The Eight Limbs of yoga 2.0: Satya—Inconvenient truths about truth.

Via yoga 2.0 lab
on Apr 13, 2011
get elephant's newsletter

by Matthew Remski with Scott Petrie

This post is number three of on the subject of “Eight Limbs in the 2.0 Age”. #1 gives an overview of our general approach and method. #2 and #3 address ahimsa philosophically and personally. Here we introduce some new (and old-but-strange) theoretical and idiosyncratic thoughts about satya, currently translated as “truthfulness” within modern yoga.

“Speaking our truth” is a rich compost-pile, indeed.


brecht giving truthful testimony

When Bertolt Brecht, the author of politically dialectical plays and screenplays, appeared before Senator McCarthy and his brylcreamed House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947, he was asked if his name was “Bertolt Brecht”. He replied in the affirmative. Then he was asked “Are you the same Bertolt Brecht who is the author of plays and screenplays?” He responded “No.”  It was a beautiful lie that expressed a powerful truth.

The congressmen were sweaty, ham-faced, and flustered, because their target had distinguished between his public renown and his personal identity. The man had also distinguished between past identity and present identity. Like a poetically astute Buddhist, he was publicly declaring that he never inhabited the same identity twice. His lie appeared to be an abdication of responsibility for his authorship, but it is precisely this lie that would allow his work, his truth, to go unharassed.

By obscuring his authorship, the man provisionally known as Bertolt Brecht implied that his work is collectively produced and collectively owned: a claim that supported his anarachic ideal to resist private ownership, especially the ownership of ideas. The rest of the testimony was a shambles of wisecracks and mistranslations – a wonderful dialectical play in itself.

Imagine! An author disowns his authorship before a committee dedicated to the protection of the capitalist ownership society. It was an irony to the power of the sublime.


John 18:38. Pilate asks Jesus: “What is truth?”

Jesus says nothing.

Pilate says to the people: “I find no fault with him.”


Strategic empathetic lying is as old as the human feeling of the inner self, and the ability to play that interiority against language that can cover it up. Lying has always been used ethically to protect the innocent, and to misdirect the aggressor. The tradition spans the Irishman telling the redcoat “You can’t get there from here” to the old moral test of hiding a man from his would-be killers, and lying to their faces while he quivers in your cellar.

But there is something new happening in Brecht’s ultimate Brechtian moment. An enormous audience is exposed to the spectacle of a man saying that he is two people, and getting away with it. He has detached his body from his body of work, and walked free, out of a prison of oppressive conformity. He has played the personal against the public, and won through each.

His subversive prevarication sets the stage for a postmodern culture in which nobody is as they seem, and everyone knows it, and in which the creative is subversive by nature.


the organ of speech in postmodernity

Truth used to depend upon a stable point-of-view. A stable point-of-view used to hinge upon a coherent sense of “I”, i.e., authority. Points-of-views came from authors. But in a world in which almost everyone under 40 has multiple functional identities through various communicational pathways, regular shifts in points-of-view have become the accepted masala of the postmodern truth-kitchen.

Most of us try to speak our truth, to be sure, and most of us feel the bodily anxiety and/or depression of failing to do so.

But the online avatar throws in a wrench: who are you speaking truth as? And if you can choose another speaking role tomorrow – will it disagree with the truth of today’s voice?  When tweetdeck allows you to tweet as many birds, you can feel tuneful through each, because you are programmed to know that something that the Patanjalian compilers never had to consider in such obviousness: truths emerge in relation to Other truths. These days, you often don’t know what is true until you hear your many voices speak within the human choir.

If you comment on this article – will you use your legal name? Through which identity will you speak most truly today?


Of course, the thinkers that compiled the sutras are also shielded by anonymity. “Patanjali” is the mythological nom-de-plume assigned to the possibly hundreds of contemplatives that gathered together their fragmentary reflections over several centuries. As a text, it crystallizes in an era before the concept of “single-authorship” exists. It is a wiki-text.

With many authors come many stories. The contradictions of the Yoga Sutras are plentiful, and most apparent between the four books. Sutra 2:22 states that the objective world ceases to exist for the yogi in samadhi. Sutra 3:3 states that samadhi occurs when the subject disappears and nothing but the object remains.

This is either really bad philosophy, or a divergence in views within the same writer, or many authors and views duking it out. But to claim that a text like this holds a consistent truth claim is absurd.

Every modern practitioner has to make choices about what truths yoga speaks here and now.


The Bhagavad Gita appreciates the complexity of speaking truly. Krishna tells Arjuna: “The tapas of speech is this. Your words must not cause distress. They must be true, loving, useful, and inspired by self-inquiry.” (17:15) The conflict between the true, the loving, and the undistressing has never been compressed into a more elusive instruction.


