What really Yoga is?
[QUOTE=HealthAndYoga;71346]What really Yoga is?[/QUOTE]
Union from that which one has never been separate.
Yogash chitta vritti nirodhah.
[B]Yoga is the mastery of the activities of the mind-field. [/B]
"What really Yoga is? "
Like all words, it will mean whatever you want it to mean. All that I can say is that if, right now, in spite of your knowledge, beliefs, ideas, opinions, assumptions, or even your own practice - you are still suffering, then obviously you will have to look elsewhere. Whatever you are calling “yoga” - if it does not lead to freedom from suffering, then it is just another veil over one’s eyes.
Yoga can be define in the term of join or yoke together, and it brings the body and mind together into one harmonious experience to making relax.
I.2 - YOGA SUTRAS
yogah = process of yoking; union
citta = consciousness
vrtti = patterning, turnings, movements
nirodhah = stilling, cessation, restriction
Commentary: Yoga is to still the patterning of consciousness.
Sutra 1.2 is the perfect answer to this question, but here we have two different posters and two different translations. Sutras are very concise and meant to be contemplated, discussed and elaborated upon. I think that much of the time the ‘translators’ have pondered the subject and come up with something that reflects their own vision. I don’t think that is the right approach. I think the right approach is to study the sanskrit and try to discern what the original authors actually intended.
We really only have three words here that need to be fleshed out a little, since yoga is the term that is being defined. Fortunately Patanjali provided us with some good clues as to what he actually intended. His clues come in the form of his explanation of the five citta vrtti:
- valid cognition
- misperception
- conceptualizing
- memory
- sleep
From these we can discern that citta vrtti are activities of the mind. So what are the disagreements in the two translations that we have here? For citta we have mind or consciousness. If we stay strictly within the technical definitions of vrtti, consciousness may be a little too broad, because consciousness includes things like feelings and emotions. But if we look beyond the technical definitions we know that yoga does include the whole range of conscious activity so either term is OK.
For vrtti we have ‘patterning’ and ‘movement’. Of these two terms movement is probably more acceptable. The word vrtti has many shades of meaning in sanskrit, but primarily means a condition or state, action, movement, function or operation. From the descriptions of the five vrtti we can see that they are various types of mental activity. But its hard to see how patterning fits in here. Patterning seems like a more modern concept and probably not the original intent.
For nirodha we have ‘mastery’ and ‘stilling’. The English meaning of these two terms is quite different so we need to be a little more precise. From the Apte Sanskrit-English dictionary:
निरोधः nirōdhḥ निरोधनम् nirōdhanam
निरोधः निरोधनम् 1 Confinement, locking up, im- prisonment; Bhāg.1.58.58; निरोधनेन बन्धेन विविधेन वधेन च (निगृह्णीयात्) Ms.8.31; वैश्यः सर्वस्वदण्डः स्यात् संवत्सरनिरोधतः 375. -2 Enclosing, covering up; Amaru.87. -3 Re- straint, check, suppression, control; योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः Yoga. S.; अन्तश्चराणां मरुतां निरोधान्निवातनिष्कम्पमिव प्रदीपम् Ku.3.48. -4 Hindrance, obstruction, opposition. -5 Hurting, punishing, injuring. -6 Annihilation, complete destruction; जन्मनिरोधं प्रवदन्ति यस्य Śvet. Up.3.21. -7 Aversion, dislike. -8 Disappointment, frustration of hopes (in dramatic language). -9 (With the Buddhists) Suppression of pain. -1 Extinction (लय), निरोधो$स्यानुशयनमात्मनः सह शक्तिभिः Bhāg.2.1.6.
From this I lean more towards nirodha as restraint, control, or focusing of mental activity, as opposed to complete stopping. Mastery and stilling are both good terms. Even though the shades of meaning are different, they both apply. The sanskrit definition alone is probably not enough to determine the original intent. For that we need to look deeper into the sutras.
