Asian Traditions of Meditation

by Halvor Eifring

  The nineteenth-century commentator Hariharānanda uses the sun as a rough but useful example for the four types of samāpatti (samādhi). Savitarka samādhi is analogous to focusing without distraction on the sun, cognizing it as an object of a certain shape composed of fire atoms and situated at a certain distance, with some intuitive awareness of its name and function in the natural scheme of things. Nirvitarka samādhi can be compared to the deepening of one’s focus until one sees the sun only as a luminous object in the heavens, but without awareness of its name, size, distance, function, shape, composition, and so on. Savicāra corresponds to perceiving that the fire element of the sun is actually the pure energetic tanmātra, subtle element, of light, but one’s awareness is still circumscribed by the specific location of the sun in the universe and by the fact that it is perceived in the present, rather than the past or future. When, however, all awareness of space and time dissolves, and one sees pure light, devoid of color, pervading not just the sun but all things at all times, in other words, one is only aware of omnipresent eternal light, then one’s meditative state is known as nirvicāra.

  As a prelude to the still higher stages of samādhi that will be discussed next, we note from figure 3.2 that the tanmātras are not the only subtle elements underpinning the metaphysics of an object—they themselves are evolutes from still subtler entities such as ahaṁkāra, ego, and buddhi, intelligence. In order to best understand the third of the four stages of samādhi, let us recall that an entity with a “subtle nature,” sūkṣma-viṣayatva, can be defined as something that can generate a product grosser than itself. We know that the five mahābhūta gross elements do not produce any products or evolutes—they are the last link in the chain, so to speak—so they are not considered subtle, while the tanmātras are considered subtle essences because they produce grosser by-products. But they are themselves the product of something subtler still, ahaṁkāra, ego. As the subtle cause of the tanmātras, ahaṁkāra is by extension also the indirect subtle cause of the gross elements, but twice removed, so to speak. And ahaṁkāra itself, too, has a still subtler cause, buddhi, intelligence.28 Prakṛti is the ultimate subtlest cause of everything (because prakṛti cannot dissolve into anything subtler). With all this in mind, Patañjali indicates in I.45, “The subtle nature of things extends all the way up to prakṛti.” In other words, the samāpatti or meditative focus of the yogī can penetrate the nature of the object and experience it on progressively even more subtle levels than those indicated in vitarka and vicāra states, namely those of ahaṁkāra and buddhi. Additionally, as one approaches the more subtle levels of prakṛti, the sattva guṇa becomes more dominant.

  There is no consensus among the commentators as to the exact nature of the last two stages of samādhi, ānanda and asmitā, underscoring the fact that such states are experiential and do not lend themselves to scholastic schematization and analysis. Vācaspati Miśra’s version perhaps surfaces most commonly, and is coherently predicated on I.41 quoted above. He correlates the three standard components of knowledge identified in Hindu philosophical discourse referred to in I.41, with the differences between these four stages of samādhi. Specifically we can recall that, in any act of knowledge, there is the “knower,” or subject of knowledge; the instruments of knowledge (mind and senses, etc.); and the object of knowledge (the gṛhitṛ, grahaṇa, and grāhya; lit. the “grasper,” the “instrument of grasping,” and “that which is grasped,” respectively). In the first two stages of samādhi outlined so far, vitarka and vicāra, the object upon which the mind is fixed, whether perceived as its grosser outer form or as subtler inner constituents, and irrespective of the sa- and nir- variants of these stages, is an external one and therefore considered grāhya (that which is grasped).

  Now, in the third stage, ānanda samādhi, the yogī transfers awareness from the objects of the senses, grāhya, to the organs of the senses themselves, grahaṇa (the instruments of grasping). Vācaspati Miśra specifies that these are the powers (śakti) behind the sensual abilities of seeing, touching, smelling, tasting, and hearing, rather than the gross physical organs of eye, ear, nose, and so on. The citta mind now becomes aware of the subtler mechanisms of cognition, the instruments of the senses. In other words, it becomes aware of the knowledge-acquiring aspects of the internal organ through which external objects are “grasped,” rather than the external objects themselves, whether experienced in their gross or subtle constitutions.