Truth as an internal peak of coherence and satisfaction provides deep subjective pleasure. It is only communicable through language when language breaks into new forms. The drive to artistry feeds on this tension, and seeks to radiate the truth-experience by shattering typical patterns of narrative and description. Every poet lives upon the failure of language.

“The crack in everything” as Leonard Cohen sings.


Where is the irony in yoga? Is it only now emerging, as we can begin to see through the performance of knowledge, and as the disenchanted gather in pulsing blog-pockets? Is there a single “I’ll-tell-you-what-the-truth-is” guru left standing who can survive the age of irony?  There are a few, but they become increasingly tragic: people who destroy otherwise elegant contemplations with the bravado of unexamined authority-fetish, while hiding behind a brand.

Where is honesty about our feelings in yoga? Is it honest to post inspirational quotes from books we’ve barely finished reading as Facebook updates? Have we noticed that the voice that is not our own usually gets only a few Likes, and at most, comments like “LOVE this!!!”? If several commenters feel they respond effectively with emoticons, there may not much to respond to.

The greatest number of comments I ever saw (close to 100) were on an update that simply said “My cat died.”


The collusion of “brand” and truth-claim is becoming obvious, and onerous.


Then there’s science, which updates truth according to evidence. Further, it updates standards of evidence according to gains in data collection. Older methods of truth were either intuitive (shamanic) or authoritative (dogmatic). Now we progress along every path by conventions of reading data in the best possible way. In science, truth is wiki. Is yoga a science? Do we want it to be?


popper deflates the dada of truth

Then, there’s Karl Popper, who claimed that statements that could not be verified or falsified do not belong to the order of shareable or productive knowledge. At best, they are amusements. I don’t know if I agree with him, but we should certainly consider the challenge.

One common unfalsifiable statement within yoga culture might be “There are enlightened beings who have left instructions we can follow to the end of our perfection.” According to Popper, this claim cannot be shown to be false through either observation or experimentation. This would require investigating all human beings and their instructions for signs of enlightenment (however we would define it) – an impossible task. If observation and experimentation are impossible, the claim at hand exits the evolutionary flow of life. It escapes the discourse to position itself above the fray, untouched by time or the human heart.

More simply: Popper says that there are two types of statements: the testable, and the faith-based. If it can be tested, it can move towards truth (an agreement regarding the way things are). If it is a faith statement, it cannot be tested in any way that humans can generally agree on and measure, and therefore can never move towards the convention of truth. It’s not that the faith statement can be assessed as true or not based on its content. It cannot be true because of its very structure. It appeals to something beyond itself for validation. It cannot stand on its own. It purposefully hides its ultimate source from the humans who consider it. It must alienate them.

Falsifiable: “Pranayama heals cancer.” (We only have to produce one tumour-ridden yogi corpse to falsify this claim. This claim is okay – it stays in the conversation that aims to generate truth.)

Non-falsifiable: “Pranayama can heal cancer.” (We’d have to monitor every person with cancer who practices pranayama, and then control for all of the other variables that might heal them. The un-testability of this claim means that it abandons any discourse that seeks to establish what is true.)

Reading or receiving teachings in Patanjali in this light is very interesting. Key claims are clearly unfalsifiable. From Chip Hartranft’s translation:

Isvara is a distinct, incorruptible form of pure awareness, utterly independent of cause and effect, and lacking any store of latent impressions.

If you say so. Who can test this? How? Who can argue with it? How? Popper is saying: if you can’t argue with it, how can it change anything or be useful to anybody? Truth is functional, in other words. It has to be used in relationship.

Does the truth-claim that ends the conversation also alienate the relationship?


I had a poet friend who committed suicide. One week before – at his utter end of both truth and language – he swallowed a bottle of pills, he gave me an audiocassette with his favourite music on it. Son House. Nina Simone. One song was Fred Neil: “I gotta secret, shouldn’t tell… gonna go to heaven in a split pea shell.” I can’t find the tape, and I don’t even have a tape player anymore, but I can hear that album in my dreams from start to finish.

We talked about poetry, always. He had a chip on his shoulder about Basho. He blew out the flame on his Sambuca, knocked it back, and quoted the famous haiku:

Frog jumps into the forest pond.


Silence again.

He dragged on his cigarette and glared at me. “Where’s the fucking suffering in that? Where’s the truth?”

I remember him when I walk into some yoga studios, in which the zen décor seems to wipe away the satya of our spilt blood.


