Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Patanajali Yoga Sutra : 4-34 : Is there a variant reading ?

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

All publications that I have seen, quoting YS, read  चितिशक्तिरिति, using only the nominative case, not the possessive. This includes the 1983 SUNY Albany edition of Swami Hariharananda Aranya's commentary, with English translation by P N Mukerji. Consequently, the interpretation is along the lines of कैवल्यम् = चितिशक्तिरिति पुरुषस्य स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा. 

 

Note, however - पुरुषस्य चितिशक्तिरेव केवला, तस्याः सदा तथैवावस्थानं कैवल्यमिति. The तस्याः could support a reading of the सूत्र as चितिशक्तेरिति.

 

One could argue that in both cases, ultimately in the state of kaivalya, पुरुष = चितिशक्ति, but depending on the सूत्र reading adopted, there is room for interpretation about what is the sense in which this equation is made. I wonder what the older manuscript evidence is.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar
 

 Patanajali Yoga Sutra : 4-34 : Is there a variant reading ?

"Dr.BVK Sastry" <sastr...@gmail.com> Apr 17 11:33AM -0700  

Namaste

1. This is about the Patanjali Yoga sutra 4-34 : Last word :
<Chitishakteriti> . Full Sutra: Purushartha-shoonyaanaam gunaanaam
prati-prasavah, kaivalyam svaroopa-pratishtha vaa <CHITISHAKTERITI>

*Question:*

Is there a varaint reading on the last word as < chitishaktiriti> ?

Is the last word ending in Prathama vibhakti as <chitishaktih> or is it
Panchami/Shastee as < chitishakteh>

Help appreciated.

Regards
BVK Sastry

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

 

1.    That specifically is the point : <  I wonder what the older manuscript evidence is.  >.

 

2.    The question is a little wider and deeper :  What was the tradition by which Yoga Sutra lived across the time span  from  ' Patanjali to  Acharya Shankara  and later Vedanta-Bhashya kaaras' ?  Is this jsut an  issue of sutra variant reading OR  Totally different tradition/s  which we seem to be missing ? at some historical point ?  Who needs to  research / address this ? How ? Why ? The search is for the anchor of evidence.

 

And how would one connect the last sutra 4-34 to  the opening made :  1-2 to 1-4 ?  in variant readings ? Patanjali has no definiiton within the Sutras on what is 'Chitta'. It is a word 'given'  and of multivalent constructed meanings according to Samskrutha Vyakaranam. If one postulates  'Chiti' as a 'Vedic - independent word' distnct from  'Chitta', the gateswould open up for new investigation threads from Tantra perspective / Kundalini yoga. More fronts for exploration.

 

3.    On the point < depending on the सूत्र reading adopted, there is room for interpretation about what is the sense in which this equation is made. > The question could be : If Gita , prior to Patanjali taught a perspective/s of Yoga;   and Gita inherited this perspective for consolidation   as a ' Veda- Upanishat tradition', are we to postualte a 'Standard Language Continuity for Samskrutham -Vyakaranam' ??  IE lingusits would be disturbed on this and seek  'evidence' ! Contra, the ' Maanushee vak' protogonists ( and seeking Tamil in Ramayana of Valmiki) would argue for the equated antuity time line of Tamil ! 

 

The timeline of history  and understanding of yoga-Vedanta links are  at stake here. This can be resolved only by a relook at the history of Indian languages prior to Panini up to Valmiki. Any clues from  hard evidence beyond what is already known in the 'guru-paramparaa' anchored to ' Vyasa /   Naaraayana /Asmadaacharya paryantaam ' ??

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

 

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Both the date of Patanjali (and his identification with the author of Mahabhashya, and Carakasamhita) and Vyasa (the author of Bhashya on YogasUtra) is debated for long and yet no conclusion except believing in guru parampara (asmadacaryaparyanta - obviously taking his own guru as the last evedince and final one), has arrived at. And on the variants, a critical Edition is necessary of the text and the commentary of  Vyasa, on YS is necessary before jumping into any evidence of oldest reading. In the absence of which, the available reading in the Vyasabhashya could be accepted from a scholar's view and also accepting Vyasa as our guru, in the guruparampara.

So it could not be resolved finally by some glimpses on the readings. In both the meaning could be arrived. citi samjnane, citi smrtyam, cittam cit and also probably citi. from the same root. The difference between the readings will depend on the context and the commentaries on the reading.

​

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Let me hasten to clarify, when I said "older manuscript evidence" I only meant that manuscripts are no doubt older than any of the printed editions that people commonly use nowadays. I wouldn't want to make any conclusions or even hypotheses about identities and relative dates of patanjali, vyAsa, bhoja etc.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail)]

Namaste HN Bhat

 

1.  On the specific point : < And on the variants, a critical Edition is necessary of the text >  How does the traditional schools intend to go on this line ?? Are there necessary tools ? And the  ‘will power’ to ‘face the toils on the line’ ??

 

2.   On the specific point :  < So it could not be resolved finally by some glimpses on the readings. In both the meaning could be arrived. citi samjnane, citi smrtyam, cittam cit and also probably citi. from the same root. The difference between the readings will depend on the context and the commentaries on the reading.  >

 

What does this lead to as a conclusion ? Options to explore ? Doubts and clinkers in the traditional schools teaching process as well as Academic research publications ? The eye turns to the ‘ authenticity of Language Tool’ – namely Paninian Samskrutham ( Not the PIE / linguistics). The fire is turned on  to the authenticity of ‘Dhatu-Patha’,  Gana-Patha, The processing rules of Krit and Ting , the meaning of the upasargas, pick of the root by preference to interpret a tradition ??

 

Now, if for argument sake, if one says that   one ( preferred /historic ?)  school of Yoga was eyed by Vedanta-Acharyas for refuting in writing commentary on  Brahma-Sutra Bhashya, does it mean that Acharya had in the process, refuted all possible variants of Yoga-school interpretation of Yoga-Sutra ( and Samkhya linked to it) poova-paksha ?   Do we have any tradition of Yoga schools reverting back to refute Vedanta views ?   How much of Yoga  was digested by ‘ yama-niyama-aasana … paareena -  …   Ashtanga yoga Nishthaa gareena’ – Vedanta-acharya  guru-paramparaa traditions ?

 

It seems to me that there is a clear necessity for  review of Bhagavadgita understanding as ‘ Yoga Shaastra’ ; and connect it to Patanjali Yoga Sutra properly, before  venturing out on Brahma Sutra –Vedanta –Prasthana Traya based Socio-Religious Identities and Vada-vivada –Samvada . I have made some efforts in developing this approach in my teaching courses and found a path that needs to be explored meticulously. That is Samskrutham teams need to find out and restore the ‘Vak-Yoga’ tradition indicated in Patanjali Mahabhashya (  Padena Vaachaam rogam yah  apaakarot, tam patanjalim aanatosmi).  

