Patanjali's Non Dual Yoga

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#1

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali is an excellent text describing the practices of yoga and their culmination in Non Dual Self-awareness.

It is from Chapter 4, verses 4-6 of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras.

[I]4. Individualized fields of being are brought into existence only from the sense separation, or notion “I am”.[/I]

The moment there is a sense of being separate, or a notion that “I am”, an individualized field develops. This is the root of all ignorance, that there is an “I am” separate from everything else. There is only the One Reality. When there is no question that all is the One Reality and it is experienced beyond words, the individualized field merges back into the infinite.

Realized teachers have encouraged their students to inquire into the reality of the sense of “I am”. They are encouraged to contemplate it until they know exactly what it really is. At the end of the inquiry, they realize it was a concept with no corresponding reality. Concepts do enable us to have experiences in time and space. They are as true and real as characters in a story book that exist only for the sake of the story.

[I]5. Although there is the sense of diverse activity, all individualized fields of being are motivated by the one un-individualized field.[/I]

At night when dreaming, there are many diverse characters, places, and objects within the dream. They all exist as manifestations of the dreamers psyche. They are non different from the dreamer. Similarly, all the diverse activities, points of view, and individualized fields of being are motivated and exist in and as the one infinite reality.

[I]6. Of the various activities, meditation results in non-accumulation of karma.[/I]

Karma accumulates when we are invested in and attached to the results of our actions. Attachment is like glue. It causes our ideas and concepts to stick to our awareness. Every action motivated by a compulsive need or desire to accomplish something, is one more attachment creating activity that builds up identification with a personality, our false sense of self.

Think of a goal you once had, how you identified with it so strongly, that it was all you could think about. Obstacles that arose to prevent that goal created even more passion to achieve and accomplish the desired end. As attachment and desire increased, so did your identification with a personality that needed to achieve something. When the goal was realized, your false sense of self grew stronger. “I achieved that!” If you utterly failed in your attempt, the false sense of self also grew stronger. “I failed miserably.” Through identifying with the varied actions of life, you build up the false sense of self, and perpetuate the delusion of being a limited human being.

Meditation properly practiced withdraws attention from identification with external phenomena. It creates space, so that we can step back and watch the wheel of life rotating. With this distance, we no longer add momentum to identifying with thoughts, actions, objects, etc.

Beginning meditators often feel that they are practicing improperly because their mind is still filled with thoughts, ideas, concepts, memories, etc. If beginning meditators could allow the thoughts, etc. to pass, remaining as a detached observer, then they are practicing effectively. In the beginning, watching thoughts pass, being aware of memories, or witnessing the fact that we feel like a separate entity from the universe, are all acceptable so long as we do not get pulled into identifying with those things. By remaining as the alert witnessing presence of all that arises within awareness eventually those changes and fluctuations will lose their momentum, and all that remains is the Self. Because of this, meditation does not lead to the accumulation of karma.

Also, remember that while practicing your daily meditation it is good to avoid feeling that you are doing something special. Otherwise, your meditation practice is then accumulating karma, as you are building up a sense of self by defining your self as a meditator.

Think of meditation as though it is as natural as breathing. We don’t walk around claiming we are breathers. Nor do we need to walk around dramatizing or proclaiming our spiritual practice. Keeping this in mind will prevent your spiritual path from turning into another karma creating personality centered activity.

#2

…culmination in Non Dual Self-awareness.

We need to take it to the finest level to understand Patanjali’s non-duality. ‘Self-awareness’ cannot be non-dual. It still has the ‘self’ and the ‘awareness’.

It is difficult to regard awareness as an entity or an object. What makes us aware? Our mind. The awareness takes shape from the ‘relativity’ of time & space and it is captive to the influence of guna. That lends a sense of independent existence to awareness.

Patanajali describes the culmination in the last sutra IV/34, what he describes as a “state of isolated unity” or “abiding in pure consciousness”. It is completely devoid of any desire, mind, thnking, perception, our instruments of awareness.