It is like a blind person dreaming about light. If you want to know of what “yoga” is - cut through all of this mere intellectual knowledge, enter deeper into your own practice, and discover something within you which is birthless and deathless. No amount of clinging to scriptures and entertaining oneself with borrowed knowledge is going to be capable of producing the experience of the Unthinkable and the Inexpressible. Intellectual knowledge can be useful along the path - but you have to understand the tendencies of the mind. Man’s programming is in such a way - that it is determined to turn just about every piece of knowledge into a hindrance. That is why, rather than filling your mind to the brim with knowledge, it may be far more useful to cultivate a beginners mind - clean, empty, open, fresh, and unclouded.
[QUOTE=Asuri;71813]Sutra 1.2 is the perfect answer to this question…
<snip>[/QUOTE]
The definition of sage Patanjali is but one of the many, as well as the sutra text that was quoted/translated in a number of posts here. Based on one text only, and further, on a single passage of it only, such definition would never be entirely accurate, no matter how brilliant the translation was [in my view].
Hands palms together,
el gatito
@el gatito
I think we would be hard pressed to find a better definition. But yes I agree that yoga is likely to mean different things to different people depending on their purpose and their state of development, and we can’t get the whole picture from a single verse or a single text. Still I like sutra 1.2 as the answer to the OP.
I am reading an excellent translation and commentary of Yoga Sutras right now by the Integral Yoga Studio, and it provides the best translation of 1.2 I have yet seen(in fact it is easily the best translation and commentary I have seen, very passionate and written by somebody who has a very accomplished meditation practice, so he gets Patanjali)
Yoga occurs when the machinations, vacillations, perturbations, whirlings,
spinning, and agitations (vrtti) of the mind-field (citta) dissolve, cease, and
become still (nirodha)
Commentary: Here vrtti are defined as the wavelike movement of thought patterns, thought
processes, wavelike operations, mental machinations, or oscillations which are the
beginning of mental turmoil, agitations, swirlings, revolutions, or spinning’s that occur
in the ordinary restless, disturbed, or dulled mind field. In short the vrtti evince the
whirlpool of ordinary thinking processes which create a turbulence, a directive spin,
or bias – which condition, program, color, and distort the original unobstructed true pure nature of the unbiased and universal clear light of consciousness or Infinite Mind
(citta). Thus vrtti muddle, color, distort, and obscure that sweet wholiness of
consciousness (citta-prasadanam) from penetrating and manifesting into everyday
consciousness.
The word, nirodha, means cessation, dissolution, stillness, or extinguished. Literally it
presupposes a pre-existing blockage of some pre-condition. Translators often confuse
the word nirodha as being active as in the act of stilling or even worse as the act of
controlling, but rather the word, nirodha, is definitely passive i.e., it is stillness not
stilling, dissolution not dissolving, cessation not the act of restraint. Of course there is
an object that is being transformed from activity to stillness (the citta-vrtti), but it is
salient that it is not the mind-field (citta) that is being stilled or controlled, but rather
the machinations (vrtti) which have become attached to it and have been revolving the
afflicted mind in circles, In yoga such machinations come to a halt, then the larger
Mind’s eye is opened. The wisdom eye is activated and shines forth inside out and
then “Reality” is seen as-it-is in its true nature (swarupa).
Thus it is the vrtti which occludes-- it causes distortion. obstruction, bias, obscuration,
and restlessness of the citta (pure consciousness) which eventually ceases (nirodha).
When such limited associations, self identifications, or attachments with the thought
processes (vrtti) cease (nirodha), then the self resides in its true non-biased abode –
as the True Self or natural unconditioned mind (citta). Nirodha, as cessation is thus
passive to an extreme, yet yogic processes (sadhana) themselves are activities (active)
as we shall see. They are designed to bring upon this effect (dissolution) of the vrtti.
I wouldn’t really listen to Amir, his answer is the same for any subject “It is relative, it means what you want it to mean, you must directly experience the truth from your own being” If you don’t believe me review his post history.
Yoga does indeed have a meaning in terms of practical yoga, and Patanjali’s definition is the most scientific and technical definition we have, and it is very useful, and when understood gives the whole game away. The translation I cited above is already sufficient, but I will add a little more to it.
