ABSTRACT
In the Yoga S≠tra Patañjali describes the practice of yoga as abhyåsa, which literally means repetition. Though we may not often reflect on the fact, the practice of yoga as Patañjali understands it is in an important sense a form of repetitive activity. This is particularly true of what he calls kriyåyoga or the yoga of action. Key elements of kriyåyoga involve specific forms of repetition, and a strong case can be made for the importance of kriyåyoga to Patañjali’s understanding of yoga as a whole.2 Forms of repetitive activity are in fact of central importance for Påtañjala yoga, and thus there would seem to be a clear basis for speaking of the practice of yoga, inasmuch as it involves repetition, as a form of ritual.3 But in an Indian context this sounds odd. Isn’t it Brahmanical ritualism with its concerns for dharma that is opposed by the “renunciatory” traditions such as yoga with their concerns for mok‚a or kaivalya, an opposition reflected in the aloof puru‚a standing apart from the captivating activities of prakr.ti? Certainly there is much evidence to suggest that such an opposition was indeed operative at different points in India’s past, but how appropriate is it when applied to Påtañjala yoga? I think that an examination of Patañjali’s understanding of practice in general as abhyåsa, and the specific practices involved in what he calls kriyåyoga, when combined with a consideration of Patañjali’s likely historical context, may shed some helpful light on this question.
