A Peep into the Patanjali System

[Guest guest]

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Sadhakas,

 

My knowledge of the Patanjali system is perfunctory. In this post i

would like to discuss some points that crystallized in my mind as a

result of the recent discussions that went on in this List.

 

Maharshi Patanjali declares in the beginning that the ultimate object

of his system of Yoga that essentially centres round 'chitta-vritti-

nirodhaH' (effecting the cessation of thought currents), is the

establishment of the aspirant in his true Self, 'tadA draShTuH

svarUpe avasthAnam'.

 

Now, in Vedanta, the Self, Atma, (non-different from Brahman), is

a 'nitya-siddha vastu', that is, It is an ever-existing entity. It

is not something that requires to be created afresh. That

distinguishes Atma from any other effect that is brought into being

with effort. That forms the fundamental difference between 'purusha-

tantra' and 'vastu-tantra'. Let me elucidate on these two concepts,

in the sequel, in simple terms, so as to form the basis for this

discussion:

 

Purusha/kartru tantra: Type A: Supposing I own a plot of vacant

land. Thinking of what I can do there, brings up a number of

alternatives. I can put up a residential unit. I can build a multi-

storeyed apartment complex. A commercial complex.. Or even a Temple,

if that is feasible. After considering all these alternatives, I may

very well conclude: Taking any of these alternatives will certainly

demand my time, attention, energy, etc. Now that I have very less

time left, let me concentrate on intense sadhana and leave that land

as it is. Thus, we have a situation where anything happening on that

land depends on my initiating an action. As of now there is nothing

on that land; whatever can come up there has to be a product, an

effect, a creation. It depends on me, the purusha, the kartaa.

 

Purusha tantra Type B: This type differs from the above only in one

respect; the above is a gross example, this one is a subtle one.

Supposing I want to meditate upon Lord Krishna. Now, there is no

unique description about Krishna. We have a host of Krishna-s : baby

Krishna, Yashodha.nandan Krishna, the Krishna, the companion of other

cowherds, then there is the Krishna, the beloved of all the Gopis,

Radha-Krishna, GitAcharya Krishna, Krishna the benefactor of the

Pandavas, Dwaraka Krishna, the consort of Rukmini and SatyabhAma,.

and so on. Now, even if I choose to meditate upon one of these,

depending on my special liking, again, there is no unique description

of the form of the chosen type. The ornaments, the dress, the facial

expression, the hair-style, etc. etc. are all not uniquely defined.

So, here we have a situation where I have to `create' an imprint of

Krishna on the screen of my mind. Thus, the imprint ultimately

depends on me, the purusha, the kartaa.

 

Type V: Vedanta distinguishes Atman/Brahman from the above type(s)

and says Brahman is vastu-tantra. It does not depend on the person-

purusha for its creation; it is an ever-existing entity, only

requiring to be `realized' by me, by activating an appropriate

pramANa, instrument of knowledge. Certainly, my realizing this

Brahman will not amount to my creating Brahman. Since Brahman is

extremely subtle, Vedanta advocates a meditation, practicing which

according to the method prescribed by the Shastra and guided by the

Guru, I can succeed in realizing It.

 

Vedanta has a number of other upasanas, meditations falling under the

type B above with a view to train the mind, making it dwell on

objects ranging from the gross to the subtle, to ultimately take up

this above vastu-tantra (Type V) meditation.

 

Now, with this background, let us examine the main point of this

discussion. Sri Bhaskar ji, in his recent posts, averred that

Nirvikalpa Samadhi is essentially that of Patanjali shastra (dvaita

shastra) and that NS is a kartru-tantra meditation (see Type B above)

and as such is not a valid means to realize the Vedantic Brahman.

 

The question that I have is this: Is the Self that Maharshi

Patanjali talks about in the sutra `tadA draShTuH svarUpe

avasthAnam'( the realization of and establishment in, is the ultimate

goal of his Yoga system,) an `effect' to be created by an effort

called some samadhi? To put the question in simple terms: Is the Atma

of Patanjali a `product' of some samadhi? Or is it an existing

Atma that is to be realized, even in the system of Patanjali? (Note:

All this is not to obliterate the essential differences that exist

between the siddhAnta of Patanjali and the Aupanishada siddhAnta.)

 

Now, to conclude, despite my unfamiliarity with the system of

Patanjali, based on the above lines of thinking, I think I would not

be wrong in making this statement, although in the interrogative:

 

It is learnt that the Patanjali system has a number of meditations

(samadhis). Are ALL the samadhis spoken of in that system

essentially only kartru-tantra (type B) samadhis? Is the pre-eminent

aspirant, uttama adhikAri, of that system engaged in `creating' an

Atman?

 

I request all the members who participated in the recent discussion

to come out with their views. The others who silently watched like

Sri Sada ji, Sri Sundar Hattangadi ji, Sri Ramesh Murthy ji are also

welcome to come out with their opinions. Everyone may consult the

appropriate books so as to make the discussion as authentic as

possible. I wish we had Sri Ganeshan Sankararaman with us; he seems

to have a fairly thorough knowledge of the Patanjali system. Where

are Michael ji and Felipe? Shri Peter too may speak out.

 

Pranams and warm regards to all sadhakas,

 

Subbu

Om Tat Sat