• This is an academic gloss of the Mahāvratas showing parallels with Jainism. “In Patañjali's Yoga Sūtras, Mahāvrata is the term used to describe the 5 Yamas when they are practiced universally, without being limited by specific conditions.” 

The Soteriological Imperative of Unconditional Ethics in Classical Yoga

The Pātañjalayogaśāstra, constituting the aphorisms of Patañjali and the Bhāṣya of Vyāsa, presents a rigorous soteriological framework wherein the ultimate objective is Kaivalya; the metaphysical isolation of Puruṣa (pure consciousness) from the evolutes of Prakṛti.

Within the Sādhana Pāda, Patañjali delineates the Aṣṭāṅga Yoga (Eight-Limbed Yoga), beginning with Yama (restraint) and Niyama (observance). While later limbs such as Dhyāna (meditation) and Samādhi (enstasy) frequently dominate phenomenological discourse, the Yamas; specifically their elevation to the status of Mahāvrata in Yoga Sūtra II.31-constitute the non-negotiable foundation of the entire system.

A granular analysis of the Sanskrit text, the divergent interpretations of the classical commentators (Vyāsa, Vācaspati Miśra, Śaṅkara-Vivarana, and Vijñānabhikṣu), and the comparative interface with Jain praxis will hopefully illuminate the Mahāvrata anew. The central thesis posited here is that the Mahāvrata serves a specific teleological function: the total eradication of rajasic and tamasic potentials in the citta , thereby acting as a mechanism for citta-śuddhi (purification of consciousness) essential for the burning of saṃskāras (subliminal impressions).

Unlike the Dharmaśāstric models which permit contextual violence (e.g., ritual sacrifice or martial duty), Patañjali’s Mahāvrata demands a categorical imperative that transcends time (kāla), place (deśa), class (jāti), and convention (samaya).

Textual and Philological Exegesis of Yoga Sūtra II.30

Sūtra II.30: ahiṃsā-satya-asteya-brahmacarya-aparigrahāḥ yamāḥ

Translation: Non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, continence, and non-possessiveness are the restraints.

Before dissecting the universalization of these vows in II.31, it is methodologically requisite to establish the precise semantic scope of the constituents as understood in the Bhāṣya tradition. Patañjali lists these five as psycho-behavioral controls designed to stem the outflow of mental energy into the external world and not as moral virtues.

Ahiṃsā (Non-Violence): The Root Matrix

Ahiṃsā is structurally the foundational Yama from which all others emerge and to which they are subservient. The tradition is unanimous that the subsequent Yamas (Satya, Asteya, etc.) function solely to preserve the integrity of Ahiṃsā in its pure form.

Etymological and Semantic Analysis:

Derived from the root √hiṃs (to strike/injure) with the negative prefix a-, Ahiṃsā denotes the total absence of the intent to injure. However, the commentarial glosses reveal a far more complex internal dynamic than simple pacifism. 

Vyāsa defines it as sarvathā sarvadā sarvabhūtānām anabhidrohaḥ: abstinence from malice towards all beings in all ways and at all times. The inclusion of sarvathā (in all ways) and sarvadā (at all times) in the definition itself anticipates the universalization found in the subsequent sutra.

Commentarial Divergence:

Vyāsa: Emphasizes that the other Yamas are rooted in Ahiṃsā and are practiced only to perfect it (tad-siddhaye eva upādīyante). If a conflict arises between Satya (truth) and Ahiṃsā, Ahiṃsā prevails.

Vācaspati Miśra: In the Tattvavaiśāradī, Vācaspati clarifies that Ahiṃsā is not merely the negation of physical killing but the removal of the saṃskāra of hostility. He argues that violence is a product of kleshas (afflictions) like rāga (attachment) and dveṣa (aversion). Therefore, Ahiṃsā is the practice of neutralizing these affective drives.