 

 

Would the current Vedanta sampradaya schools be courageous enough to explore a  possibility  of Vedanta  ‘ primary ideology –approach’ reflected in seed form in  ‘Patanjali Yoga-Sutra 4-34’ ???  and acknowledge debt to Ashtanga yoga (2-27) practice  recommendation with Ishwara Pranidhana ( Yoga Sutra 2-1) ?   

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6256 - Release Date: 04/19/13

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

’पुरुषार्थशून्यानां गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः कैवल्यम् , स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा वा  चितिशक्तिरिति ’

                                                                            योगसूत्रम् ४-३४

प्रश्नः - चितिशक्तिः or चितिशक्तेः

व्यासभाष्यम् - वाचस्पतिमिश्रवृत्तिः -  विज्ञानभिक्षुः / नागेशभट्टः - योगवपुस् (Telugu com.)

In fact , there is no room for doubt - 

the author defines  ’ कैवल्यम् ’ - it can be पुरुषार्थशून्यानां गुणानां महदादीनां प्रतिप्रसवः स्वकारणे प्रधाने लयः कैवल्यम् - केवलस्य भावः(ष्यञ्) -- ज्ञानिनं पुरुषं प्रति प्रधानस्य मोक्षः - पुरुषेण पुनः असंयोगात् ।

अपरम् - स्वरूपेण प्रतिष्ठते महाप्रलये’पि पुरुषस्य चितिशक्तिः - कस्मात् ? बुद्धिसत्त्वानभिसंबन्धात् - तथा केवला भवति सर्वदा - तदेव पुरुषस्य कैवल्यम् । 

उपाधीनाम् अपाये उपाधिमान् केवलः भवति किल - तदेव कैवल्यम् ।       

Here प्रतिप्रसवः is merging (in व्याकरणम् it is बाधकबाधकः) - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे ।

’वा’  according to Vijnanabhiksu / Nagesa is in the sense of ’व्यवस्थितविभाषा’ (they followed व्याकरणम्) - 

according to योगवपुस् (author did not reveal his name - may be ईश्वर) it is in ’अवधारणम्’ (= निश्चयः) ।

Both mean the same - in the second case it is - निपातानाम् अनेकार्थत्वात् ।

There is सामानाधिकरण्यम् ( एकार्थबोधकत्वम् - नीलम् उत्पलम्)  between the words - स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा and  चितिशक्तिः and this is possible  if the latter is in प्रथमा | 

Patanjali under भूवादयो धातवः (1-3-1) offers a Vartikam - अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्याम्

and the same is useful in such cases (see also हयवरट्) ।

Vedanta - Yoga face-off  --

This is not correct - Samkaracarya under एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः (2-1-3) clearly says वैदिकमेव तत्र ज्ञानं ध्यानं च सांख्ययोगशब्दाभ्यां अभिलप्यते...।Elsewhere - न साहसमात्रेणापि योगः ..।

सांख्यम् --

यदि प्रधानमपि कल्प्यमानं श्रुत्यविरोधेन अव्याकृतादिशब्दवाच्यं भूतसूक्ष्मं परिकल्प्येत परिकल्प्यताम् (1-2-22).

Similarly one can refer to पञ्चविंशतितत्त्वानि in चरकसंहिता and सुश्रुतसंहिता ।

One may  refer to भगवद्गीता ( जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युः...)  while explaining क्षणप्रतियोगी .....क्रमः (यो सू 4-33) .

ध्न्यो’स्मि

--
Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I think there need be no doubt that there were other traditions of Yoga that have not come down through time. In brahmasUtrabhAshya 2.1.3, Sankara bhagavatpAda quotes अथ तत्त्वदर्शनोपायो योगः. It has often been remarked that this reads like the beginning of a lost yogasUtra text, which is obviously not patanjali's text that is extant today. Of course, the brahmasUtra bhAshya quotes at least two other sUtra-s that are present in the pAtanjala text as well (YS 1.6 is quoted under BS 2.4.12 and YS 2.44 is quoted under BS 1.3.33).

 

As for variant readings within a text, one should really place great emphasis on manuscript evidence, especially considering that the threads of oral transmission have been so deeply affected as to become almost extinct. Sadly, I don't see much inclination anywhere, whether in India or abroad, whether in university circles or in traditional scholar community circles, to engage in the necessary effort.

 

Finally, as for the yoga - vedanta historical timelines, I think the broad details are in place and that is the best that we can do or is even necessary. Legends that seek to make patanjali a direct guru of Sankara need not be given historical credence. They may make for charming kAvyas, but not much else. Similarly with the history of the language and its grammar. patanjali of the yoga tradition and patanjali of vyAkaraNa are usually equated only in a legendary fashion, not in a historical sense.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Dr. Sastry,

 

I would like to respond to the last point you make below, namely,

 

"Would the current Vedanta sampradaya schools be courageous enough to explore a  possibility  of Vedanta  ‘ primary ideology –approach’ reflected in seed form in  ‘Patanjali Yoga-Sutra 4-34’ ???  and acknowledge debt to Ashtanga yoga (2-27) practice  recommendation with Ishwara Pranidhana ( Yoga Sutra 2-1) ? "

 

The situation as I see it, is as follows. The traditional advaita vedAnta sampradAya does acknowledge the yoga darsana in more ways than one. Right in the SAnkara sUtrabhAshya as well as the bRhadAraNyaka bhAshya, one can find direct references to the yogasUtra-s, with positive textual citations being made, as well as discussions on the definition of yoga as nirodha of cittavRtti. The gItAbhAshya describes the amAnitvAdi qualities in the 13th chapter as yama and niyama, offering justification for why they are praised as jnAna. One doesn't have to search very hard to find positive references to all eight angas of yoga in the gItAbhAshya and one cannot dismiss all of these as being merely motivated by the source text itself. A careful reader will notice that Sankara's interpretations involving yoga often go much beyond what the bare text of the gItA requires. His disciple, sureSvara, the vArttikakAra, highly recommends yogAbhyAsa after initiation into saMnyAsa and the resultant inward focus of the citta as a necessary step in the rise of advaita jnAna  (naishkarmyasiddhi 1.52). In later times, vidyAraNyasvAmin is so liberal in making references to yoga that he has been labeled a "yogic advaitin" by academic scholars. And among the contemporary manifestations of vedAnta that are based on the advaita monastic tradition, none can fault the followers of Swami Vivekananda or Swami Sivananda or Paramahamsa Yogananda for not acknowledging an indebtedness to yoga. Indeed, these newer offshoots of the tradition get labeled as "neo-Vedanta" and are criticized for overly relying on yoga texts and personal experiences of samAdhi over a rigorous emphasis on the prasthAna traya texts.

