or vibrating) in mind or speech or body, he aids or harms another. From this again dharma and adharma, pleasure and suffering, and raga (attachment) and dvesa (aversion) result. Thus the six-spoked wheel of samsara revolves. And as it continually turns, avidya (ignorance), the root of all the klesas (afflictions) leads (or guides). Such is cause (hetu).
These are of course connected with their fruits (phala), the maturation of vasanas. The manas (mind-organ), according to Vyasa, is the recipient (asraya) of the movements of the vasanas. It is here where vasanas are received from actions and where they mature from past actions. Finally, vasanas may be said to have support (alambana) in that a stimulus brings them to fruition. Vasanas fructify in response to their appropriate stimuli which the manas (mind-organ) receives. This is the movement of samsara (cycle of existence). One can now observe the necessity for the four requirements cited by Patañjali.
Vyasa captures the movement of samsara by use of a common analogy. He sees the movement as that of a six-spoked wheel of samsara (samsara-cakra). The six spokes being dharma/adharma, pleasure/suffering, and attachment/aversion. That which moves the wheel is avidya (ignorance).35 When ignorance is exhausted, the wheel ceases to rotate.36
Guna-vrtti-virodha is the last of the reasons Patañjali gives to show why the vivekin sees all as suffering. In order for us to examine this topic we should first look at the term guna. Elsewhere I have disscussed the gunas as “perspectival movements of experience.”37 Apparently derived from the verbal root grah (seize), guna is generally translated as “thread,” “strand,” “quality,” “attribute,” “constituent,” and more. In Samkhya and Yoga philosophies prakrti or the “source” is said to be made up of the three gunas – sattva, rajas, and tamas – and hence the gunas are said to be constituents. Prakrti is that which, when in contact (samyoga) with consciousness (purusa, atman), is modified into the elements and structures of experience, i.e., the tattvas and bhavas.38 The means for such manifestation are the gunas. Rather than attempting to define the gunas here, I think a better move would simply be to outline their structure of operation and then seek their true significance in the context of their appearance in Vyasa’s commentary.
The natures of the gunas:
sattva is pleasurable (sukha)
rajas is painful (duhkha)
tamas is deluding (moha)The functions of the gunas:
sattva illumines (prakhya)
rajas activates (pravrttih)
tamas limits (sthitih)The cooperative functions of the gunas:
domination
support
activation
interaction.39
All three gunas function together at all times in normal human experience. At any given time or place, in their cooperation, one guna dominates the other two which are supporting, activating, and interacting. Our need at present is to see the manner in which the gunas function with regard to our experience of pleasure, pain, and delusion. From this perspective, we may clearly understand the rest.
Guna-vrtti-virodha translates as the opposition or conflict of the fluctuations of the gunas. The gunas, in most human experience, are constantly active, i.e., fluctuating. They are said to be in conflict or strife because at any given time one of them is dominant and the rest are subordinate. In that subordinate condition they are supporting, activating and interacting. We shall see just what this means experientially. Vyasa states:
The gunas of the buddhi (intelligence) in the form of brightness, activity, and inertia, give rise to (or become) experiential contents (pratyaya) whether peaceful, violent, or confused, having become supportive of each other.
All experience is presented to consciousness through the power by which one sees, i.e., the buddhi (intellect).40 Therefore the gunas are referred to by Vyasa as the buddhi-ganah (attributes of buddhi). The interdependent movements of the gunas become (bhutva) what are referred to as pratyayas (the meaningful movements of experience), which may be peaceful (santim) when dominated by sattva-guna, violent (ghoram) when dominated by rajas, or confused (mudha) when dominated by tamas. Recalling the functions of the gunas provided above, sattva‘s illuminating nature is peaceful. In this instance rajas, the nature of which is activating, is supportive of sattva, as is tamas. As was discussed above in the parinama section, where there is pleasure (sattva) attachment (raga, and the rajas-guna) pierces it and aversion (dvesa) is implicit, implicating tamas in the form of delusion (moha). It may be seen here how all three gunas are always functioning together at once to bring about experience and deposits of experience. Hence, it is said that the manifest (vyakta) is composed of all three gunas. Also, we can see how prakrti as the modifiable source is all three gunas. A mistake often made in understanding the gunas is to divorce them from experience. However, we can see from the quotation provided above that Vyasa makes it clear that the gunas in the forms of brightness, activity, and inertia are in fact the peaceful, violent, or confused meaning-contents of experience. The natures (atmakah) of the gunas (i.e., pleasure, suffering and delusion) and the functions or the purposes of the gunas (i.e., to illumine, activate, and limit) are not to be viewed as separate from the significance or meaning that every experience holds.41 This comprehensive view of the gunas makes it fair to view them as “the perspectival movements of experience.” Not only do the movements of the gunas provide us with pleasure, suffering, and delusion, but our total experience including what we view is involved. Therefore the gunas are perspectival. In short, I think it fair to say that experience may be viewed from a number of inseparable angles very much like the case of asaya, samskara, and vasana. Gunas, pratyayas, vrtti-s and parinama are all descriptive tools for the observation of experience in various profiles.