Śaṅkara (Vivarana): The Vivarana commentary reinforces that Ahiṃsā must be "pure" (śuddha). He introduces a rigorous standard: if one practices non-violence but retains a hidden mental agitation or desire for harm, the vow is broken. He links this directly to the concept/trope of Brahman, suggesting that the more one desires to undertake vows, the more one practices Ahiṃsā in its pure form by desisting from causes of violence born of carelessness (pramāda).

SATYA: The Epistemological Ethic

Vyāsa defines Satya as speech and mind corresponding to the object (artha) as perceived or inferred. However, he introduces a crucial caveat: speech must be for the benefit of beings (bhūta-hitam).

The Ethical Conflict (Dharmasaṅkaṭa):

The commentaries engage with the classic dilemma: What if telling the truth leads to harm?

Vyāsa is explicit: "If speech results in the ruin of creatures, it is not truth; it is a semblance of virtue (puṇya-ābhāsa) leading to terrible darkness." This statement subordinates the epistemological value of truth to the ontological value of life (Ahiṃsā).

Vācaspati’s Gloss: Vācaspati elucidates that "truth" devoid of compassion is a "counterfeit" (pratirūpaka). He warns that one who speaks such a "truth" falls into "terrible darkness," implying a karmic regression despite the technical accuracy of the speech.

Implications for Mahāvrata: When elevated to a Mahāvrata, Satya requires a hyper-awareness of the consequences of speech. The yogi cannot hide behind "technical truth" to justify harm. 

This aligns with the Jain concept of satyavrata where truth is inextricably linked to non-injury.

ASTEYA (Non-Stealing): The Psychology of Desire

Steya (theft) is the unauthorized appropriation of things belonging to others. Asteya is the absence of this desire (spṛhā).

Psychological Dimension:

It is critical to note that Patañjali focuses on the mental state (spṛhā) rather than the legalistic act. Vācaspati Miśra notes that Asteya takes the form of desirelessness. If one refrains from stealing merely out of fear of punishment, it is not Asteya. The Mahāvrata requires that this absence of craving be maintained even in dire need or famine, overriding the āpad-dharma (dharma of emergency) found in Smṛti texts. 

The mind must remain equanimous regarding possession, viewing the appropriation of another’s resources as a violation of the cosmic order (ṛta).

BRAHMACARYA (Continence): The Conservation of Energy

Restraint of the generative organ (upastha-saṃyama).

Scope and Teleology:

While often interpreted as celibacy, in the context of the Mahāvrata, it implies the total conservation of energy (vīrya) to be transmuted into Ojas for spiritual absorption.

Śaṅkara’s Interpretation: The Vivarana explicitly connects Brahmacarya to the capacity for cognitive focus. Sexual activity is seen as a dissipation of the energy required for Dhāraṇā (concentration). For the householder, Brahmacarya might mean fidelity, but for the Yogi aiming for Kaivalya, the text leans heavily toward the ascetic ideal where sexual impulse is entirely sublimated.

Modern vs. Classical: Modern commentators like Georg Feuerstein and Edwin Bryant note the tension here between the "householder yogi" and the "ascetic yogi." However, Patañjali’s text, by defining these as Mahāvrata in the next sutra, sets the bar at the ascetic level. There is no "partial Brahmacarya" in the Great Vow.

APARIGRAHA (Non-Possessiveness): The Rejection of Material Support

Abstinence from accepting gifts or accumulating resources, driven by the understanding of the defects (doṣa) involved in acquiring, preserving, and losing objects.

Teleological Function:

Aparigraha is essential for Janma-kathaṃtā-sambodha (knowledge of the how and why of birth, YS II.39). By rejecting external support, the yogi is forced to rely solely on the Self. Acquisition requires maintenance; maintenance requires mental energy; mental energy directed toward objects prevents Samādhi. Therefore, Aparigraha is a strategy for cognitive efficiency.

Jain Parallel: This Yama is practically identical to the Jain vow of Aparigraha, which emphasizes limiting possessions to reduce attachment (mūrchā). The Mahāvrata implies a radical minimalism, often reducing possessions to the bare body or a few essentials, ensuring the Citta remains unburdened.

