śabda-jñāñānupātī vastu-śūnyo vikalpaḥ (I.9)
Imagination consists of the usage of words that are devoid of an actual object.
(Bryant p. 39)
Mind, language and reality: overview
Because language comes so easily to most of us, it is easy to take it for granted. Yet we should be curious about how it is that complex meanings can be conveyed through sound and/or gesture. Words enable us to talk about the world and to share our thoughts with each other. Words are often performative in nature, playing a central role in most human social practices—praying, joking, praising, consoling, encouraging, describing—to name just a few. Since language is so central to human life and cognition, philosophers and psychologists have long sought to understand how language connects us to the world and to each other, and the role it plays in knowledge acquisition.
Like all powerful tools, however, language can be misused. Human beings have the power to use words to humiliate, harass and bully others. We sometimes use words insincerely, to tell lies and mislead others. Insincere utterances are referred to as “empty words,” yielding expressions such as “empty promises.” This is just one way that words can be thought of as empty. A second way that words are considered empty is when they are used to talk about non-existent things—a unicorn, a round square, the present King of France, for example.
Language can also fail us in more nuanced ways. Beyond the deliberate misuse of language by human beings, language sceptics argue that language itself is a distorting structure that throws a veil between us and reality. Buddhist philosophers in classical India, for example, argued that language is a distorting medium because reality itself is made up of unique and momentary particulars, whereas the words of our language suggest generalization and stability. According to the Buddhists, language imposes a stability and permanence onto phenomena whose nature is one of constant change. Others argued the opposite, that many of our linguistic concepts and structures mirror the nature of reality, thereby deepening our knowledge of that reality. Vikalpa, the third category of cittavṛtti, takes us to the heart of these important questions regarding the relationship between mind, language and reality.
Vikalpa in the Yoga Sūtras
Vikalpa is equated with words that are empty (śūnya) of objects (vastu) and is variously translated as “imagination,” “fancy,” “conceptualization,” and “verbal delusion.” This would seem to indicate a fairly wide range of interpretation regarding the scope of vikalpa. Vikalpa can be viewed in the following ways:
(i) Vikalpa as imagination
Classical commentator Vijñānabhikṣu offers the expressions “hare’s horn” and “sky flower” as standard examples of vikalpa. These expressions demonstrate the possibility of using language to talk about things that don’t exist in reality (this is one aspect of what is meant by the Sanskrit expression vastu-śūnya—empty of object). Philosophers have long puzzled about how we can seemingly talk about things that don’t exist. What is it that we are referring to in such cases? Although there is no such thing as a hare’s horn, the expression “hare’s horn” seems to be meaningful, so it must be about something!
One explanation is that the expression or concept of a hare’s horn is rooted in our experiences of phenomena that do exist. We are able to talk about non-existent objects because they represent a juxtaposition of elements that do exist in reality, just not in the combination suggested by the expression. Thus, if we have actually experienced a horn and a hare, we can bring these two elements together in both our imagination and our linguistic expressions. Further analysis thus reveals an element of real experience in these fictional worlds. In some cases though, an expression might depict an impossible object, “round square,” for example. Unlike the hare’s horn, a round square is something we can’t imagine or conceptualize because it is an impossible object, even though we can combine the words into one expression. One question to reflect on is how these imaginative uses of language help us understand the world in which we live. Imagined worlds of fictional discourse can sometimes bring us great insight into the nature of the real world, as in science fiction, and more broadly, the extensive use of metaphor in our language.
(ii) Vikalpa as conceptualization The idea of vikalpa, however, goes beyond expressions such as the ones considered above, which are clearly imaginative and understood to be so. As was the case with viparyaya, the category of vikalpa is more nuanced and pervasive than the stock examples of “sky flower”and “hare’s horn” might suggest.
In his discussion of vikalpa, commentator Vyāsa offers the statement “caitanyam puruṣasya svarūpam iti” (Consciousness is the essence of puruṣa) as an example of vikalpa. This statement exemplifies how we can use language to think about things that perhaps we have not yet fully grasped or experienced. We may not have directly achieved Self-realization but, because we have a word for the Self (puruṣa), we can form some concept of puruṣa to guide us in our practice and thinking. The statement above informs me that puruṣa is in some way connected to consciousness and hence I learn something about puruṣa from this statement. Yet, as Vyāsa points out, the very structure of our language here is misleading. Like many other languages, Sanskrit is structured around a distinction between subject and predicate, which leads us to conceptualize objects as being separate from and possessing their properties. In this example then, we may be led to think of puruṣa as being a thing that possesses but is different from consciousness. This way of characterizing the relationship, however, is misleading, since there is no separation between the two in reality. It would be like trying to separate a triangle from its three sides.
Here we have a case where language gives us some knowledge regarding puruṣa, yet the knowledge gained is not quite accurate. While language can help us extend our knowledge and support our thinking about things beyond our current experience, it can lead us to shaky ground. We have to treat such verbal knowledge with circumspection.