Yoga Chitt-Vritti Nirodha
Word by Word:
Yoga: Yoga comes from the Sanskrit root yuk, and basically means union between two parts. It is best translated as re-integration. It is not the union between two disparate entities or between two entities that have never been united before, but rather it is the reintegration of two apparent entities which have been separated due to some original trauma. That trauma is clear if one understands the Samkhya philosophy Yoga is strongly based on - the first act of ignorance that took place when the original pure consciousness came into contact with primordial matter, causing that primordial matter to break out of balance SUDDENLY and cause the fundamental forces(gunas) to vibrate violently, beginning with a sudden expansion causing by the active force(Rajas) and then slowing down gradually due to the inertia force(tamas) In this way these fundamental forces are constantly acting each other and in constant activity, and this activity will continue until they resolve themselves and return back to their original balance. The violent and whirling activity of these forces is reflected inside the substance of consciousness(chita) The intellect is the first thing to evolve and results out of the first contact between pure consciousness and primordial matter, it is when matter is illuminated by the light of consciousness giving matter apparent sentience. The intellect behaves like a sentient principle and is the closest entity to consciousness. It is because of this the intellect feels that this whirlwind of activity is taking place within it and it is the agent/doer of this activity. Rather than correctly identifying that none of this activity is taking place within it, but this is all taking place in matter. When this activity ceases eventually, which also results in the intellect also being dissolved, the pure consciousness becomes fully illuminated, without nothing left to obstruct its vision.
Chit-vritti: Chit-vritti, translates as a perturbation or disturbance in the field of the mind. The word vritti can be variously translated as modification, agitation, whirlwind, disturbance. It is often translated as modification, but this term does not capture the real emotion of just how bad a vritti is. A vritti is a MASSIVE whirlwind of activity, like a mental storm or tornado, it is violent and forceful. This is why the mind is compared to taming a storm in the Gita(or taming a wild animal in Buddhism) The word vritti also means wave-like, and again the same connotations of a storm in the sea are conveyed.
In other words no vrittis are desirable or benign, every vritti is tantamount to violent activity in the mind, even something as trivial as a single impression impinging on the mind field or the pleasure created by having a single chocolate. Why? The mind is like an ultra sensitive substance, even a single vibration rouses into it violent activity. Thus the stronger the vibration the even more violent the activity. The greatest causes of these vibrations are desires. Each desire brings about a tornado in the mind. This is why Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism all say that we must be completely free of desire to attain enlightenment.
Thus the aim Yoga definitely is not to just merely restrain them(vrittis), or worse control them, the aim is to STILL THEM ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY. This is what Nirodha means
Nirodha: Nirodha, as the translator above points out, is a passive verb. It literally means to release something which is imprisoned. In this case it means releasing the mind from the fetters of the vrittis. The mind is basically consciousness that appears to have become imprisoned by all the vrittis, like the rain cloud appears to have imprisoned the waters. When the waters are released from the rain cloud the rain cloud also disappears. Similarly, the vrittis disappear and return back into the original substance of consciousness, thus freeing up more and more consciousness.
Thus Nirodha is often very correctly translated as cessation, dissolution or stilling. It definitely is not control, suppression, restraint. These are very bad and misleading translations and completely change the whole meaning of what Yoga really is. It is clear if one understands Samkhya philosophy, and even the entirity of the Yoga sutras, that Yoga is definitely not an active process. It is a passive process, whereby gradually one lets go of of EVERYTHING: likes, dislikes, pain, pleasure, desire, habits, relationships, ignorance, knowledge, ego, duality - everything. Hence why the practice of Vairagaya(letting go) is immediately defined by Patanjali as the means to ceasing the vrittis.
So now we can furnish a complete definition of what Yoga is:
The practice of re-integration of the mind with pure consciousness happens when the ALL of the disturbances of the mind are absolutely stilled, dissolving them back into the original pure substance of consciousness.
