13,49 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: D.K. Printworld
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
About the Book
Patañjali’s Yogasūtra: A Psychological Study is an attempt at an English translation of Patañjali’s Yogasūtra with commentary rendered in current psychological idiom. It features an extensive Introduction to the context and attempts to draw out conclusions on the implications of yoga theory and practices to current psychological knowledge.
Yoga paradigm goes well beyond what is currently in vogue and provides a more fruitful model for studying and understanding human nature, both hidden and manifest. This volume thus provides the psychological context and the relevance of studies of yoga for advancing the existing psychological knowledge. Yoga psychology provides the foundation for Indian psychology, an emerging discipline, rooted in classical Indian tradition.
According to Indian psychology, the person is a unique composite of body, mind and consciousness, making a qualitative distinction between mind and consciousness. Self-actualization, the ultimate aim of a person, is realized by cultivating consciousness as-such, resulting in a kind of psycho-spiritual symbiosis, enabling a person to experience an all-around transformation.
About the Author
Professor Koneru Ramakrishna Rao is currently Chancellor of GITAM (deemed to be) University. He has the rare distinction of being National Fellow of the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research and the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, and Distinguished Honorary Professor at Andhra University. His earlier academic appointments include Professor of Psychology and Vice-Chancellor at Andhra University; Executive Director, Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man, USA; Chairman, A.P. State Council of Higher Education, and Advisor on Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh. He published 25 plus books and nearly 300 research papers.
Prof. Rao received numerous honours that include the national award Padma Shri from the President of India and Honorary Doctoral degrees from Andhra, Acharya Nagarjuna and Kakatiya universities. He was elected as the President of the US-based Parapsychological Association three times, the only Asian to be so honoured.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 440
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2019
Ähnliche
Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra
Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra
A Psychological Study
K. Ramakrishna Rao
Cataloging in Publication Data — DK
[Courtesy: D.K. Agencies (P) Ltd. <[email protected]>]
Rao, K. Ramakrishna, author.
Pataðjali's YogasÂtra : a psychological study/K.
Ramakrishna Rao.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Pataðjali. YogasÂtra. 2. Psychology — India. 3. Yoga — Psychological aspects. I. Title.
LCC B132.Y6R36 2018 | DDC 181.452 23
ISBN: 978-81-246-1000-8
First published in India, 2019
© K. Ramakrishna Rao
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of both the copyright owner, indicated above, and the publisher.
Printed and published by:
D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd.
Regd. Office: “VedaœrÁ”, F-395, Sudarshan Park
(Metro Station: ESI Hospital), New Delhi - 110015
Phones: (011) 2545 3975; 2546 6019
e-mail:[email protected]
Website: www.dkprintworld.com
Dedicated to
Shri Narendra Modi
The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
As a humble tribute for his outstanding
Contributions towards promoting Yoga in general and
for initiating the move to designate 21st June
as International Yoga Day by the
United Nations inparticular
Preface
My interest in yoga is long standing. I have been involved in theoretical studies as well as experimental research on yoga for over fifty years. I have had the privilege of establishing the Institute of Yoga and Consciousness and the Yoga Village under the aegis of Andhra University when I was its head. Dr Zail Singh, President of India at that time, inaugurated the Institute located in Vizianagaram Palace donated to the University by Shri P.V.G. Raju, the Maharaja of Vizianagaram, whom I had known personally. My empirical studies involved phenomenological and experimental work at the Department of Psychology and Parapsychology at Andhra University. Among these studies one that stands out in my mind is the research we conducted on Yogiraj Vaidyaraj. With the equipment brought from the Menninger Institute in the US, we along with Elmar Green and his wife monitored the physiological changes that took place as the yogi sat in a compact airtight wooden box with a glass door opening in front. With very limited amount of oxygen available, Yogiraj stayed in the box sitting for over seven hours with little noticeable physiological distress. In other words, the yogi was able to stay comfortable with very little consumption of oxygen relative to what is normally required.
Our work generated a lot of interest; and the Chief Minister of the state himself paid a visit to our laboratory. This is in stark contrast with the funding agencies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) who were reluctant to support academic study and research in yoga. At the time the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the UGC happened to know me personally, and were familiar with my academic credentials. I was successful in persuading them to fund our work. This was indeed the foundation that enabled me to continue for years my involvement in the study of and research in yoga. It is refreshing to note the current initiatives by the Government of India to promote yoga globally. Shri Narendra Modi successfully steered the United Nations to designate 21st June as International Yoga Day. This has cheered all of us who have been pleading for decades for a place for yoga in academic curricula.
Soon after the study of Yogiraj, I undertook a survey of yogis who were known or claimed to have supernormal powers. I found none I would consider as having any noticeable psychic abilities. Then, I went to a small institution in Pondicherry known as Anand Ashram and administered some standard parapsychological tests carried out by one of my students from Trinidad, West Indies. In some respects, the results were encouraging. Then, my moving to the US to head Rhine’s Institute of Parapsychology resulted in keeping aside my interest in yoga for nearly two decades.
My return to India resulted in a resurgence of my interest in yoga. My latest contribution in this area is the publication of the book Foundations of Yoga Psychology (2017). Several friends who read the Foundations suggested that a more condensed and affordable book containing mainly the text of Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra, with psychological commentary would be a valuable addition to yoga literature. This prompted me to undertake this publication.
In this book, we attempt at an English translation of Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra with commentary rendered in current psychological idiom. An extensive introductory chapter provides the context, and the concluding chapter attempts to draw out the implications of yoga theory and practices to current psychological knowledge.
There is not much that is original in this book. Most of it is drawn from the extensive literature that already exists. What I have done is to provide the psychological context and the relevance of studies of yoga for advancing psychological knowledge. It is my belief that the yoga paradigm goes well beyond what is currently in vogue and provides an alternative which is more inclusive and possibly provides a more fruitful model for studying and understanding human nature, hidden and manifest.