 

Incidentally, you may recall that Paul Hacker and those who follow his lead describe Sankara himself has been described as a yogin who became an advaitin, thereby "explaining away" any and all influences of yoga on the main bhAshya texts. Meanwhile, many texts that are attributed to Sankara are rejected as non-genuine, precisely because they reveal influences of yoga (from the perspective of those who reject thus, not necessarily from the perspective of traditionalists). To make a long analysis short, let me just conclude by saying that this kind of problem between yoga and vedAnta seems to exist not so much for the traditional advaita vedAntin as much as for outsiders looking in. I cannot presume to comment about non-advaita schools in this regard, but to the best of my knowledge, the traditional leaders of these other vedAnta sampradAyas also commend yoga in multiple contexts and rely on yogasUtras as well as other yoga texts.

 

Not to indulge in self-promotion here, but I have addressed this issue in quite some detail in a chapter that I have contributed to the book, Yoga: The Indian Tradition, ed. Ian Whicher and David Carpenter, Routledge Curzon (2003), and also in my paper on textual authenticity in Philosophy East and West (2000).

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6256 - Release Date: 04/19/13c

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

It appears that when Patanjali said "Now the exposition of the Yoga" he was just acting as a teacher and that did not mean that he was the first teacher of Yoga. Historically Dattatreya was a much earlier teacher of Yoga and probably the first teacher of yoga, as seen from the concluding portion of the Dattatreya Yogashastra.

As regards Patanjali being the guru of Adi Shankaracharya that appears to be an impossible situation. The story that Gaudapada was a student of Patanjali could be possible and it could be that Govindapada need not be thought to be the direct disciple of Gaudapada, There could have been some intemediate teachers in between Gaudapada and Govindapada. The saying that Govindapada was an incarnation of Patanjali could mean that Govindapada was an authority of his time in the Panajali yoga.

Regards,

Sunil KB.

[Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail)]

Namaste Prof. Korada garu,

 

[ Using standard English scripting just for convenience of machine ! and keying in!)  Asking such questions could be a ‘ running in areas where Gods tread carefully !) ]

 

1. On the point < In fact , there is no room for doubt   >  , let us explore the logical – linguistic possibilities that emerge from PYS 4-34. I had touched only on last word to ensure the reading variation. The responses are coming using both ways – text variations, interpretations and construction of text.

 

2. Prof. Korada, you have given a scholarly reasoning and seems to have sided the reading ‘ chitishaktih’ (Prathamaa).  Astu.  Here are the anu-prashnAh ( as the privilege of a student asking more clarifications, with all due respects).

 

2a) The question is still in the time period prior to Acharya Shankara , and relating to what might have been the original reading and intention of the Sutra 4-34 ?  In other words, what are the valid  linguistic construction possibilities to explore the meaning of sutra 4-34,   before filtering the views with a reasoning.  

 

      Why a specific reading is preferred  in one school is a separate issue to deliberate. With this, if we need to keep the focus on the Sutra 4-34 and use the frame of Yoga-Sutra for internal consistency, what all options open up ? This is the line for exploring the  ‘anu-prashnAh’ .

 

Let me start with the main word of the sutra to which rest all words of this sutra and rest of the shaastra need to align.  Obviously the key  and final  word is ‘Kaivalyam’.  Rest of  words in sutra are ‘ tat-prati visheshanAH’ . The last sutra, as a summing up of the Yoga-Sutra, needs to give the final stand of Yoga-Darshana. Or it should say :  Here Yoga-anushAsana’ (1-1)  ends. From this point on wards, if there is a way, then it is not in this book. Or there is no ground for further  ‘anushAsana’ (- which suits the advaita position   and the reading chitishakteH  with saptami).

 

If we now start looking at the visheshaNa for the Kaivalyam , we have   following  possibilities: (2-1) Kaivalyam swaroopa-pratishThA  (2-2) Kaivalyam swaroopa-pratishThA  chitishakteH  (2-3) Kaivalyam ChitishaktiH ( if PrathamA) ( 2-4) Since the word ‘ChitishaktiH’  may not be the exact equivalent of  ‘jeeva’/ Chitta, the  option of  ‘Kaivalyam ChitishakteH’ is not being explored.  (2-5)  Kaivalyam guNAnAM pratiprasavaH  (2-6) Kaivalyam purushArtha-shoonyAnaAM  gunAnAM pratiprsavaH.

 

In (2-6) again, the classical model is taking the samasyamAna –padas   as ‘ purush+ Artha + shoonya’ .

 

AnuprashNAH here would be:    why this model of samAsa ? Why not  dvandva / yoga-vibhAga – with three words leading to different anvayas :

 

(2-6-1) purusha-    pratiprasavaH – In which case, purusha would be the chit /chitishakteh aadhaarah/gunaadhaarah )-  उपाधीनाम् अपाये उपाधिमान् केवलः भवति किल - तदेव कैवल्यम् | Here प्रतिप्रसवः is merging (in व्याकरणम् it is बाधकबाधकः) - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे । The kevala – concept is common to Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism. The explanation of swaroopa of this ‘Kevalin’  seems to be different in different schools.

 

(2-6-2) arthaAnAM    pratiprasavaH -   leading to regeneration of Prakruti      - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे ।

 

 

(2-6-3)  shoonya –pratiprasavaH – (Buddhist view is a off shoot of this option) Vijnana vAda

 

3.    Would now the construction  < ’वा’ is in ’अवधारणम्’ (= निश्चयः) ।  >  be multiple possibilities and acceptable Yoga-Streams as a result of ‘ anu-shAsanam’  (PYS- 1-1)  as streamed in to four models of (2-1) as Tapas –Swadhyaya –Ishvara pranidhana –kriyaa ?   Where the undefined word ‘Chittaa’ ( in 1-2) can be freely constructed according to each darshana sahastra ?

 

Further locking up these for Anvaya with svaroopa –pratishThA is another expansion option on this, after resolving these issues.  And this will be the question on what is ‘ svaroopa’ – sva  part and roopa part ? prati –part as upasarga  and Sh Thaa –gati-nivruttau dhatu giving different interpretation flavors ??

 

Please clarify and help for better understanding.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6257 - Release Date: 04/19/13

[Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail)]

Namaste

 

1. The historicity issues are really sensitive and trigger knee jerk reactions. I respect the sampradya; but let us not bring pre /post points of Dattatreya and Patanjali here. Gita, Upanishads,Brahma Sutra are good enough anchors for this post/pre- time line ordering.

 

2.    Patanjali never said  that he was the first teacher; The interesting point is PYS does not refer to ANY other Yogacharaya /Guru of past, any specific text, which is a key point you see in Brahma Sutras Or Jaimini. The entire work could have been written just yesterday or a thousand years before Gita !  or as a supplement of Brahma Sutra !   There are no clues in the frame of Yoga-Sutra text itself. It is a clean simple self complete text.