In fact, Patanjali is known for essaying duality of Sankhya school of thought in Yoga Sutra, and making only two exceptions - non-dual state in the end and god-like concept of Ishvara (against a totally atheist Sankhya)

#3

Thank you for the reply!

Yes, I have found especially in a forum setting words are utilized to the best of their ability to communicate what is “beyond the mind”.

Ryan

#4

post it to the “spirit path” section, you’ll get more visitors

#5

Sutra iv.4

nirmana-cittany-asmita-matrat

nirmana = individualized
citta = consciousness
asmita = I-am-ness or sense of identity
matra = only here: primary

The individualized consciousnesses [proceed from] the primary I-am-ness.
(G. Feuerstein translation)

This aphorism has generally not been well understood. The classical commentators believed that it referred to the creation of artificial consciousness that is spoken of in chapter 3 of the Yoga Sutras. If we accept the more modern interpretation of individualized consciousness, then the key to understanding is the phrase [I]asmita-matra[/I]. The word [I]asmita[/I] is used several times in the sutras to refer to the individual sense of identity, but what is [I]asmita-matra[/I]. Feuerstein explains it as follows:
This is not merely the sense of identity which every individual possesses, but a deeper ontological principle that makes all individuation possible. In Samkhya this is known as [I]ahamkara [/I]or ‘I-maker’. It is that particular phase in the process of transformation from sheer potentiality to manifest world, where subjective and objective world structures begin to emerge as separate. It is the matrix of all individual consciousness and of all external material objects

This is quite a bit different from the Vedanta influenced notion of non-duality and separation from one reality. [I]Asmita-matra[/I] is conceived of as the a sort of substratum of individual consciousness, in much the same way that wood could be thought of as the substratum of tables and chairs and other wooden objects. This interpretation seems to be better supported by the text, and by reason. It does not stand to reason that a sense of separation could arise prior to the formation of an individual consciousness. If there is no individual consciousness, who or what would experience this sense of separation?

#6

All of us can be on the same page only by using the same words in the same sense. Consciousness, by default, should mean ‘pure consciousness’ on the universal scale, so that the ‘individualized consciousness’ is not the same and doesn’t remain pure. Held captive by the thinking process, colored by the biases and influenced by guna, the consciousness of an individual assumes a distinct identity in the form of “I- sense”.

“The individualized consciousness [proceed from] the primary I-am-ness” is wrong.

The inserted words “proceed from” should be “creates”. What Dr Feuerstein says is perhaps that consciousness is the potential and “I-nes” is the manifest The potential to manifest process underlines subtle to gross projection. Until corrupted, an individualized consciousness has to be universal and pure. The primordial desire to be ‘self-aware’ puts the astral body’s design on the drawing board and that is finally executed in the form of physical body with sense organs. When individual consciousness doesn’t remain as pure as that of omniscient universal consciousness their link is broken and individual’s knowledge starts getting manufactured by the brain, promoted by mind and made of raw material supplied by the senses. This is where avidya is born.

Mind and chitta are different. ‘Nirman-chitta’ refers to the illusionary multiple pseudo-processes created by simultaneous thoughts churned from sense data. The unifying force is the “I” or ego-sense that binds them all into “my experience”. (The word here is not ‘chitta’, but its plural ‘chittani’ which is then compounded with ‘asmita’)

The ‘self identity’ being handiwork of individuation of consciousness, it degenerates into awareness, being becomes becoming, non-duality appears to be dual. That is why yoga is not an intellectual exercise of reason and inference. Patanjali emphasizes ‘sadhana’ (the practice) so that awareness is dissected, understood, purified, elevated until it is absolutely pure and non-dual. Thus, individuation of consciousness is first, “I” identity follows. Separation is built into the very experiencing. (Wood is a common element of varied pieces of furniture, then each piece has asmita, a product of individual consciousness that separates it from the rest and universal consciousness is wood that runs through them all.)

#7

All well and good, except that [I]asmita-matra[/I] is not universal consciousness in the Vedanta sense. It is the macro principle of individuality, through which every soul experiences the world. I’m not convinced that Patanjali subscribes to the notion of non-duality.