Vikalpa and knowledge (jñāna)
Whereas viparyaya (perceptual error) was characterized as mithyājñāna (wrong knowledge), vikalpa is characterized as śabda-jñāna (verbal knowledge). Wrong knowledge seems like an oxymoron, not knowledge at all, whereas verbal knowledge constitutes a form of knowledge. In his commentary, Swāmi Hariharānada Āraṇya states that, “viparyaya has no usefulness but vikalpa or vague notion always serves a purpose.” (p.30 )
Vikalpa is therefore not the same as the category of error. If I see a rope as a snake, then I am obviously in error and my error will either be corrected by those around me or by my own further investigations. In the case of vikalpa, we are not obviously committing an error. Linguistic practices characterized as vikalpa may give us some conceptual understanding of the topic at hand and are often shared by other speakers. In his commentary, Vyāsa situates a vikalpa such as, “Consciousness is the nature of puruṣa” as falling between error and pramāṇa, an instrument of knowledge. Patañjali is warning us in the case of vikalpa that language can be misleading. As teachers and students, we do best when our knowledge is anchored in direct experience, yet language can be instrumental in helping us reach that point. B.K.S. Iyengar observes that for vikalpas to rise to the status of full knowledge, we must embark on a process of analysis, trial, error and discrimination.
Vikalpa and samādhi
We can gain a better idea of how Patañjali understands the place of linguistic knowledge by looking at how he understands yogic states of consciousness, collectively known as samādhi. According to Patañjali, it is through such states that we gradually come to Self-realization and free ourselves from suffering.
Patañjali broadly divides samādhi states into two categories, those that have objective content (sabīja) and those that do not (nirbīja). The ultimate samādhi state, nirbīja samādhi, is one in which consciousness is entirely divorced from any conceptual and objective content. The ascent towards Self-realization thus consists of a progression through a hierarchy of samādhi states in which the practitioner experiences a shedding of the conceptual and linguistic structures of the mind.
In our everyday perception of objects in the world, our perception is saturated with the influence of the words we use and the concepts associated with the words. When we see a cow in a field, to take a stock example used by Indian philosophers, it is hard for us not to think of it as a cow. Patañjali envisages a way of knowing the cow that is direct and free from the mind’s linguistic/conceptual influences.
This is a difficult process and Patañjali’s classification of samādhi states shows that this transcendence of language is gradual. In I.42, for example, Patañjali describes a particular type of samādhi state (referred to here as samāpatti) in which language is still present as an active influence:
I.42 tatra śabda-artha-jñāna-vikalpaiḥ saṅkīrṇā savitarkā-samāpattiḥ
In this stage, savitarkā samāpatti, “samādhi absorption with physical awareness,” is intermixed with the notion of word, meaning and idea. (Bryant p. 144)
Vyāsa, in his commentary on this sūtra, distinguishes between three things (i) the word itself (śabda), (ii) the object in itself (artha), and (iii) the idea that goes with the word (jñāna). Normally we run these three things together, but Vyāsa states that when we analyze the situation, we will see that these are three distinct entities. Even in this state of samādhi, where the mind is held still and is totally absorbed into the object of meditation, the presence of the word and the concept are mixed in with the yogi’s experience of the object that is the focus of the meditation—let us say the cow from our example. Although the yogi’s perception of the cow may be free of the afflictions of normal perception (ego, desire etc.), it is not absolutely free of conceptual limitations. In subsequent samādhi experiences, the yogi’s absorption is free of these word/concept associations. Nothing stands between the yogi and the object of meditation, so the object is able to shine forth in its own right. Patañjali compares the mind in this state to a crystal that perfectly assumes the form of objects placed near it. Bringing the mind to this state of clarity is a necessary step towards the liberating knowledge of puruṣa.
Ultimately, according to Patañjali, puruṣa cannot be known (in the sense of a liberating knowledge) on the basis of language. The path towards Self-realization takes us on a journey in which language is transcended. Knowing oneself as puruṣa, according to Patañjali, will liberate us from our suffering, but knowing about puruṣa only on the basis of linguistic descriptions, rather than direct intuition, is not sufficient for liberation. Although the practice of yoga makes room for intellectual study (svadhyāya) and although language is central for the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student, mere verbal knowledge of puruṣa will fall short.
Concluding thoughts
In summary, the idea of vikalpa prompts us to think about the kind of knowledge that language makes available to us. Language enables us to think about the world in ways that go beyond our actual direct experience of the world. Many of us who work with words value the power of language as a means of understanding the world in which we live. The paradox of the yogic path is that, on the one hand, language is key for learning about the practice. Great teachers of yoga, such as B.K.S. Iyengar, lead their students deeper into the practice with their skillful and poetic use of language. On the other hand, the path to Self-realization and liberation from suffering is a journey towards states of consciousness that are empty of words and concepts.
Joy Laine taught philosophy at Macalester College for over thirty years and teaches Iyengar Yoga around the Twin Cities.
References
B.K.S. Iyengar, Light on the Yoga Sūtras. Aquarian Press, 1993.
Edwin Bryant, The Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali. North Point Press, 2009.
Rama Prasāda, The Yoga Darśana of Patañjali. Logos Press, 2005.
Swāmi Hariharānanda Āraṇya, Yoga Philosophy of Patañjali. SUNY, 1985.
