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@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@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:
       

                śambhurīśaḥ 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@verizon.net

On 27 Apr  2016, at 05:28, Dr. T. Ganesan <ganesan@ifpindia.org> wrote:

On 26 April 2016 at 20:52, Seth Powell <sethpowell@g.harvard.edu> wrote:

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.  

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@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 Śāradātilakatantra, 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@g.harvard.edu

On Apr 26, 2016, at 8:02 AM, edbryant@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.



_______________________________________________