We consideryoga psychology as providing an interesting paradigm to study human behaviour with the goal of elevating human functioning to a different level of achievement and self-actualization. It goes well beyond studying human behaviour as something conditioned by learning and experience. It does away with all forms of reductionism and determinism, and attempts to open up a universe where freedom is the goal to be achieved through self-realization.
Yoga psychology indeed provides the foundation of what is now being developed under the rubric of Indian psychology. Indian psychology is an emerging discipline rooted in classical Indian tradition (Rao and Paranjpe, 2016). The basic postulate of Indian psychology is that the person is a unique composite of body, mind and consciousness, making a qualitative distinction between mind and consciousness. The goal of the person is self-actualization, which is realization of the self within. The self is not the manifest ego. It transcends all the hidden animal instincts. Indeed, it is one’s true being. Its realization/actualization is possible by cultivating consciousness as-such. Cultivating consciousness generates a kind of psycho-spiritual symbiosis, which in turn brings about personal transformation, altruistic value orientation, flowering of inner being, and manifestation of dormant psychic abilities.
I am grateful to Shri Narendra Modi, the hon’ble Prime Minister of India, for accepting my request to dedicate this book to him.
I have received much help from several of my colleagues in preparing this volume. They include my secretary Smt. Prasanna Kumari, who keeps me on track all the time keeping me alert without slipping into any kind of slumber, and Dr Rositta Joseph Valiyamattam, who had helped with the editing of the book. Again, my attendant in my office at GITAM University, Miss G. Kanaka cheerfully attends to all my routine needs in office. They all are part of my professional family. I acknowledge my appreciation for all their involvement and support.
K. Ramakrishna Rao
Visakhapatnam
8 November 2017
1
Introduction
India from its antiquity is a land conspicuous by its philosophical outlook. It has been India’s tradition to look beyond the existential situation and think about states of being more enduring than the passing events. It was not the past and the history of what had gone by that became the chief subject of concern, but the future where one would go, the goals to be achieved, the methods to be adopted and the guideposts to look for in the process. Thus, what is truly a sustaining force behind Indian philosophical inquiry is the search for the permanent and eternal and not the ephemeral and the changing. It is the relentless and diligent search for the main supporting substratum underlying all change that interested Indian thinkers from antiquity. The futuristic perspective is thus an indelible characteristic underlying the mainstream of Indian thought. However, the future is seen embedded in the present. It is a holographic conception. In a sense, it is an interesting postulation of “eternal present”, which may be seen as dispensing with the category of time altogether. This might look like a paradox; but the resolution of such seeming incongruities was a challenge which philosophers in India did not shy away from addressing.
While the goal of the search remains an ideal, the search itself is practical. Yoga1 stands for both the search and what is sought after. In this context, the goal to be achieved and the method of achieving become reflexive of each other. Means and ends thus become two faces of the same coin. Perhaps, a more appropriate analogy is that of the seed and the tree, like the acorn and the oak. Yoga may be seen as the seed as well as the tree of Indian philosophical tradition. The tradition involves more than the Hindu systems of thought, which no doubt, are its main branches. The other branches include Buddhism, Jainism and numerous other lesser known ones. Yoga has germinated and manifested in many distinct forms. Indeed, yoga is central and occupies the pivotal position in Indian way of life – its thought, passion and action. It is integral, binding intellectual pursuits, emotional engagement and daily activities in the Indian way of life. Not only is yoga an index of Indian culture, it may also be seen as a mark of Indian identity.
The antecedents of yoga may be traced to wandering ascetics. These ascetics included people seeking pleasures as well as those who denounced them and deprived themselves of mundane sensuous gratification. Some scholars called them “wandering swarms of ascetics”. Some other writers described the yogic exercises of that time as “ecstatic rites of savages” (see Ramachandra Rao, 2005). What we have come to know as Yoga system since the time of Pataðjali (about 200 bce) is what Pataðjali by his own admission gleaned, edited and systematized. Yoga did not originate with him. From all evidence, Yoga and yogic practices predate the Vedic period. Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra and various important commentaries following it such as those of VyÀsa, VÀcaspati, VijðÀnabhikÈu and Bhoja, as Ramachandra Rao (2005: 3) notes, refer to the Yoga “sanctified by the Vedic tradition”.
It would seem that yoga in antiquity was the general and accepted ascetic culture of the time. It was not theory loaded or theistically oriented. It was just a way of life, characterizing the people of the time. Such a conclusion may seem odd to those who have come to regard Yoga as a system of Hindu philosophy. However, the fact that yoga practices were not limited to Hindus and were part of the way of life of Buddhists and other non-theistic systems of thought needs to be taken serious note of, when we discuss yoga. It seems more reasonable to think that yoga is a native Indian culture not limited by or confined to any single system of philosophy. However, it is essentially native in its origin, its philosophy, practice and application.
If India has sponsored the United Nation’s resolution to have an International Yoga Day, it does not imply that Yoga is trans-Indian in its origin. Rather it may be seen as being an extension of the Indian conception of vasudhaiva kuÇumbakam (the notion of universal brotherhood).
If SÀÚkhya provided the theoretical/knowledge base of Indian culture, Yoga showed its practical applications in life. It is our contention that yoga is the seed and that Indian thought and culture from antiquity to the present constitute the tree that grew out of it. In a nutshell, the goal of human endeavour in Indian tradition is freedom. Yoga’s goal is liberation; it is liberation from mental constraints. Yogic practices are the ways to achieve liberation. Thus yoga constitutes the goal as well as the means to achieve that goal.
