The five kleshas are the afflictions of the mind catalogued by Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras chapter II, verse 3: avidyāsmitārāgadveṣābhiniveśāḥ kleśāḥ — “ignorance, ego-identification, attraction, aversion, and clinging to life are the afflictions”. Patanjali presents these five as the root causes of suffering and as the central obstacle to kaivalya, the liberation that the Yoga Sutras are oriented toward. The kleshas are introduced in the sadhana pada (chapter 2) as the diagnosis to which the eight-limbed practice is the prescribed remedy. Sutras II.3-II.11 cover their definition, structure, and the means of attenuating them, with II.12-II.14 then connecting them to the doctrine of karma.
The five kleshas in order
Patanjali lists the five in a specific order, beginning with the root affliction and proceeding to its derivatives:
- Avidyā (ignorance): the root of the others, defined in II.5 as mistaking the impermanent for the permanent, the impure for the pure, the painful for the pleasurable, and the non-self for the Self.
- Asmitā (I-am-ness or ego): the conflation in II.6 of pure consciousness (drashtri) with the instrument of cognition (drik-darshana-shakti). The error is taking the witness and the seen as one.
- Rāga (attraction): attachment to pleasure (II.7). The mind seeks repetition of what it found enjoyable.
- Dveṣa (aversion): the mirror image (II.8). The mind avoids what it associates with pain.
- Abhiniveśa (clinging to life): the instinctive fear of death (II.9), present even in the learned. Patanjali notes that this affliction operates beneath conscious deliberation.
Avidya as the root
Patanjali is explicit in II.4 that avidya is the field (kshetra) in which the other four arise. Without the fundamental misperception, asmita, raga, dvesha, and abhinivesha would have no foundation. Avidya in this technical sense is not lack of information; it is a chronic misidentification of the witness with the witnessed. The classical commentary by Vyasa (4th-5th century CE) makes this explicit: avidya is described as the substratum, and the other four are described as its modifications. This structural relationship matters in practice. Working directly on raga and dvesha (attempting to suppress desire and aversion) without addressing the underlying avidya produces only temporary results.
The four states of the kleshas
Sutra II.4 also describes four states in which the kleshas can exist:
- Prasupta (dormant): latent, like a seed in unfavourable soil. The klesha is present but inactive.
- Tanu (attenuated): thinned out by practice. The klesha can still arise but with reduced force.
- Vicchinna (interrupted): overridden by a stronger contrary impulse. Raga, for example, can interrupt dvesha for the same object.
- Udāra (active): fully manifest, dominating the mind in the moment.
The fourfold classification is diagnostic. A practitioner can identify which state a given affliction is in and select an appropriate response. A dormant klesha needs vigilance; an active klesha needs immediate counter-practice (pratipaksha-bhavana, II.33).
The remedy: kriya yoga and dhyana
Patanjali prescribes two complementary remedies. The first is kriya yoga, introduced in II.1 as tapas (discipline), svadhyaya (self-study), and ishvara-pranidhana (surrender to ishvara). II.2 states that this kriya yoga has two functions: it cultivates samadhi and it attenuates the kleshas. The second is sustained meditation (dhyana), prescribed in II.11 for kleshas in their subtle form. The eight-limbed practice (II.29 onward) is the broader system within which kriya yoga and dhyana operate. The structure of chapter 2 is essentially: here is the diagnosis (the kleshas), here is the medicine (kriya yoga and the eight limbs), here is the result (the gradual approach to discriminative discernment, viveka-khyati).
The kleshas and karma
Sutras II.12-II.14 connect the kleshas to the doctrine of karma. The kleshas are the root of the karmashaya, the storehouse of latent action, and the karmashaya in turn determines the conditions of future birth, lifespan, and experience (II.13). The karmas produce pleasant or painful results according to their virtuous or non-virtuous character (II.14). For what it’s worth, this connection is the part of Patanjali’s framework that most distinguishes it from a purely psychological reading of the kleshas; the Yoga Sutras treat the kleshas as ontological forces with cross-lifetime consequences, not merely as cognitive biases. Modern readers who want to use Patanjali primarily as a mental-health resource can bracket the rebirth claims, but the connection between affliction and consequence is structurally important to the text.
Common questions
Are the five kleshas the same as the Buddhist defilements?
Closely related but not identical. The Buddhist tradition lists three root defilements (greed, hatred, delusion) and elaborates them in various lists of five hindrances or ten fetters. The overlap with raga, dvesha, and avidya is clear; asmita and abhinivesha map less neatly. The two traditions developed in conversation and share a common diagnostic instinct, but the metaphysical framing differs (Patanjali assumes a permanent purusha; the Buddhist tradition denies one).
Which English translation of the Yoga Sutras handles the kleshas well?
Edwin Bryant’s The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (North Point Press, 2009) reproduces the Vyasa-Bhashya alongside the sutras and is the most thorough scholarly edition. For a shorter reference, Georg Feuerstein’s translations are reliable. Among practitioner-oriented editions, B.K.S. Iyengar’s Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali is the most influential modern interpretation.
Why is fear of death listed alongside the more obvious afflictions?
Patanjali’s choice is deliberate. Abhinivesha is the affliction that survives even in the learned (tatharudho ‘pi vipashcitah, II.9). The other four can be reduced through study, reflection, and practice; the instinctive recoil from death is more deeply embedded. Listing it as a klesha signals that it is workable, but only by long sustained practice, not by intellectual conviction.
Can the kleshas be permanently eliminated?
Patanjali’s claim in II.10-II.11 is that the kleshas can be returned to a subtle dormant state by meditation, and that their seeds can be burnt by the discriminative discernment that arises in advanced practice. Whether this amounts to “permanent” elimination depends on interpretation. The classical commentaries are confident that kaivalya, the goal of the system, is the state in which the kleshas have lost the capacity to produce further consequences.
One limitation worth noting
The summary above presents Patanjali’s framework on its own terms. Reading the kleshas as a complete psychology of suffering, without attention to the surrounding doctrine of purusha and prakriti (sutras IV.18 onward), can give a tidier but less faithful picture. The five-klesha scheme is a useful diagnostic tool even in isolation, but a serious engagement with Patanjali eventually requires the whole text and one of the major commentaries.
For background see the Kleshas Wikipedia entry and a public-domain translation of the Yoga Sutras.
