Samsara and Karma

It occurred to me recently that the cycle of rebirth, samsara, is essential to yoga. In fact, if samsara was not real, there would be no point to yoga. Yoga's stated goal is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind, but really this is done in order to perceive one's purusa, or Isvara. And when one perceives one's purusa, or one's atman, or Isvara, one finally identifies with one's true self, and leaves the realm of prakrti and the cycle of samsara.

Tied up with the cycle of samsara is the law of karma. To simplify it slightly, it's essentially a law of cosmic justice. You sow seeds of karma, and you personally must reap the consequences of those seeds, be they good seeds or bad ones. You continue to do this over many lifetimes as long as you continue to sow seeds.

Both of these concepts, samsara and karma, are essential to the yoga practice, because without them yoga has no purpose, no need to exist. You don't need a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. This is why I think it is necessary to ask whether or not these two concepts are in fact true. Personally, I'm doubtful of both, but this may only be because of my modern way of thinking. I'm more inclined to favor a psychological explanation* of these two concepts than to actually believe them.

But at the same time, I'm drawn to the practice of yoga. I find many principles and practices that I not only agree with, but of which I have actually experienced the benefits. Perhaps as I proceed through yoga, an understanding of the more complex concepts will become clearer, but for now I remain a half-convinced, half-suspicious practitioner of yoga.



*Very loosely paraphrasing Nietzsche, concepts like Karma (or what I called cosmic justice) are merely inventions by people who are trampled upon by more powerful people. The trampled people shake their fists and say "You just wait! You'll get what's coming to ya!" while the powerful people conquer nations, take hundreds of wives, and shower in gold. Karma starts as an invention to help trampled people feel better, and ends up as a way of psychologically suppressing powerful people.

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!