This definition is incomplete without 1.3, which logically follows from 1.2:
Then the actual witness of this activity is revealed FULLY resting purely within itself(and nothing else to obstruct it)
To add a bit more on 1.3, seeing as I’ve not given as much detail as I have for 1.2. 1.3 is basically about VISION. It is saying that when all the disturbances of mind which are occluding its vision are cleared away, then there is PURE, CRYSTAL CLEAR VISION. This is what is meant by PURE MIND. The PURE MIND sees the ultimate reality of everything and it is complete union with the UNIVERSAL MIND. Thus it inherits all the powers and glories of the universal mind. (Hence why Patanjali talks about Samayama)
As it has already been made clear NO vrittis are to be spared. It all becomes clear Patanjali is calling for absolute cessation from his classification of the 5 broad categories of vrittis. In Indian philosophical literature whenever a list of something is given, the principal one is mentioned first and then the later ones are mentioned. Example, whenever proofs are mentioned: Perception always is mentioned first, because it is the principal type of proof. So why would Patanjali mention as the principal vritti: CORRECT KNOWLEDGE?
The answer is because CORRECT KNOWLEDGE is the hardest vritti to actually let go. It wields great power on us. What we view to be ‘correct’ knowledge supported by proofs like perception, inference, logic, deduction, and testimony from reliable sources or from scriptures we do not readily give up. It is easy to see from the fact of religion and the massive wars it leads to just how obsessed we become from this kind of knowledge. Often, we do not even consider this kind of knowledge harmful, but consider it divine, righteous, scientific, valid. An atheist will not readily give up their beliefs in the non-existence of god, no matter how much you try to persuade them. Most scientists, will not even for second think that the scientific method is faulty or that objective reality is an illusion. Thus correct knowledge is highly insidious and filters our entire approach to reality.
Patanjali then mentions incorrect knowledge. This is knowledge that is based on an error. Most people, if shown there is an error in their proofs will more readily up that knowledge. Still, people maybe stubborn to admit it, eventually they have to concede. For example the proof that the Earth was not flat was difficult for the Church to accept initially, but eventually it had to concede. However, the Church would never concede that Jesus Christ did not exist or that Christianity was influenced by Buddhism.
Next he mentions FANTASY. It is a lot easy to give up a fantasy, especially when you know it is a fantasy. Children have no problem giving up Santa clause when they know it is a fantasy.
Then he mentions sleep or rather states of consciousness. We often going in and out of different states of consciousness. Although we are attached to waking, the fact that everyday we slip into daydreams, dream and go into deep sleep, means that we do not try to cling onto the waking state.
Lastly, he mentions memory. Memories are the easiest thing to let go of RELATIVELY. We doubt a lot of our memories, because we know memory is such a unreliable form of proof, even if something really obvious takes place. It is easy also to forget memories.
Thus of all kinds of vrittis the hardest one to let go of is correct knowledge!
As I said earlier, a lot of commentators tend to ponder these things and come up with something that reflects there own vision. The concept of a vrtti as a whirlwhird or storm of activity is actually a minor meaning of the word that seems to have caught the fancy of some. Patanjali himself disputes this in Sutra 1.5 which says that vrttis may be [I]klista [/I] (causing suffering) or [I]aklista[/I] not causing suffering. So clearly Patanjali’s intent was that some vrttis are benign and others not so.
Surya Deva used this reasoning as the basis for his conclusion that all vrttis must be completely extinguished, and therefore that is the meaning of the term nirodha. Since his reasoning has been shown to be incorrect, then his conclusion is also incorrect.
Watch out boys and girls, things are about to get ugly. That is unless Surya Deva refrains from making this into a personal battle. Given his history, there’s not much chance of that.
