GOD IN YOGA
After describing the nature of karmayoga, and the way in which it leads
to jñānayoga, we must now describe the third and easiest means of
attaining salvation, the bhaktiyoga and the position of Īśvara in the
Yoga system, with reference to a person who seeks deliverance from the
bonds and shackles of avidyā.
Īśvara in the Yoga system is that purusha who is distinguished from all
others by the fact of his being untouched by the afflictions or the
fruits of karma. Other purushas are also in reality untouched by the
afflictions, but they, seemingly at least, have to undergo the
afflictions and consequently birth and rebirth, etc., until they are
again finally released; but Īśvara, though he is a purusha, yet does not
suffer in any way any sort of bondage. He is always free and ever the
Lord. He never had nor will have any relation to these bonds. He is also
the teacher of the ancient teachers beyond the range of conditioning
time.
This nature of Īśvara has been affirmed in the scriptures and is
therefore taken as true on their authority. The authority of the
scriptures is again acknowledged only because they have proceeded from
God or Īśvara. The objection that this is an argument in a circle has no
place here, since the connection of the scriptures with Īśvara is
beginningless.
There is no other divinity equal to Īśvara, because in the case of such
equality there might be opposition between rival Īśvaras, which might
result in the lowering in degree of any of them. He is omniscient in the
highest degree, for in him is the furthest limit of omniscience, beyond
which there is nothing.
This Īśvara is all-merciful, and though he has no desires to satisfy,
yet for the sake of his devotees he dictates the Vedas at each evolution
of the world after dissolution. But he does not release all persons,
because he helps only so far as each deserves; he does not nullify the
law of karma, just as a king, though quite free to act in any way he
likes, punishes or rewards people as they deserve.
At the end of each kalpa, he adopts pure body from his sattva, which is
devoid of any karmāśaya, and thus communicates through it to all his
devotees and dictates the Vedas. Again at the time of dissolution this
body of pure sattva becomes submerged in prakṛti; and at the time of its
submersion, Īśvara wishes that it might come forth again at the
beginning of the new creation; thus for ever at each new creation the
pure sattva body springs forth and is submerged again into prakṛti at
the time of the dissolution of the universe.
In accepting this body he has no personal desires to satisfy, as we have
said before. He adopts it only for the purpose of saving mankind by
instructing them as to knowledge and piety, which is not possible
without a pure sattvamaya body; so he adopts it, but is not affected in
any way by it. One who is under the control of nescience cannot
distinguish his real nature from nescience, and thus is always led by
it, but such is not the case with Īśvara, for he is not in any way under
its control, but only adopts it as a means of communicating knowledge to
mankind.
A Yogin also who has attained absolute independence may similarly accept
one or more pure sattvamaya nirmāṇa cittas from asmitāmātra and may
produce one citta as the superintendent of all these. Such a citta
adopted by a true Yogin by the force of his meditation is not under the
control of the vehicles of action as is the case with the other four
kinds of citta from birth, oshadhi, mantra and tapas.
The praṇava or oṃkāra is his name; though at the time of dissolution,
the word of praṇava together with its denotative power becomes submerged
in the prakṛti, to reappear with the new creation, just as roots shoot
forth from the ground in the rainy season. This praṇava is also called
svādhyāya. By concentration of this svādhyāya or praṇava, the mind
becomes one-pointed and fit for Yoga.
Now one of the means of attaining Yoga is Īśvarapraṇidhāna, or worship
of God. This word, according to the commentators, is used in two senses
in the first and the second books of the Pātañjala Yoga aphorisms. In
the first book it means love or devotion to God as the one centre of
meditation, in the second it is used to mean the abnegation of all
desires of the fruits of action to Īśvara, and thus Īśvarapraṇidhāna in
this sense is included under kriyāyoga. This dedication of all fruits of
action to Īśvara, purifies the mind and makes it fit for Yoga and is
distinguished from the Īśvarapraṇidhāna of the first book as the bhāvanā
of praṇava and Īśvara in this that it is connected with actions and the
abnegation of their fruits, whereas the latter consists only in keeping
the mind in a worshipful state towards Īśvara and his word or name
praṇava.
By devotion (bhakti) Īśvara is drawn towards the devotee through his
nirmāṇa citta of pure sattva and by his grace he removes all
obstructions of illness, etc., described in I. 30, 31, and at once
prepares his mind for the highest realisation of his own absolute
independence. So for a person who can love and adore Īśvara, this is the
easiest course of attaining samādhi. We can make our minds pure most
easily by abandoning all our actions to Īśvara and attaining salvation
by firm and steady devotion to Him. This is the sphere of bhaktiyoga by
which the tedious complexity of the Yoga process may be avoided and
salvation speedily acquired by the supreme grace of Īśvara.
This means is not, however, distinct from the general means of Yoga,
viz. abhyāsa and vairāgya, which applies to all stages. For here also
abhyāsa applies to the devotion of Īśvara as one supreme truth and
vairāgya is necessarily associated with all true devotion and adoration
of Īśvara.
