The Yoga Tradition

by Georg Feuerstein

  Sâmkhya in later times has tended toward intellectualism, whereas Yoga has always been exposed to the danger of deviating into mere magical psychotechnology.

  Next to Vedânta, the Sâmkhya philosophy has been the single most influential system of thought within the fold of Hinduism, and Shankara regarded it as his main opponent. Sâmkhya is said to have been founded by the Sage Kapila, who is credited with the authorship of the Sâmkhya-Sûtra. Although a teacher by that name is likely to have lived during the Vedic Era, the Sâmkhya- Sûtra appears to have been composed according to some scholars as late as the fourteenth or fifteenth century C.E.

  In the framework of the six darshanas, the Sâmkhya referred to is the school of Îshvara Krishna (c. 350 C.E.), author of the Sâmkhya-Kârikâ. In striking contrast to Vedânta and the earlier Sâmkhya schools mentioned in the Mahâbharâta epic, Îshvara Krishna taught that Reality is not singular but plural. On one side are the countless mutable and unconscious forms of Nature (prakriti), and on the other side are the innumerable transcendental Selves (purusha), which are pure Consciousness, omnipresent and eternal. Looked at more closely, this pluralism is illogical. If countless Selves are all omnipresent, they must also be infinitely intersecting each other, so that logically they should be considered identical. This problem has been tackled again and again by various philosophers, and while Shankara’s nondualism is intellectually the most elegant, Râmânuja’s qualified nondualism perhaps best satisfies both reason and intuition.

  Îshvara Krishna further taught that the cosmos or Nature (prakriti) is a vast composite or multidimensional structure created by the interplay of three primary forces, the dynamic qualities (guna). The word guna means literally “strand” but has a wide range of connotations. In the context of Yoga and Sâmkhya metaphysics, the term denotes the irreducible ultimate “reals” of the cosmos. The gunas, which are of three types, can be said to resemble the energy quanta of modern physics. The three gunas are called sattva, rajas, and tamas. They underlie all material as well as psychomental phenomena. In the Sâmkhya-Kârikâ, their respective characters are delineated as follows:

  The [three types of] gunas are of the nature of joy, joylessness, and dejection and [respectively] have the purpose of illuminating, activating, and restricting. They overpower each other, are interdependent, productive, and cooperative in their activities. (12)

  Sattva is regarded as buoyant and illuminating. Rajas is stimulating and mobile. Tamas is inert and concealing. The activity [of the gunas] is purposive like a lamp [made up of various parts that together produce the single phenomenon of light]. (13)

  The gunas are the cosmos, just as the atoms are matter-energy. Together they are responsible for the immense variety of natural forms on all levels of existence other than that of the transcendental Selves, which are unqualified Consciousness. The German Sanskritist Max Muller observed about the gunas:

  We can best explain them by the general idea of two opposites and the middle term between them, or as Hegel’s thesis, antithesis and synthesis, these being manifested in nature by light, darkness, and mist; in morals by good, bad, and indifferent, with many applications and modifications.15

  According to the Sâmkhya-Kârikâ, the gunas are in a state of balance in the transcendental dimension of Nature, known as prakriti-pradhâna (“Nature’s foundation”). The first product or evolute to appear in the process of evolution from this transcendental matrix to the multiplicity of space-time forms is mahat, meaning literally “great one,” or great principle. It has the appearance of luminosity and intelligence, and is therefore also known as buddhi (“intuition” or “cognition”), standing for higher wisdom. But, in reality, mahat is in itself quite unconscious (as are all aspects of the cosmos), and it represents only a particularly refined form of matter-energy. It depends on the transcendental Self-Consciousness for its “light” of intelligence.

  Out of the mahat, or buddhi, emerges aham-kâra (“I-maker”), the principle of individuation, which ushers in the distinction between subject and object. This existential category, in turn, causes the appearance of the lower mind (manas), the five cognitive senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing), and the five conative senses (speech, prehension, movement, excretion, and reproduction). The ahamkâra principle further gives rise to the five subtle essences (tanmâtra) underlying the sensory capacities. They, in turn, produce the five gross material elements (bhûta), namely earth, water, fire, air, and ether.

