Compassion

We talked a little about happiness on Wednesday and how one is able to experience this while still practicing renunciation, detachment, etc. On the same note, sutra I.33 also instructs us to act with "compassion toward those in distress." In order to understand and sympathize, expressing true compassion towards someone seems to require some sort of connection or attachment. How is one able to express compassion while still remaining detached? Or am I just mistaking compassion for something with deeper emotional roots?

Conquering one of the five Vrittis

What I am about to say has nothing to do with last classes topics but instead is just a blog about a question that I came up with in my head. Well Vyasa says that the detrimental vrittis are caused by the five klesas which are ignorance, ego, attachment, aversion and clinging to life. Well I want to talk about ego. I don't think there isn't a day where everyone in this world wonders what others might think about them. I don't think think there is a person or at least any one who would want to admit that they carry themselves in a different way because they are in college and are smarter than the average citizen because of there college education. I see people around campus and I am guilty of it myself of constantly trying to look acceptable in front of people or constantly wondering what other people think of them. In this world which is celebrity and success driven do you think that people will ever stop their self conscious awareness and ego driven characteristics because it is very hard. I mean if you go by a homeless person 9 out of 10 times you will probably think that that person needs to get a job and stop being lazy. Well you then are being egotistical and thinking that you are better than that person. That homeless person might have an illness where they could never be able to keep a steady job. Another question that I have is, What Edwin Bryant saying is that yoga should help people humble themselves and be less self conscious and egotistical?

Looking for help.

I missed class on Wednesday because I was very ill. But I would like to know some stuff about what we read, if anyone is willing to tell me about it. This will probably look like a homework assignment, but it is what it is. You don't HAVE to respond, anyway.

(1) What are the steps of samprajnata?

(2) What is "absorption with the sense of I-ness" mentioned in sutra 1.17?

(3) What exactly are subtle states of prakrti?

Yoga Sutra Commentary History

After class on Wednesday I had a chance to look at some of the history of the commentaries for the yoga sutras. Actually, much of the information I'm presenting here is straight from Bryant's Preface, and I'm focusing mainly around pages xxxv-xliii. I found some very interesting facts:

• There is no agreed upon date for the authorship of Patanjali's text, but some place it approximately around 200 B.C.E., while others suggest dates ranging from 500 B.C.E.-100 B.C.E.
  
• Though there was a movement in the late 19th century that suggested Patanjali's text was actually a compilation of many different authors, Bryant believes that "[m]ore recent scholarship has tended to find internal consistency in most of the text." (pg. xxxvi)
• Bryant regards the Yoga Sutras as a compilation of two distinct yoga traditions, and that Patanjali was the compiler.
  

I also tried to find a little bit about each commentator, referencing Bryant and other sources:

• Vyasa - his commentary is dated by most scholars to the fourth or fifth century, and his commentary is considered "almost as canonical as the primary text by Patanjali himself" (pg. xxxix). Vyasa had immeasurable impact on how Patanjali's text was interpreted by scholars and later commentators, and it is essentially the starting point for all the following commentators.
  
• Vacaspati Misra - a ninth century commentator, and possibly the second most important commentator. Oddly enough, he wrote commentaries for many other (and often conflicting) traditional texts, a fact that makes Bryant wonder whether or not Misra was actually a practicing yogi.
  
• Bhoja Raja - an eleventh century commentator who was also a poet, scholar, and patron of the arts and sciences. An important political power in his day, his commentary often follows Vyasa's, though it does occasionally present some interesting insight.
  
• Vijnanabhiksu - a fifteenth century commentator who often emphasizes a devotional aspect of yoga. He was a practicing yogi, and comments in other writings that his commentary on yoga stems from his personal experience.
• Ramananda Sarasvati - a sixteenth century commentator who essentially follows previous commentators, and adds little new insight.
  
• Hariharananda - the most recent commentator in our book (1869-1947), Hariharananda was a dedicated ascetic and yogi. Bryant believes his commentary is important because even though he is well acquainted with modern Western thought, his commentary is still grounded in Premodern tradition. His commentary serves as a good bridge for modern readers like us.

Hopefully these details will help provide some context for our reading. Let me know if you find anything else concerning authorship or commentary history that you think would be interesting. Better yet, post it as a comment!

Do we take any of what we're learning seriously? I'm not talking just about the practical aspects we can implement into our lives from these religions, such as meditation, but also about the Atman, Krishna, reincarnation, Nirvana, etc.

In either case, I would like to know why.

Also, please at least take this post seriously, as well as the others. I'd like to engage in more discussion about what we're learning.

Notes on Book IX

Let me first say that I recognize my post is quite long. This is due to my absence in class last Wednesday. This being the case, I have used the blog to present some of what I wanted to discuss. There are many interesting aspects in Book IX that I do not identify here, but would love to have a conversation on the subject with anyone interested. Note as well that all quotations of the Gita come from the Sargeant translation, and all quotations of the Bible are from the NISB.