  Since, in Sāṁkhya, the grahaṇa includes the internal organ, manas, mind; buddhi, intelligence; and ahaṁkāra, ego, all of which comprise the citta in Yoga, the eleventh-century commentator Bhoja Rāja differs somewhat from Vācaspati Miśra by understanding the support of the mind in ānanda samādhī to be the citta itself (specifically in its aspect as ahaṁkāra), rather than with the powers of the senses. (Vācaspati Miśra, in contrast, correlates ahaṁkāra with the fourth stage of samādhi.) Thus, in Bhoja’s perspective, in this third stage, awareness becomes aware of the citta itself, which is the higher faculty of acquiring knowledge, as the “instrument” which “grasps” the objects of the senses. In other words, the mind focuses on its own cognizing nature. Since from the three guṇas of prakṛti, the guṇa of sattva predominates in ahaṁkāra and buddhi, and sattva is the source of bliss, Patañjali calls this stage ānanda samādhi, the “blissful absorption.”29 This is because this state involves experiencing a rarified, pure, and sustainable (and thus supernormal) form of sāttvic bliss. Vijñānabhikṣu quotes Kṛṣṇa’s description of this state in the Gītā here: “When the yogī experiences that endless happiness [sukham] which is grasped by the discriminative faculty [buddhi], but beyond the grasp of the senses, he remains fixed in this state and never strays from the truth … this state, free from any trace of suffering, is called yoga.” VI.21–23). Thus, despite the difference between Vācaspati Miśra and Bhoja Rāja, the prevalent view seems to be that in the third state of samādhi, the mind becomes absorbed on some aspect of the instruments of cognition themselves, rather than supported by or concentrated on the gross or subtle constituents of the ālaṁbana support as an external object of the senses. All commentators at least agree that at this stage of ānanda samādhi, the mind becomes immersed in the sattva prevalent at this state of awareness, one of the qualities of which is bliss. Additionally, space, dimensionality, time, and so on having already been surpassed in the previous stage of nirvicāra, the yogī’s focused mind becomes absorbed in the sattva essence of not just the mind but the sāttvic and blissful quality underpinning all reality, hence the yogī experiences all-pervading bliss. But it is important to note that this is not the bliss of brahman (= ātman/puruṣa)30 indicated in Upaniṣads such as the Taittirīya Upaniṣad; the bliss indicated here is prakṛtic, material; it is not the experience inherent in the puruṣa, the ultimate goal. The citta of the yogī is immersed in the sāttvic aspect of prakṛti, which produces a very refined but nonetheless still prakṛtic type of blissfulness in the external covering of mind, not in pure consciousness itself.

  Therefore, and as an aside, Gītā XIV.6 warns of becoming attached to this sāttvic happiness: there is a danger at this stage that the yogī may mistake this sense of bliss and unprecedented insight with the ultimate goal of yoga, that is, may confound this rapturous state of supernormal attainment with the ultimate experience of puruṣa (or for Vedāntins, of ātmānanada, the bliss of the self). Indeed, the commentators all take Patañjali’s reference in I.19 to the two categories of yogīs who attain states of saṁprajñāta samādhi—the videhas, those who are “unembodied,” and the prakṛtilayās, those who are “merged in matter”—as warnings in this regard. The common denominator of these two categories is that such yogīs still maintain notions of self-identity that are connected with material (prakṛtic) existence.31 Just as normal people misidentify the self with the gross physical body, there are higher beings and yogīs who, through some type of yogic practice, have managed to transcend the grosser levels of self-mi
sidentification but who nonetheless remain subject to more subtle levels of misidentification. Absorbed in various subtle dimensions of prakṛti, the yogīs in this category remain stranded as it were at various heights of supernormal awareness accrued from the yoga path; thus Bhoja Rāja considers the states indicated in I.19 to point to “semblances of yoga.”

