What is the True Meaning of Yoga?

“Yoga” is one of those terms we hear constantly, yet the frequency with which it strikes our ears is matched only by the rarity with which its true meaning penetrates our minds. We struggle to pin it down with any precision. In casual conversation, we inquire about a person’s well-being using the compound word yogakṣema; we remark that someone has “good yoga” (meaning luck) or “bad yoga.” The domain of this word is vast, stretching from such colloquialisms to the rigorous scriptural pursuit of योगसिद्धि (yogasiddhi). Yet, we often remain oblivious to the specific context in which we employ the term. Even within authoritative texts, the concept remains elusive.

The Kaleidoscope of the Gita

In the Bhagavad Gita, the sage Vyasa classifies all eighteen chapters as eighteen distinct Yogas. It is curious that while the subject matter shifts from chapter to chapter, he labels every aspect—despondency, action, knowledge, and wisdom—as Yoga. How is this possible? Furthermore, the Maharishi offers varying definitions throughout the text. At one point, he declares योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् (yogaḥ karmasu kauśalam)—Yoga is skill in action. Elsewhere, he states समत्वं योग उच्यते (samatvaṃ yoga ucyate)—equanimity, viewing the dualities of pleasure and pain without distinction, is called Yoga. In another verse, the Lord promises योगक्षेमं वहाम्यहम् (yogakṣemaṃ vahāmyaham)—I shall provide both attainment and preservation. Perhaps most poetically, Vyasa describes it as दुःखसंयोगवियोगं योगसंज्ञितम् (duḥkhasaṃyogaviyogaṃ yogasaṃjñitam)—Yoga is the severance of the union with sorrow. Finally, when Vyasa uses the phrase ज्ञानयोगव्यवस्थितिः (jñānayogavyavasthitiḥ), the great commentator Adi Shankara clarifies that while jnana is knowledge derived from scripture, yoga is the process of bringing that knowledge into one’s direct personal experience.

Patanjali’s Precision

If the Bhagavad Gita presents such a kaleidoscope of meanings, the situation is even more specific in the work of Patanjali, who authored the treatise dedicated entirely to the science of Yoga. Among the six orthodox schools of philosophy, Kapila’s सांख्य (Sāṃkhya) is atheistic, whereas Patanjali’s Yoga is theistic. Patanjali’s Darshana (philosophy) is authoritative and serves as the foundation for all subsequent Yoga literature. At the very outset, he defines the essential characteristic of the practice: योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः (yogaścittavṛttinirodhaḥ). Yoga is the restraint and cessation of the fluctuating patterns of the mind. To achieve this, he outlines the eight distinct stages known as अष्टांग योग (aṣṭāṅga yoga), ranging from ethical precepts like यम (yama) and नियम (niyama) to concentration, meditation, and finally, समाधि (samādhi).

The Problem of Contradiction

With so many luminaries describing it in so many ways, we are left wondering: What is the authentic meaning of Yoga? We cannot simply say all definitions are valid, as they often appear contradictory. As long as contradictions persist, synthesis is impossible. Without synthesis, there is no decisive knowledge. Without decisive knowledge, there is no practice, and without practice, there is no attainment. Therefore, we must now inquire if there is a unifying thread—a synthesis—that ties all these concepts together.

Etymology: The Root युज्

To understand any word as it truly is, we must trace it to its etymological root. The word योग (yoga) is derived from the Sanskrit root युज् (yuj), meaning “to join.” Through grammatical transformation, युज् becomes योग—the ज (j) of the root softening to ग (g) in the derived noun. Thus, historically, Yoga implies a union. Union is only possible when there are two entities. If both entities are imperfect, their union is fruitless. If both are perfect, there is no need for them to join. The concept of union becomes meaningful only when one is imperfect and the other is perfect. As the mantra says, पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते (pūrṇasya pūrṇamādāya pūrṇamevāvaśiṣyate)—when the Whole is realized, the individual finds completion. This realization is the singular solution to all of life’s problems.

The Imperfect and the Perfect

The question then arises: What is the current imperfection, and what is the perfect Reality one must attain? The imperfection is nothing other than the human mind. The world perceived by this mind is also imperfect. Furthermore, even the ईश्वर (īśvara—God) conceived as a being transcending these is, in a philosophical sense, imperfect. The reason is that all three are “particulars” or “specific forms” (विशेष, viśeṣa). A specific form is always limited. The सामान्य (sāmānya—Universal) that permeates them is the Perfect. One specific cannot be born from another specific; all specifics arise from the Universal, are filled with it, and eventually dissolve back into it. Therefore, the specifics are not different from the Universal; the Universal simply appears to our vision as specific forms. We can understand this through the analogy of gold and jewelry—the gold is the substance (Universal), while the ornaments are mere appearances (particulars). Thus, nothing is truly imperfect; all is essentially Perfect.

The Triad and the Great Universal

Currently, the triad of the Individual (जीव, jīva), the World (जगत्, jagat), and God (ईश्वर, īśvara) are specifics, and thus, on their own, appear imperfect. To elaborate: the Jiva is a particularization of Consciousness (चिद्विशेष, cidviśeṣa). The perceptible World is a particularization of Existence (सद्विशेष, sadviśeṣa). Ishvara occupies a middle ground. If we consider specific Consciousness, it aligns with the Jiva; if we consider specific Existence, it aligns with the World. If these three are specifics, what is the Universal that permeates them all?

It is the flash of awareness: अहमस्मि (ahamasmi)—“I am.” This is not the thought “I am so-and-so,” and thus it is not specific Consciousness (cidviśeṣa); it is Universal Consciousness (चित्सामान्य, citsāmānya). Similarly, it is not “existing as a specific object,” and thus it is not specific Existence (sadviśeṣa); it is Universal Existence (सत्सामान्य, satsāmānya). Because it permeates all three, philosophers have termed it the महासामान्य (mahāsāmānya)—the Great Universal. Another name for this is the आत्मा (ātmā). It is of the nature of Existence-Consciousness (Sat-Chit). In this, the specifics of Jiva, Jagat, and Ishvara merge and become one, just as waves, bubbles, and foam dissolve into the ocean. Here, there is not even a trace of imperfection. It is the singular, unified, Perfect Reality.

The Synthesis

If we attain this, it is sufficient. That is the true “Yoga” we must catch. Because it is the state where the Universal and the particular become one, it is true समत्वम् (samatvam—equanimity). Because no action performed with this vision binds the doer, it is true कर्मसु कौशलम् (karmasu kauśalam—skill in action). In this state, all mental fluctuations related to specific forms vanish on their own; thus, it is the ultimate चित्तवृत्तिनिरोधः (cittavṛttinirodhaḥ). Finally, if grasped intellectually, this is scriptural knowledge; when it transforms into direct experience, it is self-realization. In this complete experience of the Atma, there is no misfortune (अनर्थ, anartha) of the non-self. Therefore, this is the supreme human goal (पुरुषार्थ, puruṣārtha).

Adapted from the teachings of Brahmashri Yellamraju Srinivasa Rao. Original source: advaitavedanta.in