This conception of Īśvara differs from the conception of Īśvara in the
Rāmānuja system in this that there prakṛti and purusha, acit and cit,
form the body of Īśvara, whereas here Īśvara is considered as being only
a special purusha with the aforesaid powers.
In this system Īśvara is not the superintendent of prakṛti in the sense
of the latter’s remaining in him in an undifferentiated way, but is
regarded as the superintendent of dharma and adharma, and his agency is
active only in the removal of obstacles, thereby helping the
evolutionary process of prakṛti.
Thus Īśvara is distinguished from the Īśvara of Saṅkara Vedānta in this
that there true existence is ascribed only to Īśvara, whereas all other
forms and modes of Being are only regarded as illusory.
From what we have seen above it is clear that the main stress of the
Yoga philosophy is on the method of samādhi. The knowledge that can be
acquired by it differs from all other kinds of knowledge, ordinary
perception, inference, etc., in this that it alone can bring objects
before our mental eye with the clearest and most unerring light of
comprehensibility in which the true nature of the thing is at once
observed. Inferences and the words of scriptures are based on concepts
or general notions of things. For the teaching of the Vedas is
manifested in words; and words are but names, terms or concepts formed
by noting the general similarities of certain things and binding them
down by a symbol. All deductive inferences are also based upon major
propositions arrived at by inductive generalisations; so it is easy to
see that all knowledge that can be acquired by them is only generalised
conceptions. Their process only represents the method by which the mind
can pass from one generalised conception to another; so the mind can in
no way attain the knowledge of real things, absolute species, which are
not the genus of any other thing; so inference and scripture can only
communicate to us the nature of the agreement or similarity of things
and not the real things as they are. Ordinary perception also is not of
much avail here, since it cannot bring within its scope subtle and fine
things and things that are obstructed from the view of the senses. But
samādhi has no such limitations and the knowledge that can be attained
by it is absolutely unobstructed, true and real in the strictest sense
of the terms.
Of all the points of difference between Yoga and Sāṃkhya the admission
of Īśvara by the former and the emphasis given by it to the Yoga
practice are the most important in distinguishing it from the latter. It
seems probable that Īśvara was traditionally believed in the Yoga school
to be a protector of the Yogins proceeding in their arduous course of
complete self-control and absorptive concentration. The chances of a
person adopting the course of Yoga practice for the attainment of
success in this field does not depend only on the exertions of the
Yogin, but upon the concurrence of many convenient circumstances such as
physical fitness, freedom from illnesses and other obstacles. Faith in
the patronage of God in favour of honest workers and believers served to
pacify their minds and fill them with the cheerful hope and confidence
which were so necessary for the success of Yoga practice. The
metaphysical functions which are ascribed to Īśvara seem to be later
additions for the sake of rendering his position more in harmony with
the system. Mere faith in Īśvara for the practical benefit of the Yogins
is thus interpreted by a reference to his superintendence of the
development of cosmic evolution. Sāṃkhya relied largely on philosophical
thinking leading to proper discrimination as to the difference between
prakrti and purusha which is the stage immediately antecedent to
emancipation. There being thus no practical need for the admission of
Īśvara, the theoretical need was also ignored and it was held that the
inherent teleological purpose (_purushārthatā_) of prakṛti was
sufficient to explain all the stages of cosmic evolution as well as its
final separation from the purushas.
We have just seen that Sāṃkhya does not admit the existence of God, and
considers that salvation can be obtained only by a steady perseverance
in philosophical thinking, and does not put emphasis on the practical
exercises which are regarded as essential by the Yoga. One other point
of difference ought to be noted with regard to the conception of avidyā.
According to Yoga, avidyā, as we have already explained it, means
positive untrue beliefs such as believing the impure, uneternal, sorrow,
and non-self to be the pure eternal, pleasure and the self respectively.
With Sāṃkhya, however, avidyā is only the non-distinction of the
difference between prakṛti and purusha. Both Sāṃkhya and Yoga admit that
our bondage to prakṛti is due to an illusion or ignorance (avidyā), but
Sāṃkhya holds the akhyāti theory which regards non-distinction of the
difference as the cause of illusion whereas the Yoga holds the
anyathākhyāti theory which regards positive misapprehension of the one
as the other to be the cause of illusion. We have already referred to
the difference in the course of the evolution of the categories as held
by Sāṃkhya and Yoga. This also accounts for the difference between the
technical terms of prakṛti, vikṛti and prakṛti-vikṛti of Sāṃkhya and the
viśesha and aviśesha of the Yoga. The doctrine of dharma, lakshaṇa and
avasthāpariṇāma, though not in any way antagonistic to Sāṃkhya, is not
so definitely described as in the Yoga. Some scholars think that Sāṃkhya
did not believe in atoms as Yoga did. But though the word paramāṇu has
not been mentioned in the _Kārikā_, it does not seem that Sāṃkhya did
not believe in atoms; and we have already noticed that Bhikshu considers
the word sūkshma in _Kārikā_ 39 as referring to the atoms. There are
also slight differences with regard to the process involved in
perception and this has been dealt with in my _Yoga philosophy in
relation to other Indian systems of thought_.[43] On almost all other
fundamental points Sāṃkhya and Yoga are in complete agreement.