Ignorance is the notion that takes the self, which is joyful, pure, and eternal, to be the nonself, which is painful, unclean, and temporary.

Bryant Commentary:

Patañjali here gives a very important definition of ignorance, the primary cause of all bondage: Avidyā, ignorance, entails confounding the nature of the soul with that of the body. The body is here described as painful, duḥkha; unclean, aśuci; and temporary, anitya, unlike the puruṣa who is joyful, sukha; pure, śuci; and eternal, nitya. We notice from the prefixes to these two sets of phrases that these two entities are exact opposites.8 Thus, by adding the negating prefix a– or duḥ– to the adjectives in the first part of this sūtra to the same adjectives in the second part, Patañjali is efficiently underscoring the fact that conventional awareness is the exact opposite of true knowledge. To confuse the two, or misidentify the latter with the former, is avidyā.
While anyone can understand that the body is temporary, what does Patañjali intend by saying it is “unclean”? Vyāsa quotes a verse: “The learned consider this body to be unclean, on account of its location, origin, sustenance, excretions, death, and the continual need to keep it clean.” As always, the commentators elaborate on why the body might be considered unclean due to these things. The location of the body can be seen as unclean because in its embryonic form it is situated near the mother’s excrement and urine; its origin is sperm and blood; its sustenance is fluids produced from food and drink; and its excretions are the discharges from the various outlets of the body—urine, feces, sweat, and mucus.

There are various views of the body in Hindu knowledge systems. Āyurveda depicts the body as a complex combination of substances, dhātus, that need to be kept in appropriate balance; the kāma–śāstras, desire texts, see the body as a means through which one can experience intense sensual enjoyment in skillfully manipulated circumstances; tantra considers the body to be a manifestation of citi–śakti, divine energy; bhakti construes the body as a temple that can be used in the service of God. These views are not mutually exclusive, but the ascetic tradition tends to view the body as a rather unpleasant bag of obnoxious substances.

In reality, as the cliché goes, beauty is skin deep, and a beautiful body is just a bag of bodily fluids and organs, which can be unpleasant and repulsive when taken out of their natural biological context. Thus, part of Patañjali’s definition of ignorance in this sūtra is that in the unclean or impure there is an illusion of purity or beauty, which, as Vyāsa puts it, means considering this “very distasteful” body to be pure, like the man enamored of a “woman, beautiful like the rising new moon, with limbs made of honey and nectar and eyes as large as the blue lotus, who enthuses the world of men with flirtatious glances.”10 But despite such surface-level attractions, all in all, any body is in reality a sack of potentially rather embarrassing substances. Its real nature is evidenced by the need to constantly clean it (and Patañjali will later refer to the practice of cleanliness, essentially an act of removing the discharges and excretions of the body, as a catalyst that, if performed with the goals of yoga in mind, can lead to dispelling any erotic fantasies about the reality of the body). Realization of the nature of the body becomes most vivid during old age and at death: Nobody wants to linger around a decomposing body.

In this same vein, the Buddha advised his followers to actually contemplate the reality of the impurities of the body, that is, the bodily substances which, taken out of context, would be considered obnoxious, specifically that the body is simply a collection of “hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidney, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, stomach, bowels, intestines, excrement, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, serum, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid, urine.”11 Indeed, he actually prescribes a series of visual meditations on these realities:

And moreover bhikkus [monks], a brother, just as if he had seen a body abandoned in the charnel field, dead for one, two, or three days, swollen, turning black and blue, and decomposed, applies that perception to this very body (of his own), reflecting: “this body, too, is even so constituted, is of even such a nature, has not gone beyond that (fate).” … And moreover bhikkus [monks], a brother, just as if he had seen a body abandoned in the charnel field [reduced to] a chain of bones hanging together by tendons, with flesh and blood yet about it, or stripped of flesh but yet spotted with blood; or cleaned of both flesh and blood; or reduced to bare bones, loosed from tendons, scattered here and there, so that the bones of a hand lie in one direction, in another the bones of a foot, in another, those of a leg, in another a thigh bone, in another the pelvis, in another the pineal vertebrae, in another the skull, applies that perception to this very body (of his own) thinking: “this body, too, is even so constituted, is of such a nature, has not gone beyond that (fate).”

In short, the Yoga tradition does not consider the body a suitable place to seek happiness for those interested in enlightenment. Patañjali will make the same point in II.15 by pointing to the notion of finding pleasure in what is really pain, says Vyāsa. Patañjali and the commentators have a good deal more to say about the nature of the body below.