  Finally, by involuting awareness further still and penetrating the internal organ of meditation to its still more essential nature, one transcends even the instruments of knowledge and arrives at ahaṁkāra, ego (if one follows Vācaspati Miśra), or buddhi, intelligence (if one follows Bhoja Rāja)—either way, at the closest prakṛtic coverings to the puruṣa itself, from which all the other evolutes have evolved. Having nothing further external or outside of itself upon which to meditate, at least in the realm of prakṛti, since it itself is the source of all prakṛtic evolutes, only puruṣa now remains as an object of contemplation for the yogī’s buddhi. Relentless in the pursuit of true and ultimate knowledge, at this point, the yogī attains the fourth and final stage of saṁprajñāta samādhi listed by Patañjali in I.17: asmitā samādhi. Now, following Bhoja Rāja’s schema, having penetrated the constituents of the external object of meditation through its gross and subtle elements consecutively in the first two stages of samādhi, and having withdrawn itself from external cognition and into a state of contemplating the essences behind the very organs of cognition in the third stage, awareness penetrates the citta further still, absorbing itself in the citta’s feature of buddhi, the grahitṛ, “the grasper,” the prakṛtic covering adjacent to the puruṣa itself.32 Buddhi, in this highly sāttvic state, is so pure and luminous it can reflect the consciousness of puruṣa back to itself like a mirror. At this point, since it has already transcended all objects outside of itself, including the internal organs of cognition themselves, buddhi focuses inward, reflecting puruṣa itself as its object of meditation.

  Another way of putting this is that the yogī now finally becomes aware of puruṣa itself as pure consciousness by means of its reflection in buddhi. In other words, the citta of the yogī becomes indirectly aware of puruṣa (since this awareness is still mediated by buddhi). Obviously, the mind cannot know puruṣa in its own true nature, as the commentator Śaṅkara points out, since the mind is inanimate and puruṣa is more subtle than the mind. Things can only “grasp” or perceive things grosser than themselves: the senses can perceive the sense objects, but not vice versa; the mind can perceive the senses, but not vice versa; and the puruṣa can perceive the mind, but not vice versa (this is a favorite trope of the Upaniṣads33). Only puruṣa can know “itself in itself, through itself” as the Gītā puts it (VI.20, 22).

  But mind can, however, redirect awareness back to its own original source and thus indirectly reflect puruṣa, just as a mirror can reflect a face. In other words, puruṣa can attain a mediated awareness of itself by means of the reflective nature of the pure sāttvic mind; the yogī becomes aware of “I-am-ness” (the etymological meaning of this fourth state of asmitā), rather than any external material prakṛtic object or internal organ of cognition.34 This occurs when the citta contemplates the awareness of puruṣa by means of its reflection in the pure mirror of the sāttvic citta. Consequently, the citta gains a genuine knowledge of the real source and identity of the consciousness pervading it, and consciousness becomes indirectly aware of its true self. Whereas in the previous level the mind was aware that “I am blissful,” in this fourth level it is now simply experiencing a state of “I am.” This is pure I-am-ness with no external object or specific content of self-identification, so it is very close to the goal of direct realization of puruṣa. This fourth stage is still within the realm of prakṛti, however, hence still at a stage of saṁprajñāta samādhi. In other words, it is “supported” by some connection with prakṛti, because the citta is still used as an instrument to channel awareness (even though the object of awareness is now puruṣa itself rather than any external manifestation of prakṛti). The puruṣa at this point is still not fully autonomous or extricated from its appropriation by the mind.

  Howsoever one takes the various higher levels of saṁprajñāta samādhi, one final step now remains in which this ultimate uncoupling of puruṣa from all connection with prakṛti and all involvement with the citta occurs. This is asaṁprajñāta samādhi, samādhi without support (an “a” prefixed to any noun in Sanskrit negates that noun35), which will be outlined in the next sūtra. According to Patañjali in the next verse, I.46, “These above mentioned samāpatti states are [known as] sabīja samādhi, meditative absorption ‘with seed.’” The stages of samādhi referred to here as sabīja samādhi are referred to as saṁprajñāta samādhi in I.17; thus they, along with their counterparts of nirbīja samādhi and asaṁprajñāta samādhis, are essentially used synonymously by our commentators. Vyāsa explains that the four states outlined in the previous sūtras are known as samādhi “with seed,” sabīja, because they have something external as their object of focus, whether it be the gross form of an object, as in the case of the savitarka and nirvitarka states, or the subtle form of an object, as in the case of savicāra and nirvicāra. Bīja here technically refers to a seed in the sense of saṁskāra. Any object perceived in the concentrated mind leaves a saṁskāra seed imprint, just as any other object does in conventional cognition, even if the mind is fixed on it exclusively in the intense stages of saṁprajñāta, hence the latter’s synonym, sabīja. Since the object of concentration as well as the concentrating mind itself become redundant in nirbīja, which will be discussed below, no seeds of saṁskāras are deposited (hence its name in I.51, nir = without; bīja = seed).