Book IX is essential in understanding that the Gita, as a whole, is a Bhakti text. Although it preserves other ways of attaining Nirvana, it is a text ultimately concerned with devotion to Krishna – the highest path toward the escape of rebirth. This was stressed to all of us who attended the Edwin Bryant lectures and is further reinforced throughout the Gita itself, especially in Book XII

In going through Book IX again, I found that the ordering of the slokas revealed much about the intended message. The book begins with an announcement from Krishna to Arjuna: “This most secret thing I shall declare to you, who do not disbelieve (IX:1).” It is important to note that Arjuna is addressed as “you, who do not disbelieve.” Sloka three also says, “Men who have no faith…are born again.” It is clear that one must have faith to be devoted to Krishna. Slokas four through eleven reveal what one is to have faith in.

In sloka four Krishna says, “This whole universe is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest aspect. All beings abide in Me; I do not abide in them (IX:4).” I will speak more on the importance of this wording later, but for now this sloka is the initial recognition of Krishna as the unmanifest in this book. Slokas five through ten work to elaborate his power as the unmanifest and emphasize this aspect of Krishna. Sloka eleven reinforces that Krishna, in his human form, is a manifestation of the unmanifest. Those who are “deluded,” or unbelieving, are not able to recognize Krishna as such. Lack of faith prevents one from having devotion towards Krishna. Slokas thirteen and fourteen are the closest we come, as Bryant pointed out, to understanding how one devotes oneself to Krishna. Although there is much to elaborate on, I would now like to examine more closely sloka twenty-nine.

I find sloka twenty-nine among the more interesting slokas because of its contrast to sloka four. As stated above, sloka four reads, “All beings abide in Me; I do not abide in them.” On the other hand, in sloka twenty-nine it is written, “I am the same (Self) in all beings; there is none disliked or dear to Me. But they who worship Me with devotion are in Me, and I am also in them (IX:29).” The contrast between the two slokas is significant in understanding why one is devoted to Krishna. As I understand it, Krishna is the bridge between us and his unmanifest aspect. The unmanifest does not abide in us, and we do not truly abide in it (IX:5). In order to escape the cycle of rebirth we need to establish a connection with the unmanifest, which could also be understood as Truth, or the way things truly are. Krishna, as a manifestation of the unmanifest, provides us a way in which we can connect to the unmanifest through devotion to him. The unmanifest has become a tangible object that we can direct our whole selves to rather than attempting to conceive it in itself. Part of my interest in this aspect of book IX comes from its correlation to Christian scripture.

Anyone who is familiar with Christianity will find many similarities to this faith throughout the Gita, and more specifically between the figures of Krishna and Christ. Therefore the similarities are not exclusive to book IX, but this is my current focus. In John 17:22-23 Jesus says, “The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, ²³ I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one….” I find the similarity in language striking. In this passage Jesus is praying on behalf of his current disciples as well as all those who will believe in their words. Jesus makes it clear that his purpose is to make the Father known to those he has been given, so that they may have eternal life (17:2). This corresponds directly to Krishna’s purpose of connecting his followers to the unmanifest. I understand the unmanifest and the Father as representing the same absolute Truth. The Truth abides in Krishna and Christ. Krishna and Christ abide in those devoted to them, so in effect, the Truth also abides in those devoted followers. This would not be possible otherwise, at least in such a way. More is to be said about attaining the unmanifest through ascetic practices.

Further, other aspects of book IX reinforce this correlation between Krishna and Christ. For this reason I took the time to examine the ordering of slokas in book IX earlier. The book began with identifying the necessity of faith. This faith is directed towards an understanding of Krishna as both the unmanifest and a human, or a manifestation of the unmanifest. In the same way, Christianity requires its followers to believe in the Jesus as fully divine and fully human. There could be a distinction between the two figures in this fully human aspect, but the correlation remains. Even more, devotion to Krishna allows an evil man to become righteous. “If even the evildoer worships Me with undivided devotion, He is to be thought of as righteous, for he has rightly resolved (IX:30).” This is similar to Christ as redeemer. Those who believe in him are cleansed of their sins.

What do you think about this correlation? How does it affect your understanding of both these religions? Specifically, how does this affect your understanding of the exclusivity of Christianity in that Christ is the only way to God? Are Krishna and Christ both manifestations of Truth, allowing different groups of people oneness with God?

Detachment vs. Attachment to Sattva

Why is the goal (of Yoga, or even Vedanta generally) to become detached from material nature rather than attached to the best part of it? Why not just become sattvic or live as sattvic a life as is possible?

"Gambling of the gambler"

From last weeks assignment, when reading Chapter 10 I was somewhat confused about why exactly Krishna claimed to be the “gambling of the gambler.” My confusion probably stems from that the western idea of gambling being a sinful pastime. In the Easwaran chapter summary it states that gambling was seen as a royal hobby enjoyed by any King. Still, this did not fully explain to me why Krishna chose this specific word to describe himself.

