Ego is [to consider] the nature of the seer and the nature of the instrumental power of seeing to be the same thing.

Bryant Commentary:

Moving on to asmitā, the second of Patañjali’s kleśas, dṛk, the seer, is a reference to the awareness of puruṣa (referred to in I.3 as draṣṭṛ, another derivation of the same verbal root dṛś, to see). The instrumental power of sight, darśana, on the other hand, refers to the intelligence aspect of the citta, that is, to buddhi as the instrument of awareness. Buddhi is the first prākṛtic layer enveloping puruṣa and presents images of the sense objects in the world, and indeed all vṛttis, to the puruṣa. It is therefore the primary instrument in the power of sight; the senses proper, such as the actual physical sense of sight, although also instruments, can make their impressions known to puruṣa only through buddhi, when it molds itself into their forms (the metaphor for this process, we recall, is that of liquid copper poured into a mold). In other words, without buddhi as primary instrument, puruṣa would have no awareness of prakṛti. Patañjali thus defines ego, asmitā, as the attribute of misidentifying buddhi, the instrumental power of sight, with the puruṣa soul, the actual seer. I like to give the example of a person wearing spectacles to see clearly, but due to mental disorder refusing to remove them, imagining that the spectacles are his very self rather than an instrument perched on his nose facilitating perception. In a sense, the ego entails doing just this, imagining that the mind and body, which are simply instruments allowing awareness to perceive the world, are the actual self.

Another way of putting this is that the act of experience, says Vyāsa, becomes possible when the experiencer and that which is experienced—two completely distinct categories and metaphysical entities—are considered to be one and the same, ekātmatā. It is ego that promotes this confusion. Ego is the specific aspect of ignorance that identifies the nonself, specifically the intelligence, with the true self, puruṣa (ātman). It is the knot in the heart, says Rāmānanda Sarasvatī, that ties these two entities together. Indeed, says Vijñānabhikṣu, the very act of experience itself means the identification of puruṣa with buddhi: Experience means experiencing an object other than the subject of experience. However, when one understands the true natures of these two distinct entities, continues Vyāsa, one no longer attempts to enjoy this world, and complete uncoupling of puruṣa from prakṛti, liberation, becomes possible.

Vyāsa quotes a verse: “Not perceiving the puruṣa self to be distinct from the buddhi intelligence in form, nature, and awareness, one makes the mistake of considering the intelligence to be the true ātman self as a result of illusion.” The difference between the two, notes Vācaspati Miśra, is that the self is unchanging, and the intelligence ever changing. As a result of this misidentification, says Vijñanabhikṣu, one identifies with the states of the intelligence, and so one thinks oneself to be peaceful, or awake, or learned, or whatever state is present in the intelligence. But in reality, it is the intelligence that is experiencing these states.

Vijñānabhikṣu points out that the two kleśas of ego and ignorance are to some extent the same thing, but there is a difference in degree. Ignorance initially involves a not yet specific notion of I-ness, a sense of self as being something as yet undefined other than puruṣa, a partial identification of the real self with buddhi, the intelligence, while ego involves a more developed or complete identity between the puruṣa self and buddhi. For example, he says, identifying oneself with one’s spouse and children is analogous to ignorance, but actually feeling their happiness and distress is analogous to ego. Thus the difference is one of degree; ego evolves out of ignorance and makes the misidentification of nonself with self more concrete and specific.

It should be reiterated here that the asmitā, ego, as the effect of buddhi under the influence of ignorance, is different from that produced in the higher stages of samādhi by the pure sāttvic buddhi, as has been discussed. The asmitā in the context of samādhi in sūtra I.17 is true discrimination manifest in the citta, that is, correct identification of the puruṣa as the real source of I-am-ness. Asmitā in the present context of the kleśas is false identification, considering the I am to be the prākṛtic mind and body, due to the absence of such true discrimination (“I am female,” “I am fat,” “I am hungry,” “I am a dog”). Therefore, asmitā, referred to as ahaṅkāra in Sāṅkhya, is pivotal in terms of determining the choice the mind will take, in terms of whether it wishes to direct its attention to puruṣa or to prakṛti:

That choice will be either the observable world or a quest for liberating wisdom (jñāna). Ahaṅkāra then is that critical moment during which one of these goals must be chosen; the choice is either spiritual puruṣa or prakṛti, this is to choose between infinity and finitude … wisdom or unwisdom, knowledge or ignorance … This is the Sāṅkhyan either … or, the human plight which points to the need for the healing medicine of Yoga spirituality and discipline … Although this definitive choice certainly exists, phenomenal individuality and material identity unfolded by ahaṅkāra also threaten to become a prison of bondage; humans may chose to lock themselves into such a phenomenal world and fail to search further for liberating wisdom. (Podgorski 1984, 164)

