(a) Explain with reference to Yoga Philosophy, the nature of kleśas. How does the removal of these lead to kaivalya ? (20…

Nature of Kleśas and Kaivalya in Yoga

In Pātañjala Yoga, kleśas are psychological-metaphysical afflictions inherent in the citta (mind-stuff) that cause suffering and bind the puruṣa to the empirical cycle of transmigration (saṃsāra). Patañjali identifies five kleśas: avidyā (spiritual ignorance), asmitā (egoism/false identification of puruṣa with buddhi), rāga (attachment to pleasure), dveṣa (aversion to pain), and abhiniveśa (instinctive clinging to life and fear of death).

Among these, avidyā is the breeding ground (kṣetra) and root cause of all other afflictions, defining the non-eternal as eternal, the impure as pure, and the non-self (anātman) as the self (ātman). This ignorance activates asmitā, which gives rise to desire (rāga) and antipathy (dveṣa), culminating in abhiniveśa. These afflictions form the kleśa-mūla, generating latent impressions (saṃskāras and vāsanās) that constitute the karmāśaya (reservoir of karmas). This reservoir inexorably drives rebirth, lifespan, and empirical experience (jāti-āyus-bhoga).

The removal of kleśas proceeds through Aṣṭāṅga Yoga and abhyāsa-vairāgya, which cultivate viveka-khyāti (unwavering discriminative discernment between puruṣa and prakṛti). Viveka-khyāti burns the affliction-seeds (dagdha-bīja), rendering them incapable of germination. This brings about citta-vṛtti-nirodha (cessation of mental modifications). With the eradication of afflictions, the citta undergoes *pratiprasava*—the inverse involution and dissolution of mental modifications back into primary prakṛti. Consequently, puruṣa ceases to falsely reflect in citta-vṛttis, sheds phenomenal entanglement (puruṣa-kāśa), and abides in its pristine, self-luminous transcendence (svarūpa-pratiṣṭhā), which constitutes kaivalya (liberation).

Sāṅkhya View on Guṇa-Traya and Modifications

Sāṅkhya metaphysics posits mūlaprakṛti as the ultimate material cause of the universe, constituted by three reals or guṇas: sattva, rajas, and tamas. Sattva represents lightness, harmony, and illumination (prakāśa); rajas represents mobility, passion, and stimulation (upastambhaka and cala); and tamas represents heaviness, inertia, and obstruction (guru and varaṇaka). The guṇas never exist in isolation; they function through mutual suppression, mutual support, mutual generation, and co-existence (anyonya-abhibhava-āśraya-janana-mithuna-vṛttayaḥ), acting cooperatively like the wick, oil, and flame in a lamp.

The modifications (pariṇāma) of the guṇas occur in two modes:

1. Sādharmya-pariṇāma (homogeneous transformation): During cosmic dissolution (pralaya), the guṇas remain in equilibrium (sāmyāvasthā), each transforming only within itself without interacting (sattva into sattva, etc.).
2. Vaidharmya-pariṇāma (heterogeneous transformation): Proximity to puruṣa (puruṣa-sannidhi) disturbs this equilibrium, initiating cosmic evolution.

In this heterogeneous modification, rajas activates the other guṇas, leading to the sequential emergence of twenty-three evolutes: mahat (cosmic intellect), ahaṅkāra (ego-sense), five tanmātras (subtle essences), eleven indriyas (organs of sense and action, plus manas), and five mahābhūtas (gross elements).

Ontological Status and Epistemology of Abhāva in Mīmāṃsā

Kumārila Bhāṭṭa accords abhāva (non-existence/absence) the status of an independent, objective ontological category (padārtha). For the Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsakas, reality is dual-natured: an entity possesses both a positive aspect (bhāvātmaka) and a negative aspect (abhāvātmaka). Abhāva is not a mere void; it is determined in reference to its counter-positive (bhāva-pratiyogin).

Kumārila classifies abhāva broadly into saṃsargābhāva (absence of a relation) and anyonyābhāva or dharmābhāva (mutual absence/essential difference between two entities, e.g., "a jar is not a cloth"). Saṃsargābhāva is threefold: prāgabhāva (prior non-existence before production), pradhvaṃsābhāva (posterior non-existence after destruction), and atyantābhāva (absolute absence across all time, e.g., "air lacks color").

Epistemologically, Kumārila establishes anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) as an autonomous, sixth pramāṇa to cognize abhāva. When an object capable of being perceived is not perceived in an appropriate locus (yogyānupalabdhi), the non-perception directly generates the valid cognition of its absence without sensory contact (sannikarṣa).

Conversely, the Prābhākara school rejects abhāva as an independent ontological category and denies anupalabdhi as a separate pramāṇa. Prābhākara contends that the non-existence of a jar on the floor is nothing other than the perception of the bare locus (bhūtalamātra) itself.

Thus, while Yoga and Sāṅkhya resolve the metaphysical and psychological entanglement of consciousness through causal involution, Mīmāṃsā secures an exhaustive realism by grounding both presence and absence in rigorous epistemology.