  Thus, Classical Sâmkhya recognizes twenty-four categories of material existence in all. Beyond the guna triad and its products are the countless transcendental Self-monads, which are untouched by the ramifications of Nature.

  The entire evolutionary process is triggered by the proximity of the transcendental Selves (purusha) to the transcendental matrix of Nature. Moreover, the process is for the sake of the liberation of those Selves that, mysteriously and wrongly, identify themselves with a particular body-mind rather than their intrinsic condition of pure Consciousness.

  The psychocosmological evolutionism of the Sâmkhya tradition is not meant so much to explain the world as to help transcend it. It is a practical framework for those who desire Self-realization and who encounter the diverse levels or categories of existence in the course of their meditation practice.

  Yoga

  In the context of the six schools of Hindu philosophy, Yoga signifies specifically the school of Patanjali, the author of the Yoga-Sûtra. This school, frequently referred to as Classical Yoga, is considered a cousin of the Sâmkhya school of Îshvara Krishna. Both are dualist philosophies, which teach that the transcendental Selves (purusha) are radically separate from Nature (prakriti) and that the former are eternally unchanging, whereas the latter is forever undergoing transformation and is therefore not conducive to lasting happiness. We need not go into further detail here, because Patanjali’s school is presented at length in Part Three.

  Vaisheshika

  The school of Vaisheshika (“Distinction-ism”) is concerned with the distinctions (vishesha) between things. It teaches that liberation is attained through a thorough understanding of the six primary categories of existence:

  Substance (dravya), which is ninefold: earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, mind (manas), and Self (âtman)

  quality (guna), of which there are twenty-three types, such as color, sensory perceptions, magnitude, and so on

  action (karma)

  the universal (sâmânya or jâti)

  the particular (vishesha)

  inherence (samâvaya), which refers to the necessary logical relationship between wholes and parts, or substances and their qualities, and so on.

  The Vaisheshika school was founded by Kanâda, the author of the Vaisheshika-Sûtra, who lived perhaps around 500 or 600 B.C.E. The name Kanâda appears to be a nickname, meaning literally “particle eater.” Presumably it refers to the kind of philosophy elaborated by him, though some Sanskrit authorities suggest that the name immortalizes the fact that this mighty ascetic lived on particles (kana) of grain. Perhaps both interpretations are correct.

  The origins of Kanâda’s school of thought are quite obscure. Some scholars regard it as an offshoot of the older Mîmâmsâ school, others see in it a development of the materialist tradition, and yet others have proposed that it has its earliest roots in a schismatic branch of Jainism. In its general orientation as well as its metaphysics, the Vaisheshika school is close to the Nyâya system, with which it is traditionally grouped. Both these schools come closest to what we in the West understand by philosophy. They made a lasting contribution to Indian thought, but neither school has retained a prominent position. The Vaisheshika school is virtually extinct, and the Nyâya school has only a few representatives, mostly in Bengal.

  Nyâya

  The Nyâya (“Rule”) school of thought was founded by Akshapâda Gautama (c. 500 B.C.E.), who lived in an age of great controversy between Vedic ritualism and such heterodox developments as Buddhism and Jainism-an
era in which critical thinking and debating were, as in Greece, at an all-time peak. His was one of the earliest attempts to formulate valid rules for logic and the art of rhetoric.

  Akshapâda is a nickname suggesting perhaps that Gautama was in the habit of looking down at his feet (perhaps while being immersed in thought or in order to purify the ground while walking). He is attributed with the authorship of the Nyâya-Sûtra, which had many commentaries written on it. The oldest extant commentary is that of Vâtsyâyana Pakshîlasvâmin (c. 400 C.E.), written at a time when Buddhism was still strong in India. Another valuable commentary is Bharadvâja’s or Uddyotakara’s Nyâya-Vârttika, which has a fine subcommentary by Vâcaspati Mishra, who also wrote on Yoga. Nyâya entered its period of flowering around 1200 C.E., which is the beginning of the so-called Nava-Nyâya (or “New Nyâya”).