One might mention here that asmitā and the ahaṅkāra of the Sāṅkhya system are roughly synonymous but etymologically can be taken to refer, perhaps, to slightly different functions of the ego. Ahaṅkāra is not used by Patañjali (but occurs in Vyāsa’s Bhāṣya in I.45 and III.47, where it is treated synonymously with asmitā). The etymological meaning of ahaṅkāra is I am the doer and is defined in the Gītā as the channeling of consciousness outward through the mind and senses into the world of objects, with the individual imagining himself or herself, due to illusion, to be the doer of actions in the world—actions that are actually being carried out by the mechanical forces of nature, prakṛti. In Kṛṣṇa’s words, “The soul, bewildered by ahaṅkāra, thinks ‘I am the doer’ of deeds that are actually being done by the guṇas of prakṛti.” (III.27). Asmitā is an unusual grammatical construction: Asmi means I am, the first-person singular of the present tense of the verb as, to be, and hence asmitā; literally means I-am-ness. Both ahaṅkāra and asmitā therefore involve consciousness refracting outward away from its source and being falsely identified with its prākṛtic embeddedness. But if there is a difference between ahaṅkāra as defined in the Gītā and asmitā as defined in this sūtra as a kleśa, it is that the emphasis of the former is on the false I as a doer of action, while the emphasis of the latter is on the false I as a prākṛtic entity (I am a man, a woman, sad, etc.). In other words, the Gītā emphasizes the mistaken notion of I-am-the-doer-ness, whereas Patañjali emphasizes the false sense of I-am-ness, a difference that resonates with the different concerns of the two texts (the former with action in the world and action in devotion, and the latter with realization of the true self).

Asmita Is Tantamount To The Identification Of Purusa Or Pure Consciousness With Buddhi.

The sense of ‘I’ ascribes selfhood to pure awareness by identifying it with the senses.

Egoism is the enmeshing function of the mind as an instrument of perception, as if it were the Seer’s power of consciousness.

Asmita is the identity or blending together, as it were, of the power of consciousness (Purusa) with the power of cognition (Buddhi).

Taimini Commentary:

Asmita is defined in this Sutra as the identification of the power of consciousness with the power of cognition, but as the power of cognition always works through a vehicle, in its wider and more intelligible meaning it may be considered as the identification of consciousness with the vehicle through which it is being expressed. This is a very important and interesting idea which we should understand thoroughly if we want to master the technique of liberating consciousness from the limitations under which it works in the ordinary individual. The Samskrta word Asmita is derived from Asmi which means literally ‘I am’. ‘I am’ represents the pure awareness of Self-existence and is therefore the expression or Bhava as it is called, of pure consciousness or the Purusa. When the pure consciousness gets involved in matter and owing to the power of Maya, knowledge of its Real nature is lost, the pure ‘I am’ changes into ‘I am this’ where ‘this’ may be the subtlest vehicle through which it is working, or the grossest vehicle, namely the physical body. The two processes, namely the loss of awareness of its Real nature and the identification with the vehicles are simultaneous. The moment consciousness identifies itself with its vehicles it has fallen from its pure state and it becomes bound by the limitations of Avidya, or we may say that the moment the veil of Avidya falls on consciousness its identification with its vehicles results immediately, though philosophically Avidya must precede Asmita.

The involution of consciousness in matter is a progressive process and for this reason though Avidya and Asmita begin where the thinnest veil of Maya involves pure consciousness in the subtlest vehicle, the degree of Avidya and Asmita goes on increasing as the association of consciousness with matter becomes more and more strengthened. As consciousness descends into one vehicle after another the veil of Avidya becomes, as it were, thicker and the tendency to identify oneself with the vehicle becomes stronger and grosser. On the other hand, when the reverse process takes place and consciousness is released from its limitations in its evolutionary upward climb, the veil of Avidya becomes thinner and the resulting Asmita weaker and subtler. This evolution on the upward arc takes place in seven definite and clearly marked stages as is indicated in II-27. These stages correspond to the transference of consciousness from one vehicle to a subtler vehicle.

Let us now come down from the abstract principles and consider the problem In relation to things with which we are familiar and which we can understand more easily. Let us consider the problem of the expression of consciousness through the physical body. We should remember, in considering this question that the consciousness which is normally expressed through the physical body is not pure unmodified consciousness being involved in a vehicle. It has already passed through several such involutions and it is already heavily loaded, as it were, when it seeks expression through the outermost or grossest vehicle. It is therefore consciousness conditioned by the limitations of all the intervening vehicles which form a kind of bridge between it and the physical body. But as the process of involution and consequent identification is in essence the same at each stage of involution, we can get some idea of the underlying principles even though the expression of consciousness through the physical body is complicated by the factors referred to above.

