As long as the root [of the kleśas] exists, it fructifies as type of birth, span of life, and life experience [of an individual].

Bryant Commentary:

Vyāsa dedicates a long commentary to this sūtra. He begins by reiterating that karma can bear fruit only when the kleśas exist. Just as grains of rice can germinate only when they are not burnt and when they are connected with the husk, and not when the seeds are burnt or removed from their husks, so karma cannot fructify when burnt or removed from its husk or its root, mula, of the kleśas. As long as the kleśas remain active, all the pious and impious actions born of them during one’s lifetime, karma, whether dominant or subordinate, combine at the time of death and determine one’s next life. In other words, at the moment of death, the accumulated karmāśaya, or storehouse of karma, determines and establishes the “three fruits”: type of birth, jāti (human, animal, etc.); life span, āyus; and life experience, bhoga (the aggregate of pleasure and pain that one will experience).

This store of karma, Vyāsa adds, containing the impressions of deeds, saṁskāras, performed throughout countless previous lives, is like a fishing net covered with knots, and the entire collective determines one’s future birth. At death, says Vijñānabhikṣu, the subtle body, or citta, which is where the karmāśaya and all the saṁskāras are stored, transfers into the new body. The subtle body is not destroyed at death as the gross body is, and thus saṁskāras are preserved from life to life. Now, whereas some karma contained in the karmāśaya fructifies in the very next life, not all karma is destined to do so. Some karma might be mutually exclusive with other karma and not be able to coexist in the same life, says Śaṅkara; for example, one might have some karma that merits a celestial birth and other karma that requires an animal birth for fruition. Clearly those two sets of saṁskāras require distinct births in which to fructify. In general, the cluster of karma that does not fructify in the next life, says Vyāsa, may undergo three possible outcomes: It can be destroyed, it can merge with more dominant karma, or it can remain dormant for a long time, overshadowed by more powerful karma.

The destruction of such dormant karma, if it is bad, occurs by the performance of good karma, such as yoga-related activities, and this can be accomplished even in this lifetime, adds Vyāsa. He substantiates this with a verse: “Of the two types of known karma, one is bad, but it can be destroyed by deeds that are good. Therefore desire to perform good deeds in this world.” On the other hand, although good karma can destroy bad karma, the reverse does not hold true: Bad karma cannot destroy good karma. But bad karma can merge with good as per the second outcome noted by Vyāsa above and cause some slight diminution or interference in enjoying the fruits of good karma—such as indigestion after the pleasure of a good meal, says Vijñānabhikṣu.

As for the third option, lying dormant, not all karma is destined to activate in the next life, and so the balance lies dormant until the appropriate conditions manifest for it to fructify (unless, as outlined above, it is destroyed by good karma, or merges with more powerful good karma in the interim). Hariharānanda gives the example of a man who performed pious deeds as a boy, but due to greed he acted like a beast as he grew older. The beastly acts he performed as an adult developed into the dominant karma for that particular lifetime, determining that his next life would be that of a beast. His earlier pious karma performed as a boy, which required a human form in which to fructify, would meanwhile lie dormant during his life as a beast until the appropriate conditions manifest for it to activate in a future birth as a human. This means that at the moment of death, the particular cluster of saṁskāras destined to fructify in the next life arise like a wave, according to Vācaspati Miśra, and not only propel the citta into the next body but also determine the specific mind-set of that body. Thus, the portion of beastly saṁskāras of a person during the period when he or she was thinking and acting in a beastly manner, which require an animal birth as karmic consequence, reactivate in the mind and solidify into a beastly mind-set for the corresponding period as an animal. Meanwhile, the portion of human saṁskāras remains dormant until it is its turn to fructify in a life requiring a human mind-set and birth. Since the time and place of the conditions surrounding the fruition of karma are so complex that they cannot be fathomed, the unfolding of karma, says Vyāsa, is mysterious. As Kṛṣṇa states: “Difficult to understand are the ways of karma” (Gītā IV.17).

Vācaspati Miśra notes that, ultimately, the store of karma results in pleasure and pain. After all, the type of birth, life experience, and life span mentioned by Patañjali in this sūtra basically correspond to experiences of pleasure and pain. And pleasure and pain inevitably produce a mutually dependent relationship with the kleśas of attachment and aversion: The latter are dependent on the former. Nor can attachment and aversion exist without producing pleasure and pain. Acting out of attachment, for example, will produce pleasure if the object of attachment is available, or, if it is unobtainable or fails to live up to expectations, pain; likewise with aversion. Therefore, says Vācaspati Miśra, the mind can become a fertile field for the karmāśaya only when it is watered by the kleśas. Conversely, the karmāśaya becomes impotent when the kleśas are destroyed. Hence Patañjali calls the kleśas the root of worldly existence.

Vijñānabhikṣu quotes various verses pointing to attachment as the cause of karma and hence of rebirth: “Being attached, a person, along with his karma, attains the result of that to which his mind is attached” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad IV.4.6). “The puruṣa soul, situated in prakṛti matter, experiences the guṇas born of prakṛti. It is attachment to these guṇas that is the cause of a person’s birth in pious or impious wombs” (Gītā XIII.21). “Birth is not seen for one who has no attachment” (Nyaya Sūtras III.1.24). Of course, attachment itself comes from ego, which in turn comes from ignorance, hence the ordering of the kleśas in Patañjali’s list in II.3.

Avidya Is The Breeding Ground For The Others Whether They Be Dormant, Attenuated, Interrupted Or Active

The causes of suffering are not seeing things as they are, the sense of ‘I’, attachment, aversion, and clinging to life.

Ignorance is the fertile soil,
and, as a consequence,
all other obstacles persist.
They may exist in any state – dormant, feeble, intermittent,
or fully operative.