वृत्तिः vṛttiḥ
वृत्तिः f. [वृत्-क्तिन्] 1 Being, existence. -2 Abiding, remaining, attitude, being in a particular state; as in विरुद्धवृत्ति, विपक्षवृत्ति &c. -3 State, condition; त्रयीं तिस्रो वृत्तीस्त्रिभुवनमथो त्रीनपि सुरान् Śiva-mahimna 27. -4 Action, movement, function, operation; शतैस्तमक्ष्णामनिमेषवृत्तिभिः R.3.43; Ku.3.73; उत्पक्ष्मणोर्नयनयोरुपरुद्धवृत्तिम् (बाष्पम्) Ś.4. 15. -5 Course, method; विनयवारितवृत्तिः Ś.2.12. -6 Conduct, behaviour, course of conduct, mode of action; कुरु प्रियसखीवृत्तं सपत्नीजने Ś.4.18; Me.8; वैतसी वृत्तिः, बकवृत्तिः &c. -7 Profession, occupation, business, employment, mode of leading life (often at the end of comp.); आश्रमांश्च यथासंख्यमसृजत् सहवृत्तिभिः Bhāg.3.12.41; वार्धके मुनिवृत्तीनाम् R.1.8; Ś.5.6; Pt.3.126. -3 Livelihood, maintenance, means of subsistence or livelihood; oft. in com.; सिंहत्वमङ्कागतसत्त्ववृत्तिः R.2.38; Ś.7.12; स्वयं- विशीर्णद्रुमपर्णवृत्तिता Ku.5.28; (for the several means of subsistence, see Ms.4.4-6.) -9 Wages, hire. -1 Cause of activity. -11 Respectful treatment; ब्रह्मचारिणः… आचार्ये प्राणान्तिकी च वृत्तिः Kau. A.1.3; त्रिष्वप्रमाद्यन्नेतेषु त्रील्लँोकांश्च विजेष्यसि । पितृवृत्या त्विमं लोकं मातृवृत्त्या तथा परम् ॥ Mb.12.18.8. -12 Gloss, commentary, exposition; सद्वृत्तिः सन्निबन्धना Śi.2.112; काशिकावृत्तिः &c. -13 Revolving, turning round. -14 The circumference of a wheel or circle. -15
@Surya Deva
You are obviously someone who takes pride in the volume of vrttis that you generate. Does it not seem hypocritical that someone like yourself would turn around and advocate the complete annihilation of all vrttis? If this does not apply to you then who does it apply to? Please explain this to me.
Venerables:
Here is how this matter is presented from the point of view of a present day’s Buddhist monk Huifeng, ordained by Ven Master Hsing Yun (living presently at Foguang Shan Monastery, Taiwan).
Quoted from the ZFI website (that I am a member of under the same nick).
Hands palms together,
el gatito
-
-
-
-
-
- START OF THE QUOTE * * * * *
-
-
-
-
The GRETIL site has this, from Patanjali: Yogasutra © Ashok Aklujkar (which is the way I always learnt it, too)
yogaś citta-vṛtti-nirodhaḥ ||1.2||
(I have a good translation of the recently discovered Sankara commentary, but it’s at home and I am not!)
The breakdown is:
1 yogaś = masculine, nominative, singular (the samdhi changes the -ḥ ending to -ś preceeding the c- of citta-, etc.)
2 citta-vṛtti-nirodhaḥ = masculine, nominative, singular. This in turn is a compound, which must be analyzed:
2a citta- = mind, thought
2b vṛtti- = turning, proceeding, movement, etc. (from PPP of vRt)
2c nirodhaḥ = (actually from roots ni-rulh) cessation, restraining, repressing, oppressing (the last two include more of the prefix ni-)
2 But what is the compound relationship? Most render it as a genitive relationship: “cessation of mind movement”
Because the yogaś and nirodhaḥ are both m, masc, sing, then the second qualifies the first, it is a definition:
Yoga is the cessation of mind movement.
Now, as far as other systems in Indian thought go, there are some groups which think like this, and some which definitely do not. In general, this is more like the Eastern Gangetic systems of the Jainas and Ajivikas, rather than that of the Western Vedic and Vedantic (Upanisadic) traditions. However, around the time of Asoka, these two general systems mixed, and it is very hard to pull apart the threads.
As far as Buddhism goes, from the earliest sources there are some texts which suggest that the crucial practice is the attenuation of all mental activities, also known as the cessation attainment. But then there are other texts which say the opposite. Some scholars argue that originally the Buddha did not teach this as the goal, but taught the dhyanas. However, early groups in the same area as Buddhism, notably the Jainas and Ajivikas, influenced the Buddhist traditions to include such statements. This is a good point.
In later periods, we see that in general the Sthavira traditions, such as the Vatsiputriyas, Sarvastivadins, Theravadins, Sautrantikas and Darstantikas, did NOT consider that such cessation attainments were that worthwhile. However, they may have been influenced by the Vedic notions, after all, they sprouted in the West too, around Mathura. On the other hand, the Mahasamghika groups tended towards cessation attainments as the goal. But, these groups tended to be in the East and South-East, so may have been influenced more by the Jainas and Ajivikas. So, it is really, really hard to split them as to which is more authentically “Buddhist” (a dangerous enterprise).
