Yoga Therapy Ireland Summer 2005, pp. 22-26.

Patanjali and God: the role of isvara in the Yoga Sutras

Peter Connolly

Scholars have tended to regard the cosmology of the Yoga Sutras as being
essentially in agreement with that of its sister school, Samkhya (as outlined in
Isvarakrsna’s Samkhya Karika). Thus, there are two fundamental categories of
existence. On the one hand we have the natural/material world (which includes
mental and emotional processes) called prakrti, sometimes referred to as drsya (the
seen or objective), grahya (that which is grasped, perceived or, that which imprisons
or is taken in marriage), alinga (that which is without characteristics - there referring
to prakrti in her unmanifest state) and pradhana (the chief). On the other hand is the
person or self, purusa, characterised by consciousness. There are many purusas,
each one identical. Prakrti (feminine) changes, purusa (masculine) does not.

The first transformation of prakrti, is the manifestation of subtle mental categories

(buddhi, ahamkara and manas) which act rather like lenses or spectacles and allow
the purusa to watch the remainder of prakrti's unfoldment and hence the creation and
transformation of the universe. The problem is that purusas begin to identify with
what they see in prakrti instead of remembering that what is before them is simply a
3-D, five sense, all-colour spectacular show, put on for their entertainment. This
mistaken identification by purusa leads him to think that he is actually bound up with
the transformation of prakrti and hence experiencing a series of 'lives'. This is
samsara.i

The aim of both Samkhya and Yoga is for the purusa to realise his true identity and
cease to be involved with prakrti. This state of non-involvement is called kaivalya
(isolation or aloneness).ii Samkhya's method for gaining such realisation is one of
reflection on and discrimination between what is self and what is not self. In Yoga the
technique is to gradually turn the mind away from the world and direct it inwards.
Once this process is successful, the buddhi or most subtle aspect of mind no longer
acts like a lens to direct purusa's attention towards the world but rather functions as a
kind of mirror and reflects purusa back at himself. When he perceives his own nature
he is freed from the illusion of thinking that he is a part of prakrti.iii

In his The Philosophy of Classical Yoga Georg Feuerstein has challenged the idea
that Samkhya and Yoga are two sides of the same coin.iv Despite its seemingly
radical nature, however, this claim is not nearly as strong as it sounds. When we
examine his argument closely he is not claiming that the two systems have virtually
nothing in common but merely that some scholars have gone too far in their claims
that Yoga is simply a sub-school of Samkhya. In this he is absolutely right, and Indian
tradition obviously agrees with him since it classes Samkhya and Yoga as two
schools (darsana), not one. In Feuerstein's view the two principal differences
between these systems are firstly that Yoga puts the emphasis on practical
meditational techniques whereas Samkhya stresses intellectual discrimination.
Secondly, Yoga is often said to be theistic whilst Samkhya is atheistic. The question
is, what does theism mean in this context?'

Ten sutras in the Yoga Sutras refer to 'the lord' (isvara). These are 1.23-29, 2.1, 2.32
and 2.45. In the sutras preceding 1.23 we are told various ways of gaining a state
which could be either absorption (samadhi) or dispassion (vairagya).v Then 1.23 itself
says "isvara pranidhanad va", "or by contemplation on the lord." In other words, this
state, whatever it may be, can be gained by isvara pranidhana, which is usually
translated as 'devotion to the lord', although, as I shall argue, contemplation on the
lord' is probably a more accurate rendering. The remaining nine sutras are:

1
Yoga Therapy Ireland Summer 2005, pp. 22-26.

1.24 The lord is a special self (purusa) untouched by defilement (klesa), the
results of action (karma-vipaka) and the store of mental deposits (asaya).

1.25 In him the seed of omniscience is unsurpassed.

1.26 He was also the teacher of the former ones because of his non-
boundedness by time.

1.27 His sound is the pranava (the syllable OM).

1.28 The recitation of that produces an understanding of its meaning.

1.29 Then comes the attainment of inwardmindedness (pratyak-cetanii) and

also the removal of obstacles.

2.1 Asceticism, self-study and isvara pranidhana are kriya yoga.

2.32 Purity, contentment, asceticism, self-study and isvara-pranidhana are the

disciplines (niyama).

