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

Thu Apr 28 15:40:12 UTC 2016

Dear Nagaraj,

No, nothing of that kind. I was just taking exception with the
identification Isvara = Siva in the Svetasvatara = in all Upanisads = in
Kalidasa = ergo in Patanjali as his contemporary. The idea of Isvara, as
your points well illustrate, is too rich for such a simple identification.

Best
Aleksandar

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 1. When we bring  Vishnu into this discussion, we need to clarify whether
> we are talking about the Vedic concepts such as Narayana and Vishnu as
> distinct from the Puranic Vishnu/ Narayana , with attributes such as  the
> vaikunThavAsa etc.
>
>  2. The Upanishadic concept of Is'vara , like the one with identical name
> in nyAya and other dars'anas is not a deity neither Vedic nor Puranic but a
> doctrinal category. Since, unlike in the case of the other dars'anas, in
> Upanishads, there is a scope for vEdArtha upabrmhaNa link with Puranas
> or Veda-Vedanta relation with the Vedas , the Upanishadic doctrinal
> category of Is'vara is open to the discussion of whether that can be viewed
> as Shiva of the Puranas or Vishnu of the Vedas or Narayana of the Vedas or
> Vishnu / Narayana  of the Puranas.
>
> 3. In common parlance and in many textual usages too the word Is'vara
> being taken as a synonym of Shiva is in abundance. But those can not be
> mixed with the discussion of what the Upanishadic doctrinal category
> of Is'vara  is equivalent to in among the Vedic or Puranic deities.
>
> 4. The Upanishadic doctrinal category of Is'vara is discussed as a part of
> a group of doctrinal categories consisting of Brahman, Is'vara and Jiva.
>
> 5. At a certain level, Brahman and Is'vara are both equated with the
> supreme deity of each of the pAramyavAda traditions, i.e., with Shiva in
> Shaivism and with Vishnu in Vaishnavism. At another level, the distinction
> between Brahman and Is'vara is taken into account and which form of Vishnu
> (in Vaishnavism) or Shiva (in Shaivism) is to be taken as Brahman and which
> form of Vishnu (in Vaishnavism) or Shiva (in Shaivism) is to be taken as
> Is'vara is discussed.
>
> 6. Dr Ganesan is clearly taking a Shaivite position by saying that the
> Upanishadic  doctrinal category of Is'vara is to be taken as Shiva and any
> argument saying that the Upanishadic  doctrinal category of Is'vara is to
> be taken as Vishnu could look to be Vaishnavite to him.
>
> I don't think you are trying to take a Vaishnavite position here, are you?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Aleksandar Uskokov <uskokov at uchicago.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ganesan,
>>
>> As for the popularity of the Gita before Sankara, he himself in his
>> introduction to the commentary says that the work has been explained many
>> times before him, word by word and sentence by sentence. See also
>> Nakamura's "A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy," Vol. 2.
>>
>> Aleksandar
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:45 AM, Dr. T. Ganesan <ganesan at ifpindia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Samkara, Vachaspatimisra, etc. all belong to 8th century; whereas my
>>> point is Patanjali, Kalidasa are all much earlier to them. As mentioned in
>>> the earlier post, beginning from Svetasvataropanishad (which is
>>> indisputably one of the earliest Upanishad-s), Kaivalyopanishad,
>>> Atharvasikhaa, Atharvasiras, (where the words ISAna, ISa are also used) and
>>> in the Amarakosa, also one of the earliest Kosa-s, Ishvara denotes only
>>> Siva.
>>>
>>> Note the Amarakosa passage:
>>>
>>>
>>>                 śambhur*īśaḥ* paśupatiḥ śivaḥ śūlī mahēśvaraḥ .
>>>
>>>                * īśvaraḥ *śarva *īśānaḥ* śaṃkaraścandraśēkharaḥ.
>>>
>>>
>>> The period of BhagavadgItA as we have it now, cannot be so earlier or
>>> contemporaneous with Patanjali or Kalidasa. And, definitely BG has been
>>> inspired by the Svetasvataropanishad for its stress on Bhakti.
>>>
>>> Samkara appears to be mostly leaning towards VishNubhakti; it is is very
>>> much evident in many of his interpretations and comments in the
>>> BhagavadgiitA: at BG II.51, VI.31, Samkara states the liberated state
>>> as “ the supreme state of Vishnu” (padam paramam vishnoH); in BG XIII.18,
>>> he clearly identifies paramAtmA with VAsudeva.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ganesan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28-04-2016 05:40, Elliot Stern wrote:
>>>
>>> Vācaspatimiśra, generally understood to favor Śiva, acknowledges that
>>> adherents of the Pātañjalayogaśāstram consider Viṣṇu to be their īśvara. He
>>> says, in concluding his comment on ādividvānnirmāṇacittamadhiṣṭhāya
>>> kāruṇyādbhagavānparamarṣirāsurāya jijñāsamānāya tantraṃ provāca
>>> (yogabhāṣyam to yogasūtram 1.25):
>>>
>>>  sa eveśvara ādividvānkapilo viṣṇurna<:> svayambhūriti bhāvaḥ~|
>>> svāyambhuvānāṃ tvīśvara iti bhāvaḥ~|
>>>
>>> James Haughton Woods translates this as: [The reply would be that] this
>>> same Īśvara, the First Knower, the Self-existent Vishnu [is] Kapila. "But
>>> [He is] the Īśvara of those descended from the Self-existent." This is the
>>> point.
>>>
>>> Note that Vācaspati frequently refers to adherents of the
>>> Pātañjalayogaśāstram as svāyambhuvaḥ (for example, in nyāyakaṇikā).
>>>
>>> Elliot M. Stern
>>> 552 South 48th Street
>>> Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
>>> United States of America
>>> telephone: 215-747-6204
>>> mobile: 267-240-8418
>>> emstern at verizon.net
>>>
>>> On 27 Apr  2016, at 05:28, Dr. T. Ganesan < <ganesan at ifpindia.org>
>>> 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>
>>> 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>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)
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nagaraj Paturi
>
> Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
>
> Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
>
> FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
>
> (Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160428/6512e451/attachment.htm>