The nonself, an-ātman, referred to by Patañjali here, says Vyāsa, actually consists not only of the body, which is the locus for enjoyment, and the mind, which is an instrument through which the awareness of puruṣa can contact the world, but also the accessories or paraphernalia of the body, whether animate (such as spouse, animals, and offspring) or inanimate (such as furniture or food). Although one may think that one’s body, one’s mind, and even one’s possessions are one’s real self, they are not, and to confound them as such is ignorance. Vyāsa quotes a verse that the commentators ascribe to Pañcaśikha, an ancient authority in the Sāṅkhya tradition: “One who regards objects, whether animate or inanimate, as part of one’s self, rejoicing when these things prosper, and lamenting upon their demise, is deluded.”13 As the Gītā puts it: “The wise (paṇḍitāḥ) lament neither for the living nor the dead” (II.11).

I must acknowledge a Vedāntic slant in my translation of this sūtra, where joy, purity, and eternality are imputed to the soul. Most translators, traditional and modern, translate the sūtra perfectly appropriately along the following lines: Ignorance is the apprehension of the joyful, the pure, the eternal, and the self in that which is painful, unclean, temporary, and the nonself. Unlike the Vedānta tradition, the Sāṅkhya Yoga tradition (along with the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika traditions), at least in their classical expressions, generally do not speak of the experience of the liberated puruṣa as blissful but rather as an absence of suffering. Even Vijñānabhikṣu, who otherwise does not hesitate to blend Vedāntic notions into his commentary, states in his Yoga-sāra-saṅgraha that “we do not subscribe to the Neo-Vedāntics who imagine that ultimate liberation consists of the attainment of supreme bliss.” However, an argument can be made that, in contrast to the qualities of the nonself, Patañjali is alluding to the Upaniṣadic view that the real self—and he uses the Upaniṣadic term ātman for the soul here—is sukha, blissful. Both scholars and some traditional commentators have disregarded the possibility that Patañjali might be explicitly introducing an Upaniṣadic concept, the blissfulness of the self, underscored by his specific usage of the Upaniṣadic term ātman. In Vedānta, the highest self consists of bliss, ānandamayo ‘bhyāsāt (Vedānta Sūtras I.1.13), but there is an assumption in some expressions of the Yoga tradition that the nature of the self is pure consciousness without any content whatsoever, including bliss. Vyāsa himself speaks of the bliss of liberation, compared to which even the highest bliss of worldly pleasure including the states of sattva are considered suffering. (Vyāsa in general is quite comfortable correlating puruṣa with the Brahman of the Upaniṣads [for example, III.34], as has always been standard for any orthodox Hindu thinker.) Whatever direction the later tradition took in this matter, this sūtra can be read as indicating that Patañjali, too, subscribed to this view.

Overall, Patañjali has very little to say about the nature of the actual experience of puruṣa attained in nirbīja– or asamprajñāta–samādhi, since, naturally, this state is beyond words and conceptualization, and thus beyond description. But this sūtra can be read as suggesting that it is a state of sukha, happiness, compared to all experiences other than that of the self, which are ultimately various shades of duḥkha, suffering, frustration. (Clearly, the prospect of a positive experience of ultimate bliss in the liberated state is far more enticing for one considering the arduous path of yoga than merely the prospect of the cessation of pain!)

The term sukha or ānanda is used in the Vedānta tradition as an inherent characteristic of the ultimate self—the Gītā uses the term a number of times to describe the experience

“of the self (V.21; VI.21, 27–28; XIV.27), making it clear, however, that this type of sukha, unlike the ephemeral and fleeting sukha of sensual indulgence, is akṣayam, imperishable (V.21); ātyantikam, infinite (VI.21, 28); uttamam, the highest (VI.27); and ekāntika, absolute (XIV.27). The Taittirīya Upaniṣad goes a step further and, in a rhetorical or figurative mode, attempts to quantify the unquantifiable experience of bliss inherent in the self according to the Upaniṣadic tradition:

Let us take a young man—a first class young man who is the most learned, cultured and strong person. And let us suppose that he owns this whole world with all its resources. This situation would constitute one measure of human bliss. A single measure of the bliss of earthly gandharva celestials … equals one hundred measures of human bliss; a single measure of the bliss of celestial gandharvas … equals one hundred measures of the bliss of earthly gandharvas; a single measure of bliss of the forefathers, who live long in their realm … equals one hundred measures of the bliss of celestial gandharvas; a single measure of the bliss enjoyed by the gods who attained their status by birth … equals one hundred measures of bliss of the forefathers; a single measure of bliss of the gods who attained their status by good deeds … equals one hundred measures of the bliss of those gods who attained their status by birth; a single measure of the bliss of Indra, king of the gods … equals one hundred measures of the bliss of the [other] gods; a single measure of the bliss of the sage of the gods, Bṛhaspati, … equals one hundred measures of the bliss of Indra; a single measure of the bliss of Prajāpati, the progenitor of species, … equals one hundred measures of the bliss of Bṛhaspati; a single measure of the bliss of Brahman equals one hundred measures of the bliss of Prajāpati. (II.8).