The lack of awareness of Reality, the sense of egoism or ‘I-am-ness’, attractions and repulsions towards objects and the strong desire for life are the great afflictions or causes of all miseries in life.

The five afflictions which disturb the equilibrium of consciousness are: ignorance or lack of wisdom, ego, pride of the ego or the sense of ‘I’, attachment to pleasure, aversion to pain, fear of death and clinging to life.

Ignorance, egoism, attachment, hatred, and clinging to bodily life are the five obstacles.

The root being there, the fruition comes (in the form of) species, life, and expression of pleasure and pain.

SV Commentary:

The roots, the causes, the Samskaras being there, they again manifest, and form the effects. The cause dying down becomes the effect, and the effect becomes more subtle, and becomes the cause of the next effect. The tree bears a seed, and becomes the cause of the next tree, and so on. All our works now, are the effects of past Samskaras. Again, these Samskaras become the cause of future actions, and thus we go on. So this aphorism says that the cause being there, the fruit must come, in the form of species; one will be a man, another an angel, another an animal, another a demon. Then there are different effects in life; one man lives fifty years, another a hundred, and another dies in two years, and never attains maturity; all these differences in life are regulated by these past actions. One man is born, as it were, for pleasure; if he buries himself in a forest pleasure will follow him there. Another man, wherever he goes, pain follows him, everything becomes painful. It is all the result of their own past. According to the philosophy of the Yogis all virtuous actions bring pleasure, and all vicious actions bring pain. Any man who does wicked deeds is sure to reap the fruit of them in the form of pain.

The vehicle of actions begins to ripen into fruit when the afflictions exist ; not when the afflictions have been rooted out. As the rice in the paddy has the power to grow only so long as the chaff remains attached thereto and their seed-power is not burnt up, not when the chaff has been removed ; so also does the vehicle of actions grow into ripeness, when the afflictions are attached to it, and when its seed-power has not been burnt up by intellection ; not when the afflictions have been removed.

The fruition is of three descriptions, life-state, life-time and lifeexperience. The following has to be considered in this connection. Is one action the cause of one life? Or, does it bring about more lives than one? The second question is this. Do more actions than one bring about more lives than one ; or do they bring about one life only?

It is not that one action only is the cause of one life only. Why? Because in that case there would be no regularity of succession in the fruition of present actions and those that are being heaped up eternally and some of which still remain unconsumed ; and thus the world would lose all patience. This, however, is not the desired end.

Nor is one action the cause of more lives than one. Why? There being more actions than one, it would necessarily follow that one action requiring more lives than one for fruition, there would remain no time for the fruition of the remainder. That also is not a desirable end.

Nor again are more actions than one, the cause of more lives than one. Why ? It is impossible that all of them should exist at once, and it must, therefore, be said that if such a thing be possible it can only be in succession that So many lives can manifest. And in this latter case the defect already stated is apparent.

For this reason, the vehicle of the entire collection of good and bad actions done in the interval between birth and death, stands in all its variety with every action attached to one ruling factor of one life. This is brought into manifestation by death, is joined together by one link which at the time brings about death and thus causes but one life.

The period of this life is limited by this very action. During the life-period all experience is also caused by that very action alone. This vehicle of actions is said to possess a three- fold fruition, causing as it does the manifestation of life-state, life-period and life-experience.

For this reason the vehicle of actions is termed uni-genital (Ekabhavika), causing one birth only.

That, however, which is experienced in the visible life only, may bring about but a single fruition, as causing life-experience ; or, double fruition as causing life-experience and life-period ; or, a triple fruition as causing life-experience, life-period and life-state. It may be like Nandirfwara or like Nahusa.

This mind, however, is as it were, variously coloured, all through on account of its becoming pervaded from eternity by the residua of the experiences of afflictions, actions and fruitions ; and as such looks like a fishing net pervaded all over with knots. These, therefore, must have been brought about by more (previous) lives than one.

It is this vehicle of actions which has been termed uni-genital (Ekabhavika), causing one birth only ; and the potencies which as residua cause memory, exist from eternity.

Further the uni-genital (Ekabhavika) vehicle of actions is either of appointed or of unappointed fruition. The rule applies to that portion only which has to be experienced in the visible life and whose fruition has been appointed. It does not apply to that which has to be experienced in an invisible life and whose fruition has not been appointed. Why? Because, that which has to be experienced in an invisible life and whose fruition has not been appointed, has a three-fold end. It may be destroyed without fruition. It may become merged in the ruling action. It may live on for a’ long time overpowered by the ruling action whose fruition has been appointed.

Of these, the destruction of an action done takes place without fruition in this way that the black actions are destroyed by the rise of the white actions. The following has been said on this subject : —

Two and two the actions, know,
Of him that evil does
One heap of virtue kills;
To do good actions therefore tend;
The wise such actions tell.

As to mergence in the ruling action, the following has been said on the subject : — ‘ A little mixture of evil may be easily removed or borne ; it cannot do away with the good.’ Why ? ‘ There is much of the good for me, mixed wherewith it may cause some insignificant diminution even in heaven.’

And now how may it live oil for a long time, overpowered by the ruling action whose fruition has been appointed? Death is said to be the cause of the simultaneous appearance of the actions whose fruition has been appointed and which are to be experienced in the invisible birth, not that of the actions which although to be experienced in the invisible birth, yet whose fruition has not been appointed. The actions whose fruition has not been determined upon, may either be destroyed or get mixed up, or stand unfructified for a long time, overpowered so long as similar actions competent to bring the cause of manifestation into play, do not incline it towards fruition. It is because the time, the place and the cause of manifestation are not determined that the working of karma is variegated and difficult to know. Inasmuch as the rule is not abolished by the exception, the vehicle of actions is recognized as causing one birth only.

~ Rāma Prasāda translation.