Liberation is self-realization. Self-realization is discovering one’s true self. In modern psychological terminology, it is self-actualization. This has been the theme of Indian philosophical pursuit since antiquity. As the B¦hadÀraõyaka UpaniÈad notes:
Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be perceived, to be marked, O MaitreyÁ! When the Self has been seen, heard, perceived, and known, then all this is known
– IV.5.8; Max Müller, 1895: 183.
Self-discovery is thus the goal; and yoga is a means to reach that goal.
Human mind is a mix of thinking, feeling and action. In the existential situation we hardly find a stable balance between them. This is because the human mind is in a constant state of flux and hence the need to control the ever wandering states of the mind. In one person, knowing may be a characteristic way of functioning. In another, it may be feeling or doing. Consequently, yoga needs to address the three types of people driven predominantly by thinking, feeling or action. This calls for three basic kinds of yoga – jðÀna (knowledge), bhakti (devotion) and karma (action). Self-realization may be sought by pursuing the path of knowledge (jðÀna-yoga) devotion/faith (bhakti-yoga) or action (karma-yoga). However, the three are not exclusive. One may combine them in various proportions. This happens often in most people, even though one characteristic element may be more dominant than others.
Now, we should not lose sight of the fact that the self and the ego (the sense of I-ness) are not the same. Ego often masquerades as the self and acts as an obstruction to self-realization. Self-realization is not possible unless the ego is brought under control and eventually eliminated altogether. This calls for cultivating altruism as a pervasive value. Altruism involves overcoming the limitations of the self confined to a single identity and extending it to include others, seeing the same self in others as well.
Having said all this, and recognizing that yoga is more than body-culture as it has come to be seen, we may not fail to acknowledge the fact that Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra remains the most authentic and systematic presentation of yoga in its theoretical and practical aspects. What is an interesting and less realized fact is that yoga is also a consummate system of psychology containing the quintessence of what may be dubbed as Indian psychology. Further, it has the potential for multi-dimensional application, complementing in significant ways the current areas of applied psychology. In our discussion, we use Indian psychology and Yoga psychology as synonymous expressions.
Yoga is the central theme of applied Indian psychology. Indian psychology is a system of psychology rooted in classical Indian thought, which provides an alternate paradigm sharply different from the current Western models widely in vogue in psychological theory and practice. The focus of Indian psychology and yoga is on gaining control over mental processes so as to gain access to consciousness as-such. Meditation is one of the techniques for achieving mind control. Thus meditation and yoga are interconnected. However, yoga is not merely broader in scope than meditation; it accommodates a wide variety of techniques and theoretical perspectives. Thus we have jðÀna-yoga, bhakti-yoga,karma-yoga and several other kinds of yoga. Each of these has own theoretical underpinning. Again, meditation may be seen from different perspectives and involve different techniques. However, the common connecting ground of yoga and meditation is their postulation of states of pure consciousness which are accessible to humans but are irreducible to events in the brain.
Pataðjali’s YogasÂtra is the basic text of yogic theory and practice. The goal of yoga practice, according to Pataðjali, is to control the natural tendency of the mind to wander. The method of controlling mental drifting consists in obtaining a certain attentional focus called ekÀgratÀ. When the wanderings or mental fluctuations are controlled one reaches a state of stillness, mental quiescence, quietude and absorption, which enables the person to have direct access to consciousness as-such in a state of samÀdhi. The purpose of Pataðjali’s yoga is to attain the niruddha state where the psychic fluctuations (v¦ttis) are completely restrained and controlled; and the person in that state is believed to gain access to truth as-such. This can be achieved by practising certain psychophysical exercises that include focused attention and concentration.
The mind is set in fluctuation not only by sensory stimulations, it presently receives or recalls, but also by the subliminal factors called vÀsanÀsand saÚskÀras. The vÀsanÀs are basic tendencies, either inborn or acquired. Having their own dynamism, they constantly strive for expression in consciousness and precipitative v¦ttis. A good deal of man’s experience is determined by these inborn tendencies. Unless these vÀsanÀs are revealed, controlled and eradicated, the citta (mind) cannot be fully restrained. Yoga practice, therefore, aims not only at the shutting out of the external inputs provided by sensory stimulation but also the “burning” of the subliminal latencies so that the niruddha state is attained and one can access consciousness as-such.
The citta is not merely a canvas on which one’s sensory inputs are imprinted. It is not merely a passive plastic state that takes on various forms. As Dasgupta (2005: 286) puts it:
There is also the reserve power in it called the œakti, by virtue of which it can reflect and react back upon itself and change the passivity of its transformations into active states associated with will and effort. Thus, man’s thoughts and actions are pure psychological determinations. But there in the citta is the reserve force by which it can act upon itself and determine itself. This force gets its full play in the strong effort required in meditation by which a particular state is sought to be kept in a steady condition as a check against the natural flowing tendency.
Pataðjali’srÀja-yoga formulates a psychophysiological method involving eight steps to control the fluctuations of the psyche, the v¦ttis. The first two are yama and niyama which include certain moral commandments such as truthfulness, non-stealing, continence, cleanliness and contentment. The next two, Àsana and prÀõÀyÀma, are physical exercises that involve sitting in comfortable postures and practising breath control. The fifth stage, pratyÀhÀra, is a special kind of introspection, a passive-attentive state, designed to understand the workings of psyche and guiding it in pursuit of truth and freedom. The last three – dhÀraõÀ (concentration), dhyÀna (contemplation) and samÀdhi (a standstill state of psyche) – are the most important ones in attaining the yogic meditative state. In fact, meditation proper refers to these practices and the others are simply preliminaries.
The need for ethical and physiological practices in yogic training is not difficult to understand. Desires and sensory indulgence encourage further involvement in the sensory processes resulting in the constant fluctuations of the psyche which are precisely what yoga seeks to control. The physical exercises are also designed to control internal processes, to reduce the sensory noise from outside and to ensure bodily health, the loss of which would be a source of distractions.