It wasn’t until reading through my Spirituality and World Religions textbook, “Living Religions,” that I realized the historical significance of gambling in religions. I came upon a brief paragraph summarizing the importance of gambling in indigenous cultures. In many ceremonial practices throwing of the dice was symbolic of death and rebirth, as well as, the movement of the sun, moon and stars. It is representative of a person’s always changing mood, whether it is happiness or sadness. Also, among some indigenous tribes gaming rituals were used to help change the seasons, or help shift night to day.

I found this to be pretty interesting and just thought I would share it with you guys!

Knowledge Traditions and Devotion Traditions

“5Yet hazardous and slow is the path to the Unrevealed, difficult for physical creatures to tread. 6But they for whom I am the supreme goal, who do all work renouncing self for me and meditate on me with single-hearted devotion, 7these I will swiftly rescue from the fragment's cycle of birth and death, for their consciousness has entered into me.”

-Bhagavad Gita (Easwaran Translation), Chapter 12

After the weekend lectures with Bryant and our class on Wednesday, I’ve begun to appreciate the significance of the Bhagavad Gita within the context of Hindu religion. The Gita is first to introduce Bhakti yoga, which is essentially a pathway of devotion that leads to the Ultimate Reality, that being Krishna. Often, like in this quotation above, the way of knowledge (Jnana yoga) is presented along with the way of devotion (Bhakti yoga), and both are affirmed as pathways to Krishna. However, Krishna is beginning to emphasize the superiority of Bhakti yoga over Jnana yoga (Chapter 12.8-12), which seems arbitrary if one reads the Gita with no context. But it is important to remember that spiritual life, as it was during the writing of the Mahabharata, was essentially restricted to the Brahmin caste that studied and practiced Vedanta traditions. The Gita gives everyone, not just one caste, an opportunity to not only pursue a spiritual life, but to actually reach its goal: Krishna.

This transition from a focus on knowledge to a focus on love and devotion has, I think, an interesting parallel in western culture. Certain readings of Plato’s dialogues lead to a complex metaphysical system which also encourages the pursuit of an ultimate reality or truth: The Good. Later Platonist traditions even talked about experiencing unification with The Good or the Divine in a manner very similar to some of the language in the Gita. But, once again, the path towards the higher, more ultimate reality was a difficult one that required strict adherence to and abstinence from certain practices. Interestingly enough, a few hundred years after Platonism had become well established, a new tradition began to arise that preached a doctrine of love and devotion as the keys to supreme truth or ultimate reality. This religion was founded by the followers of Jesus Christ, who emphasized the importance of love and the idea that anyone could partake in communion with God. Though often not made explicit, in its early years Christianity borrowed many principles and ways of thinking from Platonism, in a similar way that the Gita references Vedanta traditions and practices.

So what is it about “knowledge traditions” that prepares the way for “devotion traditions?” Is it fair to make any causal links between the two, or are there too many factors in a society to make a hard-and-fast connection between these two kinds of traditions?

Gandhi on Ahimsa

I thought it might be interesting to look at Gandhi's idea of ahimsa. He says that his conception of it is a result of his studies of many different faiths. What I found especially interesting about his view is that he claims that even if he were to discover that the spiritual works that influenced his understanding of the term (such as the Gita or the Sermon on the Mount) held a different interpretation of the concept than the one he had formulated and applied to his life, he would not make any change to his version. It seems that this is a result of Gandhi valuing practice more than theory.

He describes ahimsa:

"In its negative form, it means not injuring any living being, whether by body or mind." (On Ahimsa, Selected Political Writings)

"In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, the greatest charity. This active Ahimsa necessarily includes truth and fearlessness... A man cannot then practice ahimsa and be a coward at the same time. The practice of ahimsa calls forth the greatest courage." (On Ahimsa, Selected Political Writings)

Gandhi also has some interesting things to say about non-violence in relation to human destiny (or dharma). For example, I will simply quote him again:

"Non-violence is a perfect state. It is a goal towards which all mankind moves naturally though unconsciously. Man does not become divine when he personifies innocence in himself. Only then does he become truly man... We pretend to believe that retaliation is the law of our being, whereas in every scripture we find that retaliation is nowhere obligatory but only permissable. It is restraint that is obligatory. Retaliation is indulgence requiring elaborate regulating. Restraint is the law of our being. For, highest perfection is unattainable without highest restraint. Suffering is thus the badge of the human tribe." (Non-Violence, Selected Political Writings)

The conclusion of this excerpt reminded me of the anecdote that Easwaran tells in the introduction to his translation of the Gita. That is the one where the yogi is sitting next to the river and faithfully saving the scorpion in the water although it stings him every time that he does so. I just think it is worthwhile to consider what is true about Gandhi's view of human dharma, which seems to be in addition to or in place of a "professional" dharma, whatever that means. But it might not be so wrong to say that in the West we tend to view our purpose in life in a "professional" way rather than a spiritual way.