The cure for loneliness is solitude. (Marianne Moore)
puruṣārtha-śūnyānāṁ guṇānāṁ pratiprasavaḥ kaivalyam svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā vā citi-śaktir iti
Ultimate liberation is when the guṇas, devoid of any purpose for the puruṣa, return to their original [latent] state; in other words when the power of consciousness is situated in its own essential nature.
(YS IV.34, translated by Edwin Bryant)
Kaivalya, liberation, comes when the yogi has fulfilled the purusarthas, the fourfold aims of life, and has transcended the gunas. Aims and gunas return to their source, and consciousness is established in its own natural purity.
(YS IV.34, translated by B.K.S. Iyengar)
As we saw last time, in the last sūtra of the Kaivalya Pāda, the final pāda, Patañjali comes full circle, reaffirming the definition of yoga given at the very beginning of the Yoga Sūtras. As was the case with I.3, Patañjali here describes spiritual liberation as allowing the power of consciousness to abide in its true nature (svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā). The word used to describe spiritual liberation in this last sūtra is kaivalya (alone-ness/separate-ness), and it gives this final pāda its name, the Kaivalya Pāda. The Kaivalya Pāda is perhaps the least well known, but also the most philosophical of the four pādas. Throughout most of the Yoga Sūtras, Patañjali’s main concern has been to teach his followers how to have a direct, unmediated experience/realization of the Self, rather than present philosophical justifications for its existence. As he nears the end of his text, however, Patañjali does take the time to present several philosophical arguments for his belief in an eternal, transcendent Self. In doing so, he explores some of the philosophical differences between himself and those Buddhist philosophers of his time who argued against the belief in an eternal Self. In the coming months we will look at some of these philosophical differences, but before doing so, we should take some time to explore the meaning of kaivalya.
Loneliness and solitude
First of all, it is important to distinguish between alone-ness or solitude and loneliness. Loneliness is not something we strive for but, rather, something that happens to us. Loneliness is an unhappy state of mind associated with feelings of being socially disconnected and alienated from others. It can occur not only when we are alone, but also when we are in the company of others. Indeed, we can be at our loneliest when we find ourselves in unhappy relationships with other people.
At least since the time of Plato, key philosophers in the western tradition have distinguished between loneliness and solitude. Solitude is a chosen experience and is an achievement to strive for, rather than something that just happens to us. While being alone may be helpful to those seeking solitude, it is not by itself a sufficient condition for achieving solitude. Solitude was seen as a contemplative experience in which an individual could recover a sense of their deepest and most authentic self by isolating the mind from external distractions. Contemporary philosopher Melissa Lane succinctly describes solitude as, “a distinctive condition of experience in which one can still the voices of society in the mind.” This in turn, allows for a form of authentic experience which “might be keeping company with oneself, or it might be an experience of nature or of God.” (IOT) This conception of solitude found in the European philosophical tradition has several parallels to Patañjali’s concept of kaivalya, which we will now investigate.
Alone-ness
Once we understand the metaphysics of the Yoga School of Philosophy, we will see why spiritual liberation is characterized as “kaivalya” in this last sūtra. We have already seen that Patañjali embraces a fundamental dualism of non-sentient matter (prakṛti) and spirit (puruṣa), which we experience in ourselves as a distinction between the Seer (draṣṭṛ) and Seen (dṛśya). In terms of real experience, this translates into the distinction between consciousness itself and the objects appearing in our consciousness. It is the presence of a Seer in each one of us that is responsible for our rich, conscious lives, animating the non-sentient material processes of our minds with its presence. So thoroughly does the Seer saturate the content of our experiences, that we fail to fully realize its distinct identity from the objects of experience. The transcendent within each of us gets lost and absorbed, and consequently, we identify with that which is ephemeral in our lives. This is why we suffer.
The path of yoga can be viewed as a process of distillation. Just as we can extract pure water from salt water through a process of heat, so too can we extract a pure consciousness from the matrix of human experience through the heat of disciplined practice. We can see parallels here to western conceptions of solitude.