Philological Annotation of Yoga Sūtra II.31: The Structure of the Mahāvrata

Sūtra II.31: jāti-deśa-kāla-samaya-anavacchinnāḥ sārvabhaumā mahāvratam

Translation: These, conditioned by class, place, time, and circumstance, when unconditioned by these, constitute the Great Vow, universal in all spheres.

This aphorism is the crux of the Yogic ethical system, differentiating it from the Vedic or Dharmic ethical system. Patañjali asserts that for the Yamas to be effective tools for Samādhi, they must be anavacchinna (unlimited/uninterrupted) by the four conditioning factors: Jāti, Deśa, Kāla, and Samaya. The use of the compound anavacchinna implies a continuity of consciousness where the ethical standard is invariant.

Jāti (Species/Ethnicity): The Ontological Constraint

Jāti refers to the specific category of existence of a being, encompassing both the agent (the practitioner) and the recipient of the action (the victim).

Vyāsa’s Example: The Fisherman (Matsyika)

Vyāsa illustrates Jāti-conditioned non-violence with the example of a fisherman. A fisherman may claim, "I do not kill anything except fish." Here, his practice of non-violence is limited by the Jāti of the victim (the fish) and his own Jāti as a ‘hunter of fish’.

Sociological Analysis:

From a Dharmaśāstra perspective, the fisherman is following his Svadharma . The व्याध गीता (Vyadha Gita) might condone this violence as necessary for his livelihood. However, in Yoga, this partial restraint is insufficient. The violence committed against the fish reinforces the rajasic tendency of the mind, regardless of any justification.

Commentarial Insight: Vācaspati Miśra notes that the fisherman’s non-violence towards other beings (e.g., humans) does not negate the karmic imprint of killing fish. The Mahāvrata demands that the yogi renounce violence toward all species (sarva-bhūta), transcending the occupational mandates of Jāti. This is a radical rupture from the livelihood-based ethics of the time, placing the Yogi outside the Varṇāśrama system.

Deśa (Place/Locality): The Spatial Constraint

The spatial limitation of a vow, restricting ethical observance to specific locations.

Vyāsa’s Example: The Sacred Tīrtha

A person may vow, "I will not kill in a tīrtha (sacred pilgrimage site)," implying they retain the license to kill elsewhere.

Phenomenological Analysis:

This represents a fragmented psyche where sanctity is externalized to a location rather than internalized in the citta. The Mahāvrata requires that the yogi views every locus in space as a sacred field where violence is prohibited. The distinction between "holy ground" and "profane ground" collapses; the yogi’s presence itself constitutes the tīrtha where safety (abhaya) is granted to all beings.

Christopher Chapple’s Comparison: Christopher Chapple notes that this spatial universalism aligns with Jain vows where the monk must be careful not to injure beings anywhere in the cosmos (loka), recognizing the ubiquity of life forms (jīvas).

Kāla (Time): The Temporal Constraint

The temporal limitation of a vow, restricting observance to specific times or dates.

Vyāsa’s Example: The Chaturdaśī

A vow such as, "I will not kill on the Chaturdaśī (fourteenth day of the lunar fortnight) or on sacred days." This implies violence is permissible on other days.

Psychological Implication:

Temporal conditioning binds the practitioner to the cycles of time and ritual calendars. Patañjali’s Kaivalya is an atemporal state. To achieve a state beyond time, the discipline must be continuous (nirantara). Intermittent observance creates intermittent saṃskāras, preventing the steady flow of sattvic energy required for Samādhi.

Modern Parallel: This is akin to the Christian observing Lent but returning to indulgence afterwards. Patañjali argues that such oscillation prevents the "burning of seeds" (dagdha-bīja) necessary for liberation.

Samaya: The Contextual Constraint

Samaya here refers to established customs, religious duties, or specific circumstantial obligations. It is the most complex of the four constraints because it directly challenges the Vedic injunctions regarding sacrificial violence.