Vyasa next adds: “The citta (consciousness of) is said to be in rapid transformation (ksipra-parinami) since the guna-vrtti (modifications of the gunas) are unsteady (calam).” Once again we may observe the correlation between gunas and parinama, in this case seen as the transformation of the citta. As the gunas go, so goes the citta. (One could also reverse this formula). What is this rapid transformation of the citta? It is nothing other than the movement of experience, or, one could say “the movement of time,” or even “the movement of the world.”
Vyasa next explains the nature of the movement of the gunas as this movement pertains to the rupas (a synonym for bhavas, see the above section on tapa) and the vrtti-s, the modifications of the three gunas as either peaceful, violent, or delusive. He first quotes Pañcasikha (an early Samkhya teacher):
The forms (rupa) when superior and the vrtti-s when superior oppose each other. The generic (samayani) are in motion with the superior.
When a rupa (or bhava), e.g., dharma is superior in strength or development it opposes its opposite, (adharma or “vice”). Similarly, when a vrtti of tranquility (santim) has arisen and is superior it opposes violence and delusion. The subordinate rupas and vrtti-s, here termed generic (samayani), move in a manner, because of their inferior strength, to support that which is superior. This movement of the subordinate supporting the superior implies a form of practice of Yoga or Samkhya wherein one seeks to strengthen both the rupas and vrtti-s that lead to the transcendence of suffering. On the other hand, as we saw earlier, we may in fact be practicing vice or violence and their form or vrtti will be superior.
It is very significant, from a Samkhyan and Yogic point of view, that the generic support the dominant, as in all experience all three gunas are always present. Vyasa states this in the following:
So since these gunas have pratyayas of pleasure, suffering and delusion, obtained by being dependent on each other, all the forms are in all. Their distinction is made by being subordinate or dominant. Therefore to the vivekina all is only suffering.
The only way in which either pleasure, suffering or delusion can arise is through the cooperation and interdependence of all three gunas. It is therefore stated that each guna has the form of all of them. What differentiates them is their role as dominant or subordinate, not their distinct natures alone.42 The gunas should not be thought of as existing separately. They may be distinct but they are not separable. We have seen how this movement of guna interdependence works from as early in this essay as the discussion of parinama. Where there is pleasure, there is raga, which is synonymous with “where there is sattva, there is rajas.” Also, where there is raga (attachment) there is aversion (dvesa) to the means of suffering and that is delusion (moha) which is tamas-guna. The same structure can be observed in tapa and samskara. In observing this structure the vivekin sees that even in pleasure, there is suffering and delusion, and therefore all is only suffering.
Before we examine the fifth and final section of Vyasa’s commentary on sutra 2.15 a few summarizing statements are in order. The suffering of parinama is the fact that pleasure sediments raga (attachment), dvesa (aversion) and moha (delusion) in the form of action-deposits (karma-asayas). The suffering of tapa (frustration) sediments aversion, and, by helping or harming others, lobha (greed) and moha (delusion) in the form of action-deposits are also sedimented. The suffering of samskara arises because as the fruits of actions are being experienced more action-deposits are being made which in turn will produce more fruit. This is the beginningless “stream of suffering.” The suffering of guna-vrtti-virodha results from the fact that all three gunas with their attendant natures (pleasure, suffering, delusion) are present in all experience. Therefore, even in pleasure there is suffering, i.e., all experience is suffering.