  Akshapâda Gautama proceeded from the insight that in order to live rightly and to pursue meaningful goals, we must first determine what constitutes right knowledge. True to the Indic flair for classification, he elaborated sixteen categories deemed important for anyone desiring to know the truth. These range from the means by which valid knowledge (pramâna) can be acquired, to the nature of doubt, to the difference between debate and mere wrangling. This is not the place to examine these categories more closely. What is of interest is the metaphysics of the Nyâya school.

  According to the followers of Nyâya, there are numerous transcendental Subjects, or Selves (âtman). Each infinite Self is the ultimate agent behind the human mind, and each Self enjoys and suffers the fruits of its actions in the finite world. God is considered a special âtman, as in Classical Yoga, and he alone is conscious. Despite the fact that the human Selves are all considered unconscious, as in the Mîmâmsâ school, the Nyâya philosophers proposed the pursuit of liberation (apavarga) as the noblest goal in life. Of course, their opponents did not fail to point out the undesirability of a liberation that would lead to a rocklike, insentient existence. How little the adherents of Nyâya were convinced by their own metaphysics is evident from the fact that they looked for spiritual refuge in the religious teachings of Shaivism.

  There are several points of contact between Nyâya and Yoga. Yoga is mentioned in the Nyâya- Sûtra (chapter 4) as that condition in which the mind is in contact with the Self alone, as a result of which there is mental equilibrium and insensitivity to bodily pain. In discussing various forms of perception, Vâtsyâyana Pakshîlasvâmin noted that the yogins are able to perceive remote and even future events, a skill that can be cultivated by the regular practice of meditative concentration. Liberation is called apavarga, and this term is also found in the Yoga-Sûtra (2.18) where it is contrasted with the idea of world experience (bhoga).

  A further curious parallel is that both Nyâya and Classical Yoga subscribe to the doctrine of sphota. This term refers to the eternal relationship between a word and its sound. The idea here is that, for instance, the letters y, o, g, and a, or even the entire word yoga, cannot explain the knowledge we have of the thing called “Yoga.” Over and above these letters or sounds, there is an eternal concept, the essence of a thing. Upon hearing a sequence of sounds, this eternal essence “bursts forth” (sphuta) or reveals itself spontaneously in our mind, leading to comprehension of the thing thus denoted.

  A final connecting point is that an adherent of Nyâya is also known as yauga, that is, “one who has to do with Yoga.” It is not clear what is entailed in this designation.

  The division of Hindu philosophy into six schools is somewhat artificial. There are many other schools-notably those associated with certain sectarian movements-that at one time or another played an important role in the evolution of Indian thought. We will encounter some of them in later chapters. What should be borne in mind is that Yoga influenced most of these approaches and traditions, though it did so more as a loose body of ideas, beliefs, and practices than as the philosophical system (darshana) articulated by Patanjali.

  V. YOGA, YUR-VEDA, AND SIDDHA MEDICINE

  yur-Veda (“Science of Life”)—usually written as one word in English, yurveda-is the name given to the native Indian system of medicine. yur-Veda is essentially naturopathic medicine, emphasizing prevention but also having an extensive curative repertoire. It is practiced in India alongside modern medicine and is put forward as a way of life for those wishing to enjoy good health and longevity. Although yur-Veda cannot be regarded as a philosophical tradition, it is founded in Hindu metaphysics. yur-Veda is traditionally considered to be supplementary knowledge to the ancient Atharva-Veda. In this sacred scripture we find the earliest recorded speculations on anatomy and on curative and preventive medicine. Because of its cultural importance, yur-Veda has sometimes been regarded as a fifth branch, or “collection,” of the Vedic heritage.

  The yur-Vedic body of knowledge is said to have originally amounted to 100,000 stanzas, gathered in a book of over one thousand chapters. While medicine was undoubtedly practiced in the early Vedic era, no work of such comprehensiveness has survived into our time. The earliest extant medical works of encyclopedic scope are the Sushruta-Samhitâ and the Caraka-Samhitâ. In its oldest portions the former work dates back to pre-Buddhist times, but it was completed in its present form only in the early centuries of the Common Era. Sushruta is remembered in the Mahâbhârata (1.4.55) as the grandson of King Gâdhi and son of the sage Vishvâmitra, which in the revised chronology adopted in this volume would place him roughly sixty-two generations before the Bhârata war, that is, c. 3000 B.C.E. Sushruta’s name means literally “well heard,” suggesting that he was particularly capable of receiving and understanding the transmitted knowledge. How much of the original medical knowledge can be found in the extant Sushruta-Samhitâ is anyone’s guess. We know, however, from hymns in the Rig-Veda and Atharva-Veda that there were skilled physicians during the Vedic Era.