 

3.  The question raised by me is specific :How do we ascertain what text-reading, what interpretation school, what sampradaya of practice was the anchor of Patanjali Yoga Sutra text as we have it now ? And in specific reference to YS 4-34, concluding the discourse ?

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2013.0.3272 / Virus Database: 3162/6265 - Release Date: 04/22/13

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste

 

1. The historicity issues are really sensitive and trigger knee jerk reactions. I respect the sampradya; but let us not bring pre /post points of Dattatreya and Patanjali here. Gita, Upanishads,Brahma Sutra are good enough anchors for this post/pre- time line ordering.

 

2.    Patanjali never said  that he was the first teacher; The interesting point is PYS does not refer to ANY other Yogacharaya /Guru of past, any specific text, which is a key point you see in Brahma Sutras Or Jaimini. The entire work could have been written just yesterday or a thousand years before Gita !  or as a supplement of Brahma Sutra !   There are no clues in the frame of Yoga-Sutra text itself. It is a clean simple self complete text.

Maybe this sutra gives a clue to the existence of a tradition before Patanjali:

स पूर्वेषामपि गुरुः कालेनानवच्छेदात्॥२६॥ sa eṣaḥ pūrveṣām api guruḥ kālena anavacchedāt sa = sah – He; eṣaḥ – this particular person; pūrveṣām – of those before, previous authorities, the ancient teachers; api – even; guruḥ – the spiritual teacher; kālena – by time; anavacchedāt – unconditioned.

subrahmanian.v
 

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>

> 1. Do I take that you are pointing from the specific references below that Advaita schools have specific model of ‘Yoga-Practice Acceptance included in the Siddhanta and abhyasa –anushthana’; but the Yoga as a ‘Shastra’ ending at the ‘ Purusha-Prakruti’  border is what is rejected ?

>

> It is here that I have a question.

>

> IF  <Gita was a tradition of Yoga Shastra> for centuries beyond Patanjali and a < derivative of Veda-Upanishads> heralding < Vednata of all three flavors>; and categorically substantiated and aligned by the Brahma-Sutra discussions ( which would be way before a historic date of Patanjali>  

>

> THEN   (a) How can Yoga sutra ascribed to Patanjali, be constructed to  project a different stream of Yoga teaching, to be rejected   under < etena yogah pratyuktah>   and in the same breath,  in a different chapter pick a preferred interpretation  of  yoga and include it as ‘yoga-vedanta sampradaya’ ?  ‘ vedanta- vijnana –sunishitaarthah, sannyasa-yogaat yatayah shuddha satvah, te brahma loke tu paraanta-kaale, paraamrutaat parimuchyante sarve’ ?  - is it a medley of concepts ??  

>

 

A careful reading of the शाङ्करभाष्य under एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः shows that the rejection of Yoga within the seminal construction of advaita vedAnta as a दर्शन is only partial. He explicitly says, about both Samkhya and Yoga, येनांशेन न विरुध्येते तेनेष्टमेव. The rest of this passage lays down in what sense a virodha exists and in what sense there is no virodha between non-dualistic vedAnta (based on the prasthAna traya source texts) and the firmly dualistic Samkhya and Yoga trends of thought (based on smRti texts and the yukti of individual thinkers of these schools). At least as far as advaita is concerned, what is rejected is (a) a plurality of purusha-s and (b) an ultimately real and distinct existence of prakRti. All other aspects where common ground can be found are indeed acceptable, under the nyAya, परमतमप्रतिषिद्धमनुमतं भवति (cited just before quoting yogasUtra 1.6). Commenting on the gItA allows Sankara an opportunity to do a higher order synthesis, while the bRhadAraNyaka line आत्मेत्येवोपासीत allows a discussion on how निष्ठा in advaita jnAna is itself the only sure means to nirodha of citta-vRtti.

 

What comes across as a medley of concepts is the पूर्वपक्ष presented by the pre-Sankaran vedAntin, who proposes to apply the Purva Mimamsa conception of vidhi to the Yoga goal of cittavRtti nirodha and wants to read the Upanishads as if they enjoin cittavRtti nirodha as a means to moksha. This medley of disparate concepts is rejected in the discussion under आत्मेत्येवोपासीत,  based on a core thesis from the same Upanishads, namely that the AtmA is already existent, is always present in any cognition (even by the one who calls himself an ajnAnI) and is not a result of any action. So, in the advaita vedAnta interpretation, there can be no vidhi to realize one's own self, except in a very figurative sense. The advaitin's rejection of Purva Mimamsa in these matters is much more striking than any rejection of Yoga under एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः. For non-advaita schools, which do not quite see the non-agency of the self in the same way, there can surely be other ways to acknowledge the concepts and practices of Yoga.

 

So, at least to me, it is clear that not only were there probably multiple traditions of Yoga, there were also multiple traditions of vedAnta since ancient times. What Sankara and his disciples consolidated is one of those traditions. The later developments of non-advaita sampradAyas of vedAnta certainly picked up on lines of thought that probably had been preserved within small communities that held on to them, if eclipsed for few centuries by the appeal of advaita vedAnta.

 

> The logical options open are :

>

>  

>

> (a)  There were many yoga  traditions with many concluding positions  on what is  ‘Samadhi –Kaivalya –swaroopa pratishtha’  as final attainable, progressively,  from yoga-anushaasana - abhyasa.   Does these concepts map fully to the  ‘Moksha /Atma Jnana /Brahma jnana’ – the pole star concepts of Upanishads held by Vedanta schools ? ; Each Acharya  sampradaya seems to have picked what stream of yoga would benefit their final stand as ‘Siddhanta’.

>

>  

>

> (b)   The yoga-Sutra-kaara might have a projected a distinct yoga postulate from Gita and Upanishads – as a common set acceptable to all samprdayas  ; which puts Patanjali as Yoga-Sutra-Kaara ( and commentators of this text)  making it a  unique stream of  Sarva- Shaastra –darshana –anushaasana  ? Even when it was not gelling with vedanta sampradaya .  

>

>  

>

> Fine and so what ?  YogaSutra is not dependent on any inheritance legacy texts or revelation ; YS is not mentioning or drawing any recourse to Upanishads and Gita or Brahma Sutras . The word swadhyaya can be stand alone and interpreted as study of one s own sacred text /Study of  ‘self ( =sva)/stud by self ( svatah, svasya adhyaayah); which Is perfectly in hamony with Vedanta as  ‘Shaareeraka darshana’ .  

>

 

Yogasutra does have Agama as one of the pramANa-s. That it is not so heavily dependent on Sruti is precisely what can allow vedAnta schools to incorporate as much or as little of Yoga as needed for their paths to moksha.