2.45 Through isvara pranidhana comes the attainment of samadhi.

2.1 tells us simply that isvara pranidhana is a part of kriya yoga (active discipline)
whilst 2.34 and 2.45 just inform us that is it one of the five disciplines which act as a
preparation for the attainment of samadhi. The sutras from book one are more
explicit about the nature of isvara. Firstly, we are told that he is a special kind of
purusa. What makes him special are the facts that he has always been untouched by
defilement, action and its consequences and the store of mental deposits. He was
also the teacher of former yogins because he, out of all the purusas, has never been
bound by time. His symbol is OM and the recitation of this will enable the reciter to
understand the nature of isvara. Furthermore, he is said to be omniscient.vi

It is clear that for Patanjali the isvara can help the yogin in some way, for he was the
teacher of former yogins. But exactly how does isvara help purusas which are in
bondage? Mircea Eliade explains it in the following way:

'this divine aid is not the effect of a 'desire' or a 'feeling' - for god (isvara)
can have neither desires nor emotions - but of a 'metaphysical sympathy'
between isvara and the purusa, a sympathy explained by their structural
correspondence ... what is involved then, is … a sympathy metaphysical
in nature, connecting two kindred entities.'vii

If Eliade is correct, however, why do most translators of the Yoga Sutras render sutra
1.23 as 'or by devotion to the lord' rather than 'or by contemplating the lord'? The
answer seems to lie in the commentaries. In explaining this sutra, Vyasa tells us that
because of the yogin's special kind of devotion (bhakti visesa) the isvara inclines
towards (avarjita) and favours (anugrhnati) the yogin. This implies that the isvara is
an active self who can move and affect the yogin's situation in a favourable way.
Vacaspatimisra goes a step further. In his explanation of the next sutra he informs us
that isvara 'possesses pre-eminence in richness of knowledge and of action and of
power,'viii thereby suggesting that the isvara, if not exactly omnipotent comes pretty
close to it.

2
Yoga Therapy Ireland Summer 2005, pp. 22-26.

What we have to decide is whether the attribution of omnipotence to isvara is in line

with. Patanjali's understanding or whether it represents a development of the
classical yoga tradition away from a Samkhya-like cosmology where, in essence, the
isvara is the same as other purusas in favour of a view more akin to that found in the
Bhagavad Gita (BG), where the supreme purusa (purusottama) creates and
destroys the cosmos when he wishes and where the events in this world are
determined by him (see BG chapter 9). Certainly the concept of omnipotence is not
foreign to the Yoga Sutras for, as 3.49 informs us,

'Just the vision of the distinction between the purusa and the sattva (brings)
omnipotence (sarva bhava adhisthatrtva) and omniscience (sarva jnatrtva).'

Thus, on the threshold of liberation the yogin becomes, as one of my former students
put it, 'master of the universe'. The important question for our purposes is 'does the
yogin retain this mastery in the liberated state?'

Nowhere do the Yoga Sutras themselves indicate that the isvara is omnipotent,
although a complete sutra is devoted to informing us that he is omniscient. Thus, on
the basis of the sutras alone, a reasonable inference would be that the isvara is not
omnipotent and therefore the liberated purusa is also not omnipotent, for it seems
unlikely that Patanjali wanted his pupils to think that liberated souls were greater than
the isvara. Such a conclusion is reinforced when we consider sutra 3.50, which tells
us that it is through dispassion towards omnipotence and omniscience that liberation
is obtained. In some ways, however, this sutra complicates matters for if isvara, who
is eternally liberated, can be omniscient there seems no good reason to think that an
omniscient purusa will lose this faculty on attaining liberation. Why then should he be
thought to lose his omnipotence? Part of this must lie with the conception of purusa
itself.

Purusas are many and identical. Their one characteristic is consciousness and it is
quite likely that in Samkhya-Yoga philosophy they are to be regarded as all-
pervading.'ix Omniscience is a natural attribute of an all-pervading consciousness. In
itself, however, such a purusa would seem to possess no means of manipulating the
material world. Only by attaching itself to that world could the purusa manipulate it.
But attachment to and involvement with the world is bondage, which is what the yoga
system is trying to eliminate. Hence if omnipotence implies bondage then the isvara
is not omnipotent and neither is the liberated purusa. The isvara cannot be
omnipotent because he has never been bound ; neither can the liberated purusa
because he is liberated. Furthermore, a plurality of omnipotent beings is logically
absurd, for imagine what would happen if they tried to engage in antagonistic
activities.

Thus, the most logically consistent interpretation of the place of isvara is likely to be
more akin to Eliade's view than that of Vyasa or Vacaspatimisra. The isvara of the
Yoga Sutras is probably closer in conception to the Jain Ford-Maker (tirthankara)
than the omnipotent, omniscient god of the Gita. Tirthankaras are free from
involvement with the world and merely serve as examples for those who are on the
path to release. Patanjali's intention seems to have been to encourage the yogin to
contemplate on isvara so that he will gradually realise that his own nature is just like
that of isvara. In other words, because isvara is and always was liberated he
provides the ideal focus for the attention of yogins, hence he helps by his presence
and example and not by interfering with their lives (see note v. below).