Avidya Consists In Regarding A Transient Object As Everlasting, An Impure Object As Pure, Misery As Happiness And The Not-Self As Self.

Lacking this wisdom, one mistakes that which is impermanent, impure, distressing, or empty of self for permanence, purity, happiness, and self.

Ignorance is the view that the ephemeral, the impure, the pain of suffering —that which is not the Self— is permanent, pure, pleasurable, and the True Self.

Avidya is taking the non-eternal, impure, evil and non-Atman to be eternal, pure, good and Atman respectively.

Taimini Commentary:

This Sutra defines Avidya the root of the Klesas. It is quite obvious that the word Avidya is not used in its ordinary sense of ignorance or lack of knowledge, but in its highest philosophical sense. In order to grasp this meaning of the word we have to recall the initial process whereby, according to the Yogic philosophy, consciousness, the Reality underlying manifestation, becomes involved in matter. Consciousness and matter are separate and utterly different in their essential nature but for reasons which will be discussed in the subsequent Sutras they have to be brought together. How can Atma, which is eternally free and self-sufficient, be made to assume the limitations which are involved in the association with matter? It is by depriving it of the knowledge or rather the awareness of its eternal and self-sufficient nature. This deprivation of knowledge of its true nature which involves it in the evolutionary cycle is brought about by a transcendent power inherent in the Ultimate Reality which is called Maya or the Great Illusion.

Of course, this simple statement of a transcendent truth can give rise to innumerable philosophical questions such as ‘Why should it be necessary for the Atma which is self-sufficient to be involved in matter?’ ‘How is it possible for the Atma which is eternal to become involved in the limitations of Time and Space?’ There is no real answer to such ultimate questions although many answers, obviously absurd, have been suggested by different philosophers from time to time. According to those who 130 have come face to face with Reality and know this secret, the only method by which this mystery can be unravelled is to know the Truth which underlies manifestation and which by its very nature is incommunicable.

As a result of the illusion in which consciousness gets involved it begins to identify itself with the matter with which it becomes associated. This identification becomes increasingly fuller as consciousness descends further into matter until the turning point is reached and the upward climb in the opposite direction begins. The reverse process of evolution in which consciousness gradually extricates itself, as it were, from matter results in an increasing realization of its Real nature and ends in complete Self-realization in Kaivalya. It is this fundamental privation of knowledge of its Real nature, which begins with the evolutionary cycle, is brought about by the power of Maya, and ends with the attainment of Liberation in Kaivalya, which is called Avidya. Avidya has nothing to do with the knowledge which we acquire through the intellect and which refers to the things concerning the phenomenal worlds. A man may be a great scholar, a walking encyclopaedia as we say, and yet may be so completely immersed in the illusions created by the mind that he may stand much below a simple-minded Sadhaka who is partially aware of the great illusions of the intellect and the life in these phenomenal worlds. The Avidya of the latter is much less than that of the former in spite of the tremendous difference in knowledge pertaining to the intellect. This absence of awareness of our true nature results in the inability to distinguish between the eternal, pure, blissful Self and the non-eternal, impure and painful not-Self.

The word ‘eternal’ here means as usual the state of consciousness which is above the limitation of time as we know it as a succession of phenomena. ‘Pure’ refers to the purity of consciousness as it exists unaffected and unmodified by matter which imposes upon it the limitation of the three Gunas and consequent illusions. ‘Blissful’, of course, refers to the Ananda or bliss of the Atma which is inherent in it and which is independent of any external source or circumstance. The privation of this Sukha or blissi which is inevitable when consciousness is identified with matter, is Duhkha or misery. All these three attributes, which have been mentioned in the distinction between the Self and the not-Self, are merely illustrative and not exhaustive because it is impossible to define the nature of the Self and to distinguish it from the not-Self in terms of the limited conceptions of the intellect. The central idea to be grasped is that the Atma in its purity is fully conscious of its Real nature. Progressive involution in 131 matter deprives it of this Self-knowledge in increasing degree and it is the privation of this knowledge which is called Avidya. As the matter is one pertaining to the realities beyond the scope of the intellect it is not possible to understand it through the medium of the intellect alone.

