Towards Knowing Ourselves: Classical Yoga Perspective

Abstract

Self-knowledge, at first glance, seems to be naturally and easily accessible to each of us. We commonly believe that we need much less effort to understand ourselves than to understand the world. In this article, the author uncovers the fallacy of this popular view referring to the fundamental conceptions and philosophical ideas of the classical yoga. She tries to demystify our deceptive self-understanding explaining the definitions of ignorance (avidya), I-am-ness (asmita), desire (raga), aversion (dvesha) and fear of death (abhinivesha) following the oldest yoga treatise. The article then goes on to discuss briefly how we can make use of our limited, incorrect self-knowledge as far as we are aware that it needs to be transcended. In the final part of the article, the issue of self-discipline consisting basically in cultivation of detachment and the practice of meditation is addressed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The author of the present article refers to the translation of YS by Ch. Chapple and Yogi Anand Viraj , The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali: An Analysis of the Sanskrit with Accompanying English Translation ( Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications , 1990). All the Sanskrit terms used in the text are given in a simplified transliteration so as to avoid the diacritical signs.

YS. I.2. Ibid., 33.

YS. 11.3; 1.46-51; IV.29-30. Ibid. 54-56, 57-58, 119-20.

YS. 1.2; IV.34. Ibid., 33, 122.

According to Patañjali, the fluctuations of mind are fivefold: valid cognition, error, conceptualization, sleep and memory. YS. 1.6-11. Ibid., 34-36.

YS. 1.30-31 Patañjali enumerates several common distractions of the mind: sickness, dullness, doubt, carelessness, laziness, sense addiction, false view, non-attainment of a state of concentration, and instability. Ibid., 45-46. In other words, anything that prevents the yogin from cultivating meditation is considered as an obstacle, be it physical illness or psychic disorders. Cf. also Feuerstein’s commentary on YS. 1.30 in The Yoga-Sutra of Patañjali: A New Translation and Commentary, trans. G. Feuerstein ( Rochester: Inner Traditions International , 1989), 46.

Vyasa’s Yogabhashya 1.8. Cf. J.H. Woods , The Yoga-System of Patañjali: On the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of the Mind ( Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass , 1988. First published in 1914), 24.

YS. 11.5. Cf. The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali: An Analysis of the Sanskrit with Accompanying English Translation, trans. Ch. Chapple and Yogi Anand Viraj ( Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications , 1990), 58-59.

YS. 11.6-9. Ibid., 59-60.

10.

YS. 1.12. Ibid., 36-37.

11.

The term ‘yoga’ is derived from the Sanskrit yuj, which has been variously interpreted by different schools of Indian philosophy. One of these meanings implies a union or an assimilation of two seemingly different entities, while the other meaning of yuj implies a disunion of seemingly similar things.

12.

YS. III.11-12. Ibid., 84-85.

13.

YS. II.29. Ibid., 69-70.

14.

YS. II.7. Ibid., 82-83.

15.

YS. II.30-31; II.35-45. Ibid., 70-71, 73-77.

16.

YS. II.32. Ibid., 71.

17.

M. Hiriyanna , The Essentials of Indian Philosophy ( New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass , 2000. First published in 1948), 123.

18.

YS. I.15-16; III.50. Cf. The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali: An Analysis of the Sanskrit with Accompanying English Translation, trans. Ch. Chapple and Yogi Anand Viraj ( Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications , 1990), 38-39, 103.