The pratyÀhÀra, the introspective stage is quite important. It enables one to focus on certain internal monitoring processes, some sort of biofeedback. It is what appears to be the connecting link between the physiological and the psychological exercises. It is by introspection that the practitioner of yoga is able to learn how to regulate the body to suit the requirements of his mental states. Such introspection, it would seem, enables the yogin to isolate those experiences, which he is seeking, and to produce them at will later.
Now, the object of all these exercises is to enable one to concentrate. There are some who can achieve desired levels of concentration without the recommended exercises. They could skip them. Concentration (dhÀraõÀ)produces in us a state in which the natural wandering of our thoughts, the fluctuations of the psyche, are brought under control. In a state of concentration, the psyche attends to one thing so that there is intensification of activity of the mind in that direction. In it, the focus of attention is narrowed, which is expanded when one goes from concentration to contemplation (dhyÀna). Contemplation helps to concentrate longer and to fix one’s attention on any object for a length of time with ease and in an effortless manner. When this is achieved, the psyche progresses to a standstill state in which the mind is steady and becomes one with the object of concentration. In other words, it experiences consciousness as-such in the state of stillness. The triple effort of dhÀraõÀ–dhyÀna–samÀdhi is called saÚyama. SaÚyama is meditation in its totality. SaÚyama leads one to experience pure states of consciousness and access consciousness as-such.
Yoga: An Inclusive Psychology
Contemporary psychology is essentially biocentric. Its widely shared assumptions are that the person is a brain-driven machine and that one’s achievements and actions, beliefs and behaviour, cognition and conduct can be studied scientifically and understood in their entirety following a mechanical or computer-simulated model within the mechanistic/reductionist framework. Indeed, during the past several decades psychology has made rapid strides giving credibility to the claim that human thought, passion and action are ultimately reducible to what goes on in one’s brain. Such being the case, it would be clearly audacious and imprudent, and even foolhardy, to speak about and champion the cause of a psychology with emphasis on the notion of consciousness as-such. Such an emphasis may be interpreted as conflicting with, if not contradicting the mainstream paradigm of scientific psychology. However, we venture to attempt such a study. Notwithstanding the enormous gains in our understanding of human nature made by the neuro-centric reductionism, there are glaring gaps in our knowledge of the way humans think, feel and act, and the fact that these in principle appear to be uncomfortably unbridgeable, calls for bold initiatives for developing more inclusive models.
Let me briefly refer to these gaps. First, consciousness in the sense of subjectivity is largely left out by the mainstream psychology. Behaviourism during its heydays attempted to banish consciousness from the precincts of psychology. Cognitive psychology, though a bit more hospitable to admit consciousness as a legitimate area of inquiry, has not gone beyond studying some functional aspects leaving the phenomenological aspects of consciousness little touched. This is so because, it would seem, consciousness is simply not accessible for third-person observation (Nagel, 1974) and there is an intrinsic “explanatory gap” in the attempts to explain conscious subjectivity in computational terms (Levine, 1983). Notwithstanding the many heroic efforts to generate artificial subjectivity in the so-called machine consciousness. I see little hope of realizing consciousness in any computational machine, even with conceivable advances in nanotechnology. The axiomatic rejection of inner experience and the persistent insistence of diehard “eliminatists” like Dennett (1991) and Blackmore (2003) that the notion of subjectivity is conceptually confused and scientifically incoherent, suggest to me that the crucial aspects of subjectivity may not be captured within the reductionist paradigm. Equally unconvincing are the attempts to account for subjectivity within the computational framework in terms of hypothetical cognitive processes such as the global workspace model of Bernard Baars (1988). I have dealt with these issues elsewhere at some length (Rao, 2002).
Second, there is significant evidence (Rao and Palmer, 1987; Radin, 1997, 2006) to suggest that awareness may occur without being mediated by sensory processes, as is believed to be the case with extrasensory perception (ESP). The defining characteristic of an ESP experience or a psychic event is that there is no physically identifiable causal connection between such an experience and its presumed source, i.e. the object of awareness. Also, the evidence for precognition, the ability to have non-inferrential awareness of a future event and the success of long-distance ESP experiments suggest that time and space are not limiting conditions for the occurrence of ESP, unlike in normal perceptions. If such is indeed the case, as the evidence strongly suggests, then ESP is utterly different from other cortically mediated cognitive processes. The alleged cases of reincarnation and presumptive memories from a previous birth, which stand on a less solid foundation than ESP, if genuine and if they turn out to be what they are claimed to be (Stevenson, 1974), then extra-cerebral memory, like ESP strikes at the very root of neuro-centric reductionism and calls for a qualitatively different explanatory framework.
Third, the claimed experiences of mystics around the world during the long history of humankind that they had experienced essentially ineffable, cognitively inaccessible and indescribable states of awareness suggest the possibility of the existence of pure consciousness, consciousness without any cognitive content (Forman, 1990). Again, the existence of states of pure consciousness or consciousness as-such, as we termed it, is a priori inadmissible from the biocentric psychological models.
Finally, the ethical assertion of freedom and responsibility as inalienable aspects of the human condition is based on the widely acknowledged notion of free will and self-determination that humans are inherently autonomous centres of thought and action. Freedom of will as personal and private is greatly compromised in all the reductionist psychological models.