 

>  

>

> Does this situation make ‘yoga-Sutra’ as a ‘Practical of Brahma Sutra’ ::  The Anushaasana sampradaya   for a Jijnaasaa –meemaamsaa paramparaa ? What is the undercurrent of this between Patanjali and Acharya Shankara ? You have pointed the Post Shankara continuity and blend of this till Vdyaranya.

>

 

I look at this in a slightly different way. Rather than thinking of vedAnta texts as theory and yoga texts as practical manuals, what happens in the advaita paramparA circles is that the brahmasUtra derived line of thinking is about organizing scripture in order to study it, while the yogasUtra and other texts pertain to the personal requirements that lead to fruition. Ultimately, all said and done, as far as someone searching for liberation is concerned, the jnAna conveyed by a text, even as exalted as the veda, needs to become one's own personal, non-mediated jnAna.

 

And again, the utility of yoga study and practice for the purposes of vedAnta is acknowledged right in the brahmasUtra bhAshya, under the adhikaraNa beginning with आसीनः सम्भवात्, with a comment that padma and other Asana-s are taught so as to enable a jijnAsu's sAdhana.

 

>  

>

> c) Where did we loose  the stream of studying Bhagavad-Gita as a Yoga-Shaastra, in India, in shaastra-sampradaya schools, in the prior period,  before  the segmented popularization of Yoga in west by the yoga-gurus and making Gita as a four-yoga stream lane ?   and then a religious text of Hinduism ?  

>

 

Within traditional circles, we have never lost it, I would think. This problem really afflicts those among us who are, in Agehananda Bharati's words, subject to the "pizza effect". A large number of us Indians, from the communities that should have sustained these traditions through the last couple of centuries, suffer from a complex that values our own only after it comes back to us, with "value-added" pricing, from America or Europe. And it has to come back from white-skinned folk, for the value to be perceived, not necessarily from Indians who have emigrated to these continents. This is a hard fact of contemporary Indian reality, which we would do well to acknowledge and address.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

In case you want to sustain ' चितिशक्तेः’ (षष्ठी) , following भोजवृत्ति or even व्यासभाष्यम्  - ’ चितिशक्तिरेव केवला तस्याः सदा तथैव अवस्थानं कैवल्यमिति’ -- then it can be like this --

चितिशक्तेः स्वरूपेण प्रतिष्ठा अवस्थानम् कैवल्यम्  - भेदेन अन्वयः ।

’ स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा चितिशक्तिः ’ - स्वरूपेण प्रतिष्ठा यस्याः सा , तादृशी चितिशक्तिः , तस्या तादृशावस्थानमेव कैवल्यम्  - अभेदेन अन्वयः ।

स्वम् = आत्मा , स्वस्य रूपम् स्वरूपम् । तस्य प्रतिष्ठा । ’ स्वो ज्ञातौ आत्मनि स्वं ’ इत्यमरः ।

कूटस्थनित्यः पुरुषः , प्रकृतिः (परिणामिनी) मायारूपा । महाप्रलये - ’ भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्तिः’ ( श्वेता 1-10) - इति सर्वव्यापारनिवृत्तिः।

If we now start looking at the visheshaNa for the Kaivalyam , we have   following  possibilities: (2-1) Kaivalyam swaroopa-pratishThA  (2-2) Kaivalyam swaroopa-pratishThA  chitishakteH  (2-3) Kaivalyam ChitishaktiH ( if PrathamA) ( 2-4) Since the word ‘ChitishaktiH’  may not be the exact equivalent of  ‘jeeva’/ Chitta, the  option of  ‘Kaivalyam ChitishakteH’ is not being explored.  (2-5)  Kaivalyam guNAnAM pratiprasavaH  (2-6) Kaivalyam purushArtha-shoonyAnaAM  gunAnAM pratiprsavaH.

2.1 कैवल्यं स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा - this will not do - कस्य स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा ? इति प्रश्ने समाधानाभावात्   - पुरुषस्य एव न तु प्रकृतेः - इत्यत्र विनिगमकाभावात् ( विनिगमकम्  = एकपक्षयुक्तिसाधकम्)

2.2  कैवल्यं स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा चितिशक्तेः -  of course ,  this will do .

2.3 कैवल्यं चितिशक्तिः - this will not do - if  चितिशक्ति is associated with something , ie without स्वरूप्रतिष्ठा , it cannot be कैवल्यम् ।

2.4 चितिशक्तिः न जीवः न वा चित्तम् , अतः ’ कैवल्यम् चितिशक्तेः’ इति  न प्रतिजानीमः -- there is no  clear कार्यकारणभाव , so हेतौ पञ्चमी  cannot be there.

2.5 कैवल्यं  गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः - this will not do -- without any reason such as पुरुषार्थशून्यत्वम्  we cannot expect गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः , just like that .

2.6 कैवल्यं पुरुषार्थशून्यानां गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः - of course this is there.

 

In (2-6) again, the classical model is taking the samasyamAna –padas   as ‘ purush+ Artha + shoonya’ .

AnuprashNAH here would be:    why this model of samAsa ? Why not  dvandva / yoga-vibhAga – with three words leading to different anvayas :

 There is no room for द्वन्द्व - ie पुरुषाणाम् अर्थाः , तैः शून्याः , तेषाम् 

(2-6-1) purusha-    pratiprasavaH – In which case, purusha would be the chit /chitishakteh aadhaarah/gunaadhaarah )-  उपाधीनाम् अपाये उपाधिमान्केवलः भवति किल - तदेव कैवल्यम् | Here प्रतिप्रसवः is merging (in व्याकरणम् it isबाधकबाधकः) - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे । The kevala – concept is common to Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism. The explanation of swaroopa of this ‘Kevalin’  seems to be different in different schools.

one should not try to draw analogy between two Darsanas simply depending upon the similarity of terminological words .

(2-6-2) arthaAnAM    pratiprasavaH -   leading to regeneration of Prakruti      - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे ।

one cannot carve out a word that is already involved in वृत्ति (here it is समासवृत्ति) and construe with another word - अर्थवत्समासः। In such a case the original meaning is lost .

(2-6-3)  shoonya –pratiprasavaH – (Buddhist view is a off shoot of this option) Vijnana vAda

 the same as above.

3.    Would now the construction  < ’वा’ is in ’अवधारणम्’ (= निश्चयः) ।  >  be multiple possibilities and acceptable Yoga-Streams as a result of ‘ anu-shAsanam’  (PYS- 1-1)  as streamed in to four models of (2-1) as Tapas –Swadhyaya –Ishvara pranidhana –kriyaa ?   Where the undefined word ‘Chittaa’ ( in 1-2) can be freely constructed according to each darshana sahastra ?

this goes  against the tenets of Yogasastram.

