We must at the outset make a distinction between Patanjala or “classical” Yoga and that of the Siddhas and Nathas. It is possible to argue that this distinction is merely historical and traditional and not of practical outcomes, and there’s some truth to this, but we have to dig in a bit to make sure that we’re not just reading what we want to see into the sources.
First of all, we must admit of different metaphysical foundations.
Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras were speaking from the Samkhya position based in a particular reading of the Upanishads and the early Buddhist and Jaina teachings whereby all phenomena are of prakrti or inert Nature/Matter/Energy, while Consciousness is an infinite multitude of unalloyed and ontologically independent purushas. Nature is set into motion by the observation of the Consciousnesses, and they, in turn, identify with the movements of Nature. Liberation or awakening is thus defined as the disidentification of Nature and Consciousness in which Consciousness rests in itself and Nature no longer has anything to do with it. Consciousness and Nature are coeternal and independent, so this disentangling leaves them both existing in themselves but no longer associated. Nevertheless, there is telos in Nature, as her role is to manifest experiences for Consciousness which eventually allow Consciousness to realize itself as basically independent. God, from this angle, is not the creator, preserver, and destroyer, but only the revealer — a Consciousness either eternally independent, who never fell into the error of identification, or one who achieved liberation in the previous large universal cycle but who chose to remain an observer of this one so as to help bring souls to liberation.
The Siddha metaphysics is based more in the tradition of the Agamas, Tantras, and Puranas with conscious borrowings from Patanjali and from Mahayana Buddhism, and takes both a theistic and a nondualist approach. Here, we get a monistic polytheism which, like Patanjali, considers Nature and the manifest universe to be real (unlike most common readings of Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta), but, unlike Patanjali, sees that same Nature as not just imbued with Consciousness but as Consciousness Itself manifesting as matter and energy and a myriad of experiences for Its own Self. There is Upanishadic precedent for all of this, as the Vedas say that 1/4 of the Absolute is matter/energy while the other 3/4 is transcendent, all while remaining the same Substance and Essence; whether or not we take these fractions literally doesn’t matter, the point is that matter and energy partake in Reality but are far from the totality of It.
A point of similarity between the schools is that they are realist; they do not consider the Cosmos nor even individual existence to be mere illusions or projections. The Siddhas, however, assert against Samkhya that neither is the Cosmos alien to the individual nor is the individual an island seeking aloneness. Both view the task of liberation as primarily taking place in the mind-stuff of the individual, but they differ on the result: Samkhya has it that liberation dissolves the mind and leaves the individual Consciousness forever adrift with itself, while the Siddhas has it that liberation infinitely expands the sense of Selfhood to encompass the Cosmos, including other limited individualities, and that this is basically the eternal experience of God. In neither case does the individual dissolve in the Absolute. Patanjali would say that each individual Consciousness is its own Absolute and the mind needs to come to this understanding so as to let go, while the Siddhas teach that the Absolute and the individual are already of identical nature and that the individual only needs to realize this for a similar letting-go to occur naturally.
A major difference, however, is in the valuation of the Cosmos and of the individual body and mind. For Patanjali, the Cosmos may be a place full of wonders, but it is essentially only of utilitarian value: the individual lives through many lives until it comes to an understanding that life in the Cosmos is basically full of suffering and it needs to find a solution. Once that solution is found and enacted, the Cosmos ceases to be useful and the individual’s interest in and awareness of it falls away. For the Siddha, the Cosmos is a showing-forth of the Absolute, and so retains wonder and value by its very nature. It becomes a playground for the Self-realized Avadhuta while remaining a schoolhouse and a temple complex for the rest of us. Both schools play on the “as above, so below” dictum, and so view the body-mind and the Cosmos as having been constructed or unfolded on the same plan, but the Siddha experiences the Cosmos in its entirety within the individual body-mind while the Patanjala as far as possible discards the body-mind. We will return to this notion and some of its implications in a near future post.
As a Nath, I obviously practice primarily within the Siddha school. But I do love Patanjali and some of the great commentaries on his Yoga Sutras. They are still an encyclopedia of legitimate Yoga techniques, as well as insights, tips, and warnings for us as practitioners. And, historically, the Siddha tradition draws heavily from the Yoga Sutras and other “classical” Yoga sources. But it has to be understood that the emphasis is placed very differently between these two major strains of the Yoga tradition in textual and oral transmissions in and derived from India.
What’s most interesting of all, though, is that for all of these differences and distinctions between and among practitioners of Yoga, the experience appears to be very similar or even identical. I have a hypothesis which may require more thought and writing to tease out in fulness, but which can be stated thus for now:
It appears very much like the actual difference of outcomes has to do with the individual’s perception. A yogi in the Patanjala school aims to transcend the limitations of the body-mind by separating entirely from the complex of manifestation, while a yogi in the Siddha-Nath school aims to transcend those same limitations by expanding their own experience of the body-mind complex to cosmic proportions. The realized Patanjala experiences pure Self-Awareness apart from phenomena, while the realized Siddha Avadhuta experiences pure Self-Awareness as phenomena. Both are realized, both are awake, both are enlightened. One may prefer one or the other, and say that that side is more fully enlightened, but that seems a mostly aesthetic choice. To both, I can only say: Adesh! Adesh! Jai Yogiji! Relax the body and turn the mind back upon itself and let come what may!
Patanjali statue image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patanjali_Statue.jpg