6 2 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 6 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 0 Although that still sounds fairly otherworldly, it’s essentially a flashback to the Katha Upanisad (6:10–11), which gives the earliest definition of yoga in practical terms – as restraint of the mind and the senses to focus within. That same basic framework appears again and again in traditional texts. You hear it in theMahābhārata (12:294.14–17), where someone “ engaged in yoga ” is said to be “ motionless like a stone … He neither hears nor smells nor tastes nor sees; he notices no touch, nor does [Note: his] mind form conceptions. Like a piece of wood, he does not desire anything .” Of course, no more craving gets rid of a problem causing suf - fering. But do we aim to be pieces of wood? And if we’re not doing that, are we not “doing yoga”, whatever that means? More to the point, is yoga something to do, or the outcome of doing it? Or do we have to stop doing things so it arises, as described in the commentary on Yoga Sūtras (1:1)? Ascetics of old were trying to solve a problem in the mind, which gets in the way of the underlying clarity of samādhi . To over-generalise massively, the state of yoga is beyond time and space. This makes it hard to describe in conceptual terms. Yet at the same time, that’s not the whole story. Other texts teach more practical versions. TheBhagavad Gītā (2:50) couldn’t really be further from sitting like a stone – it says: “ Yoga is skill in action .” Without getting sidetracked by the history behind that, it’s clearly a contrast. And that’s kind of the problem. It’s hard to be clear what yoga means because of all the exceptions. There are many traditions and they often disagree about methods and outcomes. Looking up the word yoga in theMonier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary , there are dozens of entries, and very few of them have anything to do with what we think of as practice – unless our practice is “magic”, or “equipping an army” by harnessing chariots. Even references to joining things together – the basis of “union”– are confusing. What’s connected to what? And is connection the answer, or the source of the problem – as it is for Patañjali ( Yoga Sūtras2:17), whose aim is to isolate consciousness from matter? Yoga is not a monolithic system. We often hear about Patañ - jali’s sūtras because they’re the roots of theYoga Darśana . But there are also other schools of philosophy with different perspectives. Śankarācārya, the influential founder of Advaita Vedānta, ripped Patañjali to pieces. In his commentary on the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad (1:4.7), Śankara asks: “ Should suppression of the fluctuations of the mind be practised, because it has a different purpose from the Self-realisation generated by the sayings of the Vedas, and because it is enjoined in other texts? [Note: i.e. the Yoga Sūtras ] No, because it is not considered a means to liberation… ” He also says Patañjali’s theory is flawed, because it’s based on duality borrowed from Sāmkhya, which describes the sep - aration of Purusa andPrakrti . To quote hisBrahma Sūtra commentary (2:1.3): “ By the rejection of the Sākhya tradition, the Yoga tradition too has been rejected. That is because contrary to revealed texts, the Yoga school teaches that primordial nature is an independent cause… even though this is taught neither in the Vedas nor among the people .” So, what do we make of that? Should yoga mean oneness – like the underlying unity ofĀtman andBrahman ? But what would that imply for devotional yoga if a deity is separate and has to be worshipped? What about Buddhist yoga, where there’s no Self to merge into anything else? How about Jain yoga? Sūfi yoga? Make-your-bum-look-good-in-swimwear yoga? Can we ever pin anything down if there’s so much va - riety? The meaning of yoga depends on the context , and contexts change. Objectives change too – and we each have our own. There are so many methods that none can be “right” to the exclusion of others. There’s also no way to return to the “one true yoga”– a pristine state before it all got corrupted. No such purity ever existed. Throughout the history of practice, ideas have been exchanged across different traditions. They’ve been copied and pasted from one text to another. But that doesn’t mean that anything goes – or that anything is yoga because someone says it is. It’s probably worth asking if there’s anything yogic about get - ting drunk, or contorting with goats while they pee on your mat, to cite two recent trends. Does either help with inward focus – let alone with the goal of transcending the mind? Both of these objectives are mentioned in texts because they cut through confusion about who we are. And in many ways, the essence of yoga is self-inquiry. Repeatedly, traditional texts say resolving confusion is what sets us free. So who are we really? Should we be trying to be “someone” with millions of followers on social media? Or should we fight back on Facebook, saying those who do that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=