Further locking up these for Anvaya with svaroopa –pratishThA is another expansion option on this, after resolving these issues.  And this will be the question on what is ‘ svaroopa’ – sva  part and roopa part ? prati –part as upasarga  and Sh Thaa –gati-nivruttau dhatu giving different interpretation flavors ??

 स्वरूपम् is already explained . प्रतिष्ठा  is a रूढशब्द in the sense of अवस्थानम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Patanajali Yoga Sutra : 4-34 : Is there a variant reading ?

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

 

Thanks for the details. punaH AkshepaH kriyate -  the indented parts below would need clarification. Please excuse me for drawing out more and more on this thread of discussion.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :

 

***********

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:24 PM, subrahmanyam korada <kora...@gmail.com> wrote:

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

In case you want to sustain ' चितिशक्तेः’ (षष्ठी) , following भोजवृत्ति or even व्यासभाष्यम्  - ’ चितिशक्तिरेव केवला तस्याः सदा तथैव अवस्थानं कैवल्यमिति’ -- then it can be like this --

चितिशक्तेः स्वरूपेण प्रतिष्ठा अवस्थानम् कैवल्यम्  - भेदेन अन्वयः ।

’ स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा चितिशक्तिः ’ - स्वरूपेण प्रतिष्ठा यस्याः सा , तादृशी चितिशक्तिः , तस्या तादृशावस्थानमेव कैवल्यम्  - अभेदेन अन्वयः ।

स्वम् = आत्मा , स्वस्य रूपम् स्वरूपम् । तस्य प्रतिष्ठा । ’ स्वो ज्ञातौ आत्मनि स्वं ’ इत्यमरः ।

कूटस्थनित्यः पुरुषः , प्रकृतिः (परिणामिनी) मायारूपा । महाप्रलये - ’ भूयश्चान्ते विश्वमायानिवृत्तिः’ ( श्वेता 1-10) - इति सर्वव्यापारनिवृत्तिः।

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :  Here the question is not what I want. The question is what the sutra is capable of giving out as (a)  lingusitic construction per se  (b) As Intrinsic harmony of the text  (c) As understood in the Yoga-Shastra tradition (d) As understood by other Shaastra-darshanas for making the aakshepa and rejecting <etena yogaH pratuktaH> ?

 

***********

If we now start looking at the visheshaNa for the Kaivalyam , we have   following  possibilities: (2-1) Kaivalyam swaroopa-pratishThA  (2-2) Kaivalyam swaroopa-pratishThA  chitishakteH  (2-3) Kaivalyam ChitishaktiH ( if PrathamA) ( 2-4) Since the word ‘ChitishaktiH’  may not be the exact equivalent of  ‘jeeva’/ Chitta, the  option of  ‘Kaivalyam ChitishakteH’ is not being explored.  (2-5)  Kaivalyam guNAnAM pratiprasavaH  (2-6) Kaivalyam purushArtha-shoonyAnaAM  gunAnAM pratiprsavaH.

2.1 कैवल्यं स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा - this will not do - कस्य स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा ? इति प्रश्ने समाधानाभावात्   - पुरुषस्य एव न तु प्रकृतेः - इत्यत्र विनिगमकाभावात् ( विनिगमकम्  = एकपक्षयुक्तिसाधकम्)

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :  The concept of <Purushasya eva, na tu PrakruteH> - equally applies to Prakruti part also.  <PrakruteH swaroopa-pratishThaa = Purushasya Kaivalyam > ?!     Only the question would be :Is Praakruti the <active agent - swatantraH kartaa/kartree> . Once Purusha-Prakruti samyoga is resolved - i.e. 100% separation of Purusha from entanglement with Prakruti, it also means 100% Prarkuti is < Established in it self = prakruteH swa-roop-pratishthaa >. May be that is not the traditonal view, holding on to the ' purusha-kartRutva' approach. In which case, Prakruti - following the Tantra Or the Maayaa model, frees the Purusha from her holds (Eg ; Devi saptashati   :   harinetra-krutaalayaa maayaa ..)

The 'Purusha Moksha/Kaivalya' - statement is an image of Prarkruti moksha' also.Both ned to occur simultaneously. It is not Purusha Kaivalya and Prarkuti in bandhana.

 

***********

2.2  कैवल्यं स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा चितिशक्तेः -  of course ,  this will do .

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :  Please explain. If i translate this sentence, it appears like < Kaivalya is swaroopa-pratishThaa of Chitishakti > ; and what is <chitishakti> ?  Why not just <chiteH>  ? What is the difference between kevalaa chit and < shaktimat -  Chit> 

 

***********

2.3 कैवल्यं चितिशक्तिः - this will not do - if  चितिशक्ति is associated with something , ie without स्वरूप्रतिष्ठा , it cannot be कैवल्यम् ।

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :  Here , there is a difficulty within yoga-sutra text itself. The word < Kaivlyam>  is defined in two other sutras earlier as below:

 

(3-55)sattva-purushayoh shuddhi-sAmye kaivalyam  iti (Notice the dvivachana  and dvandva)

3-50) tad-vairaagyaadapi dosha-beeja-kshaye kaivalyam

 

Why three phased definitions of the same technical word <Kaivalyam> ? in two different sections - as a Siddhi in third (vibhuti) paada  and final goal in fourth (kaivalya) pada, concluding the Yoga-discourse? Is this a progressive journey from <samadhi> so much totued for the Jeevanmukti criterion  and beyond < from Samadhi to Kaivalya , about which not many even mention in the current period ?  Is this some thing that Yogopanishads take up as a journey  to ' Avadhoota phase' from ' parama hamsa-parivrajaka' phase ?

 

***********

2.4 चितिशक्तिः न जीवः न वा चित्तम् , अतः ’ कैवल्यम् चितिशक्तेः’ इति  न प्रतिजानीमः -- there is no  clear कार्यकारणभाव , so हेतौ पञ्चमी  cannot be there.

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :  Why?  How?  What is < chitishakti> beyond a < vRutti>  in relation to <Jeeva>  in Yoga sutra ?

 

Is Jeeva -bhAva same as ' a <Chitta-vRutti-sthti>, a shell mode, a  koha / aavaraNa -    where in a deeper, yet specific yoga of Purusha-Prakruti is  yielding a <sva-roopa>  in terms of Yoga-sutra 1-4: tada draShTuH swa-roope  avashtanam ; 1-3 :  vRutti sAroopyam itaratra > is operating> ?    

 

 Given the fact that in the Yoga-sutra, the word <chitta> is not defined ? 

 

There are concpets like < nimrANa chittani> - (4-4) -nirmANa-chittAnyasmitA - mAtrAt

 

Who is the < Master -owner of the vRutti  and Chitta as vRuttyAdhaara   >  -  in relation to the sutra < 4-18 :   sadA  jnAtaaH chitta-vRuttayaH  tat-prabhoh purushasya -pariNAmitvAt>

 

 

 

***********

2.5 कैवल्यं  गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः - this will not do -- without any reason such as पुरुषार्थशून्यत्वम्  we cannot expect गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः , just like that .

