Let’s Continue our discourse on Patanjali: परिणामतापसंस्कारदुःखैर्गुणवृत्तिविरोधाच्च दुःखमेव सर्वं विवेकिनः॥ (Yoga Sutra 2.15).

By the portion “…on account of everything bringing pain either as consequence, or as anticipation of loss of happiness or as fresh craving arising from impressions of happiness..”, it is stated that the joy arising from objects is incidentally, (i.e. as conditioned by time, past, present and future) painful because it is mixed with sorrow in all three times.

And by the portion, “or also as a counteraction of the gunas”, is stated that it is painful intrinsically also.

There in the sutra, परीणाम, consequence, ताप, anticipation of loss of happiness, and संस्कार, impressions of happiness are themselves the sorrows; ‘on account of them..’ This is the meaning.

The instrumental case is used to indicate the fact of being such.

To explain: All experience of joy, without exception, is indeed mixed with attachment.

For it is not possible that anyone is not attached to something and still derives joy from it!

Attachment itself, having emerged first, becomes transformed into joy through the acquisition of its object.

And that attachment, increasing every moment, is of the nature of sorrow itself, because of unavoidability of sorrow resulting from not attaining its object.

Happiness is the inactivity of the organs with regard to the objects of enjoyment, which comes from their full appeasement.

The restlessness that comes from covetousness is sorrow.

And it is not possible to bring about dispassion into the organs through repeated enjoyment, because attachment and the cleverness of the organs increase greatly in accordance with the repeated enjoyment of objects. And Bhagavatam says in (9.19.14)

न जातु कामः कामानामुपभोगेन शांयति |
हविषा कृष्णवर्त्मेव भूय एवाभिवर्धते ||

The attachment of passionate person is never appeased through enjoyment. It increases all the more over again like fire flaring up through clarified butter.

Therefore even the joy arising from objects is verily sorrow in as much as it is a transformation of attachment which is of the nature of sorrow. For, a cause and its effect are non-different. This much as regards परीणाम-दुःख, pain as a consequence.

Similarly, while experiencing joy one dislikes the causes of sorrow which are opposed to it (joy), and since there can be no enjoyment without harming other beings, he injures other beings.

And द्वेष, dislike, is a particular kind of wish in the form, ‘Let not all the causes of sorrow come to me.’  Yet no one indeed is able to avoid different sorrows.

Therefore, since even during the experience of happiness the dislike for all that is opposed to it persists constantly indeed, ‘pain as anticipation of loss of happiness’ is surely difficult to avoid.

Anticipation of loss is verily a thing disliked.

Similarly, being unable to avoid the causes of sorrow, one becomes deluded.

Thus also is to be explained the statement ‘the pain arising from delusion’.

So it has been stated by Vyasa on the Yoga Sutra: “Everyone has the experience of ‘pain as the anticipation of loss’, which remains mixed with dislike and is conditioned by sentient and insentient means.

Thus there comes to exist कर्माशय, sublimal impression, originating from dislike.

And, desiring the means of happiness, one becomes active through the body, speech and mind.

To put it in another way, one becomes nervous in body, speech and mind out of anxiety that he may not get the desired object or that it may be lost even after acquisition.

Since as a consequence, he favors or harms another, therefore he acquires पुण्य or पाप from favoring or harming others.

That कर्माशय arises from greed and delusion. So it is called “pain arising from anticipation of loss of happiness”.

Similarly, the current experience of joy leaves behind a संस्कार, impression when it subsides.

And that leads to the rememberance of that joy; that again to desire; and that to the activities of mind, body and speech; and that to the कर्माशय of पुण्य or पाप; those two to further births etc.

So far about the pain as fresh craving arising from संस्कार of happiness.

This is all about the संस्कार arising from ‘anticipation of loss’ and ‘confusion’.

Thus after saying that the joy arising from objects is sorrow itself since it is mixed with sorrow during all the three periods of time, the Sutrakara Patanjali says that it is sorrow intrinsically as well–‘or also because of the conunteractions of the gunas’.

Though the gunas, viz. सत्व, रजस् and तमस् which are of the form of joy, sorrow and delusion respectively are opposed to one another, still,like oil, wick and fire together making up a lamp, they produce a threefold single effect that is fit for the enjoyment of a person.

As to that, since when one of them predominates the other two become subsidiary, therefore though an effect is constituted by the three gunas, it is still referred to as made up of सत्व, रजस् or तमस् by the name of that one guna that predominates.

Such being the case, although the idea is the form of an experience of joy is also an effect of predominance of सत्व, still, it being the effect of रजस् and तमस् that serve as subsidiaries, is really constituted by the three gunas.

And hence, since like being joyful its beyond sorrowful and despondent is a certainty, therefore ‘to the discriminating one all is surely painful’.

Neither is even such a notion lasting, since on the ground that the behaviour of the gunas is unsteady the mind has been said to be rapidly changeful.

How can a single notion simultaneously take the form of happiness, sorrow and delusion, which are mutually opposed to one another?

The answer is, no; because there is no opposition between what has become potent and what is latent.  For, only gunas that manifest themselves equally can have hindrance in the matter of their simultaneity, but not so in the case of gunas that are unequally manifest.

As for instance, virtue, wisdom, detachment and sovereignty that have become manifest stand in opposition to vice, ignorance non-detachment and lowliness only when these have become manifest, but not so when they are unmanifest.

Indeed, the maxim is,’The mighty can stand in opposition to the mighty but not to a weakling!’

Thus it is only simultaneous dominance’ that the gunas सत्व, रजस् and तमस् also do not mutually allow but not their existence as well.

Will continue with this line of argument in the next session.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s