Notwithstanding all the above, we may not ignore the fact that for all appearances we behave as if our consciousness is entirely dependent on the functioning of our brains. We see through our eyes. Cortical damage wipes out past memories. Chemical intervention alters behaviour in a variety of ways. All these facts undoubtedly suggest that the brain is a necessary condition for our cognition and conduct. However, the question is whether it is sufficient. I submit that the observations noted above suggest that consciousness, though dependent on neurobiological processes, may not be identical with or wholly determined by them. There is need to enlarge the biological model to provide for consciousness as an irreducible principle in human condition. I am persuaded that a psychology based on classical Indian thought provides a more comprehensive model that is better equipped conceptually and methodologically to deal with problems and areas that contemporary psychology has either ignored or discarded as unworthy of scientific inquiry. Further, Indian psychology, if I may use such an expression following Jadunath Sinha (1958/1961), is not merely theoretical. It is an extremely practical enterprise intended to transform humans leading them to higher levels of excellence and happiness inaccessible to current psychological imagination and application.
The foundational ideas of Indian psychology are found in Yoga. They are also incorporated into the Advaita system of Indian philosophy. Notwithstanding significant differences in the philosophical postulations of Yoga and Advaita VedÀnta, there is much that is common between the two at the psychological level. In an important sense, Yoga provides the foundational concepts and methods for most of the psychological discourse in the Indian tradition. Indeed Yoga contains the architectural plan for the psychological edifice in which philosophers of various persuasions have room to live. If SÀÚkhya–Yoga is a twin philosophical system, Advaita–Yoga may be seen as constituting a twin psychological system. I believe Yoga at the psychological level is as consistent with Advaita VedÀnta as it is with SÀÚkhya at the metaphysical level. I consider the psychological ideas in Yoga and Advaita as synonymous in a general sense with Indian psychology and prefer to use the latter in the rest of the paper. However, let me hasten to add that Indian psychology is not limited to Hindu psychology. Buddhist contributions to Indian psychology are just as significant and equally revolutionary against the backdrop of contemporary psychological discourse. Indian psychological thought as obtained in various classical orthodox and heterodox systems may be seen as mutually complementary and not necessarily conflicting. There are of course profound differences between them at the metaphysical level; but at the psychological level, there is among them a core of common content that is coherent and consistent. It is sometimes observed that among classical Indian writings there are texts devoted to special disciplines such as economics, ethics and art, but none for psychology. This was perhaps so because the YogasÂtra was taken as one satisfying that need.
Connection between Consciousness and Mind
In Yoga, puruÈa and prak¦ti are two fundamental, irreducible and distinctive forms of reality, and the mind is a manifestation of prak¦ti. Prak¦ti is undifferentiated materiality and puruÈa is undifferentiated subjectivity. The latter is assumed to be unchanging, inactive and isolated, while the former in its manifest forms is seen as the changing, active, interacting and evolving entity. In a somewhat contradictory stance, Advaita considers consciousness (Brahman) as the sole primary reality and materiality as an illusion manifested by mÀyÀ and perpetuated by ignorance (avidyÀ).
The relation between consciousness (puruÈa) and the mind (buddhi), which is an evolute of prak¦ti, is somewhat complicated inyoga psychology and is subject to different interpretations. Though the puruÈa and the prak¦ti are distinct and independent, they appear to come together in the act of knowing. How is it possible that two such dissimilar independent entities could join? On the surface the question appears not very different from the predicament of radical dualist theories such as the one articulated by the French philosopher Descartes. There is, however, one significant difference between the Indian and Western dualist approaches. It relates to the level of association and the purpose of association between the two. In the Cartesian dualist tradition the two entities involved in the act of knowing are the mind and the body conceived to be radically different. In Yoga and Advaita, they are consciousness and the mind; and the act of cognition is essentially performed by the mind with its associated sensory processes. Since the mind and the sensory system (the brain) are assumed to be material forms, there is no inherent difficulty in the possibility of interaction between the two in the process of knowing, which is almost an unsolvable puzzle in Western dualist theories where mind is equated with thought considered non-physical.
In Indian psychology, all theories are careful in pointing out that consciousness does not interact with the mind. The question arises, however, how does consciousness bestow subjectivity on the cognitive information processed by the mind? How does consciousness (puruÈa) illuminate the contents of the mind? The answer is that the puruÈa illuminates the mind by its very presence and it does not need to interact with the mind nor undergo any changes to accomplish this. How so? There are different theories. These appear to vary even within the same school or system of philosophy. For example, in Advaita VedÀnta, the relationship between consciousness and the mind is described at least in two different ways. First is the theory of reflection. It is assumed that consciousness reflects in the mind like the sun reflecting in a pool of water. The second is the theory of limitation. Consciousness is limited by the mind like space is limited and bounded in the jar. A variant of reflection theory is double-reflection theory, which suggests that consciousness is reflected in the mind illuminating its contents and that reflection reflects back in the puruÈa in the experience of subjectivity in knowing.
These theories do not really go into the heart of the problem and in an important sense they sidestep the central issue, which is consciousness–mind–body nexus. If it is consciousness that is reflected in the act of knowing why is it necessary at all for the mind to take the form of objects in the process of perception? What is the role of sensory system in the perceptual process, especially its involvement with the objects external to it? The precise nature of reflection is hardly revealed either by the Advaita or SÀÚkhya thinkers. The analogies of the image being reflected in a pool of water or of the space limited by the jar are basically flawed in that the two constituents, the sun and the pool of water, or space and the jar, are both physical entities unlike consciousness. As Surendranath Dasgupta (2001: 13) points out, consciousness, which is qualitatively different from the mind, “cannot undergo reflection like a physical thing and neither can it be obstructed nor limited by it”.
How do Pataðjali and his commentators deal with this issue of the relation between consciousness (puruÈa) and buddhi? Since the context is the cognitive act, let us review the yoga notion of cognition and how the puruÈa and the buddhi get interconnected in the process of knowing.