Coming back to our problem we then see that the association of consciousness, conditioned as mentioned above, with the physical body must lead to this identification with the vehicle and the language which is used by all of us in common intercourse reflects this fully. We always use such expressions as ‘I see’, ‘I hear’, ‘I go’, ‘I sit’. In the case of the savage and the child this identification with the body is so complete that there is not the slightest feeling of discrepancy in using such language. But the educated and intelligent man, whose identification with the body is not quite complete and who feels to a certain extent that he is different from the body, is aware at least in a vague manner that it is not he who sees, hears, walks and sits. These activities belong to the physical body and he is merely witnessing them through his mind. Still, from force of habit and disinclination to go deeper into the matter, or from fear 133 of appearing odd in using the correct language he continues to use the common phraseology. So deep-rooted is this identification that even physiologists, psychologists and philosophers, who are supposed to be familiar with the mechanism of senseperception and intellectually recognize the mere instrumentality of the physical body, are hardly actively aware of this tendency and may identify themselves with the body completely. It is worth noting that mere intellectual knowledge with regard to such patent facts does not by itself enable a person to separate himself from his vehicles. Who has more detailed knowledge with regard to the physical body and its functions than a doctor who has dissected hundreds of bodies and knows that it is a mere mechanism. One would expect that a doctor at least, from whom nothing inside the body is hidden, will be above this tendency to regard himself as the body. But is a doctor in any way better off in this respect than a layman? Not at all. This is not a matter of ordinary seeing and understanding at all.

Asmita or identification with a vehicle is not a simple but a very complex process and has many aspects. The first aspect we may consider is identification with the powers and faculties associated with the vehicles. For example, when a person says ‘I see’ what really happens is that the faculty of sight is exercised by the body through the eye and the in-dwelling entity becomes merely aware of the result, i.e. the panorama presented before the eye. Again, when he says, ‘I walk’ what really happens is that the will working through the mind moves the body on its legs like a portable instrument and the in-dwelling entity identifying himself with the movement of the body says, ‘I walk’.

The second aspect is the association of the subtler vehicle in this process of identification where a compound Asmita—if such a phrase can be used—is produced. Thus when a person says he has a headache what is really happening is that there is a slight disorder in the brain. This disorder by its reaction on the next subtler vehicle through which sensations and feelings are felt produces the sensation of pain. The indwelling entity identifies himself with this joint product of these two vehicles and this results in ‘his’ having a headache, although a little thought will show him that it is not he but the vehicle which is having the pain of which he is aware. The same thing working at a somewhat higher level produces such reactions as ‘I think’, ‘I approve’. It is the mind which thinks and approves and the consciousness becomes merely aware of the thought process which is reflected in the physical body. Ambition, pride and simi 134 lar unpleasant traits of human character are merely highly developed and perverted forms of this tendency to identify ourselves with the workings of the mind.

A third aspect which may be considered in this process of identification is the inclusion of other accessories and objects in the environment. The physical body becomes a centre round which get associated a number of objects which in smaller or greater degree become part of the ‘I’. These objects may be animate or inanimate. The other bodies which are born of one’s body become ‘my children’. The house in which one’s body is kept becomes ‘my house’. So round the umbra (total shadow) created by Asmita with the body is a penumbra (partial shadow) containing all those objects and persons which ‘belong’ to the ‘I’ working through the body and they produce the attitude or Bhava of ‘my’ and ‘mine’.

The above brief and general discussion of Asmita associated with the physical body will give some idea to the student with regard to the nature of this Klesa. Of course, Asmita manifesting through the physical body is the grossest form of the Klesa and as we try to study the working of this tendency in the subtler vehicles we find it more and more elusive and difficult to deal with. Any thoughtful man can separate himself in thought from his physical body and see thalt he is not the bag of flesh, bones and marrow with the help of which he comes in contact with the physical world. But few can separate themselves from their intellect and realize that their opinions and ideas are mere thought patterns produced by their mind just like the thought patterns produced by other minds. The reason why we take interest in and attach so much importance to our opinions lies, of course, in the fact that we identify ourselves with our intellect. Our thoughts, opinions, prejudices and predilections are part of our mental possessions, children of our mind, and that is why we feel and show such undue and tender regard for them.

Of course, there are levels of consciousness even beyond that of the intellect. In all these Asmita is present though it becomes subtler and more refined as we leave one vehicle after another. It is no use dealing with these subtler manifestations of Asmita here because unless one can transcend the intellect and function in these superintellectual fields one cannot really understand them.

