Some reflections on Kleshas – III
In the previous post in this series, I outlined the representation of kleśās within the Pātañjalayogaśāstra – a.k.a the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali (YS). For this post I want to discuss a more complex issue – are kleśās “tantric”? This is something I have pondered, on and off, for some years. As I explained in the first post, I was introduced to kleśā practice through initiation into AMOOKOS, and the kleśās were presented to me by my mentor – with the support of the AMOOKOS grade papers (published, in part, in the book Tantra Magick) – as a core component of daily practice. As I said, I spent a decade or so using the kleśā schema as a means of self-observation and analysis. This was very fruitful. Perhaps it should have been enough. Gradually though, it began to dawn on me that the perspective underlying the kleśā practice was very different from that of the tantras.
Many elements of earlier Yoga systems can be seen in the Śaiva tantric traditions – but they are considerably modified and reworked. Moreover, the philosophy underpinning them departs radically from that expressed in Sāṅkhya and the YS. For example, the twenty-five tattvas of classical Sāṅkhya were adapted by Śaivas and extended to thirty-six tattvas. See this essay by Christopher Wallis for an overview.
As I observed in the previous post, it’s fairly apparent that Patañjali does not consider the body and its capacities to be a suitable vehicle for liberation. This, for me, is one of the key differences between the perspective of the YS and nondual tantric philosophy.
Avidyā
Ignorance, in the YS, is the ground state of being – the cause of saṁsāra. This view is also found in the Śaiva tantric corpus, but there is a key difference – that Ignorance (avidyā, ajñāna) is one of the five acts of Śiva (sṛṣṭi – emission; sthiti – preservation; saṃhāra – reabsorption; tirodhāna – concealment; anugraha – revealing). When Śiva (i.e. consciousness) veils himself, he descends and contracts, becoming the seemingly separate multitude of powers and objects. Eventually, this contraction gives rise to the erroneous identification of the Self with the body, one’s ego, etc. This is not a fall into matter, but part of the play of the Lord.
From this perspective, an individual human is the product of a contraction of consciousness – a series of unfolding stages by which entities appear to become separated and distinct from each other (i.e. subjects and objects). But our ‘true’ nature is that of Śiva – light (prakāśaḥ) and reflective awareness (vimarśaḥ). The problem (insofar as there is one) is that the action of various cosmic powers prevents us from recognizing our identity as pure consciousness – we have “forgotten” that we are pure consciousness.
Liberation, in these terms, is the recollection of our essential nature, which has become obscured – the recognition of Śiva – consciousness – as one’s innermost identity.
Abhinavagupta uses a variety of hierarchical schemas, to account for how this obscuration occurs. One such schema is the five coverings (kañcukaḥ): particularised agency (kalā), limited knowledge (vidyā), attachment to the objects of the senses (rāgaḥ), time (kālaḥ) and restriction or exclusion (niyatiḥ). It is these forces that produce the empirical self – caught up in time and narrative. Indeed, they are necessary for the individual to experience the world. They are expressions of māyā – but not in the sense that māyā is often understood, as “illusion” – but more in the sense that they are limitations or contractions of consciousness, and are part of the play of Śiva. Māyā is the principle that gives rise to the multitudes of beings who are unaware of their nature as pure consciousness. In this view, all the contents of consciousness have sentience: not only humans and animals but also pots, stones, mountains, ballpoint pens, etc.
How does the body figure in all this? The human body is the locus wherein all the powers and potentialities unite. Unlike Sāṅkhya – and by extension, the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali, here, consciousness and materiality (including embodiment) are not opposed categories. The body is the result of the contraction of consciousness – it is consciousness made solid. Changes in awareness and the very process of liberation are enacted through the body.
Asmitā
In the YS, “I am-ness” (ego) is a fundamental category error – the misidentification of puruṣa (the unchanging self) with the contents of the mind (citta). Again, the Śaivas disagree. Egoity is not an affliction to be overcome or discarded.
“I-am-ness is observed in the six conditions “I am prosperous,” “I am lean,” “I relish with the senses,” “I am happy,” “I am breathing,” and “I am void [of experience].”
“I-am-ness is well known [in the six conditions just mentioned, which comprise] objects, the [fleshy] body, the senses, the intelligence, the breath and mental arrest. The one who contemplates this consciousness [that I am] for the entire course has [the realization] of the universe as his body.”
Virūpākṣapañcāśkā, 1.3-4 (transl. David Peter Lawrence]
Verse 3 identifies six examples of identification that a person applies their sense of I-am-ness: with possessions, with the body, the senses, the mind, breath, and non-cognitive states. Verse 4 expands on this. The aim here is to expand that sense of I-am-ness so that it is all-pervading – that all of the universe is your body.
What of Attachment and Aversion?
In the YS, these two kleśās arise out of I-am-ness.
Turning now, to the magisterial words of Abhinavagupta, here’s a salient passage from Tantralokah:
“Anything in this world that is close to consciousness because of its power, however slight, to intensify awareness, is entirely suitable for this rite of worship, [because it is] endowed with life. following this principle one may declare that something is ‘pure’ or ‘impure’ if consciousness is drawn to it or retreats from it.
This is why the most advanced Gurus in our [tradition] require from Heroes [that they should offer] in the various rites of worship the nectar of the united icons [of the deities that are] their [own bodies].
But in fact any [substance] that makes our awareness come to the fore from its [usual] state of suppression is suitable as an offering. For it is [this] emergence of awareness that constitutes bliss.
So anything that delights the mind is appropriate for [inclusion in the act of] worship). For it suppresses the dominance of all that is not consciousness [in our awareness, namely our identification with] the body [, the vital energy] and [the intellect]), giving rise to the bliss[that is our inner nature].”
(transl. Alexis Sanderson)
A central feature in the tantras is the reclamation of the tangible world of everyday, lived experience as a means to liberation; to locate the sacred in the context of human experience. The everyday world is as much the play of Śiva as is any ‘mystical’ state. Rather than trying to subdue or overcome the senses and the body, Tantra embraces the body; the sensual as a direct, immanent, experience of the divine. It is not the substances – wine, bodily products, or meat for example, which are important, but that they are stimuli to the realization of a state of blissful awareness – and if such is the case, then anything that “delights the mind” becomes a suitable vehicle for attaining liberation. For nondual tantra, the kleśās (afflictions), together with the effects of karma, are only operative when the individual regards phenomena as differentiated. Vidyācakravartin, in his commentary on Virūpākṣapañcāśkā 1.6 says:
“The subject who regards entities as one’s own limbs is called Lord. [However, the subject who] due to Māyā, regards them as differentiated is the creature, who has the defilements of affliction, karma, and so on.”
Sources
Edwin Bryant. 2009. Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali: A New Edition, Translation, and Commentary, with Insights from the Traditional Commentators. North Point Press. David Peter Lawrence. 2008. The Teachings of the Odd-Eyed One. A Study and Translation of the Virūpākṣapañcāśkā, with the Commentary of Vidyācakravartin. State University of New York Press.