In an act of cognition, the mind (buddhi) flowing through the channels of the sensory system undergoes modifications and is said to take on the form of the object of cognition. Since the buddhi is unconscious, on its own it cannot be said to be aware of the objects of its cognition until the radiance of the puruÈa is reflected in and illumines the buddhi. In this process of illumination that bestows consciousness on the cognitive content incorporated into the modification the buddhi undergoes in the perceptual process, two things seem to manifest – (1) the contents of the mind become conscious, and (2) the ego sense arises in the mind. The act of reflection gives rise to the emergence of the ego and the misconstrual of the buddhi as the cognizing entity. This appears to be the necessary condition for bestowing consciousness on the contents of the buddhi. Even when the buddhi is devoid of any content the puruÈa’s reflection on the buddhi gives rise to the sense of self or personal identity. This is succinctly stated by Pataðjali in sÂtra IV.22, which Dasgupta (2001: 14) translates as “personal consciousness arises when the puruÈa, though in its nature unchangeable, is cast into mould of buddhi”. A natural consequence of this is the misconstrual that the self-consciousness arising in the act of knowing is identical with the puruÈa, the real self and the true source of reflection and illumination of the cognitive content of the buddhi. In sÂtra II.6, Pataðjali refers to this by describing personal identity (asmitÀ) as the misconstrued identity between the power of the seer (puruÈa) and the power of seeing (buddhi).
By referring to the power of the seer, is Pataðjali attributing power (œakti) to the puruÈa as he does to the buddhi? How can puruÈa have power when it is presumed to be inert at the outset? The seeming contradiction cannot be explained away as an illusion experienced by the ego engendered by the buddhi because the reference here is to mistaking the power of the buddhi (ego) for the power of the puruÈa. To whom does this misconstrual refer? It cannot be consciousness.
Again, we are told in sÂtra II.21, the seen (the phenomenal world) exists for the pleasure of the puruÈa. In fact, it is repeatedly asserted that the whole process of evolution of the prak¦ti is for the experience and liberation of the puruÈa. How can an inert and unchanging entity like the puruÈa have experience? Having an experience implies undergoing modification/change of sorts. Also, the puruÈa by assumption is free and is under no bondage. What sense does it make to suggest that the world of objects serves the purpose of liberation for the puruÈa, when in fact the puruÈa is assumed to be free all along, suffering no bondage and curtailment of its freedom? Clearly something is missing here. The seer Pataðjali speaks of, may not refer to puruÈa in and of itself. D¦ÈÇÀ (seer) may not be quite the same as the puruÈa. Is there anything else that comes close to the puruÈa in PÀtaðjala Yoga?
In explaining sÂtra II.20, which describes the seer not only as consciousness as-such but also as the witness to what goes on in the mind, VyÀsa points out that the puruÈa is not quite similar or dissimilar from the buddhi. The difference, he says, consists in the prak¦ti changing constantly, taking on a myriad of forms whereas the puruÈa is always the same self. The notion of self, however, appears in two roles. It is something connected/associated with the phenomena of the mind, making them conscious by its reflections. The second role is that it seems to see/witness what is in the buddhi. This is what is meant by pratyayÀnupaœya (witnessing or seeing through the buddhi)and thus having an experience of it. This experience in the final analysis is what helps in its liberation.
The puruÈa is assumed to exist in and for itself, whereas the buddhi, we are told, is for the enjoyment and liberation of the puruÈa. The puruÈa is self-subsisting and an independent centre of consciousness as-such. The buddhi, however, is a composite of the three guõas and is dependent on the puruÈa in the sense of existing for its sake. However, in the act of cognition, as we have seen, the puruÈa is reflected on the buddhi giving rise to the formation of personal identity in the form of ego sense, which is reflected back in the puruÈa, resulting in the puruÈa’sexperience. The puruÈa is the unchanging and constant source of light that illumines the contents of buddhi, which are ever changing. This underlying ever-present light of the puruÈa in the buddhi cannot be seen as separate from the buddhi. As Dasgupta (2001: 16) puts it:
It [puruÈa] is the light which remains unchanged amidst all the changing modifications of the buddhi, so that we cannot distinguish the puruÈa separately from the buddhi (avibhÀgaprÀptau iva). This is what is meant by saying buddeÍ pratisavedipuruÈa, i.e. the puruÈa reflects or turns into its own light the concepts of the buddhi and thus is said to know it. Thus its knowing is manifested in our consciousness as the ever-persistent notion of the self or ego which is ever so constant a factor in all the phenomena of consciousness.
Personal identity is thus a manifestation of material reality arising out of the seeming interaction of consciousness and the mind.
How is such seeming interaction through the reflection of the puruÈa possible unless there is some underlying similarity between the puruÈa and the prak¦ti? It is such presumed similarity that prompts VyÀsa to say that the two are not dissimilar. In fact, inVibhÂtipÀda we find Pataðjali sayingkaivalya (liberation) is the state where the purity of the sattva equals the puruÈa (III.55-56). Thus there is something very special in the sattva that relates to the puruÈa. There is a special kind of affinity between the purusha and the sattva of the buddhi. The sattva, it would seem, is the puruÈa’sphysical or transactional counterpart that is translucent to absorb and reflect the illumination of the puruÈa. This is perhaps what is meant to be conveyed by the commentators in the metaphor of the magnet that attracts the iron filings.
It may not be altogether unjustified if we go a little further and recast the process of evolution and the relation between the puruÈa and the buddhi to make sense of the “liberation” of the “free” and the “unbound”, and the “experience” of the changeless entity, viz. the puruÈa. The puruÈa is consciousness as-such; it is the principle of subjectivity and the foundational source of first-person experience. The prak¦ti is the principle of materiality and the foundational source of third-person object of experience. The puruÈa like the prak¦ti in its primordial condition is an undifferentiated subjectivity. The primordial condition may be considered as the transcendental state.