Mistaking the transient for the permanent, the impure for the pure, pain for pleasure, and that which is not the self for the self: all this is called lack of spiritual knowledge, avidya.

Iyengar Commentary:

Naturally we make mistakes, but when, through want of understanding, we fail to reappraise or reflect, error becomes a habit. As the processes of thought and action have existed from the beginning of civilization, so has trial and error been used in the search for knowledge. But when all doubts have been resolved in the pursuit of sadhana, the discriminative power of intelligence comes to an end and pure wisdom alone remains, in which perception and action are simultaneous. Experimental and experiential knowledge concur. Objective knowledge and subjective knowledge become one. This is pure vidya, the highest knowledge.

Ignorance is regarding the impermanent as permanent, the impure as pure, the painful as pleasant and the non-Self as the Self.

Satchidananda Commentary:

Now Patañjali explains what ignorance is. If I show you a nice piece of fruit that you have never seen before, you will say, “I am completely ignorant of this; I don’t know what it is.” That is just normal ignorance, not knowing something. What Patañjali speaks of in this sūtra is something different. He mentions last the basic ignorance: “regarding the non-Self as the Self.”

What is Self and what is non-Self? The Self is the eternal, never-changing One. It is always everywhere as the very basic substance. All things are actually nothing but the Self, but in our ignorance we see them as different objects. Thus, we take the changing appearances to be the unchanging truth. When something changes, it can’t be the Self. For example, our own bodies are changing every second. Yet we take the body to be our Self; and, speaking in terms of it, we say, “I am hungry” or “I am physically challenged”; “I am black” or “I am white.” These are all just the conditions and qualities of the body. We touch the truth when we say, “My body aches, ” implying that the body belongs to us and that therefore we are not that.

Unfortunately, we often add, “I am very, very sick.” Who is actually sick? If the body aches, then the body is sick, not you. Whenever we forget this truth, we are involved in the non-Self, the basic ignorance. We make the same ignorant mistake in regard to the mind, saying, “I am happy, ” or “I am ignorant.” Feeling happy, fearful or angry, or knowing a lot or knowing nothing are all modifications or feelings of the mind. Once that is understood, there is nothing that can disturb us in this world. Things will come near us or go away from us, but we will know we are not connected with them—we will know we are not that. Under all conditions we can sing, “Knowledge bliss, knowledge bliss, bliss is absolute; in all conditions I am knowledge, bliss is absolute!”

Well, who is practicing Yoga then? Who does japa, who meditates? It is the mind along with the body. “You” need not do any practice. When you fully realize this, even japa will become an ignorant business. But for now we can get rid of ignorance with ignorance. Take a better ignorance to get rid of a worse one. In the final analysis, only the light of understanding will remove the darkness of ignorance. There is a story, given in the scriptures, that illustrates this. Once a man walked into the backyard of his house during twilight. All of a sudden, in a dark corner, he saw a coiled snake. Frightened, he yelled, “Snake! Snake!” His voice roused a number of people who came running with sticks. They advanced slowly toward the corner, and one bold fellow with a particularly long, pointed stick gave the snake a hard blow. Nothing happened. Suddenly, an old man arrived with a lantern. He brought the lantern near the corner where the snake was. The light revealed nothing but a coiled rope. The old man laughed, “Look at all of you blind people groping in darkness. There’s nothing but a rope there, and you took it for a snake.” In order to understand the rope as a rope, a light was necessary. We, too, need a light—the light of wisdom, jñāna. With such a light, the world is no longer a world and all the qualities we call the non-Self appear in their true nature. We can use this analogy to understand another point also. Twilight is the most dangerous time. Why? Because in total darkness neither a rope nor a snake could be seen. In broad daylight the rope would obviously be a rope. Only in a dull light could the man mistake the rope for a snake. If you are completely ignorant, groping in darkness, you will not even see the “rope”— the pains of this world—and want to understand the truth. So, Yoga is neither for a person who has gained the light nor for the totally ignorant person who doesn’t bother to know anything. It is for the person in between. It is to dispel this ignorance that Yoga is practiced.

Ignorance is taking that which is non-eternal, impure, painful, and non-Self, for the eternal, pure, happy, Atman (Self).

SV Commentary:

All these various sorts of impression have one source: ignorance. We have first to learn what ignorance is. All of us think that “I am the body,” and not the Self, the pure, the effulgent, the ever blissful, and that is ignorance. We think of man, and see man as body. This is the great delusion.