Vyāsa’s Example: "I shall kill only for…[this]...and not otherwise". Another example given is of the soldier , who kills only on the battlefield as a matter of duty.

Comparative Exegesis: The Mīmāṃsā vs. Yoga Debate

This is the locus of a major philosophical conflict in Indian thought. The Mīmāṃsā school argues that sacrificial killing is not hiṃsā because it is enjoined by the Vedas (vaidikī hiṃsā hiṃsā na bhavati).

Vācaspati Miśra’s Radical Gloss: Vācaspati provides a crucial gloss here. He notes that the restriction of Samaya is what allows for Vedic sacrifices (Jyotiṣṭoma, etc.). He boldly states, “The object of adverting to 'compact' is to leave no room for religious sacrifices, such as the Vedas enjoin. They are, in the estimation of the Yogi, as objectionable as unauthorised slaughter.”

The Soldier’s Dilemma: A soldier’s dharma is to fight. However, Vyāsa notes that the soldier says, "I will strike only in battle, not elsewhere." This is Samaya-conditioned. For the Yogi, even this duty-bound violence is prohibited.

Contradiction with the Gītā: This marks a divergence from the Karma Yoga of the Bhagavad Gītā, where Arjuna is urged to fight as a duty. In Pātañjala Yoga, the ascetic imperative overrides the socio-political duty. The Yogi must abandon the soldier’s dharma to embrace the Mahāvrata.

Edwin Bryant highlights that while Krishna exhorts Arjuna to fight, Patañjali would require the Kṣatriya aiming for Samādhi to renounce violence completely, even in war.

Sārvabhaumāḥ (Universal): The Totalizing Condition

Existing in all spheres or stages (bhūmi). Sarva (all) + Bhauma (earth/stage/sphere).

Implication:

When the Yamas are practiced without the four limitations (Jāti, Deśa, Kāla, Samaya), they become "Universal." They apply to the king and the beggar, in the forest and the city, in peace and in war. There is no "context" in which the Great Vow can be suspended. This Sārvabhaumā nature transforms the moral code into a metaphysical law.

The Commentarial Tradition: Distinct Voices

The interpretation of the Mahāvrata evolves through the layers of commentary, reflecting the tension between tradition and the Ascetic Ideal.

Vyāsa: The Categorizer

Vyāsa’s primary contribution is the categorization of the four limitations. His commentary serves to close the loopholes that a practitioner might use to justify moral lapses. By explicitly naming the fisherman and the soldier, Vyāsa addresses the economic and political realities of his time, asserting that Yoga is a path that transcends socio-economic roles. 

His refusal to grant an exception for Vedic sacrifice (Samaya) places the Yoga school closer to the Śramaṇa traditions (Buddhism/Jainism) on the specific issue of Ahiṃsā than to the Mīmāṃsā school.

Vācaspati Miśra: The Anti-Ritualist

Vācaspati Miśra acts as a bridge between the text and the orthodox tradition but takes a surprisingly radical stance on Samaya. His critique of Vedic sacrifice is pivotal.

He argues that while Vedic sacrifice may lead to heaven (Svarga), it involves Hiṃsā and thus generates karmāśaya (karmic residue) that binds the soul. Since the goal of Yoga is Mokṣa (liberation), not Svarga, the Yogi must reject even the "good" violence of the Vedas. This distinction between Dharma (merit) and Yoga (liberation) is crucial for understanding the Mahāvrata.

Vijñānabhikṣu: The Harmonizer

Writing much later, Vijñānabhikṣu tries to soften the blow for the non-ascetic. He suggests that for "yogis not committed to their yogic goals" (i.e., laypeople), these vows can be modified according to their position in life. 

However, he concedes that for the ārurukṣu (one attempting to ascend to Yoga), the Mahāvrata is absolute. He reinforces that Samaya refers to the transgressions permitted by the warriors’-code and Vedic ritual, both of which must be discarded by the true aspirant.