 

2.6 कैवल्यं पुरुषार्थशून्यानां गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः - of course this is there.

 

In (2-6) again, the classical model is taking the samasyamAna –padas   as ‘ purush+ Artha + shoonya’ .

AnuprashNAH here would be:    why this model of samAsa ? Why not  dvandva / yoga-vibhAga – with three words leading to different anvayas :

 There is no room for द्वन्द्व - ie पुरुषाणाम् अर्थाः , तैः शून्याः , तेषाम् 

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :     <There is no room> ? If  <samAsa> is by < vivkShaatah>,? The classic example of < neelotpalam> ? The existing schools have preferred a reading. that is fine as a <sampradaya>. but does it rule out the < possibility>? and if there is a possibility, how is it refuted ?

 

 

***********

(2-6-1) purusha-    pratiprasavaH – In which case, purusha would be the chit /chitishakteh aadhaarah/gunaadhaarah )-  उपाधीनाम् अपाये उपाधिमान्केवलः भवति किल - तदेव कैवल्यम् | Here प्रतिप्रसवः is merging (in व्याकरणम् it isबाधकबाधकः) - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे । The kevala – concept is common to Vedanta, Buddhism and Jainism. The explanation of swaroopa of this ‘Kevalin’  seems to be different in different schools.

one should not try to draw analogy between two Darsanas simply depending upon the similarity of terminological words .

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :    

I agree with you on the valid point that common terminology across Shaastra platforms should not be used for analogy. Here i am pointing to the word 'Kaivalyam' within the frame of the Yoga-sutra accepted text . References above.

 

 

***********

(2-6-2) arthaAnAM    pratiprasavaH -   leading to regeneration of Prakruti      - कुत्र ? स्वकारणे ।

one cannot carve out a word that is already involved in वृत्ति (here it is समासवृत्ति) and construe with another word - अर्थवत्समासः। In such a case the original meaning is lost .

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :     What is already in <vRutti> is not a limiting facotr for the wide meaning and scope of the sutra itself ? Mahabhshya points to this primacy of sutra over interpretation. The original meaning construction is within the context of Yoga-sutra text; The Bhashya is a next level recourse.

 

***********

(2-6-3)  shoonya –pratiprasavaH – (Buddhist view is a off shoot of this option) Vijnana vAda

 the same as above.

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :    covered above.

***********

3.    Would now the construction  < ’वा’ is in ’अवधारणम्’ (= निश्चयः) ।  >  be multiple possibilities and acceptable Yoga-Streams as a result of ‘ anu-shAsanam’  (PYS- 1-1)  as streamed in to four models of (2-1) as Tapas –Swadhyaya –Ishvara pranidhana –kriyaa ?   Where the undefined word ‘Chittaa’ ( in 1-2) can be freely constructed according to each darshana sahastra ?

this goes  against the tenets of Yogasastram.

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :    < Against the tenets of yogasutram, as understood> - Yes. But the question is : Is the interpretation consistent within the Sutra context itslef ? 

 

If one line of yoga-sutra interpreters 9like interpreters of Brahma sutra   rejeted the other view, that is fine. It does not rule out the valid possibility from sutra itself.

 

***********

Further locking up these for Anvaya with svaroopa –pratishThA is another expansion option on this, after resolving these issues.  And this will be the question on what is ‘ svaroopa’ – sva  part and roopa part ? prati –part as upasarga  and Sh Thaa –gati-nivruttau dhatu giving different interpretation flavors ??

 स्वरूपम् is already explained . प्रतिष्ठा  is a रूढशब्द in the sense of अवस्थानम्

 

***********

^^^^^^^^^^^

BVK Sastry (on   ) :     How do we decide a < rUDa -shabda> ?     The discussions in another thread on <akShara> has shown how uNadi sutras can be used in a different way !

Why should <gati-samAsa> option be ruled   out here? technically ??

--

 

[subrahmanyam korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

 Here the question is not what I want. The question is what the sutra is capable of giving out as (a)  lingusitic construction per se  (b) As Intrinsic harmony of the text  (c) As understood in the Yoga-Shastra tradition (d) As understood by other Shaastra-darshanas for making the aakshepa and rejecting <etena yogaH pratuktaH> ?

This is the style (शैली) of शास्त्रम् - ’you want' means 'if the opponent insists on the other reading' .

 As has been exhibited , both , प्रथमा and पञ्चमी , thru  भेद  and अभेद , mean the same .

ओमित्येकाक्षरं ब्रह्म - शब्दार्थयोः तादात्म्यम्  - ओम् = ब्रह्म (भेदे सति अभेदाध्यवसायः- शब्दस्य वाचकः अर्थः इति भेदः - 

 तादात्म्यं  च तद्भिन्नत्वे सति तदभेदेन प्रतीयमानत्वम् (मञ्जूषा)

तस्य वाचकः प्रणवः (यो सू) - अत्र भेदेन वस्तुप्रदर्श्नम् - वाच्यवाचकभावः।

वृद्धिरादैच् (पाणिनि 1-1-1) - आदैचः वृद्धिपदाभिन्नाः / वृद्धिपदम् आदैचां वाचकः ।

If we strictly follow योगानुशासनम् - शब्द एव अर्थः , अर्थ एव ज्ञानम् , ज्ञानमेव शब्दः -- गौरिति शब्दः , गौरित्यर्थः, गौरिति  ज्ञानम् --

शब्दार्थप्रत्ययानामितरेतराध्यासात् सङ्करः तत्प्रविभागसंयमात् सर्वभूतरुतज्ञानम् (यो सू 3-17)

So in any case we can justify the Sutra.

I have already quoted Samkarabhasyam on ’एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः’ - that does not mean that altogether योगानुशासनम्  is rejected - the प्रधानम् / प्रकृति is not acceptable - rather since श्रुति says - श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निदिध्यासितव्यः , one should go for योग ।

The concept of <Purushasya eva, na tu PrakruteH> - equally applies to Prakruti part also.  <PrakruteH swaroopa-pratishThaa = Purushasya Kaivalyam > ?!     Only the question would be :Is Praakruti the <active agent - swatantraH kartaa/kartree> . Once Purusha-Prakruti samyoga is resolved - i.e. 100% separation of Purusha from entanglement with Prakruti, it also means 100% Prarkuti is < Established in it self = prakruteH swa-roop-pratishthaa >. May be that is not the traditonal view, holding on to the ' purusha-kartRutva' approach. In which case, Prakruti - following the Tantra Or the Maayaa model, frees the Purusha from her holds (Eg ; Devi saptashati   :   harinetra-krutaalayaa maayaa ..)