Although the question of destroying the Klesas will be dealt with later in subsequent Sutras there is one fact which may be usefully pointed out here. Many methods have been suggested whereby this tendency to identify ourselves with our vehicles may be gradually attenuated. Many of these methods are quite useful and do help us in a certain measure to disentangle our consciousness from our vehicles. But it has to be borne in mind that complete dissociation from a vehicle takes place only when consciousness is able to leave the vehicle deliberately and consciously and function in the next subtler vehicle (of course, with all the still subtler vehicles present in the background). When the Jivatma is able to leave a vehicle at will and ‘see’ it separate from himself then only is the false sense of identification completely destroyed. We may meditate for years trying to separate ourselves in thought from the body but the result of this will not be as great as one experience of leaving it consciously and seeing it actually separate from ourselves. We shall, of course, re-enter that body and assume all its limitations but it can never again exercise on us the same illusory influence as it did before. We have realized that we are different from the body. For the advanced Yogi who can and does leave his body every now and then and can function independently of it in a routine manner, it is just like a dwelling house. The very idea of identifying himself with the body will appear absurd to him. It will be seen, therefore, that practice of Yoga is the most effective means of destroying Asmita completely and permanently. As the Yogi leaves one vehicle of consciousness after another in Samadhi he destroys progressively the tendency to identify himself with those vehicles and with the destruction of Asmita in this manner the veil of Avidya automatically becomes thinner.

Egoism is the identification of the seer with the instrumental power of seeing.

Iyengar Commentary:

Identifying the instruments of cognition – the senses of perception, intelligence and ego or the sense of the individual self – with the pure seer is egoism, or the conception of individuality.
Though there is a distinction between the seer (atma) and the seen, during the act of seeing the seen (the mind itself) appears to be the pure seer. This appearance of merging or ‘oneness’ is due to asmita.

One must be aware of the difference between the seer (atma) and the instrument that sees (buddhi). If they blend and work together, that experience is reality. But if the mind and senses, the seer’s agents, take it upon themselves to identify with the true seer, as if the seer were manifest or apparent, then polarities are created and seer and seen become separated or split. This is asmita.

Egoism is the identification, as it were, of the power of the Seer (Puruṣa) with that of the instrument of seeing [bodymind].

Satchidananda Commentary:

In this sūtra Patañjali explains egoism. The ego is the reflection of the true Self on the mind. The two appear to be the same, but one is the original, the other a reflected duplicate. The Self will always be falsely represented by the ego until our ignorance is removed. I often refer to these two “I’s” as the little “i” and the capital “I.” What is the difference? Just a small dot, a little blemish of ego. The capital “I” is just one pure stroke, just as the highest truth is always simple and pure. What limits us and makes us little? Just the dot. Without the dot, we are always great, always the capital “I.” All the practices of Yoga are just to remove that dot. How simple it is.

All the difficulties and turmoils can be removed from our lives in no time just by taking away that dot. But preparation for that is what takes time. Many times we climb up only to slip down. Sometimes we get all the way up there only to find we have forgotten to take along an eraser to wipe off the dot. So we have to come down again.

Egoism is the identification of the seer with the instrument of seeing.

SV Commentary:

The seer is really the Self, the pure one, the ever holy, the infinite, the immortal. That is the Self of man. And what are the instruments? The Chitta, or mind-stuff, the Buddhi, determinative faculty, the Manas, or mind, and the Indriyani, or sense organs. These are the instruments for him to see the external world, and the identification of the Self with the instruments is what is called the ignorance of egoism. We say “I am the mind, I am thought; I am angry, or I am happy.” How can we be angry, and how can we hate? We should identify ourselves with the Self; that cannot change. If it is unchangeable, how can it be one moment happy, and one moment unhappy? It is formless, infinite, omnipresent. What can change it? Beyond all law. What can affect it? Nothing in the universe can produce an effect on it, yet, through ignorance, we identify ourselves with the mind-stuff, and  think we feel pleasure or pain.

The Purusa is the subjective power of consciousness, and the Willto-know is the instrumental power of seeing. The appearance of these two powers as if they were identical, is the affliction known as Egoism. Enjoyment is rendered possible when the power of enjojunent in the enjoyer and the capacity of being enjoyed in the Objective Existence, which are quite distinct and different from each other, are looked upon as, as it were, identical. When, however, their natures have been understood they become isolated ; and how then can there be enjoyment? And so it has been said: — ‘Not knowing the Purusa beyond the Will-to-know to be different therefrom in nature, character and knowledge, &c., a man has by forgetfulness the notion of self therein.

~ Rāma Prasāda translation.