Hi, Ken,

As I'm sure you know, in the classic Pātañjalayogaśāstra of Patañjali, sūtra 2.30 lists five yamas, beginning with ahiṃsā. I don't know the Haṭhayogapradīpikā well, but Svātmārāma (or whoever) gives 10 yamas in the addendum to 1.16 (or 1.17 in my 1972 Adyar Library ed.). So even if ahiṃsā is a yama there, as in PYŚ, there's already a willingness to depart from the classic list of yamas, doubling its size. Another item has crossed list in 1.17; thus śauca is a niyama in the PYŚ but has become a yama in the HYP. I'd guess that the yama/niyama (commitment/obligation) distinction wasn't that well-defined by Svātmārāma's time.

As an aside, Buddhaghosa works with five Niyamas (or niyāmas).

In the Milindapañha, niyamas are mostly paired with saṃyamas (not yamas). The lists overlap with Patañjali. I haven't looked at this closely.

Best,
Dominik

On 20 November 2014 08:01, Kenneth Gregory Zysk <zysk@hum.ku.dk> wrote:

This comes as a request from a student. Any help would be most appreciated:

My question concerns the Haṭhyogapradīpikā 1.38 which states:

The Siddhas know that as among yamas a moderate diet is the most important, and among niyamas, harmlessness (ahiṁsā), so among all the āsanas is the siddhāsana.

In 1.16 – of what is presumably an appended part – we are taught that ahiṁsā pertains to the yamas; so why this obvious inconsistency? Is there any scriptural precedence to this case, where ahiṁsā can be found within the niyamas?

Kenneth Zysk, PhD, DPhil

Head of Indology

Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies

University of Copenhagen

Karen Blixens Vej 4, Bygn. 10,

DK-2300 Copenhagen S Denmark

Ph: +45 3532 8951 Email: zysk@hum.ku.dk

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info