In my class in IIT this term, the first 10-15 minutes are being used
to briefly explain some of the principles of practice in yoga as I have
learnt and as I practice. These discussions sometimes continue after
class and with other people too. Here is one such discussion.
The main theme of one such discussion was the final phrase (भोगापवर्गार्थं दृश्यम्) from a yoga sutra
प्रकाशक्रियास्थितिशीलं भूतेन्द्रियात्मकं भोगापवर्गार्थं दृश्यम्
prakāśa-kriyā-sthiti-śīlaṁ bhūtendriya-ātmakaṁ bhoga-apavarga-arthaṁ dṛśyam ||2.18||
The
three underlying functions of the observable world are 'Light',
'Stability' and 'Action'. The two emergent functions from these for
human beings (and possibly other living beings) are 'bhoga' (enjoyment) and 'apavarga' (movement towards freedom).
We only looked at the final phrase and for this we started with the 'form vs function'
way of understanding. Normally, a laymans (with respect to yoga
practice) understanding of an asana comes from the images that they have
seen of that asana - an image of a well trained person doing the same.
So, they assume that such a posture is the correct way of doing asana.
This is the understanding of form. Any serious yoga teacher would know
90% of practitioners cannot get that form. But, that is not a big issue
as the aim of doing the posture can be achieved by suitably modifying
the posture based on the needs of the practitioner. This comes from the
knowledge of function.
Now, to understand this further, lets ask the question, 'who is a batsman in a game of cricket?'.
When
I posed this question to people, one of most common answer is, 'One who
faces the cricket ball in a game of cricket'. But, at least one other
person answered, 'One who scores runs'. Clearly, the first one can be
said to be a description of form and the other is said to be a
description arrived at from function. Furthermore, captains would prefer
batsmen who fit the latter definition.
Likewise, who is a beggar?
Buddha's begging bowl
The
most common answer is one who expects material gifts from others in
return for no other tangible service. This is not a bad description as
this is how most city bred people encounter beggars. But, if we were to
explore this a bit more, then immediately it would be clear
that the Buddha can also be called a beggar by that definition. So would be Mahavira or Adi Sankara.
Clearly,
most Indians (at least those who have not been completely bought out by
pseudo rationalism) would not categorise the Buddha as a beggar though
the form based definition given above does so. This leads us to the
question of who a beggar is based on the function that this individual
is performing in the society.
To me, a beggar is someone who does
not contribute to the society and who is purely intimately concerned
with his / her own benefit. This is not a negative judgement because a
beggar cannot do otherwise. Given the dire state of poverty / ill-health
/ structural violence that a beggar has to face, it is inevitable that
he/she put in all of hir effort in taking care of oneself.
The
moment I say this, astute city based listeners smile for most heart of
hearts know that is how city bred people live. City life is structured
such that every individual has to relentlessly fend for themselves -
maximise personal gains and minimise contribution back to the society.
The tax they pay is usually used as their contribution back to the
world. To some extent this is true. But, most try to avoid this at all
cost. Even if one pays all of ones taxes correctly, the share of common
resources city people consume (especially the economically well off) is
much more than the average distribution would offer. In my opinion,
cities tend to make most people direct their lives towards a life whose
function tends towards being a beggar. This is just an interesting side
note to the main topic of discussion here (while it in itself is a
significant topic to be covered on another occasion).
Now, coming
back to the yoga sutra discussed at the top, it states that the
function of world around us is enjoyment or movement towards freedom.
When we eat food, we can either eat to satiate cravings and
psychological black holes within or eat to nourish the system so that
the beauty within can manifest itself or some ratio of the two. The
former is bhoga / roga (disease) and the latter is apavarga.
The
same applies to relationships - relationships with other human beings,
relationships with research, relationships with career, relationship
with the earth. The list is endless. Normally we all use it for our own
entertainment (bhoga) in various ways (self-aggrandisement / wealth /
power etc). The fully awakened ones though use it purely for freedom.
The yoga sadhaks (practitioners), understand that the movement from the
former state to the latter is effected by steady practice over long
periods of time. In the mean time both will be found in various ratios
and through sincere determined effort, one moves the balance more in
favour of apavarga than bhoga.
This movement in changing the
ratio of bhoga and apavarga to be more in favour of apavarga can be
assisted greatly by correct asana practice. The desire to enjoy or
accomplish freedom is a rajasic quality (tendency that has action
potential). Normally the quality is not fine tuned (or the rajas is
impure). But, by correct practice of asana, one can purify this rajasic
quality and resolve it into prana (the source from which all three gunas
emerge). This in my opinion is nicely captured by this sutra
प्रयत्नशैथिल्यानन्तसमापत्तिभ्याम्
prayatna-śaithilya-ananta-samāpatti-bhyām ||2.47||
Right
effort eases when the tendency that makes the effort (or the tendency
on which the effort acts) resolves itself into the endless source
(prana) from which the tendency arose.
At
that point, one is freed from the cycle of going behind enjoyment,
tasting some success (and getting motivate further) / tasting some
failure (and long for more). This is nicely captured by the next sutra
ततो द्वङ्द्वानभिघातः
tato dvaṅdva-an-abhighātaḥ ||2-48||
Then,
the duality that the individual experiences which motivated him/her
towards bhoga would have ceased to trouble that individual any more.
In
my opinion, whole of creation is gradually moving in the direction of
apavarga. In other words evolution increasingly produces organisms that
desire more and more degrees of freedom. Therefore, individuals who
attempt apavarga themselves will synch themselves with this larger flow
of things and hence will find that creation with assist them in their
journey. This, imo, is a better explanation than survival of the fittest
for evolution. in other words, the long term direction in which
evolution proceeds is not 'survival of the fittest' but 'survival of the
most conscious'. IMO, the following kural (number 3) also states
'survival of the most conscious'.
மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் மாணடி சேர்ந்தார்
நிலமிசை நீடுவாழ் வார்