The use of the term pratiprasava in this final sūtra is also telling. According to the philosophy of yoga, the evolutionary path is one in which puruṣa and prakṛti, initially distinct entities, become increasingly entangled with each other. Pratiprasava connotes the idea of a return journey, a process that retraces this evolutionary path back to some primordial state where puruṣa and prakṛti once again exist in isolation from each other. The path of the individual yoga practitioner mirrors this cosmic cycle of evolution and involution. Yoga practitioners reverse this evolutionary process on an individual level, ultimately creating within themselves a state in which puruṣa and prakṛti are isolated from each other. Puruṣa stands aloof from the messiness of the material world, hence the term kaivalya. Yet it also raises many questions as to the nature of spiritual liberation, specifically, whether it is something that can only be fully achieved after death.
Kaivalya and death
This conception of kaivalya, as a separation of puruṣa from prakṛti, seems to give us a picture of spiritual liberation that is consistent with the metaphysics of yoga philosophy. According to such a literal interpretation of the metaphysics of enlightenment, however, it would mean that enlightenment is possible only after death. It would be a form of disembodied existence in which we would be devoid of our bodies, sense organs and minds, since these belong to the world of prakṛti. Without experiencing such a state, it is difficult, and perhaps futile, to envisage what it would be like. Furthermore, until we have rid ourselves of the affliction of egoism, when we speculate on any putative life after death, we often fall prey to a desire for perpetuating “the existence of our mortal selves, either in its physical or egoic forms.” (LOL p.328)
One thing is clear, however; that to be a living human being requires the functionality of our material natures. Because the presence of living, enlightened human beings who can teach others has great value in the yoga tradition, many commentators have therefore looked for a different way to conceptualize kaivalya that doesn’t require such a radical and literal divorce of puruṣa from prakṛti.
Kaivalya and samādhi
Perhaps the most promising route lies in more of a psychological interpretation of kaivalya. Patañjali presents a complex and nuanced classification of contemplative states (samādhi) in the Yoga Sūtras. His classification accords with a progressive psychic disentanglement of the practitioner’s consciousness from the material world. Through practice, yoga practitioners are like engineers employing various contemplative technologies to fashion for themselves new modes of consciousness.
In the beginning, the goal is to create conscious experiences of objects in the world which are free of the mental distortions that normally pervade our experiences. In such states, “the mind becomes just like a transparent jewel, taking the form of whatever object is placed before it.” (EB I.41) Such states are classified as contemplative states (samādhi) with seed (sabīja), since the consciousness is still anchored on some object external to itself. The ultimate contemplative state known as nirbīja samādhi (samādhi without seed) is a psychological state in which consciousness alone is experienced, devoid of any other mental content.
You could say that nirbīja samādhi is the ultimate solitude. One of the most hotly contested questions in contemporary philosophy of mind is whether or not all forms of consciousness require that we are conscious of something. Yoga psychology certainly upholds the possibility of experiences where consciousness is severed from anything beyond itself. These states are not easily attainable, but they are understood to be transformative and worth struggling to achieve. They are highly valued because of the insight and freedom that they bring, creating an existential shift in the practitioner whereby all that is transient pales in comparison.
We are faced again, however, with the problem of whether or not one could be a functioning human being while in such a state. B.K.S. Iyengar gives us a very down-to-earth account of this conundrum in the following passage:
“Samadhi is an experience, which [Patañjali] makes clear is worth struggling to reach. It is transformative and utterly purifying. But what then? Samadhi is a state of being in which you cannot do. You cannot catch a bus when in samadhi. In a state of oneness, how would you be able to discriminate which one to get on? Samadhi leaves the practitioner changed forever, but he still has to get dressed in the morning, eat breakfast and answer his correspondence. Nature does not simply disappear once and for all. It is simply that the realized yogi is never again unaware of the true relationship between Nature and Cosmic Soul.” (LOL p.228)
Like other commentators, B.K.S. Iyengar seeks a vision of kaivalya that goes beyond either a state achieved after death or within some specialized contemplative experience that cuts us off from the business of daily life. In Light on Life, he equates the last chapter of his book, “Living in Freedom,” with the last pāda of the Yoga Sūtras, the Kaivalya Pāda. He characterizes Patañjali’s Kaivalya Pāda as, “the most beautiful and lyrical, enjoying the sweetness of the great task accomplished, yet at the same time, he goes out of his way to set our feet back firmly on the ground.” (LOL p.228) Some might be surprised at this view, that in the Kaivalya Pāda Patañjali sets our feet back firmly on the ground, since it is such a technical, philosophically esoteric chapter. B.K.S. Iyengar’s reasons for doing so have a lot to do with his focus on how to live a life of spiritual freedom rather than finding spiritual freedom outside of life.