#8

Could his principles then point one to Non-duality?

#9

Hehe.
don’t you know? The yang-yin symbol represents non duality and duality.

Everyone wants to take this from that. Extract this. Isolate that.
As it has been said.

In containing duality. The container is non dual.

Unity is not attained by taking one this from another. Unity is not attained by the process of seperation alone.

When you are no longer awareness,but become the container of awareness. That is non dual.

The man who is in the world but not of it.
the man who contains individual awareness knows this non duality.
he who individual awareness contains,is effected by it.
Drink the liquor! Dont let the liquor drink you!
If you get what I’m saying :slight_smile: I simply said the same thing many times.

Ah! But application and method and fruition of these is so much greater than philosophy!
direct experiance breeds the best understanding!
Perfect your experiance! What more could one want than that :wink:

#10

[QUOTE=Ryan Kurczak;77425]Could his principles then point one to Non-duality?[/QUOTE]

You tell me. If you can point to something that Patanjali actually says that leads to this conclusion, I’d be interested in knowing what it is. People tend to look at the Yoga Sutras through the lens of Vedanta, but when you remove that lens and look at what the sutras actually say, it’s often quite a bit different from the Vedanta interpretation. The correct understanding is often found by recognizing the affinity of Patanjali’s yoga with Samkhya philosophy, as Georg Feuerstein did in sutra iv.4.

#11

What Patanjali has described as an objective of yoga in Sutra I.3, ?then one knows what one really is? describes yoga?s end-state and that is evident in the last Sutra IV.34, as puruṣārtha-śūnyānām guṇānāṁ pratiprasavaḥ kaivalyaṁ svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā vā citi-śakter iti (The state of isolated unity becomes possible, when the three guṇas (qualities of matter) no longer exercise any hold over the Self. The pure spiritual consciousness withdraws into one)

The end process is signified in various words here: (1) kaivalyam has been defined as the fourth state beyond guna that is primarily responsible for cognition and awareness. (2) The essence of Purūśa is described as ?nothingness?, except that this is an omniscient, omnipotent void. (3) pratiprasava is opposite of prasava meaning to give birth or to project/ manifest. So, pratiprasava refers to yoga?s underlying process of involution, where the gross withdraws into its creator subtle body in progression.

Thus the sum total of these three is a state that is infinitely subtle, devoid of everything including guna that aids awareness. So, it is Purūśa alone, with nothing else to create awareness, but just ?to be?. Now, an uninterrupted isolated unity is possible when the three guṇa no longer exercise any hold over Self. With the screens of time, place and causation completely removed, pure spiritual consciousness withdraws into One; that is Yoga.

The fundamental error finally stands corrected. All the transforma?tion (pariṇama) known to cause a constant change is experienced as secondary and as an apparition (vivarta); ?taking the change?less as changing? is realized as the primary error. This final State of Isolated Unity is the only non-dual state mentioned in yoga sutra; the rest adheres to the Samkhya philosophy of duality, of Purūśa and Prakṛti.

#12

Sutra iv.34
[I]puruṣārtha-śūnyānām guṇānāṁ pratiprasavaḥ kaivalyaṁ svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā vā citi-śakter[/I]

[I]puruṣārtha[/I] - the object or purpose of the purusa
[I]śūnyānām[/I] - devoid of
[I]guṇānāṁ[/I] - of the gunas (material nature)
[I]pratiprasavaḥ[/I] - process of involution
[I]kaivalyaṁ[/I] - aloneness
[I]sva rūpa[/I] - own form or essential nature
[I]pratiṣṭhā[/I] - established
[I]vā[/I] - or
[I] citi-[/I] - awareness
[I]śakte[/I] - power

This description of kaivalya as “isolated unity” has really given me pause. The literal meaning of [I]kaivalya[/I] is “aloneness”, from the root [I]kevala[/I], meaning “alone”. There is no disagreement on this point. My initial reaction was that it is not too much of a stretch from “aloneness” to unity, because if the purusa is alone, perhaps it is because there is only one. But this initial reaction was quickly debunked by a little research. All of my sources agree that “aloneness” refers to the separation of the purusa from material nature (guna), which had been his constant companion throughout the eons of his evolution.

