Outlines of Indian Philosophy c19.109

c19.109

(2) After this ascetic preparation begins the yogic training proper. This is a form of discipline which is very old in India and was known both to the orthodox and heterodox circles. It finds a prominent place in the Upaniṣads as well as in doctrines like Buddhism. The references to it in the Mahābhārata also indicate its great vogue. But there were important differences in the way in which it was understood in the various schools. It was for instance practised by some with a view to acquire occult or supernatural powers and by others for the attainment of mokṣa. Among the latter, some took it as the means of becoming one with the Absolute; others, like the followers of the present doctrine, as that of merely shaking oft the yoke of matter. Yoga as treated of by Patañjali, is very much rationalized; and, though he refers to the acquisition of certain supernatural powers, he dismisses them as really hindrances³ to self-realization. This yogic training may be divided into two stages—the first comprising the next three of the eight-fold help—āsana (‘posture’), prāṇayāma (‘control of breath’) and pratyāhāra (‘withdrawal of senses from their objects’)—which aim at restraining the mind from the physical side; and the second comprising the remaining three of dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi, which are different forms of concentration and aim directly at controlling the same. The principle underlying the whole discipline is that man’s faculties are by long habit adjusted to the preservation of the empirical self and that they must be readjusted¹ so as to secure the totally opposite aim of restoring the puruṣa-element in it to its true condition. Of these several stages in reaching yogic perfection, it is necessary to add a few words of explanation only on the last, viz. samādhi, which directly leads to kaivalya. It is divided into a lower and a higher form known respectively as saṃprajñāta and asaṃprajñāta samādhi. The latter is the goal,² the former serving but as a stepping-stone to it. In both alike there is need for the highest power of concentration. The first is a state in which the buddhi continues to function though it is wholly absorbed in the contemplation of a particular object, everything else being excluded except the fact that one is having a vision of it. It is accordingly described as ‘conscious samādhi.’ All sources of distraction are eradicated here and the buddhi shines forth with its sattva element in the ascendant. In asaṃprajñāta-samādhi, the consciousness of the object also disappears along with self-consciousness. It is consequently termed ‘superconscious samādhi.’ The buddhi ceases to function then or its vṛttis, as it is expressed, become latent.³ In that condition not only are the inferior vṛttis arising from the dominance of rajas and tamas overcome, but also those arising from sattva. When in the final form of asaṃprajñāta-samādhi the buddhi is thus concentrated on the self, it vanishes once for all, leaving the puruṣa apart and alone. If we compare our common mental state to the ruffled surface of water in a lake which reflects an object like a tree on the bank as a distorted image, the saṃprajñāta condition may be likened to the calm surface containing a steady and faithful image of it and the asaṃprajñāta to the condition where the tree is by itself and there is no image at all for the lake has dried up. There are thus altogether three levels of life that may be distinguished: the first in which rajas or tamas is the chief governing factor, the second in which sattva predominates and the third which transcends sattva also. The lower samādhi is quite intelligible psychologically; but the higher, because it presupposes the suppression of the mind, takes us beyond normal psychical life. We pass in it to the realm of mysticism.