by Yogi Ananda Viraj (Eugene P, Kelly, Jr.)
One universal aspect of human life is suffering. All human beings want to be happy. The Yogis and Samkhyakas recognized the need to closely examine human experience and find a cure for suffering. Their solution was not based simply on a quest for pleasure because, for them, even pleasure was suffering. Their attention was directed to the cause of suffering not its temporary alleviation. First, in searching for the cure they had to make a determination regarding the nature of suffering. Was it a mere denial of pleasure? Was it solely the inability to satisfy cravings? Or was there more to it? This need to discover the nature of suffering led them to observe, very carefully, the nature of human experience in general. Through this observation they made a declaration: eva-sarvam-duhkham (all is only suffering). This was no mere pessimism. This, for them, was freedom’s call.
Today’s mass media are replete with tales of suffering. It seems as though a kind of competitiveness of suffering has taken hold. One individual’s suffering or one group’s suffering vies with another’s for the highest score on the scale of woe. Often compensation or at the very least recognition is awarded. This trend only serves to misdirect our attention away from the fundamental cause of suffering, human ignorance. A thorough understanding of the cause of suffering removes the inclination to relish the recognition and sympathy that often accompany it. Knowledge refuses to perpetuate suffering.
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, sorrow, and samskara.
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. We present here the Yoga Sutras defining the five.
anitya-asuci-duhkha-anatmasu nitya-suci-sukha-atma-khyatir avidya
Ignorance is knowing the nonetemal as eternal, the impure as pure, suffering as pleasure, and nonself 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
Attachement is dwelling on pleasure.
duhkha-anusayi dvesah
Aversion is dwelling on suffering.
svarasa-vahi viduso’ pi tatha rudo’ 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 (karma-asaya). Fluctuations not considered afflicted have knowledge (khyati) as their object.1 The vrtti-s produce action-deposits and action-deposits produce vrtti-s.
After defining the afflictions Patanjali, in keeping with his definition of Yoga as the restriction of the fluctuations (yogas citta-vrtti-nirodhah) in sutra 1.2, next provides instruction in their restriction. First, he speaks of pratiprasava (lit. “reverse generation”) in sutra 2.10 wherein he says that “the subtle are to be escaped by “pratiprasava” Vyasa, in his commentary, interprets Patanjali 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 (citta) that has dominated the Yogi’s behavior.2 The fluctuations that are produced by the afflictions are escaped by meditation (dhyana)3 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).4
The action-deposits (karma-asayas), which are the residue of all actions (karma) – be they mental, verbal or physical, are rooted in the afflictions. The results or fruits of these deposits may be felt in an embodiment which is seen or unseen.5 Meritorious actions produce meritorious, or, shall we say favorable results. The same is true of their opposite. All actions leave deposits which may bear their respective results in this lifetime or in some future lifetime.6
Patanjali next informs us that as long as the root, i.e. the klesas, exists there is fruition of it as birth, duration, and experience.7 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) Patanjali 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.8 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. Also we saw 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, I think, cautioned by Patanjali. For it is in this sutra that the Vision of the vivekin (distinguisher, discerner, 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 experience. It is to this, the main theme of our essay, that we now turn our attention.
The Distinguisher’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 in it. Second, and most importantly, the discriminator’s Yogic Vision grants him insight into the impulse or primal stirring which gives rise to the manifest.9 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 Patanjali to declare that all is suffering for the vivekin.
In sutra 2.15, already cited above, Patanjali 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 Vijnana 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 from Yogic eyes. Vyasa, of course, has laid the necessary groundwork from a Samkhyan framework. However, in translating his insights into contemporary language 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. Each translator has 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”10
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 Patanjali and his commentators speak to the causes of suffering. As we noted above there are four causes cited: parindma, tapa, samskara, and guna-vrtti-virodah. 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. Therefore, an action deposit of dvesa (aversion) is created. Being unable to “remove the causes of pain he becomes deluded, thus there is the karmasaya caused by hatred and delusion (moha), also.”11
Vyasa 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, 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 of actions are mirror images of actions.
Vyasa next employs a rather strong quotation augmenting his position. “Enjoyment (upabhogah) is not without harming beings. Then also there is a bodily (sarirah) action deposit made by harming.”12 The message seems to be that given the correlation of pleasure and attachment and the subsequent (or even 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)”13 Here we find a bit of difficulty with the compound visaya-sukham. The word visaya has a variety of meanings. I t 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. Suffering is the lustfulness (or thirst) not appeased.”14
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, Vijnana 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).
Next Vyasa states most clearly that sensory gratification is not the way to liberation. “By the practicing of enjoyment by the capacities, thirstlessness is not made possible.”15 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 grows.”16 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.17 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)” presumably to the correct perspective (samyag-darsana). “This then is the suffering of transformation (parinanma-duhkha); it is inimical (pratikula) even in a condition of pleasure it afflicts even the Yogin.”18
In short, transformation is suffering because of the attachment that is the correlate of pleasure implying aversion/deposits and delusion/deposits. 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 himsa as “killing” instead of “harming.” He then quotes the Dharma-sastra which states, “A householder has five slaughterhouses, whose use fetters him: the fireplace, the grindstone, the broom, the mortar and pestle and the waterjar.”19
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.20 So it is clear that deposits result from mental and bodily acts, and, as we shall see, verbal acts.
FOOTNOTES:
1. See Yogasutra (YS.) 1.5 and Bhasya (Y.S.B.). For the Sanskrit text of the Yogasutrasbhasya of Vyasa (Y.S.B.) I have used Patanjala YogadarSanam, ed. Ram Shankar Bhattacharya (Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1963)..↩
2. See Yogasutra 2.10 and Bhasya. ↩
3. Y.S. 2.11.↩
4. 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.↩
5. Y.S. 2.12, klesa-mulah karma-asayo drsta-adrsta-janma-vedaniyah↩
6. 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.↩
7. Y.S. 2.13, sati male tad-vipako jaty-dyur-bhogah↩
8. Y.S. 2.14, te hlada-paritapa-phalah punyapunya-hetutvat and Y.S.B. visayasukhakale ‘pi duhkhamasteva pratikulatmakam yoginah↩
9. The manifest (vyakta) is the modifications of the origin (prakrti) which include buddhi (intelligence), ahamkara, (I-maker), manas (mind organ), five jana 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, 5.2:10↩
10. Dr. Har Dutt Sharma, trans., The Samkhya-Karika: Isvarakrsna’s Memorable Verses on Samkhya Philosophy with the Commentary of Gaudapadacarya (Poona: Oriental Book Agency, ?).↩
11. T.S. Rukmani, trans. Yogavarttika of Vijnanabhiksu, Vol. 2, (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1983). p.66.↩
12. Y.S.B. 2.15.↩
13. Ibid.↩
14. Ibid, ya bhogesu indriyanam tipter upasantis tat sukham, ya laulyad anupasantisvtad-duhkham↩
15. Ibid.↩
16. Ibid.↩
17. For this bottom-line Yogic cliche I am indebted to the instruction of Gurani Anjali, my teacher.↩
18. op. cit. Vacaspati Misra declares the cessation of thirst for objects, trsna-ksaya, to be the greatest pleasure. See Tattvavaisardai 2.15. For the Sanskrit text I have used Patanjali-Yogadarsanam, ed. Ram Shankar Bhattacharya (Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1963). Hereafter cited as Y.V.↩
19. Wendy Doniger and Brian K. Smith, trans. The Laws of Manu, (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 49.↩
20. Ibid. 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.↩