Re: [INDOLOGY] Yama/niyama in PÄ Å›upata and Yoga
Dr. T. Ganesan
ganesan at ifpindia.org
Fri Apr 29 05:15:40 UTC 2016
Dear Aleksander,
If you /were just taking exception with the identification Isvara = Siva
in the Svetasvatara = in all Upanisads = in Kalidasa = ergo in Patanjali
as his contemporary,/
then, what on earth does the word Isvara denote in the
Svetasvataropanishad and in the woks of Kalidasa ??
Ganesan
On 28-04-2016 21:10, Aleksandar Uskokov wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:emstern at verizon.net>
>>
>>> On 27 Apr 2016, at 05:28, Dr. T. Ganesan
>>> <ganesan at ifpindia.org <mailto:ganesan at ifpindia.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 April 2016 at 20:52, Seth Powell
>>> <sethpowell at g.harvard.edu
>>> <mailto: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 yamāhurekapuruṣaṃvyāpya sthitaṃrodasī /
>>>
>>> yasminnīśvara ityananyaviṣayaḥśabdo 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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:sethpowell at g.harvard.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 26, 2016, at 8:02 AM,
>>>>> edbryant at rci.rutgers.edu
>>>>> <mailto: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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160429/efe08772/attachment.htm>
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list