We make choices about meaning. There is no one in charge. Truths are choices for which we are radiantly responsible.

photo by ek park

Matthew Remski is an authoryoga and ayurvedic therapist and educator, and co-founder of Yoga Community Toronto. With Scott Petrie (who provided essential wing-man services for this piece) he is co-creator of yoga 2.0, a project in writing (one book done, eight more in the sushumna-chute) and the embodiment of all things post-dogmatic.

yoga 2.0: shamanic echoesis now available for kindle and other e-readers.


About yoga 2.0 lab

Matthew Remski is an Ayurvedic practitioner and Yoga Teacher Trainer in Toronto. His latest book, Threads of Yoga, is gathering international acclaim. He's teaching this online course starting 1/7/14. It's currently full, but there is a reduced-tuition option for auditing. The 12 weekly lessons will be available online for six months following the course. Participants receive a 130-page manual of notes.


30 Responses to “The Eight Limbs of yoga 2.0: Satya—Inconvenient truths about truth.”

  1. matthew says:

    …hey folks… posting from vacation, so i might be slow in responding… — and brief!

  2. Padma Kadag says:


  3. matthew says:

    Thanks, Padma. I mean it.

  4. I found this particular round of yoga 2.0 to be very challenging. Which isn't a bad thing. But it does mean I have no immediate truthful reaction.

    Let's see what others think and maybe that will help me crystallize my reactions.

    Posting to Elephant Yoga on Facebook and Twitter.

    Bob W.
    Yoga Editor

  5. toughyt says:

    I'm so pleased to read something relevant in EJ! Applying critical thinking to our practice– isn't that an intrinsic part of self-study?

  6. Ben_Ralston says:

    Great piece. And that's all I've got to say about it 🙂

    Oh, no it's not. I'd add something to the discussion on Truth:

    Aside from the obvious subjective interpretations of truth… truth to me means seeing things as they are without the lenses of conditioning obscuring our view. All spiritual practice is (and therapy, personal development, healing, etc), is a discarding of the non-essential projection (Maja), so that we see and feel the world, life, our body, our self, as what it truly is: divinity expressing itself through infinite form.

    "Yogas chitta vritti Nirodaha" (or something like that) – Yoga is the cessation of the modifications of the mind. When we stop modifying, we are Real, and we see things as they Truly are.

    Jesus said "The Truth shall set you Free" (or something like that 🙂
    Buddha said "When you see how perfect everything is, you will throw back your head and laugh to the sky" (or something like that) ((apparently))

    Love, truth, freedom. What's the difference between those 3?

    Truth can only be experienced. It cannot be spoken of, because Truth (non-subjective truth) is absolute – whereas words are necessarily dualistic.

    "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the real Tao."

    With love

  7. dan says:

    The ys are not anti-science, and say that knowledge can be obtained by direct perception, inference and testimony. Why is the line on isvara a claim (as you’ve taken it) and not a definition (like so many of the sutras), so it is known what is being devoted to? Falsifiability assumes a certain regularity to Truth, and to cause-effect, and necessitates tautology: dust to dust, etc. So Truth, if it is to be falsifiable, cannot be a choice.

    If falsifiability is taken to the psyche and other realms, how can silence be verified? With brain activity (for instance) it can be said that the machines are just not sensitive enough; the vacuum is imperfect. And so too, not having the proper machine makes it impossible to say where the limits of consciousness are, or to what degree any matter, bright or dark, is conscious.

    Psycho/pharmacological studies are ‘right’, until larger studies are done, and then they are ‘wrong’. Should the depressed wait to see if drug x will be “disproved”, even though many people have real success with it (and others disaster)?

    Honesty with one’s practice is needed. Getting to certain states of awareness are not the signposts- the effect these states are having on one’s consciousness and life are. Meeting with a group of similarly minded endeavorers can be very useful to the endeavor itself, qualifying what we perceive and infer with their testimony. Potter himself promoted sharing and openness with this effect in mind.

  8. matthew says:

    thanks ben — i´m limiting my reponses to question format, as i mountaineer between hotspots…

    is "divinity expressing itself through infinite form" a truth claim?

  9. matthew says:

    thanks dan — i´m limiting my reponses to zen-form, as i mountaineer between hotspots…

    it seems that ultimacy is what is at stake. the truth that sums up, vs. the truth that opens doors.

    but i would say that the YS are anti-science as we understand science, if they claim or define isvara.

  10. Ben_Ralston says:

    Hi Mathew – if you mean by 'truth claim', is it based on direct experience? Yes. By divinity I mean 'absolute perfection'.

  11. matthew says:

    thanks frank — i´m limiting my reponses to question format, as i mountaineer between hotspots…

    doesn´t 2:22 endorse radical idealism, by suggesting that the world is a subjective entity to the meditator, and his meditation dissolves it, but that it retains substance for those not meditating?