Why does this separation occur? Patanjali explains that, in the state of kaivalya, the purusa has become established in his essential nature ( [I]svarupa pratistha[/I]), which is the power of awareness ([I]citi-śakter[/I]). Material nature has become without purpose for the purusa ([I]puruṣārtha-śūnyānām[/I]). In other words, the individual purusa has no further need of material nature that has been associated with him/her, so it simply falls away or withdraws into the primordial prakriti ([I]guṇānāṁ pratiprasavaḥ[/I]).

Clearly this is a process that occurs on the level of the individual purusa. Where do we get the idea of non-duality from this? It comes from the traditional interpretation of [I]citi-śakter[/I] as Absolute Consciousness or One Reality. Clearly this interpretation is the product of Vedanta influence and it is not at all clear that Patanjali intended that.

#13

What if at the culmination of Patanjali’s practices one realizes or experiences non-duality. Doe that mean that the practitioner did it wrong, because Patanjali didn’t come right out and say that would happen?

Would you actually argue with someone, and say…“No. Since you experienced non-duality from these practices and not aloneness, you have failed!”?

Words are good, but direct experience is better. Isn’t it?

What if the words “non-duality” and “aloneness” actually indicate the same thing?

Words are never that which they indicate, correct? Is not Aqua and Water the same thing? Both words, pointing to one substance.

I remember a lovely idea I once read, “For one who is full of doubt, 1000 words of truth are not enough. For one who is full of truth, a single word is too much.”

My intention is to take this beyond nit-picking about words, that’s all.

#14

You are right about words. Yet, in our efforts to infer meaning from Sanskrit, wordplay is inevitable to an extent, though experiential truth should always prevail.

In the quoted sutra, Patanjali is describing the abode of kaivalya (aloneess) in 2 ways. Pratiprasava is involution. This is a process of an effect merging back into its cause and kaivalyam its end of fulfillment. Since involution is oppsite of evolution we have got to see where it started to know where it ends. From One to Many has been the beginning and hence, from Many to One has to be its end. A dynamic process (with guna) has to end in a steady state of ‘being one’ (beyond guna). After all effects merge, only the original cause should remain. Even awareness at that stage is an effect and should no more be present.

The dynamics or stirring of the steady state occurs as a result of desire for self-awareness which necessitates perception that brings guna into play. Thus begins the evolution. This steady state is the other description of kaivalyam given by Patanjali. The word used here is not just “citi” (and that doesn’t mean awareness) its a compound ‘chitsakter’ meaning power of the universal mind. He has not used the word “chitta” to mean individual mind as has been done throughout. The source of universal mind’s power is ‘purusha’ which is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.

#15

@Ryan Kurczak

I have to agree that experience is preferable to conceptualizing, but none of us has experienced kaivalyam, so we have to rely on the words of those who are more knowledgable than we are, i.e. Patanjali. I don’t see this as nitpicking about words at all. I see it as a substantive discussion about the true meaning of the yoga sutras. It was you who characterized Patanjali’s yoga as non-dual. My opinion is that Patanjali’s yoga is not advaita (non-dual) philosophy, and I can justify my opinion from looking at what the text actually says.

#16

It is interesting to see how the interpretation of the sutra changes depending on the placement of the word “or”. Feuerstein :

The process of involution of the primary-constituents (guna), devoid of purpose for the self, is [what is called] aloneness [of seeing], [B]Or[/B] the establishment of the power of awareness in its own form.

In this interpretation, the entire second part of the sutra is the [I]definition[/I] of kaivalya.

I.K Taimni interprets the placement of the “Or” differently. He translates the or in the same place that it appears in the original sanskrit. This makes the definition of kaivalya simply [I]svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā[/I] , the establishment (of the purusa) in his real nature. [I]Citi-śakter[/I], or the power of awareness then becomes the definition of the real nature (svarūpa).

