The Vedānta interpretation of the Yogasūtra

39 nucleus of all cognition’ 92 . Each individual jiva, according to Advaita Vedānta is a ‘reflection pratibimba of the infinite Consciousness on the finite mirror of ignorance and compared to one of many reflections of the moon cast on different receptacles of water’ 93 The jiva functions through the gross body and its organs of perception and action as well as the mind manas, intellect buddhi, I-am-ness ahamkāra and memory. How this view of the self reflected in the vivaraņa sub-commentary of Śa ṁ kara is described in the next section. .

c. The Vedānta interpretation of the Yogasūtra

The main argument of this dissertation is that Pātānjali ’s Yogasūtra is a Science of Mind and as such it can be appropriated by different philosophical and metaphysical systems to provide a coherent explanation. Śa ṁ kara ’s vivarna is an example of this in that although the school of Advaita Vedānta, of which Śa ṁ kara is the main proponent, differs markedly in its assumptive base, the Yogosūtra can be interpreted from this perspective of Reality. Our task would be to show where and how Śa ṁ kara uses the concepts of Vedānta to swing the interpretation of the sūtra-s from a Sā ṁ khya standpoint towards a Vedānta one. A detailed analysis of the vivarņa and its leaning towards an Advaita Vedānta epistemology, ontology and soteriology would be a thesis by itself, beyond the scope of the present work. We will however consider some significant aspects to support this line of argument. Śa ṁ kara interest in writing a commentary on the Yogasūtra could have been because it had substance central to his own viewpoint, in particular meditation. At the same time it must be remembered that he was opposed to some of the doctrines of the time including the Sā ṁ khya and in this case Classical Yoga. The expectation that Śa ṁ kara would shift the logic and the argument and quote scriptural authority to modify these positions, is amply evidenced in his vivaraņa. It is in the 92 P. Deussen, The System of Vedānta, Low Price Publications, Delhi, 1995 reprint 93 S. Mayeda translator and editor, A Thousand Teachings: The Updesasahasri of Samkara, SUNY Press, NY, 1992 40 first pāda chapter of the Yogasūtra that he brings the thought in line with Advaita Vedānta of which he was the leading proponent 94 Śa ṁ kara true to the methodology of his school emphasises the role of intellectual reflection and consequent conviction leading to practice. This method is a three step process – sravanam listening, mananam reflection on what has been heard and nidhidhyāsanam making real what has been reflected upon through meditation and practice. For Śa ṁ kara intellectual conviction developed through this process is ‘supremely important in the early stages of yoga’ . While ostensibly commenting on Vyāsabhāșya , he gives interpretations which are opposed to those of the Classical Yoga School. This is striking in his great elaboration on the 5 sūtra-s on Isvara God, which form only a tenth of the total number of sūtra-s in this chapter. He takes up nearly a quarter of his commentary on this chapter just on the five aphorisms. 95 ‘Until there is a direct perception pratyaksa of at least one thing taught by scriptures and teachers, it is all second-hand , and does not produce a firm conviction about such subtle things as release. Therefore some specific thing has to be directly experienced, to reinforce what has been so learnt’ . Until there is any direct experience, the knowledge itself remains as it were, second-hand. If there is a direct experience of the truth being reflected upon, then there is firmness of conviction that results in removal of doubts. This is particularly stressed by Śa ṁ kara in his commentary on YS I.35 where he says: 96 True to this method of teaching, Śa ṁ kara makes use of inference and analogy as a basis for his explanation of the sūtra-s. Also he makes use of the dialectic format of an opponent asking . 94 T. Leggett, Samakara on the Yogasutra, p 5 95 Ibid., p 5 96 T. Legget, Samakara on the Yogasutra, p 148 41 questions or expressing doubts which are then answered by the commentator, a characteristic feature of his other established commentaries on the Bhagavad Gitā and Brahmasūtra. Thus using the concepts of Advaita Vedānta, Śa ṁ kara is able to swing the interpretation of the commentary by Vyāsa towards his school of thought. Throughout the commentary, Śa ṁ kara points to the importance of the intellect buddhi in the whole soteriological purpose of Yoga. This is a typical Vedānta approach where the importance of mananam reflection and vivekah discrimination between the Real and unreal, is stated in this path of knowledge ana yoga. Not only is the employment of the intellect stressed but the reliance on the scriptures āgama is of primary importance in the process of reflection. It is the scriptures which gives the knowledge which is the guide to thinking and action in life. Abhyāsa practice as in YS II.1 is taken by Śa ṁ kara as the study of sacred texts beginning with the Upanishads what Śa ṁ kara calls the moksha Śāstra or the scriptures on release 97 The mind is described by Śa ṁ kara as a fish which is caught in the net formed of the objects presenting at this time. It is, as it were, held captive by these objects because there is impurity in the mind which is said to be without beginning and which results from the samskāra-complexes impression complexes or vāsanā s and karma-s actions from the past. These impurities can be removed by tapas austerities. . The purpose of this ‘yoga of action’ is to actualise Samādhi meditative absorption when it is practiced hard and when the kleśa which is translated as ‘taints’ by Leggett are thinned 