In the final section of his commentary Vyasa focuses on suffering, its cause, its release, and the means of its release. First, however, he provides us with an important image regarding ignorance: “Avidya is the originating seed of this great mass of suffering.” The image of the seed (bijam) is of no little significance. Earlier in the sutras Patañjali declares, “There, [in Isvara (Lord)] the seed (bijam) of omniscience is unsurpassed.”43 Now, in apparent contrast, bijam is equated with avidya. The seed is also that out of which creation grows. A bijam is also a sacred sound out of which a mantra grows, or the essential sound of a mantra. The point in the center of a yantra, or geometric meditation drawing, as well as the center point of a visual mandala is often referred to as the bijam. According to Samkhya and Yoga, it is the association (samyoga) of purusa and prakrti (consciousness and the modifiable source) which brings about experience, i.e., manifestation (vyakta). In sutra 2.24 Patañjali states that the cause (hetu) of samyoga spoken of in 2.23 is avidya. In effect, avidya is the seed of manifestation and, as we have learned, to the vivekin all (manifestation) is suffering. But what of Isvara‘s being the seed of omniscience? Recall that Isvara, the Lord, is a special consciousness (visesa-purusa).44 This consciousness does not behold manifestation as time but as eternity. The seed of omniscience is an inversion of the same seed which is avidya. Isvara is associated (samyoga) with pure sattva, without a taint of rajas and tamas. Avidya is the disequilibrium of the three gunas wherein rajas and tamas begin to commingle with sattva giving rise to time and suffering. The Samkhya-Yoga doctrine of causality is known as sat-karya, “the existence of the effect.” Time is the unfolding or manifestation of the effects which already exist. Isvara is the eternal Vision outside of time. Omniscience is possible for Ivvara only. The rest of us exist in time wherein effects unfold. The manifestation which arises from avidya, its nature being suffering, when enfolded (pratiprasava) becomes the release which is freedom from suffering. It is through this enfolding that consciousness is seen to be distinct and time no longer binds. Here Vyasa’s words apply, “…and the cause for the destruction of this [avidya] is the samyak-darsana (correct perspective).”
Now we may examine Vyasa’s “four noble truths.” Probably originally modeled after Buddha’s truths yet stated by Vyasa to be modeled after a medical text (Cikitsa-Sastram), he divides the process into four analogous stages: disease, cause of disease, health, and remedy. Yogically this is rendered suffering, cause of suffering, release (moksa) from suffering, means of release. The “abundant suffering of samsara” is the disease which is to be escaped. Samsara (lit. wandering) is the movement of parinama, tapa, samskara, and guna-vrtti-virodha just discussed which leads to the cycle of births and deaths. Samyoga, “the association” of pradhana (prakrti, the modifiable source) with purusa (consciousness) is the cause of that which is to be escaped. The final destruction of samyoga is the escape. The means (upaya) of escape is samyak-darsana.
The next move Vyasa makes is apparently against the Buddhist version of liberation. Although not mentioned by name, the opposing views presented by Vyasa appear Buddhist. Bhiksu mentions the nastika (unorthodox) holding these views. Buddhists would certainly fit into that category. Vyasa first states that the escape from suffering, or more precisely the own-form (sva-rupa) of the escapee, can neither be accepted nor rejected. The “own-form” is a technical designation referring to purusa as consciousness distinct from the forms of the citta-vrtti-s (modifications of the citta). Recall that the cure for suffering is the destruction of the association (samyoga) of purusa and buddhi (intellect) wherein the distinct nature of the purusa is revealed in a correct perspective. A Buddhist view deriving from the earliest of Buddhist doctrines states that the individual is composed of five skandhas (heaps): rupa (form), vedana (feeling), samjña (perceptions), samskaras (tendencies resulting from prior acts), and vijñana (consciousness of). The destruction of these five skandhas is the destruction of suffering. This would include a destruction of the individual or escapee and that is a rejection of the own-form of purusa, according to Vyasa. We, on the other hand, may view the destruction of the five skandhas as a dissolution or inversion of the manifestation of prakrti and hence have no difficulty in concurring with this Buddhist doctrine, at least in so far as concerns the manifest order. A Buddhist would certainly contend that the “own-form” of the purusa falls under the heading of vijñana and hence falls with the other four skandhas. Recall, however, our translation of vijñana as “consciousness of” and not consciousness. We would group vijñana with the prakrtic side of life and render it citta. That grouping leaves no “residue” of own-form because the own-form is not a thing remaining. This view would imply our acceptance of the own-form as something having a cause; i.e., once all the prakrtic elements are inverted or the skandhas are destroyed we are left with the effects of that destruction, the own-form. This latter view is also seen by Vijñana-Bhiksu as another nastika perspective presumably held by the Yogacarins, another Buddhist school. Simply stated this school holds that a process of refining states of “consciousness of” eventually leads to liberation. In which case the escape is caused, and once again, by Vyasa’s logic, we would have a doctrine of acceptance or doctrine of cause (hetu-vada). However, if we are to hold to the distinct nature of the own-form of the purusa, this distinct nature would not be affected by the inversion of prakrti or destruction of the skandhas nor by the production of an effect by destruction or the causal movement of refining “consciousness of.” Hence we hold to the doctrine of the eternality of consciousness (sasvata-vada) through the denial of both rejection and acceptance. The realization or direct experience of this doctrine, i.e., the direct “seeing” of the distinct nature of the purusa is the samyak-darsana.
Concluding Remarks
We have had occasion to examine the perspective of the vivekin. However, if we left it at that we would be remiss in our stated purpose of lending relevance to the Yogic vision for our present circumstances.
It may be obvious already but the vivekin‘s perspective on the causes of suffering are antithetical to the notion of the victim. We are not so much at the effect end of the movement of suffering, but at the cause. To be even more precise, it is the fundamental error of ignorance, in which we all participate, that establishes the living context for the experience of duhkha. While not personally responsible for a “beginningless ignorance” we are responsible for the way in which we construe experience. Our history (karma) has given us a vast array of possible ways to regard our suffering, from being at the mercy of destiny or the gods to carrying around the traumas of a “dysfunctional” family life, with a lot in between. In most instances we assume the role of victim.
There is not one human life in which some tragedy has not occurred. Samkhya and Yoga cannot stop that. Yet they can radically alter the manner of the experience of tragedy, or suffering in general. Viewing suffering from the vivekin‘s point of view results from an acute examination of the structure and movement of experience. Experience is then drained of the burden of selfhood and replaced with the patterns of samsara, i.e., the movements of parinama, tapa, samskara, and guna-vrtti-virodha. These movements are themselves the suffering that the vivekin formerly ascribed to a substantial self that played the role of victim. Personal, familial, social, national, or racial suffering are all options for construal. Yet, within all these categories can be seen to lurk the structural dynamics of suffering from the Samkhya-Yoga perspective. There is a very real sense in which the conventional categories of suffering listed here are the very mechanisms which not only perpetuate but may even intensify suffering. Additionally, these categories do not help to foster the kind of universal compassion that the vivekin feels as a result of his or her vision of universal suffering. All human beings suffer from the vivekin‘s point of view, but not all suffering is personal, social, or racial. By definition these categories exclude universality and establish antagonisms. The vivekin‘s vision examines human experience as human experience. Categories are abandoned in favor of cure. Human beings do not suffer because of the category they fall into but because they are human beings. The categories mentioned, and many more, are derived and are not central to the root causes of the problem of universal suffering. We all have suffering in common prior to any categories that seek to capture it. The very movement of life itself is suffering, when seen through the eyes of the vivekin. The way out, the escape, is not therapy, justice, or an imposed morality. The way out is the result of an individual’s heartfelt, sincere scrutiny of their own experience in the solitude of his or her own life. No matter whether that suffering is internal, external, or celestial, each one of us is the one that is responsible for situating that suffering, placing it so as to transcend it or be its victim.
Suffering has no beginning, only an end in the life of each one of us. No amount of blame can ever reach the cause of that which has no beginning. Ignorance (avidya) is the seed out of which this mass of suffering derives. The cure lies in knowledge as the correct way of viewing the structure of each of our lives. As human beings we can never eliminate the causes of suffering for they make up our very world, i.e., our experience. The attempt to “fix” the world once and for all is in vain. Only the vision of compassion which results from the correct perspective of the vivekin will be effective in leading to the end of suffering. We do not fix the world, we repair our perspective. For that compassion seeks to spread the knowledge required to effect the cure. Knowledge and compassion are the correlates of purusa and prakrti. From a Samkhyan and Yogic viewpoint it is the vivekin‘s ability to see the “whole multitude of beings” caught in the stream of suffering which provides the impetus to enter into the knowledge of the correct perspective. This is compassion and the dawn of freedom.