Kaivalya and living in spiritual freedom
There is no doubt that the classical commentators believe in the idea of an eternal spiritual freedom achieved after death, just as they also believe in the possibility of Self-realization in this life on the basis of reaching the higher samādhi states. In addition, many of the commentators, B.K.S. Iyengar and Swāmi Hariharānanda Āraṇya among them, promote the idea that those who have experienced the Seer have a unique opportunity to remain active in the world where they will be a force for the good.
B.K.S. Iyengar’s translation of IV.34 demonstrates his strong commitment to the idea that the enlightened individual not retreat from the world. He uniquely equates the term “puruṣārtha” in this last sūtra (consisting of two words: puruṣa and artha) with the four goals of human life (mokṣa/spiritual liberation, dharma/righteousness, artha/material well-being and kāma/pleasure). This is the meaning that “puruṣārtha” has in Indian social and ethical thought. Some might be surprised by B.K.S. Iyengar’s choice here, that his reading does not mesh with Patañjali’s use of puruṣa throughout the entirety of his work. “Puruṣa” has been consistently used throughout the Yoga Sūtras to refer to the Seer, the transcendent Self. “Puruṣa” outside of philosophical contexts, however, is just the everyday term used for “man,” and this is its meaning in the societal term “puruṣārtha,” the goals for human life. It is this latter conception that B.K.S. Iyengar chooses. I believe that in making this choice, B.K.S. Iyengar is giving us his vision of the yogic path, that the yoga practitioner pursue a spiritual path within the context of fulfilling their social obligations by following the template for human life given in the ethical texts. The enlightened individual, at the end of life, will be someone who has done exactly this, someone who has fulfilled the goals of a human life.
Not only is it good for the world to have within its societies those intent on pursuing a spiritual path, it also seems that doing so better supports the goals of the spiritual life itself. In India, the Bhagavad Gītā promoted the ideal of the householder yogi, but even for those choosing to renounce their social position within society to pursue a spiritual path, the importance of community became apparent. In both Christian and Indian mystical traditions, there was a time when individual seekers left society—to retreat into the forest, in the case of India, and the desert, in the case of Christianity. Living in total isolation, however, often proved to undermine the goals of spiritual growth, either because of undue hardship or because in the absence of community the ego becomes unchecked. We see the growth of spiritual communities or ashrams in India and a shift in Christianity towards cenobitic rather than eremitic lifestyles. Therefore, it might be that solitude is best sought within the framework of belonging to some sort of community.
Conclusion
In the last chapter of LOL, B.K.S. Iyengar gives us a detailed blueprint for what the life of an enlightened individual living in spiritual freedom looks like. In summary, such a person is someone who is free of desire yet full of engagement and compassion, someone in whom there is no discrepancy between thought and action, someone who is innovative, practical and deals with people as they are. (LOL p.229) The actions of the enlightened person spring from a direct knowledge of the imperishable Self and a recognition that such a Self exists in everyone. B.K.S. Iyengar reminds us that learning to live in freedom is a progressive process (LOL p.230), a progression that benefits not only the individual practitioner, but also the broader society.
It would seem that the individual pursuit of spiritual freedom, therefore, is best supported within the context of community, both in terms of the demands that living in community make on us and the benefits that it can bestow on us. The link between kaivalya and spiritual liberation is complex, and we should not be tempted to equate spiritual liberation with either a literal or psychological withdrawal from community.
Joy Laine taught philosophy at Macalester College for over thirty years and teaches Iyengar Yoga around the Twin Cities.
Selection of resources
Podcast
BBC Radio 4 In Our Time (IOT): Philosophy of Solitude; panel discussion hosted by Melvyn Bragg with Melissa Lane, Simon Blackburn and John Haldane.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046ntnz#:~:text=Melvyn%20Bragg%20and%20his%20guests,imprisonment%2C%20exile%20or%20personal%20choice.
Books
Edwin Bryant, The Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali (EB). North Point Press, 2009.
B.K.S. Iyengar, Light on Life (LOL), especially Chapter 7, “Living in Freedom.” Rodale, 2005.
Patanjali photo credit: Dr. Hermann Traittor, Yoga Asana Anatomy, IYNAUS, 2019