  12. matthew says:

    I might be short on time, but my question is sincere.

  13. Padma Kadag says:

    Matthew…You often hear how the Buddha "Lied". Westerners often, flippantly, like to rattle off things like "Kill the Buddha"…ugh…so my intent is not the same. There is no need for shock values. But if you have time I hesitatingly offer this dissertation link from a Georgetown University Buddhist scholar…This is probably the first Scholarly Buddhist article I have ever recommended. You may very well find it interesting.

  14. BoepSaFrankJude says:


    Mountaineering? Have fun and stay safe….

    The YS cannot at all be claimed to be 'logical.' In fact, I would have used the definition of purusha and ishvara as evidence of internal logical inconsistency…

    However, 2:22 is generally taken as a refutation of radical idealism because Patanjali seems to accept the ontological basis of both purusha and prakriti. It is also most likely a critical swipe at the radical idealism of Yogacara Buddhism which was (is?) generally taken to posit that ALL forms are 'mind-only.'

    More to the point, 2.22 is about the state of kaivalya and 3.3 is about samadhi. Despite many yogis taking samadhi as the be-all and end-all of yoga practice, it is explicitly said in the YS that samadhi is still external to liberation. Thus, my initial point that your use of these two sutras as evidence of either bad philosophy (there are many better examples in the YS!) or different authors is weak….


  15. Just posted to "Popular Lately" on the Elephant Yoga homepage.

  16. dan says:

    The cricket chirps, but is not "chirp". Outside cause-effect is also outside time; what has a/the seed of omniscience is expressed as Om. It isn't till It is.
    Also, what has use is useful, and remains useful so long as it has use.

  17. matthew says:

    hey frank. mountaineering is a definite stretch — more like hiking between tapas joints in the sierra nevada! suppose that the refutation of 2:22 is on such a level of abstraction that it seems all to be head-of-a-pin territory. And about the admittedly different subjects of 2:22 and 3:3 — does it really make a difference? From the point of view of authorship, collective or otherwise, the voice proposes near-nihilism in one verse regarding one state (kaivalya), and non-nihilism in another, regarding another state (samadhi). To my mind, if a near-nihilist condition is in the realm of possibility, wouldn't that necessitate near-nihilist consistency throughout the ontology of the work? But, there are better examples to plumb, it is true. I

  18. yogijulian says:

    i am just delighted to have found you matthew. between you and bob and a couple others it feels like coming home. finally. thank you!

  19. I second that! Thank you. It's nice to finally see this level of discourse make its way into the yoga community thru people like Julian, Bob, and Matthew

  20. matthew says:

    hey guys. we're collaborating already…

  21. matthew says:

    Cheeky! Thanks Carol!

  22. matthew says:

    Hi Padma – Thanks for the link. I’ve heard Cho's argument in other contexts: that the Buddha spoke literally and metaphorically, without ever endorsing the truth-illusions of language. Cho seems to suggest that the Western philosophical tradition does not appreciate the same subtleties, although she refers to Aristotle, ironically, to establish the categories. And if she looks further, she would see that all philosophy since has been largely an investigation of these various properties and usages of language.

    Our postmodern problem is not that we don’t understand the differences between the analogue and the metaphor, or that this psychologically disturbs us, as Cho claims, but that we now know that metaphor that tends to provoke faithful or religious dispositions cannot open the doors of verifiability and human sharing. The Buddha may have skillfully used metaphorically etheric concepts to somehow deflate themselves, but have the vast majority of his followers caught on?

    As to Cho’s concluding question: “Hasn’t the time come to explicitly question the assumptions behind this demand for the single, “whole story”? [to be told equally by science and religion] – I think it’s misplaced. Science and rationalism are defined by not needing to tell a whole story. The book is open. Religion cannot afford such liberality.

  23. […] in our review of the Patanjalian legacy. #2 and #3 address ahimsa philosophically and personally. #4 introduces the complexity of satya (truth) in the 2.0 […]

  24. […] The Eight Limbs of yoga 2.0: Satya—Inconvenient truths about truth by Matthew Remski […]

  25. […] when I finally stopped distracting myself, actually learned to be still on my mat, truth emerged. Satya. Photo: […]

  26. […] non-harming. Therefore, Patanjali is saying that we need to restrain ourselves from causing pain. Satya is truthfulness; this means we need to do our best to be as truthful as we can. At first glance, […]

  27. rental car discount codes priceline

  28. […] the process of satya (truthfulness), reality—however undesirable—cannot be tweaked to suit our whims. I wanted to move on, but neither my body or mind were […]

  29. […] Yoga and The Sacred Principles: Living Satya […]