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

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Ganesan,

The word Shiva in Svetashvatara Upanishad is understood as a descriptive
term with meanings such as benevolent, blissful etc.

Do you want to see that word as referring to Shiva, with the attributes
such as Kailaasavaasa, jaTaajooTadhaaraNa, naagaabharaNadhaaraNa etc. ?

If yes, which part of the text has support to such view?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Aleksandar Uskokov <uskokov at uchicago.edu>
wrote:

> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 )


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160430/31b9bc90/attachment.htm>