Now, the process of evolution and change, which is for the sake of the puruÈa, begins with the association of the puruÈa and the prak¦ti. Such an association is made possible by the sattva guõa of the prak¦ti, which is attracted by the puruÈa by its intrinsic affinity. Because of this “pull” by and the attraction to the puruÈa, the pre-existing balance/equilibrium in the prak¦ti is disturbed and the process of evolution begins. It makes good sense why the first evolute is the mahat, a predominantly sÀttvic stuff, because it is the sattva that begins to move towards the puruÈa.
It is not necessary at this point to go into the details of evolution and SÀÚkhya–Yogacosmology. We may note, however, while the prak¦ti undergoes the turmoil of the change, the puruÈa itself is pretty much outside of it and consequently there is no interaction between the two as in the case of magnet which attracts but does not interact with the iron filings. In the prak¦ti, however, there is a descent from transcendental plane to its transactional phase which begins in the form of its manifestations directed at the puruÈa. In this sense the transactional prak¦ti is for the puruÈa and is therefore dependent on it. Even though the puruÈa is outside of the prak¦ti and does not interact with it, it does influence the transactions by phenomenalizing them. Phenomenalizing consists in bestowing subjectivity on the transactions, i.e. transforming them into experiences. Inasmuch as subjectivity is the essential ingredient emanating from the puruÈa, the experience may be seen as that of the puruÈa, which appears, however, as something that belongs to the ego, the empirical or transactional self, which is the by-product of the process of phenomenalizing the contents of the buddhi.
The Nature of the Person
Personal identity arises as a necessary consequence of bestowing subjectivity on the buddhi transactions. In order to have an experience, there must be an agency to experience. The role of the agency is played by the mind in the form of the ego. Inasmuch as the ego is the centre of experience, which truly belongs to the puruÈa, there is the misconstrual of the ego as the self (puruÈa). As mentioned, the ego is a by-product arising out of the puruÈa illuminating the buddhi; and, as the agency of experience, the ego, i.e. the empirical self, is a transactional manifestation of the buddhi in its association with the puruÈa. The ego here may not be equated with the ahaÚkÀra aspect of the mind. It is more than that; it refers to the empirical “self” that enjoys identity and engages in the myriad transactions bearing that identity. This, it seems to me, is what is missing in Yoga theory as it is generally articulated. The missing concept here is the person (jÁva), which finds its due expression in Advaita. The jÁva is the one that is in bondage and is in need of liberation. Liberation consists in the realization of the non-identity between the transactional ego and the transcendental puruÈa. The realization does not belong to either the puruÈa or the prak¦ti but the jÁva in whom the puruÈa appears in the form of the ego. The essence of the person, the agent of experience, is the puruÈa. Therefore, the person’s true identity is to be found in the puruÈa and not in any other. Self-realization of the person essentially consists in realizing the puruÈa within.
Let us recall, the puruÈa is consciousness as-such or pure consciousness. The prak¦ti is the materiality as-such or the principle or substratum of all objects of experience. The puruÈa is that which makes awareness possible. The prak¦ti is what the awareness is about. In their transcendental abstraction, they are pure, independent and self-subsisting principles of reality. But in the existential human context, there is an entanglement of the two in the form of an interface between them. When and how this interface takes place is unknown for the reason that, we are cognitively closed to it as we are a product of that interface. For this reason it may be considered to be without a beginning.
In the human condition, the entanglement results in the emergence of the person. The person is embodied consciousness. As consciousness, the person is a centre of awareness. However, that awareness is constrained in various ways by the existential embodiment, in the language of Advaita, the covering by the five koœas. Awareness loses its transcendental character and knowing becomes transactional. Knowledge is no longer an absolute certainty, but a fallible truth, biased in numerous ways by the transactional process. The mind helped by the sensory system takes the form of the objects of its cognition. Consciousness arises from the reflection of the puruÈa on these forms and the person has the cognitive experience of awareness. This awareness, however, is not intrinsic to but an adventitious imitation of consciousness as-such for the reason that what is reflected is not the puruÈa consciousness or pure consciousness but the contents of the mind formed by the buddhi’stransactions.
The true problem does not consist simply in the arising of imperfect knowledge but in mistaking it for true knowledge of the puruÈa. Attribution of false/imperfect, sense-tainted knowledge to the puruÈa is avidyÀ, the root cause of all the suffering that comes to the person. The person is bondaged due to the baggage he/she carries in the mind. The one to be liberated is the person who misconstrues the buddhi as the puruÈa. The liberation consists in realizing the puruÈa in the person by offloading the baggage carried in the mind, i.e. by emptying the mind of its usual contents so that what is reflected is not the sensory forms taken by the buddhi but the puruÈa in and of itself, i.e. consciousness as-such. When the buddhi is pure the sattva,unaffected by rajas and tamas,it is able to reflect the puruÈa in an unblemished manner and the reflection is as good as the puruÈa consciousness. This refers to the state of kaivalya to which Pataðjali refers in sÂtras III.55-56, where the pure sÀttvic buddhi is considered as good as the puruÈa.
Advaita explicitly provides for jÁva, conspicuously missing in Yoga as a prominent concept. JÁva comprises of consciousness and its illusory manifestations. It is a blend of the Self (Brahman) and the not-self. The liberation of the person in Advaita consists in recognizing the illusory part and in realizing the true identity of the real part of the person with the Brahman.
It follows that, there are indeed two levels of existence and two sources of knowledge – one consisting of sense-mediated information and the other the intuitively realized consciousness as-such, the transactional awareness of the buddhi and the transcendental consciousness of the puruÈa. The awareness of the former arises in the mind when the puruÈa reflects the forms the buddhi has taken by its cognitive transactions. This is transactional knowledge or phenomenal awareness which is not without blemishes because of a variety of built-in biases. Intuitive realization of consciousness as-such is apodictic whose certainty is intrinsic and its falsehood is utterly unimaginable. In this sense it may be considered transcendental.