The 'Purusha Moksha/Kaivalya' - statement is an image of Prarkruti moksha' also.Both ned to occur simultaneously. It is not Purusha Kaivalya and Prarkuti in bandhana.

It is clearly stated - पुरुषार्थशून्यानां गुणानां प्रतिप्रसवः - Gunas , without पुरुषार्थ , merged in प्रकृति/प्रधानम् । प्रकृति has got परिणामनित्यता - तत्त्वं विहन्यते ।

Once प्रकृति got separated , पुरुष became केवलः and he is कूटस्थनित्यः - तत्त्वं न विहन्यते - and we are concerned about such a मोक्ष , not  प्रकृति any longer.

Here one should take individual cases , because the संसार is अनादि and it continues like that --

Mimamsakas won't accept प्रलय , Vedantins do , but again there will be सृष्टि ।

 Please explain. If i translate this sentence, it appears like < Kaivalya is swaroopa-pratishThaa of Chitishakti > ; and what is <chitishakti> ?  Why not just <chiteH>  ? What is the difference between kevalaa chit and < shaktimat -  Chit> 

The fact is that -- शक्तिः कारकम् is the सिद्धान्त  -- परशुना छिनत्ति - it is not the द्रव्यम् , परशु , that is cutting , rather it is the शक्ति that is there in the द्रव्यम्, परशु |

’ शक्तिशक्तिमतोः अभेदः’ - in other words द्रव्यम् and शक्ति are not different .

 Here , there is a difficulty within yoga-sutra text itself. The word < Kaivlyam>  is defined in two other sutras earlier as below:

 

कैवल्यम्  in गुणाधिकारसमाप्ति is said earlier . Now कैवल्यस्वरूपम् is clearly stated - this is the difference - Sastras run like this - tackling different aspects from different angles.

 Why?  How?  What is < chitishakti> beyond a < vRutti>  in relation to <Jeeva>  in Yoga sutra ?

 

Is Jeeva -bhAva same as ' a <Chitta-vRutti-sthti>, a shell mode, a  koha / aavaraNa -    where in a deeper, yet specific yoga of Purusha-Prakruti is  yielding a <sva-roopa>  in terms of Yoga-sutra 1-4: tada draShTuH swa-roope  avashtanam ; 1-3 :  vRutti sAroopyam itaratra > is operating> ?    

 

 Given the fact that in the Yoga-sutra, the word <chitta> is not defined ? 

 

चित्तम्  is मनस् , it need not be defined - it is there in जीव --

व्यासभाष्यम् (1-2) - चित्तं हि प्रख्याप्रवृत्तिस्थितिशीलत्वात् त्रिगुणम् - it is the resort of सत्त्व, रजस् and तमस् ।

1-4 is the same as 4-34 - see the व्यासभाष्यम् - स्वरूपप्रतिष्ठा तदानीं चितिशक्तिः यथा कैवल्ये ।

 What is already in <vRutti> is not a limiting facotr for the wide meaning and scope of the sutra itself ? Mahabhshya points to this primacy of sutra over interpretation. The original meaning construction is within the context of Yoga-sutra text; The Bhashya is a next level recourse.

 

'व्याख्याअनतो विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः न हि सन्देहादलक्षणम्’ - this norm (परिभाषा) applies in every Sastra - there has been अविच्छिन्नगुरुशिष्यपरंपरा and we depend on that .If one is capable enough he may go for further  interpretation/elaboration . The above परिभाषा is quoted by Patanjali in Mahabhasyam.

 < Against the tenets of yogasutram, as understood> - Yes. But the question is : Is the interpretation consistent within the Sutra context itslef ? 

 

If one line of yoga-sutra interpreters 9like interpreters of Brahma sutra   rejeted the other view, that is fine. It does not rule out the valid possibility from sutra itself.

There is no comparison between Brahmasutras and Yogasutras in terms of interpretation and it is obvious .

 How do we decide a < rUDa -shabda> ?     The discussions in another thread on <akShara> has shown how uNadi sutras can be used in a different way !

Why should <gati-samAsa> option be ruled   out here? technically ??

रूढशब्द is already discussed in other threads - -

प्रकृष्टा वीणा यस्य सः प्रवीणः -  is the derivative meaning - यौगिकार्थः । But it is popularly used in the sense of निपुणः - so प्रवीणः is a रूढशब्द - रूढिः = प्रसिद्धिः।

कुशान् लाति इति कुशलः -- but it is popularly used in the sense of निपुणः।

तैलं पिबतीति तैलपायिका = cockroach - it never sucks oil .

'गतिश्च’ (1-4-59) is a संज्ञा given to प्रादयः(प्रादय उपसर्गाः क्रियायोगे 1-4-58) , कुगतिप्रादयः(2-2-18) is the समासविधायकसूत्रम् --

examples -- व्याकरणम् , न्यायः etc.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

A careful reading of the शाङ्करभाष्य under एतेन योगः प्रत्युक्तः shows that the rejection of Yoga within the seminal construction of advaita vedAnta as a दर्शन is only partial. He explicitly says, about both Samkhya and Yoga, येनांशेन न विरुध्येते तेनेष्टमेव.

In the Prashnopanishad 5.1 bhashyam Shankaracharya says this about  dhyAnam:

..आत्मप्रययसन्तानाविच्छेदो भिन्नजातीयप्रत्ययान्तराखिलीकृतो निर्वातस्थदीपशिखासमोऽभिध्यानशब्दार्थः । सत्यब्रह्मचर्याहिंसापरिग्रहत्यागसंन्यासशौचसन्तोषामायावित्वाद्यनेकयमनियमानुगृहीतः स एवं यावज्जीवव्रतधारणः ....।

//The meaning of the term 'abhidhyAna' (of this mantra), intense meditation, is to have such an unbroken current of the idea of self-identification (with the object of meditation) as is not vitiated by other states of consciousness of a different order, and which is comparable to the (unflickering) flame of a lamp in a windless place. (the aspirant) who undertakes such a lifelong vow, aided by such multifarious forms of yama and niyama (i.e.control of body and organs, and observance of moral injunctions)  as truthfulness, abstinence from sexual pleasure, non-injury, non-acceptance of presents, dispassion, monasticism, cleanliness (purity), cओntentment, absence of dissimulation, etc.//

We can observe here that Shankara is alluding to the 'yama' and 'niyama' of the Patanjali Yoga sutras:

Yama: ahimsA, satyam, asteyam, aparigrahaH, brahmacharyam.

niyama: shaucha, santoSha, IshwarapraNidhAna, svAdhyAya, tapas.

Shankara is mentioning a few of these as representative and also adds: aneka, several, such aids.  That shows that the members under yama and niyama listed by Patanjali too are not exhaustive; he too has provided a representative list.

subrahmanian.v