[INDOLOGY] Yama/niyama in PÄ Å›upata and Yoga

Dominik Wujastyk wujastyk at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 15:25:12 EDT 2016


Patañjali says who he means by īśvara in the next sūtra:
*​​kleśakarmavipākāśayair aparāmṛṣṭaḥ puruṣaviśeṣa īśvaraḥ* (YS 1.24) and
unpacks this in his subsequent remarks
<http://sarit.indology.info/exist/apps/sarit/works/patanjalayogasastra.xml_1.3.4.2.26.3.html>.

​  The discussion of the *Śaṅkaravivaraṇa* on this point is lucidly
translated and discussed in Harimoto, *God, Reason and Yoga*, 89 ff.​




--
Professor Dominik Wujastyk*
Singhmar Chair in Classical Indian Society and Polity
Department of History and Classics
University of Alberta, Canada

On 27 April 2016 at 03:28, Dr. T. Ganesan <ganesan at ifpindia.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 26 April 2016 at 20:52, Seth Powell <sethpowell at g.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> The īśvāra-praṇidhāna of the PYŚ, for example, often takes on a more
sectarian flavor in the later texts, such as śaṅkara-pūjanaṃ in the
Śivayogadīpikā.
>
>
> My observation on this point is:
> Sankarapuujanam need be taken as 'a sectarian flavour'. For, Isvara
denotes only Siva as we find in all the Upanishads and other texts;
Svetasvataropanishad repeats this word denoting Siva many times and it can
not be interpreted in any other way.
>
> As Kalidasa says in the invocatory verse of his drama, Vikramorvasiyam,
>
>     vedānteṣu yamāhurekapuruṣaṃ vyāpya sthitaṃ rodasī /
>
>     yasminnīśvara ityananyaviṣayaḥ śabdo yathārthākṣaraḥ /
>
>
> Isvara denotes only Siva from the early period. Kalidasa is of the firm
view that the entire Vedanta corpus (vedānteṣu) proclaims Siva to be the
highest Reality (puruṣa) that pervades all the universe.  Kalidasa and
Patanjali definitely belong to very early period. Thus by īśvāra-praṇidhāna
it is fully plausible and also possible,  that Patanjali meant only worship
of Siva. And, worshipping a supreme God need not be interpreted as
''sectarian''. One cannot ''worship'' a supreme reality which is nirguna.
>
>
> Ganesan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26-04-2016 21:53, Rafal Kleczek wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for your observations. I have not been aware of the
variations on the concept of yama/niyama in Puranas and later Yogic texts,
it is most interesting.
> The subject of difference in "niyama" regulations for ascetics at
different stages in Kauṇḍinya's theory is quite interesting. Kauṇḍinya
himself considers it a peculiar trait of the system, or scripture
("tantra"). At the same time, a similar differentiation of niyama rules
seems to be accepted by some early Naiyāyikas, who otherwise seem to follow
quite closely the theory of Patañjali (with regard to the practice of Yoga).
> Even though it seems true, that Nyāya came under influence of Pāśupata
authors at some point, this idea of differentiation of niyamas is hinted at
even in Vātsyāyana's Bhāṣya--which was written too early to speak about
Pāśupata influence, I think. Hence the search for other possible sources of
this peculiar variation.
> With best wishes,
> Rafal
>
> On 26 April 2016 at 20:52, Seth Powell <sethpowell at g.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Rafal,
>>
>> Later medieval tantric and Haṭhayoga treatises sometimes include both 10
yamas and 10 niyamas. For example, Chapter 25 of the Śāradātilakatantra,
the Śivayogadīpikā, Yogayajñāvalkya, and many others — and here, I imagine,
particularly for the Śaiva texts, they might be drawing from the earlier
Pāśupata yoga traditions.
>>
>> As always, across these yoga texts and traditions, there is fluidity and
malleability, but they seem to all draw from a shared yama-niyama palette,
if you will. The īśvāra-praṇidhāna of the PYŚ, for example, often takes on
a more sectarian flavor in the later texts, such as śaṅkara-pūjanaṃ in
the Śivayogadīpikā.
>>
>> Yet, often the medieval yoga texts appear to explicitly omit them, such
as Svātmārāma’s Haṭhapradīpikā (although a later 10-chapter version of this
text does include yamas and niyamas), and thus we are left to speculate on
their optionality. Perhaps they were left to be filled in by a guru, or
elsewhere from a sectarian tradition, or were in fact left out of yogic
praxis entirely (although I doubt this). But I think it’s safe to say if
they are included in a prescriptive yoga text, they were not considered
optional for that author, but rather par for the course. This is most clear
in the PYŚ and its commentaries, as Prof. Bryant astutely notes, but I
think also holds for the later medieval texts as well.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Seth D. Powell
>> Doctoral Student
>> Committee on the Study of Religion
>> Harvard University
>>
>> ATG Student Consultant
>> Academic Technology Group (ATG)
>> Harvard University Information Technology
>>
>> p 707 494 4721
>> e sethpowell at g.harvard.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 8:02 AM, edbryant at rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>> 1. Are there other traditions which consider yama regulations to be
>> permanent, and niyamas to be subject to change, depending on time, place,
>> etc.? Is it a common understanding of the division between yama and
niyama
>> among philosophers of Yoga, or in other branches of Åšaivism?
>>
>>
>> I don't recall reading this in any YS commentary. It probably comes from
>> the idea that it is after the yama verse that Patanjali stresses (with
>> uncharacteristic emphasis, one might add, both in terms of his own
overall
>> tone, and in terms of the sutra penchant for non-repetition or
>> redundancy), that they are inviolable (i.e. he chose not to state this
>> after the niyama verse which follows the yama verse). However, 3 of the
>> niyamas are listed under kriya yoga in the opening verse of chapter 2,
so,
>> given they are repeated again in the astanga section there is no sense in
>> the YS tradition that they are optional.
>>
>> 2. Are there other traditions accepting ten yama regulations?
>>
>>
>> The Bhagavata Purana has 10 yamas.  If the Pasupata texts have 10, I
would
>> probably search the Siva, Skandha or Linga puranas for precedents.
>>
>> With best wishes,  Edwin Bryant.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
unsubscribe)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/attachments/20160427/f090e596/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list