  To sum up, then, in saṁprajñāta, or sabīja samādhi, there are four levels, listed in I.17, two of which, vitarka and vicāra, are further subdivided into four samāpattis in II.42–44. One can thus speak of six levels of saṁprajñāta samādhi, followed by a final stage of asaṁprajñāta samādhi. This makes seven types of samādhis in toto.36 While there are minor differences between the commentators on their understanding of the metaphysical nature of the two final types of saṁprajñāta samādhi—ānanda and asmitā—all commentators agree that in principle these stages involve refining one’s awareness during consecutive stages of meditation through progressively more subtle states of cognition in quest of the source of awareness itself, puruṣa.

  What then lies beyond these? In I.18, Patañjali uses the term anya, “the other” to refer to another state of awareness beyond all these states, which the commentators take to be asaṁprajñāta (a term that actually never occurs in the sūtras themselves): “The other [asaṁprajñāta samādhi] is preceded by cultivating the determination to terminate [all thoughts]. [In this state] only latent impressions remain.” As we have seen, the four states of saṁprajñāta all involved the citta in various ways. Asaṁprajñāta is beyond the mind. It is therefore beyond all intentional cognition, and thus descriptive categorization. To underscore this, perhaps, Patañjali has used the simple pronoun anya, “the other,” rather than a descriptive term, thereby pointing to asaṁprajñāta as a state that transcends all conceptual construction and nomenclature (which are all products of citta). Here he resonates with the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad’s usage of the term turīya, “the fourth,” to refer to this state of pure consciousness (7 and 12).37

  The commentators present asaṁprajñāta samādhi, or nirbīja samādhi (without support), as being the state where the awareness of puruṣa is no longer aware of any external entity at all, including the citta, since the latter has dissolved itself. In this final and ultimate state, the supreme goal of yoga, the mind is not supported by any ālaṁbana. The vṛttis of the mind exist simply as potential, which means the saṁskāras, the subconscious imprints that trigger thoughts, memories, and karma, are also latent. Since the mind is now empty of all thoughts, or, as Vyāsa puts it, appears as if nonexistent, the awareness of puruṣa now no longer has any object whatsoever external to itself of which
to be aware, and thus, for the first time, can become only self-aware (loosely speaking38). The final goal of yoga has been attained. This is the yogī’s final birth.

  Another way of considering this is that awareness is eternal; it can not ever cease being aware. The Upaniṣads and the first spiritual teaching of the Gītā in chapter II articulates this repeatedly—the soul is indestructible, it can not be slain; it does not die when the body is slain, nor is it ever born; it is birthless, eternal, perpetual, original; it cannot be burnt, pierced by weapons, wetted, or blown by the wind; it is unmanifest, beyond thought, unchanging, and so on (II.17ff). Awareness cannot be switched off like a light. That being the case, the soul’s only options are of what it is aware: it can be object aware, or (again, loosely speaking) “subject” aware—that is, aware of entities or objects other than itself, or exclusively aware of itself as awareness with no reference to any other entity. After myriad births being aware of the unlimited varieties of prakṛtic objects, puruṣa has now come to the point of self-realization—realizing itself as distinct from not only objects of thought but the very faculty and process of thought itself, the citta and its vṛttis. When there are no objects to detain its awareness, puruṣa has no alternative but to be self-aware. While the major (Vaiṣṇava) theist schools continue this progressive trans-prakṛtic journey further in quest of an awareness of a yet still higher Truth, the Supreme puruṣa, Īśvara, God,39 for the generic Yoga traditions, this stage of self-awareness of the individual ātman absorbed in its own nature, asaṁprajñāta samādhi, is the final goal of the yogic journey.