|
|
|
Author |
Topic |
|
jakub108
Czech Republic
4 Posts |
Posted - Dec 27 2024 : 9:40:19 PM
|
Does yoga, like in Patanjali's system, actually lead to full liberation (moksha), or is it more about achieving deep meditative states and union with Brahman? The Buddha critiqued practices like this, saying they don't fully uproot craving and ignorance but just lead to rebirth in higher realms, where you eventually burn through your merit and fall back into samsara. Can yoga on its own lead to true liberation, or does it need something more? The goal of Buddhism is achieving Nirvana (realizing anatta, or an-atman, non-atman), while the goal of Yoga is achieving Moksha: realizing atman. Even just looking at the two words atman anatman, it looks like the goals are almost direct opposites. Buddha realized what is the path to full liberation by fully understanding dependent origination. There seems to be no equivalent of that in Yoga, is that right? |
|
Christi
United Kingdom
4545 Posts |
Posted - Dec 28 2024 : 5:37:26 PM
|
Hi Jakub,
In brief, yes, yoga leads to full liberation (moksha), just as Buddhism does. In fact, Buddhism is a form of yoga and all of the practices that the Buddha did and taught during his lifetime, were yogic practices. The Buddha was one of the early Shramanas living in the forests of Northern India, and he helped to formulate the spiritual practices and philosophies of yoga. He had two yoga teachers who were quite famous and he studied under them for many years, practising extreme forms of asceticism such as fasting.
The practices that he felt would not fully up-root craving and ignorance were these extreme ascetic practices. He abandoned them in favour of silent meditation. He felt that states of samadhi were important to cultivate, but that it was important to use inquiry practices (vipassana) along with the cultivation of inner silence (jhana) in order to attain full liberation. He cautioned people who were trying to rely on cultivating samadhi states only.
He also didn't say there was no Self. The idea that the Buddha said that there is no Self is a very common myth these days, even amongst many Buddhist practitioners. What he actually said was that people should refrain from holding fixed views about the nature of the Self, and that they should inquire into the nature of all phenomenal existence contemplating its nature as anatta (no-self). That is very different from saying there is no Self. His teaching on no-self was actually part of an inquiry practice involving contemplating forms as having three qualities, no-self, impermanence and not bringing lasting satisfaction (anatta, anicca and dukkha). It is a similar practice to the Neti Neti practice where everything that arises in awareness is dismissed as not being our true nature, eventually leaving only our true nature remaining.
So, nirvana, meaning "without flame", is the same thing as moksha, liberation, and the same as union with Brahman. Patanjali devoted quite a lot of his Yoga Sutras to emphasising the point that we need to stop identifying pure awareness with the objects of the mind and senses, (prakriti). He also stressed the importance of the process of purification and said that when the intellect has become as pure as pure awareness itself, then we experience unity (kaivalya).
As for the Buddha's teaching on dependent origination, you can find a shortened version of it in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Patanjali explains that there are five afflictions, or kleshas, that prevent the state of yoga from being experienced, and that the root cause of these afflictions is ignorance, or avidya. The Buddha did something similar with his teaching on dependent origination, where he starts out with ignorance as the fundamental cause of suffering and then says that the rest of the things that cause suffering follow on inevitably from that.
So, personally I view Patanjali and The Buddha as being very similar teachers, both teaching yoga, both teaching meditation practices (dhyana yoga), both teaching inquiry practices (vipassana/ jnana yoga), and both teaching that we are essentially not the body and mind, or the objects of the senses. They both emphasised the importance of restraints and observances in conduct, the yamas and niyamas, and both emphasised the importance of spiritual practices as a means to attain liberation.
I recorded a video for Youtube a while ago on the Buddha's teachings on anatta, no-self, which you may find useful. That is here:
Why did the Buddha say there is no self?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|