Comparative Philosophy: Jainism and the Mahāvrata

The term Mahāvrata is technically specific to Jainism, suggesting a strong syncretic relationship or a shared Śramaṇic heritage between Patañjali’s Yoga and Jaina ethics.

The Five Vows: A Shared Nomenclature

Both traditions list the exact same five vows: Ahiṃsā, Satya, Asteya, Brahmacarya, Aparigraha. This concordance is unique; Buddhism, for instance, lists Right Speech, Right Action, etc., and the Pañca Śīla includes abstention from intoxicants, which is not explicitly in Patañjali’s list of five (though implied in Sauca).

Mahāvrata vs. Aṇuvrata (The Jain Distinction)

Jainism bifurcates the practice of vows based on the practitioner's status, a distinction Patañjali implicitly acknowledges by defining the Mahāvrata so strictly.

Mahāvrata (Major Vows): Observed by ascetics (Munis/Sādhus). These are absolute, identical to Patañjali’s description in II.31—total abstinence from violence in thought, word, and deed, irrespective of context.

Aṇuvrata (Minor/Atomic Vows): Observed by householders (Śrāvakas). These are limited by the very factors Patañjali lists: Jāti, Deśa, Kāla. A lay Jain may practice Ahiṃsā but acts in self-defense or eats plants (which involves minimal himsa), unlike the ascetic who takes extreme precautions.

Patañjali’s Synthesis

Patañjali does not offer an Aṇuvrata option in the Yoga Sūtras for the serious practitioner. By defining the Yamas immediately followed by the definition of Mahāvrata in II.31, Patañjali implies that Yoga (in the strict sense of Samādhi) is an ascetic discipline.

Scholars like Christopher Chapple and Edwin Bryant argue that Patañjali appropriates the Jain terminology of Mahāvrata to signal that the ethical bar for the Yogi is identical to that of the Jain ascetic. The Yogi cannot be a "householder" in the mental sense; even if living in society, their mental adherence to Ahiṃsā must be absolute, mirroring the Jain monk’s constraints.

Tattvārtha Sūtra 7.1 lists the vows similarly. However, Jainism adds specific Bhāvanās (contemplations) for each vow to strengthen them. Patañjali suggests Pratipakṣa-bhāvanam (cultivating the opposite) in II.33, which functions similarly to the Jain method of counteracting negative tendencies.

Teleological Analysis: Why the Mahāvrata is Required for Samādhi

Why does Patañjali insist on such a rigorous, "unconditioned" ethical standard? The answer lies in the mechanics of the Citta (mind) and the doctrine of Karma-Āśaya (karmic deposit).

The Problem of Conditional Morality and Samskaras

If a yogi practices Ahiṃsā only partially (e.g., "I will not kill humans, but I will kill animals for food"), the saṃskāras (subliminal impressions) of violence remain in the citta.

Mechanism: When the soldier kills on the battlefield, even if justified by Dharma, the act generates a violent mental modification (vṛtti). This vṛtti leaves a latent impression (vāsanā) of violence.

Consequence: In deep meditation (Dhyāna), these latent vāsanās can bubble up, creating agitation (vikṣepa). A mind containing the seed of violence cannot achieve the "clear jewel" state (Abhijāta-maṇi) required for Samāpatti (absorption). The Mahāvrata ensures that no new rajasic or tamasic seeds are planted.

Citta-Śuddhi (Purification of Consciousness)

The Mahāvrata functions as a sieve for the subconscious. By deciding once and for all that "I shall not injure, lie, steal, hoard, or waste energy under any circumstance," the yogi closes off entire avenues of mental fluctuation.

Decision Fatigue: Conditional morality requires constant judgment ("Is this situation X or Y?"). Unconditional morality removes the need for deliberation. The Vṛttis associated with moral calculation subside.

Karmic Insulation: By adhering to the Mahāvrata, the yogi stops the influx of new Kliṣṭa (afflicted) karma. This is analogous to the Jain concept of Saṃvara (stopping the influx). Only when the lake of the mind is free from the ripples of moral conflict can the bottom (the Self) be seen.