I agree with Suhas Tambe that [I]citi-śakter[/I] is not merely the power of [I]awareness[/I]. I would characterize it as the power of [I]intelligence[/I].

#17

@Suhas Tambe

Once again, Samkhya philosophy provides the background information necessary for the correct understanding of the process of involution of the gunas. In Samkhya philosophy, the gunas are the constituents of the primordial prakriti, the theoretical origin or potential of material nature. Prakriti evolves into the principles that make up human nature and the objective world. The process of involution is the opposite of evolution. The gunas that constitute the material nature associated with the individual purusa return to the state of the primordial prakriti. We know that this process is associated with individual purusas, because the other purusas continue to experience their material nature and the objective world.

#18

[QUOTE=ino;78033]@Ryan Kurczak

I have to agree that experience is preferable to conceptualizing, but none of us has experienced kaivalyam, so we have to rely on the words of those who are more knowledgable than we are, i.e. Patanjali. I don’t see this as nitpicking about words at all. I see it as a substantive discussion about the true meaning of the yoga sutras. It was you who characterized Patanjali’s yoga as non-dual. My opinion is that Patanjali’s yoga is not advaita (non-dual) philosophy, and I can justify my opinion from looking at what the text actually says.[/QUOTE]

I see now where you are coming from. Thank you for that clarification. It is very helpful.

Yes, maybe I made a mistake in explanation, but I still stand by the assertion, that no matter the particular interpretation of words, the practice still leads to non-duality.

Just as in Vasistha’s Yoga it is said that we use one kind of dirt (soap) to remove another kind of dirt (soil). Or we use certain teachings to remove ignorance. By utilizing Patanjali’s practices which seem to be of a dualistic nature, results in realization of non-duality. So ultimately, whether Patanjali says it or not, it doesn’t really matter in the end.

When you bake a cake, you make batter and apply certain things, like heat etc. If you just read the recipe, and never new what happened at the end of the recipe, you might expect the end result to be a hot combination of the collective ingredients, but the cake is what it is, beyond the recipe.

The idea that there are two things, rather than just modifications of the same thing, doesn’t add up.

Even in Samkhya, doesn’t all the categories “arise” from a single source? How can the effect be ultimately different than the cause?

#19

ino,

Just on one point of how many purushas, this is my view:

To say that there are many individual purushas poses some logical problems. ‘Many’ makes them finite or infinite in number? If infinite, there is something in excess of ‘many’ and if finite, they have all to come from something more subtle that is infinite.

Is each individual purusha ‘distinct’ from others? If not, why distinguish; if yes they are guna-based not beyond them and that will logically necessitate something that IS beyond guna.

Patanjali refers to purusha as the One, infinite, whole and ever-present, but beyond guna and hence, imperceptible. Its perceptible version caused by maya is Ishvara and its deceptive appearance as ‘many’ as souls.

I find this interpretation sound in logic and uniformly applicable to all the sutras. I am sure you are also aware of 2 departures Patanajali has famously made from Samkhya, concept of Ishvara and the ultimate non-duality.

#20

I would argue exactly the opposite, the idea that there is only one thing doesn’t correspond to common experience. In Samkhya, there is not a single source, there are two irreducible “substances”, purusa and prakriti. Prakriti is the theoretical origin of material nature, characterized by having the qualities of the gunas. Purusa is fundamentally different from Prakriti. It does not have the qualities of the gunas, and is not the origin of material nature, and cannot be, precisely because it does not have the characteristics of the gunas. This is in agreement with modern science. Scientists can reduce matter down to sub-atomic particles, but those particles are fundamentally different from consciousness, which is neither their source or their product.

If you want to assert that practice of yoga leads to the realization of non-duality, that’s fine. But then we are no longer talking about Patanjali’s yoga, we are talking about Ryan Kurczak’s yoga. My interest is preserving the integrity of Patanjali’s teaching, not whether Ryan Kurczak is right or wrong.