|
|
|
| Free E-magazine |
| Subscribe to our Free E-Magazine on Hath Yoga. |
| Learn More |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home > Indian philosphy for Yoga > Samkhya and Yoga
| |
| | Samkhya and Yoga
| |
| |
 Samkhya and Yoga can be said to convey the theoretical and practical aspects of the same system. Owing to this statement, the interwoven or intimate relationship between the two can be derived out. However, many philosophical differences between Classical Yoga and Classical Samkhya also exist, leading to the doubts pertaining to the precise nature of the relationship. This ambiguous view is clearly shown from analysis of the Yoga-Sutra of Patanjali on the one hand, and of the Samkhya-Karika of Ishvara Krishna on the other.
The intellectual and theoretical work of Classical Samkhya relies primarily on the exercise of discernment (viveka) and renunciation. Whereas Classical Yoga stresses the necessity for the cultivation of ecstatic states (samadhi), in which insight can penetrate the deeper levels of consciousness and the world.
A mutually interrelated nature of the relation between Samkhya and Yoga is clearly indicated by the fact that one of the alternative names for Patanjali`s darshana is Samkhya-pravachana.
If there is a difference between the Samkhya darshana of lshvara Krshna and the Yoga of Patanjali it is mainly on emphasizing. The Samkhya-Kariku ischiefly concerned with listing, classifying and explicating the relations between the various tattvas or layers of reality. While, the Yoga-Sutra places greater stress upon the practical methodology for disclosing those tattvas.
There is but a minor difference between the terminology used in both the texts, which may not have to be due to conceptual difference between the two.
The metaphysical categories known as tattvas are known to be perceived by yogis in deep meditation. It is not suppose to be merely the result of rationalisation. The Samkhya system involves testimony of experience instead of explaining away whatever runs counter to a preconceived scheme of simplicity. And hence in both the texts experience precedes intellectual analysis. The tattvas have in turn, been specified or enumerated (the literal meaning of samkhya being `enumeration`) to provide an intrapsychic `map` for the guidance of other meditating yogis.
Many a times the Samkhya Darshanas have been evaluated without paying attention to this major foundation. Hence, this inadequacy has resulted in the Samkhya tattvas having been assumed to constitute a linear process of cosmological evolution. In reality, they describe the levels of reality common to both the macrocosm and the human microcosm.
The levels of reality explained in the Samkhya philosophy is one of two aspects. The other side is the idea of misidentification i.e. of mistaking the nature of one`s own ultimate identity. Both intrinsically related notions are crucial to our understanding of the process and goal of yoga.
The schematic of tattvas comprises of progressive layers of more subtle substance, which are described as manifestations of prakrti. Prakriti is both, the source of universal substance and the power of extension and manifestation. In order to experience these various layers and to penetrate more deeply into the nature of objects, one must cultivate the perceptual faculty through intense meditation.
The notion of misidentification is connected with that of having a `false relationship` with the phenomenal world. The root cause being that we tend to identify ourselves with the level of reality corresponding to the material outward appearance of things. Thereby, humans fail to perceive the more subtle aspects of reality and hence those of our own beings. As long as we identify ourselves with the body, mind and senses of worldly perceptions, we will continue to be the target of dukha. It is because sensations are as fickle as the events that fluctuate between happiness and pleasure on the one hand, and distress and anxiety on the other.
To know the reality behing all the physical covers, one has to go "Inwards".The purpose of yoga is to direct one`s attention towards increasingly rarefied tattvas, and to thereby discover and identify with more refined layers of one`s own perceptions of truth. This leads to the discovery of the truth behind misidentification and to replace it by the accurate identification of oneself as Purusha. From the perspective of purusha identity, the body, mind and senses are seen as merely the vehicles through which the truth or enlightenment can be expressed or `shine forth` on the material plane.
Patanjali taught a form of radical dualism that remained quite controversial within the fold of Hinduism. According to him, there are two eternal categories of existence. The first being the transcendental Self (Purusha) and the transcendental world-ground (Prakriti).
The Purusha comprises countless Selves that are omnipresent, omniscient, and passive spectators of the worldly and cosmic happenings.
The Prakriti comprises all the manifest and unmanifested dimensions and forms of Nature, which are inherently dynamic.
Vyasa refers to the relationship between Purusha and Prakrti as one of beginning less connection thereby rejecting the notion of one principle`s having emerged from the other. The relationship between the two is essentially beyond words.
Prakriti cannot be said to dissolve into Purusha. To do so would convey that Purusha has the potentiality for transformation or evolution, when in fact this ultimate Self is perfect and free from any mutations.
Neither can it be claimed that prakrti is entirely unconnected with Purusha. For any experience to take lace, the presence of Subject and object is mandatory.
The natural quwestion arises as then to how to achieve Moksha. Moksha or kaivalya involves an `opening` and `expansion` of one`s sense of self-identity to the extent that worldly-identification is transcended.
When viewed as a theory of categories of existence the system presented in the Samkhya and Yoga Darshan as may be described as dualistic. However, both the aspects must be understood and must ultimately be transcended in the final state of yoga then it may justifiably be called non-dualistic.
In short, the philosophy of Samkhya-Yoga begins in dualist analysis and ends in united knowledge.
Speaking of Dualism, even non dualistic work like Advaita Vedanta state that the relation between the absolute principle (Brahman) and the phenomenal world (referred to as maya) has never been adequately defined in Advaita Vedanta. The relation is said to be indefinable. Just as, in Samkhya-Yoga, prakrti is held to exist `for the purpose of purusha`, so, in Advaita Vedanta, the existence of Maya is regarded as necessary in order for us to eventually come to the realisation that she (maya) is not the ultimate reality (Brahman).
The similar analogy can be presented as in the absence of darkness, we could have no conception of light as a contrast is necessary for evaluation. So, if we forever dwelt in a state of pure knowledge, without anything to perceive, then we would remain entirely unaware of our condition. As Radhakrishnan puts it, `The finiteness is necessary before we can reach the infinite.`
The relation between Brahman and Maya, or Purusha or Prakriti is deemed to be beyond simple description, analogies are usually given to describe the essential nature. Although no analogy can be faultless or precise, still few of the interesting ones are described as follows:
Samkhya-Karika refers to the symbolic image of a lame but seeing man riding upon a blind man`s shoulders. The lame one stands for the source of consciousness as Purusha. The blind one is for the unconscious source of activity as prakrti. The journey being the experience on the way to self realisation, it is important that both, sentience and movement are necessary, and thus `the lame and the blind` must come together. This analogy perpetuates the necessity of both to be mutually complimentary for each other.
Another analogy in Samkhya Karika is that of a dancer representing prakrti performing before an audience i.e. purusa. Purusha is the mute spectator of the charming performance of the dancer. The dancer desists from her dance once its purpose has been fulfilled.
Another analogy can be found in the Tattva-Vaisaradi, a commentary by on the Yoga-Sutra and Yoga-Bhasya. Here, the commentator compares Purusha to the moon, whose reflection appears on the surface of a body of water. The water represents buddhi, the most refined tattva of prakrti. Purusha therefore appears to possess movement due to the ripples on the water, but always in fact remains aloof.
Another analogy mentioned in both Samkhya Yoga and Advaita Vedanta traditions is that of a magnet`s effect upon iron filings. If Brahman is both absolute and immutable, there can be no possibility of movement. Sankara notes that `The magnet is itself devoid of motion, and yet it moves iron. Also, colours and the other objects of sense, although themselves devoid of motion, produce movements in the eyes and the other organs of sense. So the Lord Ishvara also who is all-present, the Self of all, all-knowing and all-powerful may, although himself unmoving, move the universe`. In the Samkhya terminology, the motionless principle would be purusha, and that which moves or evolves is prakrti.
Such analogies are however just the suggestive of the relationship between the supreme and the phenomenol.
These analogies are applicable to hatha yoga principles as well. Afterall, Samkhya is known to be the basis of Yoga. The following statement sum up the relevance:
"That which the practitioners of Yoga perceive is also perceived by the practitioners of Samkhya. Whoever looks upon Samkhya and Yoga as one...knows the truth. "
(Yajnavalkya in Mahabharata 12.304.2)
| |
| |
|