Out of these the nature of Nescience is described : — “Nescience is the taking of the non-eternal, the impure, the painful, and the not-self to be the eternal, the pure, the pleasurable and the self.”

The taking of the non-eternal to be eternal is the possession of such notions as that the earth is permanent, the firmament with the moon and the stars is permanent, the gods are immortal, <&c. 

Similar is the seeing of purity in the body, which is impure and highly disgusting. And it has been said : — ‘The wise know the body to be impure on account of its position, its origin, its process of up-keep, its perspiration and destruction and also on account of the necessity of keeping it constantly clean/ Thus is purity seen in the impure. ‘ The girl is attractive like the new moon. Her limbs are, as it were, made of honey and nectar. She looks, as it were, she has emerged from the moon. Her eyes are large like the leaves of a blue lotus. With playful flashes of her eyes she imparts life to the world of men.’ Now what is in this connected to what ? This unreal cognition, however, of the pure in the impure is daily seen. By this is described the cognition of the sacred in the profane, the cognition of purposeless. As here so will the cognition of pleasure in pain be later described.

“ AH is pain to the discriminating because of the end, the remorse, the residual potency, and the mutual contrariety of the manifestations of the ‘ qualities.’ ” If. — 15.

The cognition of pleasure under these circumstances is Nescience.

Similar is the cognition of the self in the not-self. The external accessories, whether sentient or not sentient, the body which is the vehicle for enjoyments, the mind which is only a vehicle for the Purnsa, are all manifestations of the not-self. The notion that any one of these is the self is Nescience. On this subject the following has been said : —

‘ Those who believing the sentient or insentient objective essence to be the self, rejoice in their increase believing it the prosperity of the self, and are anxious when they decrease, believing it to be the adversity of the self have not awakened. ’

This nescience is thus possessed of four locations. It is the root of all this overgrowth of afflictions, the vehicle of action together with the vehicle of fruition. This nescience should bo understood as being a real substance, like the word Amitra(a, not, and mitra, friend, the compound meaning an enemy) and the word Agospada ta, not, and gospada, cow’s foot, the compound meaning a particular place). As the word Amitra does not mean the absence of a friend nor a particular friend, . but something opposite to a friend, an enemy ; and as the word Agospada does not mean the absence of a Gospada, nor a particular ”Gospada, but a particular place distinct from both, another substance ; so is nescience neither Real Cognition nor the absence of Real Cognition. On the contrary, Nescience is another form of cognition, which is contrary to real knowledge (the cognition of the real).

What is dormancy? It is the existence in the mind as power alone in the germinal state. It is awake when it turns its face towards its objects. In the case of him who pclssesses discriminative knowledge, the gerlns of the a>fflictions are singed, and therefore even on the object coming in front, they do not come into operation. How call the burned up seed sprout ? Hence, the wise man whose aiftictions are gone, is said to, have’ had his last birth. It is in him alone that the afflictions pass into the fifth state, that of the ~eed Eeing burnt up; inasmuch aEc the afflictions do exist in tbat state, although their mecl-powel has been bl~rnt up. It is for this reason that th& do not awaken even when an object comes in front of them. This i~ the dcnnancy of tlme whose seedpower has been burnt nh.

Tenuitv is now described. The afflictions become ten~~ous on being cut down by habituation to contrarie.:.

And they are alternated, inasmuch ss they disappear and appear over and over again in the same condition. Anger is not obser~wl to be in operation at the time of attachme~~t~. Anger does not arise when attachment has its play. Nor does it happen that attachment, while manifesting ai tll reference to one object, has cea.sed to exifit altogether with reference ‘to another object. Recmse Chaitra is attached to one wowan, it does llot follow that Ile is averse to otl~ers. The *fact is that in the one hie attachmel~t has manifestecl itself, while in others it can-be active in the future. It is tiris that hec~lnes either donnnnt, tenuous or alternated.

The fully operative is that which has found manifestation in the object.

All these do not pass beyold the sphere of affliction. What ie it . then that is cdled an affliction, whether it be the dormant, the alternated , or the R~lly operative? This i~ true. But they become either alternated ol* anv W one else, only when they appear as so qaalified. As all are removed hy l~abitnntion to contraries, a11 art? manifested bv m the operation of competent causes.

All these aiffictions are the modifications of Nescience only. How ? It is Nescience alone that is the quickness of their life. The afflictions appear only in the form which is put upon an object by Nescience. They are found existing simultaneously with the cognition of the unreal ; and they clisappear when Ne~cience disappears.-

~ Rāma Prasāda translation.