Freedom for the Samkhyan and Yogi is termed kaivalyam. This term is generally translated as “isolation,” i.e., the isolation of the purusa from the movements of prakrti. One “sees” or discerns the difference between consciousness and the movements of the three gunas. It is the association (samyoga) of purusa and prakrti which incites manifestation, or as some would say, “creation.” The subtle and inward stirring which gives rise to manifestation is the association of consciousness and prakrti, the modifiable source. This occurs and is occurring in the depth of each one of us, in our solitude. Another translation of kaivalyam (from kevala) is “aloneness.” It is out of the aloneness or solitude in our depths that all is brought forth.45 It is the cry of this solitude which becomes the suffering that is creation. The Yogi journeys backward (pratiprasava) to the solitary moment of eternity and experiences directly the connection (samyoga) from which the cry of creation sounds. No wonder that “all is only suffering.” The Yogi however makes the additional move of becoming sensitized to the isolated and therefore distinct nature of consciousness upon his or her return. The crying doesn’t stop but the Yogi’s solitude has “matured” into the nature of consciousness itself. This is the realization that there has always been, at the heart of experience, the divine distance which is purusa. This “distance” is the dispassion which “separates” consciousness from the gunas. This distance is also that which allows us to witness the birth and death of the manifest. In so witnessing, we are able to see the cry of solitude that each of us brings to all experience which somehow renders it incomplete and unsatisfactory. The only way out is that which has always been “out,” purusa. 46
Notes
1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York, Vintage, 1966), 42.↩
2. Samkhya Karika 30. For the Sanskrit text of the Samkhya Karikas I have used M. Ganganath Jha, trans., The Tattva-Kaumudi: Vacaspati Misra’s Commentary on the Samkhya-Karika (Poona: Oriental Book Agency).↩
3. Nietzsche, 153.↩
4. Ibid. 154.↩
5. Samkhyapravacanabhasya or Yogasutrabhasya (Y.S.B.) 2.15. For the Sanskrit text of the Yogasutrasbhasya of Vyasa (Y.S.B.) I have used Patañjala Yogadarsanam, ed. Ram Shankar Bhattacharya (Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1963).↩
6. These four reasons given by Patañjali will be discussed below.↩
7. See Yogasutra (Y.S.) 1.5 and Bhasya (Y.S.B.).↩
8. See Y.S. and Y.S.B. 2.10.↩
9. Y.S. 2.11.↩
10. For a more thorough discussion of the pradhana and its role in both Yoga and Samkhya philosophies see the Samkhya-Karika of Isvarakrsna and commentaries as well as Yogi Ananda Viraj, “An Examination of Buddhi,” Moksha Journal 7.2.↩
11. Y.S. 2.12, klesa-mulah karma-asayo drsta-adrsta-janma-vedanayah↩
12. We are deliberately not entering into the complex subject of reincarnation. Suffice it to say that actions always bear fruit in and through an embodiment, whether the embodiment is viewed as “one’s own” or no one’s in particular.↩
13. Y.S. 2.13, sati mule tad-vipako jaty-ayur-bhogah↩
14. Y.S. 2.14, te hlada-paritapa-phalah punyapunya-hetutvat and Y.S.B., …visayasukhakale’pi duhkhamasteva pratikulatmakam yoginah↩
15. The manifest (vyakta) is the modifications of the origin (prakrti) which include buddhi (intelligence), ahamkara, (I-maker), manas (mind organ), five jñana or buddhi-indriyas (sense capacities), five karma-indriyas (action capacities), five tanmatras (subtle sense elements), and five bhutas (gross elements: space, air, fire, water, and earth). These are the functions and structures of experience. There are two additional realities of human life which together are fundamental reality. These are purusa or atman which is pure consciousness and prakrti, the source which, through the interaction of the three gunas, is modified into the manifest. A working knowledge of this scheme is not presupposed for a comprehension of the material covered in this essay. However, for a detailed discussion of this material see the Samkhya Karika of Isvarakrsna, and Yogi Ananda Viraj, “Affliction and the Structure of Experience,” Moksha Journal 6.1 and Yogi Ananda Viraj, “An Outline of Samkhya-Yoga Philosophy,” Moksha Journal, 5.2.↩