From Vow to Nature: The Siddhis

Initially, the Mahāvrata is a discipline (Tapas). Eventually, it becomes the natural state of the Yogi. When established in Ahiṃsā, the text states, “in the presence of the yogi, all hostilities cease” (II.35). This power (Siddhi) is only possible if the Ahiṃsā is universal (Mahāvrata). A soldier who practices conditional non-violence would never develop the aura that pacifies tigers or enemies, because their field of consciousness still contains the potential for violence. The Mahāvrata transforms the yogi into a mobile Sanctuary (Abhayadāna).

Sociological and Historical Context of the "Soldier" and "Fisherman"

The examples used by Vyāsa; the fisherman and the soldier, are not random; they represent the two poles of violence in ancient Indian society: economic necessity and political duty.

The Fisherman (Matsyika): Violence of Livelihood

The fisherman represents Hiṃsā driven by livelihood (Vṛtti). By using this example, Vyāsa addresses the working class and the notion of "unavoidable" violence. 

Patañjali’s system implies that for high Yoga, one must abandon livelihoods dependent on injury. This aligns with the concept of ‘Right Livelihood’ in Buddhism. The fisherman is bound by constraints of livelihood; he kills because he has no other means to earn a living. The Mahāvrata demands breaking the chains of job-determinism to achieve spiritual liberation.

The Violence of Duty

The soldier represents Hiṃsā driven by Dharma (duty). This is the more intellectually challenging category. The Mahābhārata (specifically the Gītā) goes to great lengths to justify the soldier's violence as a path to ‘mukti’ if done without attachment. Patañjala Yoga, however, seems to take a harder line.

If a warrior wants to become a Yogi in the Patañjali sense, can he remain a soldier? The Mahāvrata suggests no. If violence is prohibited "in all circumstances" (samaya-anavacchinna), then the battlefield offers no exemption. This places Patañjala Yoga in the renunciate (Nivṛtti) stream, divergent from the socio-political integration (Pravṛtti) of the epic tradition. The Yogi must lay down the sword to take up the vow.

This tension suggests that while the Gītā integrates Yoga into society, the Yoga Sūtras (at least in this section) retain the radical renunciation of the Śramaṇa period.

Conclusion: The Categorical Imperative of Yoga

The Mahāvratas of Yoga Sūtra II.30-31 represent the "categorical imperative" of the Yogic tradition. Patañjali, supported by the extensive commentaries of Vyāsa and Vācaspati Miśra, constructs an ethical framework that allows for no loopholes. The transition from conditional restraints (limited by ethnicity, place, time, and duty) to the unconditional "Great Vow" is not merely a moral escalation; it is a structural requirement for the technology of Yoga.

These sūtras define the boundary between the Dharmic life (governed by social complexity and ritual) and the Yogic life (governed by universal abstraction). The Mahāvrata strips the practitioner of social identity (Jāti), geographical attachment (Deśa), temporal anxiety (Kāla), and ritual obligation (Samaya). In doing so, it prepares the Citta for the final isolation of Kaivalya, creating a consciousness that is as frictionless and universal as the Vow itself.

The Mahāvrata is thus revealed not as a moral dogma, but as a psycho-dynamic seal, ensuring that the energy generated by Prāṇāyām and Dhyāna is contained within a vessel free from the cracks of compromise. Those wishing to explore the Yoga Sutras further can read

To read article in PDF    click on PDF  

Disclaimer and Copyright Note: Any reference even to the ideas in this essay need to be properly cited. All citations, footnotes and endnotes have been removed for ease of reading. If and when this is published in a larger book form, the essay will be expanded and the citations and footnotes restored.

The author is a Theologian. 

To read all articles by author

Read Samkhya and Jain Darshana by author

To read all articles on Jaina Darsana

To read all articles on Tantra

To read all articles on Philosophy

If you desire to republish this article you need written approval of www.esamskriti.com

Also read

1. Introduction to the 8 Limbs of Yoga

2. Gandhi, Ahimsa and Christianity