The Eight Limbs of Yoga vs. The Noble Eightfold Path

The primary purpose of the Eightfold Path is to bring an end to clinging and the suffering caused by clinging. In describing the fulfillment of this purpose the Buddha occasionally mentioned a Tenfold Path. In this expanded list, Right Knowledge and Right Release are added after the more familiar list of eight factors. When the Eightfold Path leads to the ending of clinging and suffering, Right Knowledge is the insight that brings about Right Release.

— Gil Fronsdal

Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras describes The Eight Limbs of Yoga as a sequence of practices that culminates in “Samadhi” also known as Self-Realization or temporary Release.

The Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path are more general and intended as a way of life (The Middle Way) that also leads towards Self-Realization or temporary Release and eventually towards permanent Release or Liberation (the end of suffering). This could include many elements of Pantanjal’s Eight Limbs of Yoga or other practices suitable to the practitioner. Thus they are complimentary paths with some overlap.

The Noble Eightfold Path

1. Right View (or Understanding)
2. Right Intention (or Thought)
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

The Eight Limbs of Yoga

1. Yama (morality)
2. Niyama (self-discpline)
3. Asana (postures)
4. Pranayama (breath control)
5. Pratyahara (sensory withdrawal)
6. Dharana (concentration)
7. Dhyana (meditation)
8. Samadhi (realization)

References

1. From the Eightfold Path to the Tenfold Path, by Gil Fronsdal

The Divine Within

In all the activities of life, from the simplest physical activities to the highest intellectual and spiritual activities, our whole effort must be to get out of our own light.

— Aldous Huxley, The Divine Within

Island

It’s dark because you are trying too hard. Lightly child, lightly. Learn to do everything lightly. Yes, feel lightly even though you’re feeling deeply. Just lightly let things happen and lightly cope with them. So throw away your baggage and go forward. There are quicksands all about you, sucking at your feet, trying to suck you down into fear and self-pity and despair. That’s why you must walk so lightly. Lightly my darling…

— Aldous Huxley, Island

Dhammic Socialism?

Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. […] The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

— Ven. Tenzin Gyatso, H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama

I've met and read about some amazing human beings over the years who appear to have a deep understanding of human nature, and a profound knowledge of paths that lead to liberation of the mind. But that valuable knowledge doesn't necessarily translate into the same depth of understanding of political, economic, or even social systems of thought. These things, being in the realm of concepts and ideas, require careful study and examination in order to arrive at deeper insights and understanding.

The system of Marxism, and Socialism in general, is violent at it's root as it requires a select few to take away from some to give to others, often employing coercion when necessary. It assumes wise and benevolent dictators are the dispensers of the means and fruits of production, irrespective of merit, effort, or capability. Nor does such a system allow for the merit that arises from genuine acts of charity to manifest.

Whenever a select few are chosen to control and disperse the means and fruits of production, we have a serious problem, as we can never guarantee that those few individuals will always be acting fairly and justly in the best interests of their fellow man. For this reason, a true Capitalist system combined with a very limited hands-off role for a centralized governing authority, is the best way we have of both creating and dispensing wealth and fortune. All people in such a system have the opportunity to come to great prosperity, if they are sufficiently motivated, and then use the fruits of their labour as they see fit.

Such a system is far from perfect, however, as it is inextricably linked to the motivations and intentions of fallible individuals. But the solution to this unfortunate and unavoidable situation comes not from imposing an artificial system of seeming economic ‘fairness’, but rather from acquainting our captains of industry with Dhammic or Dharmic thought in its many and varied forms, so they voluntarily act in more compassionate, moral, and thoughtful ways, seeing it as a path to their own evolution and ultimate fulfilment. The less fortunate would receive benefits through voluntary acts of charity rather than coercive acts of the state.

There is nothing inherently wrong with gain and profitability. It's the attachment (or aversion) to gain and profitability which is the underlying problem.

Virtuous Selfishness and Individualism

I was recently treated to sit through a wonderful biography of Ayn Rand entitled Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. It quite succinctly summarized her philosophy of Objectivism, and it's most prominent ideas of the virtue of selfishness and individualism.

When Ayn Rand speaks of selfishness and individualism she is speaking of non-altruism and non-collectivism. Altruism refers to self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. This is an important idea, as the concept of self-sacrifice is an extremely slippery slope that leads to self-sacrifice for the benefit of the collective, or the state. People in such circumstances have invariably been conditioned to identify their "selves" with the state. And this collectivistic philosophy is obviously problematic, as it can effortlessly enlist the support of the people en masse to advance the ambitions of the state (or rather, those in control of the state).

Individualism is the antithesis of collectivism, inoculating the minds of human beings thereby preventing blocs of people from sacrificing themselves to the ambitions of the state. Such people cannot be controlled by the state or any other group.

It is interesting to compare how this relates to the Buddhist philosophy of anatta (no-self), which may superficially appear to contradict the ideas of virtuous selfishness and individualism. In this philosophy what is asserted is the idea that a separate enduring "self" does not actually exist. But that doesn't mean that the collective exists. Even the idea of the collective is an abstract construct of the mind. In essence nothing truly exists in and of itself. All is change, and so there is no enduring entity that we can say has "selfhood," whether it be the individual, collective, state, or some other entity.

But, and this is an attempt at reconciliation, individualism as a temporary philosophy of life is very useful until such time that one can leave even this abstract concept behind. So it seems then that one must cultivate the ideas behind a strong sense of individualism, that is, independence, self-determination, self-worth, personal power, material prosperity, etc. before one can let go of identification with even these ideas. Perhaps because the process of entering into total freedom requires a certain independence, strength and flexibility of character to endure the very tumultous psycho-spiritual process, as described by Carl Jung in his work on individuation. And without independence, strength and flexibility of character, one may not survive the ordeal.