16. Dr. Har Dutt Sharma, trans., The Samkhya-Karika: Isvarakrsna’s Memorable Verses on Samkhya Philosophy with the Commentary of Gaudapadacarya (Poona: Oriental Book Agency), 2.↩
17. T.S. Rukmani, trans. Yogavarttika of Vijñanabhiksu, Vol. 2, (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1983), 66.↩
18. Y.S.B. 2.15. ya bhogesu indriyanam trpter upasantis tat sukham, ya laulyad anupasantistad-duhkham↩
19. For this bottom-line Yogic maxim I am indebted to the instruction of Guruni Añjali, my teacher.↩
20. Vacaspati Misra declares the cessation of thirst for objects, trsna-ksaya, to be the greatest pleasure. See Tattvavaisaradi 2.15. For the Sanskrit text I have used Patañjali-Yogadarsanam, ed. Ram Shankar Bhattacharya (Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1963). Hereafter cited as T.V.↩
21. Wendy Doniger and Brian K. Smith, trans. The Laws of Manu, (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 49.↩
22. This points to the “karmic” understanding that the Indian mind brought, and in many instances brings, to each act. The commentary on sutra 2.15 that we are now dealing with provides the “vision” and rationale for such seemingly tedious karmic sensibility.↩
23. sukha sadhanani ca prarthaymanah kayena vacamanasa ca parispandate. An interesting word, parispandate, appears here. The word spanda (vibration) is a primary “concept” and realization in Trika Saivism. There it is used as the ultimate pulse or vibration the modifications of which give rise to all life. It is this sentence in Vyasa which I felt justified my translation of tapa as “frustration.” When the means of pleasure, i.e., pleasure, are sought, there is a degree of frustration present in that desires are still unfulfilled. It seems to me that frustration and “throbbing” go somewhat hand in hand.↩
24. Yoga-Varttika 2.15. For the Sanskrit text I have used Patañjala-Yogadarsanam, ed. Ram Shankar Bhattacharya (Varanas: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1963).↩
25. The word dharma here most probably means one of the eight bhavas or dispositions that lie in the understanding (buddhi) nd shape experience. However, for a rather detailed discussion please see Viraj, “Examination of Buddhi,” Moksha Journal 7.2.↩
26. See Samkhya Karika (S.K.) 44.↩
27. Gaudapada Bhasya (G.B.) on karika 44. See T.G. Mainkar, trans. The Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrsna with the Commentary of Gaudapada, Second ed. (Poona: Oriental Book Agency, 1972), 155.↩
28. Compare the description of Gaudapada to Yoga Sutra Bhasya 3.26. The practice of dharma facilitates movement into these worlds.↩
29. Y.S. 1.5-8.↩
30. Y.V. 2.15.↩
31. See Y.S. and Y.S.B. 4.8-11.↩
32. See for example, Rukmani, Yogavarttika, Vol. 4, 23.↩
33. In our society, where the role of the victim is lauded, we cannot overstate this message. As we shall see below, the Yogic understanding of the “stream of suffering” is a call for individual responsibility in the conquest of suffering.↩
34. hetu-phala-asraya-alambanaih samgrahitatvad esam abhave tad-abhavah.↩
35. Y.S.B 4.11.↩
36. For a more thorough reading on vasanas and their relation to karma see Y.S.B. 4.7-11.↩
37. Viraj, “Outline,” Moksha Journal 5.2, 12.↩
38. Viraj, “Outline,” and “Buddhi,” Moksha Journal 5.2, 12 and 7.2.↩
39. Also see S.K. 12 and 13.↩
40. See Samkhya Karika (S.K.) 36 and Y.S. 2.6.↩
41. See S.K. 12,13.↩
42. It should be observed, as Rukmani has noted, that Bhiksu sees the phrase guna-vrtti-virodha as guna-vrtti-avirodha meaning the “non-obstruction of the gunas.” Bhiksu says that by their cooperation in terms of being dominant and subordinate the gunas do not obstruct each other. Ultimately, the conclusions reached by Vyasa, Vacaspati, and Bhiksu are the same however.↩
43. Y.S. 1.25.↩
44. Y.S 1.24.↩
45. See e.g., Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.4.1.↩
46. For the one who is free gunas act only on gunas. The sense of agency (asmita, I-am-ness) is transformed into the movements of the non-conscious prakrti. See Bhagavad Gita 2.70, 14.22-25.↩