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

[Aleksandar Uskokov]

Sankara in his Brhadaranyakabhasya most directly identifies Isvara with
Narayana, isvaro narayanakhyah. Aside the Bhagavad-Gita (11th, 18th
chapter), where the term refers clearly to Visnu/Krsna. One could probably
find countless other instances where Isvara does not denote Siva, before
and after Kalidasa. Gonda's "Change and Continuity in Indian Religion"
would be a good place to start looking for these.

Aleksandar
On Apr 27, 2016 5:06 PM, "Dr. T. Ganesan" <ganesan at ifpindia.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 26 April 2016 at 20:52, Seth Powell <sethpowell at g.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> T*he 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 *Śāradā*
>> *tilakatantra*, 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: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160427/c9ff59d7/attachment.htm>