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

[Aleksandar Uskokov]

Dear Ganesan,

My point was not to dispute that identification, but that from Siva=Isvara
in Svetasvatara and Kalidasa it does not follow that Isvara=Siva in
Patanjali, because the term has been variously associated (there is no
avyabhicara between the two). Again, Jan Gonda's essay on the idea of
Isvara is a most worthwhile reading,

Yours
Aleksandar

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Dr. T. Ganesan <ganesan at ifpindia.org>
wrote:

>
> 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>
> 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>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>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>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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/20160429/94b65ab9/attachment.htm>