When the mind is devoid of any sensory content and when the biases and presuppositions perpetuated by the unconscious saÚskÀras and vÀsanÀsare removed or rendered impotent, the sattva of the buddhi is said to be pure. When the sattva is thus pure with rajas and tamas suppressed, the illumination of the puruÈa reflects itself in the buddhi, giving rise to knowledge of infallible certainty. In sÂtra I.48, this is described as ¦tambharÀ prajðÀ (transcendental realization of truth) distinguished from the transactional cognitive awareness. Inasmuch as yoga helps to purify the mind to manifest self-certifying ¦tambharÀ prajðÀ, it is a gateway to access consciousness as-such. As a consequence is the yogin’s ability to manifest phenomena that appear prima facie extraordinary and supernormal for those who are familiar with only transactional awareness.
Multiplicity of the PuruÈas
As we have seen, the puruÈa in SÀÚkhya–Yoga stands for consciousness. While the puruÈa is conceived as a universal reality principle underlying consciousness and subjectivity, SÀÚkhya–Yoga thinkers subscribe to the view that puruÈasare multiple in numbers. The notion that consciousness as-such is located in a number of isolated and independent puruÈas unconnected with each other is somewhat peculiar to SÀÚkhya–Yoga and stands in opposition to the more widely held view of other orthodox Hindu systems such as VedÀnta. In VedÀnta there is only one supreme consciousness/self. Individual selves are mere portions, parts or wave of one all-encompassing ocean of consciousness. What is the justification for assuming the multiplicity of puruÈas? And what reasons do SÀÚkhya and Yoga thinkers have for assuming the plurality of selves? Does the assertion of multiplicity of puruÈasrender Yoga psychology essentially alien to Advaita psychology?
Dasgupta believes that the notion of multiplicity of selves is consistent with SÀÚkhya–Yoga metaphysics of dualism that accords primacy to both consciousness and matter. In his words (2001: 24), “a careful penetration into the principles of SÀÚkhya–Yoga would bring home to us the idea that this is a necessary and consistent outcome of the SÀÚkhya view of a dualistic conception of the universe”.
The SÀÚkhya argument for the existence of plurality of selves is that such an assumption is necessary to account for the multiplicity of births and deaths, the diversity of occupations and dispositions of people. Pataðjali appears to share this view. The only reference to multiplicity of puruÈaswe find in the YogasÂtra is in sÂtra II.22, which may be rendered as follows:
Though the object no longer serves the purpose of puruÈa after liberation, and therefore ceases to be the object-of-sight for that puruÈa, it does not cease to exist because it is common to other puruÈas.
Thus the principle central to the multiplicity notion of puruÈas is the SÀÚkhya–Yoga view that the transactional reality brought about by the evolutionary transformations of the prak¦ti is for the purpose of the enjoyment and liberation of the puruÈa. In fact, this principle is the Achilles heel, as we have seen, that betrays confusion arising from the conflation of the the puruÈa (consciousness) and the jÁva (person).
Dasgupta may be correct in assuming that the notion of plurality of selves in SÀÚkhya and Yoga is consistent with their dualist metaphysics that accords reality to the phenomenal world. However, the assumption that the phenomenal world exists for the experience and liberation of the puruÈasis inconsistent with the equally important assumption that the prak¦ti is eternal, independent and does not depend on the puruÈa for its existence. It may be argued that the prak¦ti as such does not exist for the puruÈa but its manifestations do. But then how do the evolution and the consequent manifestations of the prak¦ti come about? Whether one attributes the transactional reality emanating from the prak¦ti to the will of god (±œvara), a special puruÈa (a position held by Yoga thinkers), or simply assumes that it is intrinsic to the puruÈa to have this kind of a relation like the magnet attracting iron pieces (a common SÀÚkhya view), it is clear that the prak¦ti is subordinated to the puruÈa and its existence in an important sense is dependent on the puruÈa. Obviously such an implication is inconsistent with the SÀÚkhya–Yogadualism which accords equal primacy for the puruÈa and the prak¦ti.
In order to overcome this difficulty, one would have to argue that behind all puruÈasthat are entangled with buddhisthere is the primordial puruÈa like the primordial prak¦ti which is behind the evolutionary manifestations in the transactional reality and the phenomena of experience. It does not really matter if this puruÈa is one or many. It is more a metaphysical question than a psychological problem. This is perhaps the reason why Yoga brings in the ±œvara (a higher order, all powerful puruÈa). Once we bring power into the equation, whether of god, or just the puruÈa, we are negating one of the essential aspects of the puruÈa that it is inert. Power, energy and activity belong to the prak¦ti and not to the puruÈa. It would be quite reasonable to question how an inert entity that can undergo no transformations in and of itself can have varied experiences as the puruÈa is assumed to have.
Again, we are told repeatedly that what is bondaged in the association between the puruÈa and the buddhi is the buddhi and not the puruÈa. Who is the one that misconstrues the agent of seeing and the instrument of seeing? It is an aspect of the buddhi and not the puruÈa. Therefore, the release must relate to the buddhi and not the mind. The imprisoned one is the mind that is made to serve the puruÈa and not the other way round. However, the entire exercise of yoga, we are informed, is for the liberation of the puruÈa, who in actuality is the “slave-driver” riding on the buddhi to reach kaivalya.
These implications are clearly inconsistent with SÀÚkhya–Yoga. I am inclined to think that there is some conflation at some level of interpretation of SÀÚkhya–Yoga stance on the saÚyoga (union) between the puruÈa and the buddhi