98 97 Ibid., p176 . Śa ṁ kara then goes on to use a concept found in most of his writings ‘ samyagdarśana’ or right vision. This word is used more than 50 times in the vivarņa. The constancy of this right vision thins the taints and makes them incapable of producing any effects, just like unfertile seeds. In typical style Śa ṁ kara also 98 Ibid., p177 42 points out that even if the Knowledge khyāti that sattva and purușa are wholly different is produced by the instructions of the scripture and teacher, the taints will not be completely removed without the constancy of the right vision, practiced again and again. So not only through the austerities but also by the practice of samyagdarśana with the faculty of the intellect, can the taints be completely removed. In sūtra II.1 Śa ṁ kara interprets the devotion to the Lord Isvara as ‘consigning actions to the Lord, the supreme teacher, or else letting go their fruits of action and surrendering them to the Lord’ 99 . The whole concept of Isvara is appropriated by Śa ṁ kara from his Advaita Vedānta perspective. God is presented as the creator of the universe by his divine mind which is in contrast to Pātānjali’s position. Although Pātānjali portrays Yoga Darśana as primarily theistic, the genesis of the world is confined to the evolution of prakŗiti without the involvement of Isvara directly. According to this view, prakŗiti goes into manifestation as a result of purușa giving attention to prakŗiti . In Vedānta God is the all-creating and ruling overlord of the universe, which he projects through the power of māyā illusion, also entering into this projection as the ‘inner ruler’ antaryāmi of each thing in it. This idea is elaborately set out in the Bhagavad Gitā in Chapter 9 100 . Liberation can be achieved by worshipping Him and repetition of OM, which becomes the main practice 101 and which leads to the experience of the real Self as one with God who transcends the universe. This marks a fundamental departure in the interpretation of the idea of Isvara in the Yogasūtra and links it with the Vedantic idea of God as the creator through His powers 102 99 T. Legget, Samakara on the Yogasutra, p176 . A corollary to this is what was described above as 100 For example Lord Krishna in BG IX.18 says: I am the goal the sustainer, the master, the witness, the refuge, the guardian, the well-wisher, the creation, dissolution, the preservation, the reservoir and the imperishable cause. 101 In the Vyasabhāśya , the meditation on OM is only one alternative. 102 T. Leggett, Samakara on the Yogasutra, p 128: YS I.25 where Samkara talks of the ‘First Knower’the Lord, as the one who ‘created the mind by his mere intention, a yogic mind, and entered into the possession of it, in order to give the teaching’ 43 the basis of yoga of action being the dedication of all actions to the Lord or surrendering the fruits of actions. There are two illusions in Vedānta compared to the one in Yoga. In the latter it consists of the individuality being fascinated by prakŗiti’s displays which are put on according to the merits and demerits of the experience. In the process the true identity of the dŗșta is unknown. This illusion is removed by cessation of the modifications of the mind and then by meditation and detachment. Then the purușa, of which there are many, remains in his transcendental nature. Advaita Vedānta speaks of two illusions, one where the true Self under the illusion that it is the limited ego entity through a misidentification and the other, where the whole world-display is an illusion. As the Lord is within everything, in fact at the core of material manifestation jagat, there is the eternal principle of Brahman. Although Śa ṁ kara hints at the unreality of the world in various sūtras, the complete Vedantic view is not explicitly stated 103 . For example, Śa ṁ kara talks of discovering the intelligence behind the play of prakŗiti in YS I.25 and together with YS I 23, 25-27, he writes extensively on the idea of Isvara and its relationship to the ego identity and the world. Even the perfection in Samādhi comes from devotion to the Lord 104 103 T. Legget, , Samakara on the Yogasutra, p 8 . This conceptualisation of Isvara, the Lord has many ramifications throughout the vivarņa in terms of the cessation of the modifications of the mind to the intention and attitude with which actions are done in the world. Although these are only five out of the 51 sūtra-s in this chapter, Śa ṁ kara takes up about a quarter of his commentary just on these. Again this demonstrates how the Yogasūtra Science of Mind can be interpreted from different perspectives. 104 Ibid., p 265, YS II.32 and also YS 43-45, p 273 44 In Advaita Vedānta, there is a clear connection between avidyā ignorance and māyā, the former being the subjective and the latter being the objective forms of the same phenomenon 105 . Avidyā is in the individual and is the characteristic of the intellect and māyā is in the world of names and forms. In YS II.3 and II.4, he clearly makes the connection between avidyā and māyā when he says of the five kleśa-s, that they are forms of illusion and this is nothing but ‘impurity of the idea’ 106 . When something has been perceived as something else, there is adhyāsa 107 Thus with this brief analysis of Śa ṁ kara’s vivarņa, it is evident that the Yogasūtra Science of Mind can be looked at from very different points of view and still be able to present it with consistency and coherence. or superimposition, as for example when the rope is seen as a snake. This is another key term in Advaita Vedānta and is used by Śa ṁ kara in the vivarna many times to illustrate the point that superimposition due to the impurities of the intellect.

d. Summary: