Part 7 - Comparative analysis of commentaries on Pātañjala Yogasūtra

[Full title: Comparative analysis of commentaries on Pātañjala Yogasūtra between Vyāsa (translation by Hariharānanda-Araṇya) and Osho]

1. Vyasa the scientist and Osho the poet

The first thing that comes to the notice while studying the commentaries on Pātañjala Yogasūtra> by Vyāsaand Osho is their contrasting styles of narration and explanation. The former explains like a scientist and the latter overwhelms like a poet. In the former the head dominates and in the latter heart dominates.

While Vyāsahas a scholarly and erudite exposition, the narration is restricted to the explanation of only the topic at hand. He rarely provides examples (dṛṣṭāntas) to buttress the points. The examples that he provides were suitable to the readers of his era. As such Vyāsa’s commentary may be rather difficult to understand and comprehend for majority of modern aspirants and seekers. Vyāsahas a direct focus on the explanation of sūtra at hand in a very scientific and objective manner. He can be therefore called as a ‘Scientist’.

Osho on the other hand, has a flowing and informal style of narration. He has often been called as a rebellious mystic and has a non-conformist approach and attitude. He often challenges established order. The vital difference in the two is that Osho’s commentary has been compiled straight from the discourses that he gave. Osho embellishes his talks by providing numerous stories, anecdotes and examples to strengthen his arguments and that too in a language and manner which can be easily understood by a layman. He also in the process diverts from the main topic on few occasions. There is also a possibility that the audience may lose the focus on the concept of the sūtra and get carried away in the story or the anecdote. Osho thus is more in the mould of an ‘Artist’ or a ‘Poet’. It will be appropriate to study these contrasting styles of both Vyāsaand Osho in the light of the explanation that they provide for a particular Yogasūtra. It is like listening to the head (Vyāsa) and heart (Osho) simultaneously.

Concept of Citta and Vṛtti—

Let us for example discuss how the concept of citta and vṛtti has been explained by Vyāsaand Osho.

Vyāsainterprets, the word atha (now then) indicates the commencement of a subject and that the śāstra dealing with the regulations relating to Yoga is being explained. Yoga means concentration or samādhi. It is feature of the mind in all its habitual states i.e. concentration or samādhi is possible in whichever state the mind may be. There are five states of the mind. Kṣipta (restless), mūḍha (stupefied), vikṣipta (distracted), ekāgra (one pointed) and niruddha (arrested). These states of mind are called as ‘Chittabhumis’ by Vyāsa and they depend upon whether satva, rajas or tamas is dominant in mind.

‘Yoga is the suppression of the modifications of the mind’ Vyāsa says.^[1] Since the word sarva is absent in this sūtra, the word Yoga is intended to include samprajñāta - yoga as well. The mind has three fluctuations of prakhyā (sattva), pravṛtti (rajas) and sthiti (tamas) and is made of three guṇas or constituent principles. When the faculty of sattva is influenced by rajas and tamas the mind becomes inclined towards power and external objects. When it is dominated by tamas it inclines towards false knowledge, attachment and weakness. When the veil of infatuation is completely removed, and the mind becomes completely luminous, it has clear conception of the cognizer, the organs of cognition and the object of cognition, that mind being influenced by trace of rajas tends towards virtue, wisdom and detachment. When even the contamination of rajas is removed the mind rests in itself. It realizes the distinction between intellect and pure self (puruṣa) and proceeds to that form of contemplation known as dharmameghadhyāna. Consciousness is unchangeable, untransmissible. Vivekakhyāti or enlightenment of the distinction between puruṣa and buddhi is denoted by sattvaguṇa and is opposed to citiśakti.

When the mind becomes indifferent to even this realization, it retains the latent impressions alone; it is called nirbījasamādhi or asamprajñātayoga as there is no samprajñāta.Depending upon the dominance of a particular guṇa. Vyāsahas explained five types of mind-which he calls cittabhūmi. These are kṣipta (restless), mūḍha (stupefied), vikṣipta (distracted), ekāgra (one pointed) and niruddha (arrested).When there is dominance of rajas and tamas, the mind becomes inclined towards power and external objects. When it is dominated by tamas it inclines to impious acts, nondetachment etc. When the mind is influenced by a trace of rajas, it tends towards power, wisdom, detachment. When even the trace of rajas is removed and only the sattva dominates the mind, it realizes the distinction between the buddhi and pure self.Vyāsa thus maintains the Sāṅkhya doctrine in which the pure mind (satva) is the one without Vrittis.

It thus reflects purusa in his typical Vedantic manner.

Now let us see how Osho deals with the topic–

‘YOGA IS THE CESSATION OF MIND’.He explains it in the following manner.Yoga is the state of no-mind. The word ‘Mind’ covers all–your egos, your desires, your hopes, your philosophies, your religions, your scriptures. ‘Mind’ covers all. Whatsoever you can think is mind. All that is known, all that can be known, all that is knowable, is within mind. Cessation of the mind means cessation of the known, cessation of the knowable. It is a jump into the unknown. Whenthere is no mind, you are in the unknown. Yoga is a jump into the unknown. It will not be right to say ‘unknown’; rather, ‘unknowable’.

What is the mind? What the mind is doing there? What it is? Ordinarily we think that mind is something substantial there inside the head. Patañjalidoes notagree–and no one who has ever known the insides of the mind will agree. Modern science also does not agree. Mind is not something substantial inside the head. Mind is just a function, just an activity. You walk, and I say you are walking. What is walking? If you stop, where is walking? If you sit down, where the walking has gone? Walking is nothing substantial; it is an activity. So, while you are sitting, no one can ask, ‘Where you have put your walking’? Just now you were walking, so where the walking has gone?’ You will laugh. You will say, ‘Walking is not something substantial, it is just an activity. I can walk. I can again walk,and I can stop. It is activity.’ Mind is also activity, but because of the word ‘Mind’, it appears as if something substantial is there. It is better to call it ‘minding’–just like ‘walking’. Mind means ‘minding’, mind means thinking. It is an activity.

Osho narrates the story of Bodhidharma who went to China where the Emperor of China comes to meet him.

Emperor: “My mind is very uneasy, very disturbed. You are a great sage, and I have been waiting for you. Tell me what I should do to put my mind at peace.”

Bodhidharma: “You don’t do anything. First you bring your mind to me.”

Emperor: “What do you mean?”

Bodhidharma: “Come in the morning at four o’clock when nobody is there. Come alone, and remember to bring your mind with you.”

The emperor couldn’t sleep the whole night. Many times, he cancelled the whole idea: “This man seems to be mad. What does he mean, “Come with your mind; don’t forget?” The man was so enchanting, so charismatic that he couldn’t cancel the appointment. As if a magnet was pulling him. At four o’clock he jumped out of the bed and said, “Whatsoever happens, I must go. This man may have something; his eyes say that he has something. Looks a little crazy, but still I must go and seewhat can happen.”

Bodhidharma: “So you have come? Where is your mind? Have you brought it or not?”

Emperor: “You talk nonsense. When I am here my mind is here, and it is not something which I can forget somewhere. It is in me.”

Bodhidharma: “Okay. So, the first thing is decided -that the mind is within you.” Emperor: “Okay, the mind is within me.”

Bodhidharma: “Now close your eyes and find out where it is. And if you can find out where it is, immediately indicateto me. I will put it at peace.”

So, the emperor closed his eyes, tried and tried, looked and looked. The more he looked, the more he became aware there is no mind, mind is an activity. It is not something there, so you can pinpoint it. But the moment he realized that it is not something, then the absurdity of his quest became exposed to himself. If it is not something, nothing can be done about it. If it is an activity, then don’tdo the activity; that’s all. If it is like walking, don’t walk. He opened his eyes. He bowed down to Bodhidharma.

Emperor: “There is no mind to be found.”

Bodhidharma: “Then I have put it at peace. And whenever you feel that you are uneasy, just look within, where that uneasiness is.”

The very look is anti-mind, because look is not a thinking. And if you look intensely your whole energy becomes a look, and the same energy becomes movement and thinking.

It can be observed that Vyāsais talking about the ‘cessation of modifications of the mind’ whereas Osho is talking about ‘cessation of the mind itself’. The anecdote is so compelling that Osho’s interpretation that Yoga means ‘no mind’ is beautifully and instantaneously driven home.

2. Style of explanation through questions and answers:

Vyāsa’s commentary though fully and elaborately explains and interprets Pātañjala Yogasūtra , does not have the possibility of answering the questions that a spiritual seeker may have after reading the commentary. One has to look for answers elsewhere to satisfy any doubt or clarification that he may seek.

On the other hand, since Osho’s commentary on Pātañjala Yogasūtra was in the form of public discourses and talks (and later on published in the form of books) he invariably had question and answer session following each discourse. In these question and answer sessions, seekers asked him questions and sought clarifications on the Pātañjala Yogasūtra Osho, then used to answer their questions in such a manner, with further examples and anecdotes that the concepts were completely understood by the seekers. All such interactions happened in a style and language which was very easy to understand. To cite just one example, once during his discourses in March 1975^[2] a seeker had a question on Osho’s dynamic meditation technique, which was radically different than the established and conventional form of static meditation. It will be worth noting the question and the explanation that Osho provided.

Question

AFTER WORKING WITH THE CATHARTIC TECHNIQUES FOR A FEW YEARS, I FEEL THAT A DEEP INNER HARMONY, BALANCE AND CENTERING IS HAPPENING TO ME., BUT YOU SAID THAT BEFORE ENTERING INTO THE FINAL STAGE OF SAMADHI, ONE PASSES THROUGH AGREAT CHAOS. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM FINISHED WITH THE CHAOTIC STAGE?

Osho’s Answer:

“First: hundreds of lives you have lived in a chaos. It is nothing new. It is very old. Secondly, the dynamic methods of meditation which have catharsis as their foundation allow all chaos within you to be thrown out.

That’s the beauty of these techniques. You cannot sit silently, but you can do the dynamic or the chaotic meditations very easily. Once the chaos is thrown out, a silence starts happening to you. Then you can sit silently. If rightly done, continuously done, then the cathartic techniques of meditation will simply dissolve all your chaos into the outside world. You will not need to pass through a mad stage. That’s the beauty of these techniques. The madness is being thrown out already. It is in-built in the technique.

But if you sit silently as Patanjali will suggest... Patanjali has no cathartic methods; it seems they were not needed in his time. People were naturally very silent, peaceful, primitive. The mind was yet not functioning too much. People slept well, lived like animals. They were not very much thinking, logical, rational... more centered in the heart, as even now primitive people are. And life was such that it allowed many catharses automatically.

When Patanjali was working on these sutras, the world was totally different. People were hands. There was no need for catharsis specifically. Life was itself a catharsis. Then they could sit silently very easily. But you cannot sit. Hence, I have been inventing cathartic methods. Only after then you sit silently, not before”.

3.Eternal Values in changing times:

As explained in chapter 1, page 8 Saint-Jñāneśvara wrote a commentary on Bhagavadgītā called Jñāneśvarī. Bhagavadgītā is the essence of all Upaniṣads. It was originally written in Sanskrit. In order to take it to the masses, saint Jñāneśvara wrote a commentary in prākṛta which was common man’s language of that time. Now even Jñāneśvarī is difficult for modern man to understand. So, commentaries on Jñāneśvarī are written in Marathi and now further into several other languages as well. This came about as the languages changed; the masses required the scriptures to be explained to them, in the language that they would understand. It is therefore, as the comparative study has revealed, easier to read, understand and follow through a modern commentary in the current language. It therefore also stands to reason that another few decades hence, further commentaries will emerge, which will have still different language, style and way of presentation of the essential truths of Pātañjala Yogasūtra> that the succeeding digital age generations will be at ease with.

Mahāvatāra-Bābājī and Lāhirī-Mahāśaya, who are believed to still exist in bodiless state, are paramagurus and Guru of Swāmī-Yogānanda. According to Bābājī, kriyāyoga is the method of faster evolution of the citta on path of spirituality.

He told Lāhirī-Mahāśaya,^[3]

The kriyāyoga which I am giving to the world through you in this nineteenth century is a revival of the same science which Kṛṣṇa gave millenniums ago to Arjuna and which was later known to Patañjali and to Christ, St. John, St. Paul and other disciples.

This, supports our view, that ancient Yogic principles are to be reviewed, suiting to needs of the modern times. As such, comparative studies between ancient and modern thinkers arequite necessary. The beauty of Pātañjala Yogasūtra is that, it offers unending possibilities of interpretation without changing the eternal core principles. This is also evidenced from the fact that though over two thousand years have passed but not even a single punctuation mark has been added or deleted from this classic treatise.

4. Conceptual similarities and variances:

On the aspect of conceptual similarities and variances between the commentaries of Vyāsa and that of Osho, some of the important concepts are cited below in a tabular manner for ease of comparison–

Sl 1—[Yoga Definition]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: The word atha means beginning of the subject of Yoga. The word Yoga means samādhi

Osho’s Interpretation: The word atha means the maturity of an aspirant to turn within. Yoga means here & now.

Observations: Variation in definitions of basic terms

Sl 2—[Citta]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation:  The mind has three fluctuations of sattva, rajas and tamas and is made of three guṇas. When the faculty of sattva is influenced by rajas and tamas the mind becomes inclined towards power and external objects.

When it is dominated by tamas it tends towards false knowledge, attachment and weakness. When the veil of infatuation is completely removed, and the mind becomes completely luminous, it has clear conception of the cognizer, the organs of cognition and the object of cognition, that mind being influenced by trace of rajas tends towards virtue, wisdom and detachment. When even the contamination of rajas is removed the mind rests in itself. The citta has been classified as kṣipta, mūḍha, vikṣipta, ekāgra and niruddha.

Osho’s Interpretation: ‘Yoga is the cessation of mind’. Yoga is a state of no-mind. The word ‘mind’ covers all—egos, desires, hopes, philosophies, religions, scriptures. Whatsoever one can think is mind. All that is known, can be known, is knowable, is within mind. Cessation of the mind means cessation of the known, knowable and that is Yoga.

Observations: Vyāsa’s way seems to transform mind by eliminating Tamas, Rajas so that it will be full of sattva. Such pure mind reflects puruṣa thus leading to self-realization. Osho suggests total annihilation of mind which leads to self-realization.

Sl 3—[Kaivalya]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation:  puruṣa separates from prakṛti. The yogīs progress depends on the intensity of their ardour of practice i.e. intense, medium and mild.

The attainment of concentration (samādhi) is imminent for mild, more imminent for medium and most imminent for intense.

Osho’s Interpretation: Seer is established as pure consciousness as witness. Journey up-to samprajñātasamādhi needs spiritual practice. A master or a guru can help his disciple in his practice. The further journey to nirbījasamādhi happens in last incarnation.

Observations: Vyāsa supports Sāṅkhya philosophy of dualism, Osho seems to support Vedānta philosophy of monism. Both Vyāsaand Osho have used term asamprajñāta which Patañjalihas not used.

Sl 4—[Īśvara]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation:  One feels the omnipresence of God and his grace. By total surrender to Īśvara, one can get grace of Īśvara. The existence of Īśvara as bondage less entity is sighted from scriptures. (Āgamapramāṇa)

Osho’s Interpretation: There is no God but Godliness. It can be experienced but not shown. He is an individual unit of divine consciousness There are two approaches in adhyātma. One is saṅkalpa (determination), other is samarpaṇa (surrender).

Yoga is based on determination. But the aspirant can assume Īśvara and surrender to him. Īśvara cannot be shown. It is not a specie but a principle.

Observations: Osho’s view is Vedantic in nature i.e. brahman principle.

Sl 5—[Praṇava]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation:  Īśvara is indicated by mystic syllable OM as per sages who know śāstras, on account of similarity of usage the relationship between a word and the object indicated by it is eternal.

Osho’s Interpretation: OM is the symbol of universal sound. When there is no desire, no need, when the body is dropped, when the mind disappears then the real sound of universe is heard and that is OM.

Observations: Vyasa is suggesting repetition of OM as sadhana while Osho suggests listening to the universal sound of OM

Sl 6—[Cittaprasādana]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: The sūtras I.33 through to I.39 describe the ways for purifying the mind (cittaprasādana).

Vyāsa however has considered these ways as optional or alternatives for achieving purification of mind.

Osho’s Interpretation: The sūtras I.33 through to I.39 describe the ways for purifying the mind (cittaprasādana) Osho has considered various ways of cittaprasādana as related to each other.

Observations: Osho indicates that these means of cittaprasādana and its effects are to be considered serially rather than parallelly, as indicated by word va, which most other commentators have analyzed as ‘optional’ or ‘alternatives’.

Sl 7—[Dhāraṇā & Dhyā na and Samādhi]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: Dhāraṇā is succession of similar drops of water and dhyāna is continuous flow of oil. When dhyāna becomes so deep that object stands by itself, obliterating as it were all traces of reflective thought, it is known as samādhi.

Osho’s Interpretation: Dhāraṇā (concentration) is a way of scientist and dhyāna (contemplation) is a way of Artist. When mind becomes one with the object it is samādhi.

Observations: According to Araṇya intense dhāraṇā culminates in dhyāna, movement from discontinuous to continuous experience.

As per Osho, dhāraṇā is about objective external world and dhyāna is about subjective internal world.

Sl 8—[Saṃyama]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: The object should be contemplated from all sides and all aspects. Thus, in one saṃyama there might be several chains of dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi. saṃyama is direct realization or sustained knowledge acquired by repeatedly practicing dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi on same object.

Osho’s Interpretation: Saṃyama as balance which is attained when subject and object disappears. The three—dhāraṇā, dhyāna, Samādhi, taken together constitute saṃyama. By mastering it, the light of higher consciousness dawns.

Observations: For Vyasa Saṃyama leads tothe knowledge of objects in all perspectives. For Osho, Saṃyama means merger of subject and object.

Sl 9—[Pariṇāma]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: Suppression of the latencies of fluctuation and appearance of the latencies of the arrested state taking place at every moment of blankness of the arrested state in the same mind is the mutation of the arrested state of the mind. The change of latent impression taking place every moment in the same mind is called nirodhapariṇāma.

1) nirodhapariṇāma takes place only in the arrested state of mind which is called nirodhabhūmi.

2) samādhipariṇāma is possible only in habituated one-pointed state of mind.

3) ekāgratāpariṇāma is possible when there is concentration.

Osho’s Interpretation: 1) nirodhapariṇāma as transformation of mind in which mind becomes permeated by condition of nirodha which intervens momentarily between an impression that is disappearing and the impression that is taking its place.

Nirodha is not suppression, it is not control, but it is the effect of observing the citta with awareness.

When citta is aware, its modifications get dropped, and citta goes in nirodhapariṇāma.

2) samādhipariṇāma, the inner transformation as gradual settling down of distractions and simulations rising of one pointedness

3) ekāgratāpariṇāma as condition of mind in which object of mind that is subsiding is replaced in next moment by exactly similar object.

Observations: While Vyāsa is emphasizing on ‘suppression in order to transform the mind, Osho is emphasizing on observation of mind with sākṣibhāva

Sl 10—[Siddhi]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: Mind of ordinary person is full of dross. The cleansing of this dross through samādhi is explained by Patañjali. In this process of purification of citta, supernormal powers are attained.

Powers mentioned in Vibhūtipādasūtras are hindrances to the attainment of samādhi as they cause disturbance to the engrossed mind. But they are acquisitions for normal fluctuating mind.

Osho’s Interpretation: These are powers when mind is turned inward, but obstacles in the way of samādhi. Therefore, if one wants samādhi, one should not get attached to any attainments. Offer all to God. When one offers all to God, he comes to you as last gift.

Observations: While both Vyāsa and Osho agree that siddhis are hindrances.

Osho has suggested a beautiful way of offering siddhis to God. Vyāsa has not given any suggestion.

Sl 11—[Karmasiddhānta]:

Vyāsa’s interpretation: 1) One karmāśaya is not responsible for many births.

2) the preposition that one karma brings about one birth is also not correct.

3) Many karmas do not cause many births simultaneously.

4) Many karmas go to bring one birth appears to be correct rule.

5) The karmāśayas responsible for a birth also determine the span of life and experience of pleasure and pain within.

6) Karmāśaya is mainly accumulated in one life

7) The outcome of karmāśaya will bear fruit in future life as Birth, duration of existence and experience of pleasure and pain.

8) Karmāśaya is of one birth, but vāsanā is of many births.

9) Karmāśayas are of two kinds, those which mature and those which may not mature. Those which must produce results are nityavipāka and those, being influenced by others, cannot produce results are called anityavipāka.

10) Uni-genital birth (life) is the general rule for karmāśayas.

11) Nityavipāka are operative only in one birth.

12) For anityavipāka, the karma may be nullified e.g. virtue may be destroyed byvice etc.

Osho’s Interpretation: Whole philosoply of karma is that one is responsible for one’s actions. Whatever one has sown in the past one has to reap. The whole process of pratiprasava i.e. to go back to the cause from effect.

One should live with full awareness and live in present.

Then no seeds of karma are accumulated. He says awareness is freedom, unawareness is bondage. If you are in misery, you are unhappy because of your previous karmas.

Every religion has this virtue / vice principle. The doctrine of karma says if one helpssomeone, realistically one is helping his own self.

Observations: Interpretation is similar for both commentators.

Osho’s comments are very general while Vyāsa’s comments are very specific.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Araṇya, op.cit., p.6

[2]:

Osho, Yoga: The Alfa and the Omega, Volume 3, March 1975

[3]:

Yogananda-Paramahamsa, Autobiography of a Yogi, Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai,1997 (1946), p.244