Much of Mahayana thought was influenced by the Mahasamghikas (the Sthavira inspired Yogacarins coming later), and so this permeates their texts. Texts such as the Prajnaparamita, the Vimalakirti and others, as well as the *Satyasiddhi Sastra - all of which had huge influence early on in China, lean towards cessation attainments as the goal. But even in East Asia, this was not the only tradition, and many will argue that such cessation practices are not the path, but are really a waste of time.
And that yes / no split is probably just the same in the Chan / Son / Zen traditions, too. Some would say that yes, that is it! Others will say no, wrong way!
Simply put, yoga is ‘union’ that happens at various levels depending on the awareness. In that sense, bodily union is as much yoga as meeting of souls. Yoga is in many-ness and yoga is in One-ness. Any conscious gap in mind’s persistent chatter brings artificially separated selves together and that is yoga; when they merge it is yoga; when they dissolve it is yoga. Unshackling from compulsive ego is yoga, unburdening from verbose knowledge is yoga, silencing all movement is yoga. Yoga is a process, tool and goal and yogik paths are as many as the pathfinders. Not believing in yoga is yoga, as even that is conscious effort. After all yoga is a mere word, a state is not.
[QUOTE=Asuri;71813]Sutra 1.2 is the perfect answer to this question, but here we have two different posters and two different translations. Sutras are very concise and meant to be contemplated, discussed and elaborated upon. I think that much of the time the ‘translators’ have pondered the subject and come up with something that reflects their own vision. I don’t think that is the right approach. [B]I think the right approach is to study the sanskrit and try to discern what the original authors actually intended.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, Sanskrit is a language where what the original author actually intended is NOT what gets to the users of the works of Sanskrit. It is in the nature of Sanskrit language to give multiple meanings/interpretations to the same slokas(or sutras). One can find examples of this in works of Kalidas and many others. That may be why Sanskrit is known as “language of Gods”.
To me, most of the Yoga definition of Patanjali is to be taken along with other works like BhagavatGeeta. For example, when we say “Nirodha”, it is more to do with “non-attachment” than with “stoppage or hurdle”. Again, that is my interpretation.
Patanjali himself disputes this in Sutra 1.5 which says that vrttis may be klista (causing suffering) or aklista not causing suffering. So clearly Patanjali’s intent was that some vrttis are benign and others not so.
The term for ‘suffering’ in Sanskrit is not Klisha, it is Dukkha. Klesha means affliction or confliction. Aklesha means non-afflictive. It is clear what he means if one reads the entire Yoga sutras, the klsheh are later defined as ignorance(avidya), asmita(egoness) attachment(raga) aversion(dvesha) and fear of death/change/loss. These are basically emotions that colour a vritti. If the vritti is not coloured by a klesha, then it is neutral(aklesha)
Patanjali does not say that such and such vritti is afflictive and such and such is non-afflictive. He says that all 5 types of vrittis can EITHER be afflictive or non afflictive. So for example let us take a vritti like correct knowledge, “The Earth is over 4 billion years old” To most people this is a neutral fact, and they have no afflictions to it(no attachment, no aversion, no pride etc) but to a Christian creationist that believes in the young earth theory this vritti is afflictive. If they hear this neutral fact they will wince at it. In like manner, everyone of us have certain vrittis which are afflictive. Like for example thinking of such and such object or person immediately elicits an emotion. Generally, all our likes, dislikes, identifications, ignorance and our attitudes to death and change are afflicted vrittis.
This is born out by modern psychology like CBT today: We begin to associate with certain stimuli a thought, which in turn brings about a feeling, which in turn brings about a behavioral response. For example in experiments done to test classical conditioning how a phobia can be induced into a subject by creating a mental association of a negative emotion with a certain object. In one famous experiment the fear of rabbits was induced into a child, but as a unexpected and unwanted outcome of the experiment, the child generalized his fear to all white objects(because the rabbit was white)