Re: [INDOLOGY] Yama/niyama in PÄ Å›upata and Yoga
Dr. T. Ganesan
ganesan at ifpindia.org
Fri Apr 29 11:27:45 UTC 2016
It is not taking a''Shaivite position" to state that Isvara denotes Siva
in the ancient times and in Patanjali, Kalidasa, etc. in line with the
Svetasvataropanishad, et al.
I am just stating the actual position. Unlike Samkara who takes a ''
complete Vaishnavite position" in his commentary as I had shown in
earlier mail, I am not at all taking any side or ''position''.
Ganesan
On 28-04-2016 20:49, Nagaraj Paturi 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/20160429/27ca003b/attachment.htm>
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list