  The Caraka-Samhitâ, which also was frequently revised, was probably given its present shape around 800 C.E. However, its reputed author, Caraka, probably lived many centuries earlier, since he is said to have been the court-physician of King Kanishka (78–120 C.E.). Caraka’s name reminds us that the ancient physicians-though perhaps not the renowned Caraka himself-used to travel (cara) from place to place offering their medical services.

  Like Classical Yoga, which is comprised of eight “limbs,” the yur-Vedic system of medicine is-according to the Sushruta-Samhitâ (1.1.5–9)-divided into eight branches: (1) surgery; (2) treatment of diseases of the neck and head; (3) treatment of physical diseases of the torso, arms, and legs; (4) treatment of childhood diseases; (5) processes for counteracting baneful occult influences; (6) toxicology; (7) processes for rejuvenating the body, known as rasâyana; and (8) techniques for sexual revitalization (vâjikarana).

  The formal similarity between yur-Veda and Patanjali’s eightfold Yoga, remarked on by the Hindu authorities, is purely coincidental, though some traditional authorities have paid attention to this parallel. There are, however, a number of important concepts and techniques that yur-Veda and Yoga have in common. Most significantly, the authors and editors of the above-mentioned medical reference works availed themselves of the philosophy of the Yoga-Sâmkhya tradition. Thus, at one point the Sushruta-Samhitâ appears to have been revised in light of Îshvara Krishna’s dualist system of thought, as propounded in his Sâmkhya- Kârikâ. The Caraka-Samhitâ, on the other hand, contains echoes of epic Sâmkhya-Yoga metaphysics. Here it should also be mentioned that some of the ancient Sanskrit commentators believed that the same Patanjali who composed the Yoga-Sûtra also wrote a famous treatise on grammar and one on medicine.

  Both yur-Veda and Yoga insist on the interactive unity of body and mind. Physical diseases can affect the mind adversely, and mental imbalance can lead to illnesses of all kinds. yur-Veda’s notion of a healthy life includes that it must be both happy (sukha) and morally good (hita). A happy life, by yur-Vedic definition, is one that is physically and mentally hale and vigorous as well as moral and even wise. T
he intimate relationship between ethical conduct and happiness is emphasized in the Yoga literature as well.

  The authorities of yur-Veda recommend the cultivation of tranquillity, self-knowledge, and prudence. Today we might say that the Hindu physicians incorporated self-actualization (in Abraham Maslow’s sense16) into their medical theory and practice. We can readily appreciate that such a life would form a sound basis for the pursuit of the spiritual value of Self-realization (âtma-jnâna).

  In his book yurveda and the Mind, David Frawley goes so far as to say:

  Yoga is the spiritual aspect of yurveda. yurveda is the therapeutic branch of Yoga.17

  A strong connecting point between yur-Veda and Yoga is the theory of the various life currents (vâyu) in the body, which originated at the time of the Atharva-Veda. The medical authorities generally list thirteen conduits (nâdî) along or in which the different types of life force (prâna) are thought to travel, whereas the Hatha-Yoga scriptures usually mention fourteen such principal pathways. Often a distinction is made between these conduits and larger ducts (called dhâmani) carrying fluids such as blood, etc. The yur-Vedic model of this network of channels is quite different from the Tantric model, which is more specific to the subtle body.

  In Hatha-Yoga, the importance of commencing the practice of breath control in the right season is recognized. The medical basis for this custom is furnished by yur-Veda, according to which the bodily humors (dosha) undergo changes in the different seasons. The concept of the doshâs also is referred to in a number of Yoga works, such as the fifth-century Yoga-Bhâshya (1.30), where illness is defined as an “imbalance of the constituents (dhâtu) or the activity of the secretions (rasa).” In his ninth-century gloss on this text, Vâca- spati Mishra explains that the constituents are air (vâta), bile (pitta), and phlegm (kapha), in other words the doshâs. This is medical language.