In Yoga & Body, in order to get to a separate point, I glossed over a lot of critical details concerning Patanjali’s Yoga and the Samkhya metaphysics which forms its basis. In a conversation about that article, my gurubhai Samdhyanath made me acutely aware that I perhaps glossed a bit too much in my efforts at keeping things brief. This does, however, give me a good excuse to dive a bit further into Samkhya in the context of Patanjala Yoga.
To start at the start: Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras are dependent on metaphysical categories from the Samkhya, a model of the evolution of the cosmos and/or of subjective experience (the “and/or” being depending on interpretation). Either way, it is also a model for involution, a turning inward or re-turn to one’s own Essence apart from Substance and Extension. Samkhya, and so Patanjali, is dualistic in approach, positing two co-eternals, namely purusha and prakrti. These two are said to be essentially separate, never actually making contact but only apparently interacting. On that last point hinges the rest of Patanjala Yoga.
Purusha is not a single “thing”, but a collective term for the infinitude of self-sufficient, eternal, individual atoms of Awareness. Each individual purusha is complete unto itself, irreducible, independent, and infinite. Purusha, both individually and collectively, exists opposite prakrti. Prakrti is variously translatable as “Nature” (in the philosophical sense of natura naturans), as Matter and/or Energy, and others along these lines. I tend to prefer “Nature” or “Substance”, as together they imply a basically non-material creative power, as well as the “stuff” used in the act of creation.
There are two main reads on Samkhya: the first is as a literal dualistic metaphysical model arising from and subsequently underpinning yogic practice, and the second is as a phenomenological model or, in plainer language, a metaphysics of experience. Both of these interpretations have their proponents and compelling arguments in their favor. That is a different discussion, however, so I’ll leave it for later.
In relation to the previously mentioned “Yoga & Body” post, it is worth mentioning that Patanjali is not “anti-body” or “anti-cosmic” in any way. Though encouraging asceticism — to the point of making asceticism a necessity in his system of Yoga — Patanjali does not think that the body is in any way evil. Much as in Siddha Yoga, the body is seen as a necessary instrument for liberation. Unlike the Siddhas, however, Patanjali sees the body as merely instrumental. In fact, prakrti and all of her evolutes are, for Patanjali, useful instruments but otherwise possess no value. Siddhas experience all of Nature and Her myriad forms as inherently and inextricably divine.
Another major aspect of Patanjali’s understanding of Samkhya is that the elements of experience — from the basic components of material substance to the major faculties of each individual’s mind and the very senses which connect them — may be used as a ladder for climbing back to our original freedom. Contemplating each element so deeply that the yogi enters full identification with it, a profound understanding of them is attained. Unimportant in itself, this process enters ever more deeply into the nature of subjectivity until the pure awareness of purusha is simultaneously perfectly reflected in the incarnate mind and distinguished from it.
Again, we see a similarity between Patanjala and Siddha Yoga in that both see the substance of experience as a tool allowing the yogi to achieve the purity of mind necessary for unalloyed Awareness to shine through. For the Siddha, the mind and other elements of experience retain importance as movements within the divine substance (Sakti), while for Patanjali it is all to be abandoned.
Kapila & Devahuti image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kapila_Devahuti_discussions.jpg