It seems, then, that the notion of an 'active' lord probably does not belong to
Patanjali's yoga but was introduced by later commentators such as Vyasa and

3
Yoga Therapy Ireland Summer 2005, pp. 22-26.

Vacaspatimisra. Both these writers were composing their works when devotional
religion was on the upsurge in India and it is not unreasonable to assume that they
modified the teachings of their own tradition to keep pace with the times. Thus, the
similarity between the teaching of the Yoga Sutras and that of the Samkhya system
seems to be a strong one, even on the issue of theism. In fact, even though Krsna
may be referring to different systems when he speaks of Samkhya and Yoga in the
Gita, the same relation would seem to hold between both classical and Gita forms of
these systems, namely one of similarity bordering on identity, as Krsna says in 5.4-5:

'Of Samkhya and Yoga as separate, fools speak, not the wise. Resorting to
even one of them completely, man wins the fruit of both.

What place is gained by the followers of Samkhya, that is reached also by the
followers of Yoga. Whoever sees that Samkhya and Yoga are one, he (truly)
sees.'

And that means the ‘god’ of the Yoga Sutras and the ‘God’ of the Bhagavad Gita are
very different kinds of beings.

________________________________________________________

Peter Connolly read for BA, MA and PhD degrees in Comparative Religion and
Philosophy at the University of Lancaster and a BSc in Psychology with the Open
University. He has taught Indian religion and philosophy on BA and MA courses for
over 20 years and has worked with various yoga organisations throughout that time,
offering a variety of lectures and short courses. He is interested in how people go
about constructing histories of yoga and the methods they use for making sense of
yoga texts. His own approach is strictly non-partisan and educational. He presents
the history and teachings as he understands them, all the time encouraging students
to make up their own minds and challenge authority figures, including himself, to
provide evidence in support of their claims.

Dr Connolly has, for many years, been fascinated by all forms of altered states of
consciousness. From the late 1960’s until the mid 1980’s he studied and practised a
variety of meditational techniques, ranging from the devotional style of the Divine
Light Mission and the Radha Soami Satsang to Tibetan Lam Rim and the more
austere approach of Theravada insight meditation as well as some shamanistic
methods. He has also trained in both Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and
hypnosis, both of which offer an interesting perspective on the psychology of yoga
and offer a range of valuable resources to yoga teachers.

His classes are well known for their clarity of exposition and informal style. Some
students have suggested that he be cloned so that he can teach more courses.

4
i
NOTES

See Yoga Sutras 2.17 and 2.24.

ii
A term that they share with Jainism in describing the liberated state.
iii
See Yoga Sutras 2.25.
iv
Feuerstein G. (1980) The Philosophy of Classical Yoga Manchester University Press,
chapter 7.

v
I favour the latter interpretation because in my view Y.S. 1.17 and 1.18 provide additional information on the two
types of detachment rather than two types of samadhi. Both traditional and modern commentators have recognised that
the subject matter of 1.17 and 1.18 is discussed further in 1.19. This discussion continues, in fact, until 1.31 for 1.32
introduces the teaching of practice on a single item (eka tattvabhyasa), i.e. it returns to the other concept mentioned in
1. 12, practice (abhyasa). The likelihood is, then, that sutras 1.19-1.31 deal with detachment (vairagya) rather than
concentration (samadhi).

Thus, 1.19 can now be understood as stating that the bodiless ones who have merged into nature only have the lower
detachment because they have not shed the desire for further existence. 1.20, therefore, deals not with the concentration
of 'the others' but with the detachment of 'the others.' These 'others' are those who have attained the superior form of
detachment, which is preceded by faith (sraddha), energy (virya), recollection (smrti), concentration (samadhi) and
insight (prajna). That is, it follows the insight into the nature of the self described in 1.48 and 3.49.

Such an interpretation fits perfectly with the description of the higher detachment in 1.16 where it is said to arise after
the yogin has experienced the self. 1.21 and 22 can then be taken to refer to the proximity of yogins to the superior
detachment rather than to the superior concentration and 1.23-29 to deal with the yogin attaining the superior
detachment by modelling himself on the lord (isvara). The lord is the perfect example of a being without any kind of
attachment for the realm of nature. It is thus detachment and not concentration that leads to the eradication of the
obstacles (1.29-30). In this scheme of interpretation, practice and detachment can both be seen to contribute to the
yogin's progress in distinct yet essentially equal and complementary ways.
vi
This is how most interpreters seem to take 1.25. Indeed, if Patanjali had meant anything else by this sutra it is far
from clear what that might be.

vii
Eliade M. (1969) Yoga: Immortality and Freedom RKP, London, p.74.
viii
Woods, J.H. (1966/1914) The Yoga System of Patanjali Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, p.52.
ix
The late Samkhya Sutras make this claim (e.g. 6.59), as does Vijnana Bhiksu when commenting on Samkhya Sutra
1.109. However, since such statements are not found in the Samkhya Karikas and the Yoga Sutras we can only say that
it is ‘possible’ that this view was held by adherents of the Samkhya and Yoga schools in the classical period.