niyamas of bhakti yoga

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Patanjali's definition is quite acceptable, but it seems to be a little vague and universal. To be more precise, the Bhagavatam's and Gita's definitions or more specific:

 

amanitvam adambhitvam

ahimsa ksantir arjavam

acaryopasanam saucam

sthairyam atma-vinigrahah

 

indriyarthesu vairagyam

anahankara eva ca

janma-mrtyu-jara-vyadhi-

duhkha-dosanudarsanam

 

asaktir anabhisvangah

putra-dara-grhadisu

nityam ca sama-cittatvam

istanistopapattisu

 

mayi cananya-yogena

bhaktir avyabhicarini

vivikta-desa-sevitvam

aratir jana-samsadi

 

adhyatma-jnana-nityatvam

tattva-jnanartha-darsanam

etaj jnanam iti proktam

ajnanam yad ato 'nyatha

 

"Humility, pridelessness, nonviolence, tolerance, simplicity, approaching a bona fide spiritual master, cleanliness, steadiness and self-control; renunciation of the objects of sense gratification, absence of false ego, the perception of the evil of birth, death, old age and disease; nonattachment to children, wife, home and the rest, and even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events; constant and unalloyed devotion to Me, resorting to solitary places, detachment from the general mass of people; accepting the importance of self-realization, and philosophical search for the Absolute Truth--all these I thus declare to be knowledge, and what is contrary to these is ignorance."

 

(Gita 13:8-12)

 

Bhagavatam 6.1.13-14:

 

tapasa brahmacaryena

samena ca damena ca

tyagena satya-saucabhyam

yamena niyamena va

 

deha-vag-buddhijam dhira

dharmajnah sraddhayanvitah

ksipanty agham mahad api

venu-gulmam ivanalah

 

"To concentrate the mind, one must observe a life of celibacy and not fall down. One must undergo the austerity of voluntarily giving up sense enjoyment. One must then control the mind and senses, give charity, be truthful, clean and nonviolent, follow the regulative principles and regularly chant the holy name of the Lord. Thus a sober and faithful person who knows the religious principles is temporarily purified of all sins performed with his body, words and mind. These sins are like the dried leaves of creepers beneath a bamboo tree, which may be burned by fire although their roots remain to grow again at the first opportunity."

 

hamse gurau mayi bhaktyanuvrtya

vitrsnaya dvandva-titiksaya ca

sarvatra jantor vyasanavagatya

jijnasaya tapaseha-nivrttya

 

mat-karmabhir mat-kathaya ca nityam

mad-deva-sangad guna-kirtanan me

nirvaira-samyopasamena putra

jihasaya deha-gehatma-buddheh

 

adhyatma-yogena vivikta-sevaya

pranendriyatmabhijayena sadhryak

sac-chraddhaya brahmacaryena sasvad

asampramadena yamena vacam

 

sarvatra mad-bhava-vicaksanena

jnanena vijnana-virajitena

yogena dhrty-udyama-sattva-yukto

lingam vyapohet kusalo 'ham-akhyam

 

"O My sons, you should accept a highly elevated paramahamsa, a spiritually advanced spiritual master. In this way, you should place your faith and love in Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You should detest sense gratification and tolerate the duality of pleasure and pain, which are like the seasonal changes of summer and winter. Try to realize the miserable condition of living entities, who are miserable even in the higher planetary systems. Philosophically inquire about the truth. Then undergo all kinds of austerities and penances for the sake of devotional service. Give up the endeavor for sense enjoyment and engage in the service of the Lord. Listen to discussions about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and always associate with devotees. Chant about and glorify the Supreme Lord, and look upon everyone equally on the spiritual platform. Give up enmity and subdue anger and lamentation. Abandon identifying the self with the body and the home, and practice reading the revealed scriptures. Live in a secluded place and practice the process by which you can completely control your life air, mind and senses. Have full faith in the revealed scriptures, the Vedic literatures, and always observe celibacy. Perform your prescribed duties and avoid unnecessary talks. Always thinking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, acquire knowledge from the right source. Thus practicing bhakti-yoga, you will patiently and enthusiastically be elevated in knowledge and will be able to give up the false ego."

 

Srila Prabhupada defines niyama as:

 

"One must strictly follow the regulative principles of vaidhi bhakti. In addition to these four prohibitions (yama), there are positive regulative principles (niyama), such as the daily chanting of sixteen rounds on japa-mala beads. These regulative activities must be faithfully performed with enthusiasm. This is called tat-tat-karma-pravartana, or varied engagement in devotional service."

 

In general yama refers to restrictions and niyama refers to positive activities for developing spiritual knowledge.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, we have the following choices :

 

1. Accept Patanjali's

2. Accept Srila Prabhupada's

 

Which one shall we go with ?

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, we have the following choices :

 

1. Accept Patanjali's

2. Accept Srila Prabhupada's

 

Which one shall we go with ?

Ram, I never saw a definition of niyama from Swami AC Bhaktivedanta in this thread. I did quote some verses with his translations though, being too lazy to start retranslating them.

 

The definition of Patanjali is fine with me. Patanjali is not a teacher of either bhakti-marga or Vedanta to the best of my understanding though, and definitions from one school to another may vary. Patanjali is not sruti either. Nevertheless, I found the definition of Patanjali interesting:

 

shauca-santosha-tapah-svadhyayayeshvara-pranidhanani niyamah

 

"Niyamas are the actions that should be performed in order to advance in yoga. They consits of shaucha (purity), santosha (contentment), tapas (austerity), svadhyaya (self study),and ishvara pranidhana (surrender to God)."

 

Ram, "ishvara pranidhana", would this apply to body, mind or.... the soul? Submission to God. "Atmanivedana", as we had it in the beginning of the thread. It implies complete surrender on all of these levels.

 

Thanks jndas for the definition.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

To make it more relevant to Gaudiya's, we could include the 64 offenses to be avoided (from Bhakti-rasamrita sindhu) under the category of yamas, and the 64 upacharas to be under the category of niyama. If someone has the list they can post them.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, generally for some one very advanced in a subject, it is very difficult to explain the basics. As an advanced practitioner of bhakti yoga, you naturally have trouble in explaining the basics - like definition of niyama. But it is important to get the basics straight in any subject before we discuss it.

 

As we have seen so far it turns out to be not so simplistic. To illustrate this, in an earlier post you said "Ram, the reason why I asked you to define it is that it appered you were not comfortable with my simplistic idea, "things not to be done". I don't have a definition beyond the dictionary meaning of the word. " But as you can see even the dictionary gives apparently contradictory meanings. Please study the example below :

 

1. performing five positive duties

and

2. restraining , checking , holding back , preventing , controlling for example.

 

The first is "things to be done" and the second one "things not to be done".

 

Patanjali and Prabhupada - while not saying the same words seem to go with the notion of positive things to be done. If you agree with Patanjali's definition, then you have to make sure you do it after fully considering the fact that it contradicts your conception of "things not to be done" as a definition of niyama.

 

Secondly, if you think that Patanjali is not a Vedantin, not following the path of bhakti marga and on top of it this is not from sruti, then why do we accept his definition ?

 

Also, why do we reject Srila Prabhupada's definition ? I am not saying you should. It is up to you as you are the one who is propunding.

 

In fact every bonafide school of Vedanta defines the terms they use. I am sure that Gaudiya Vaishnavas would also have done so. Especially because Rupa Gosvami has used the term niyamAgraha. And others have commented. This is not an unimportant concept in gaudiya vaishnavism.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Secondly, if you think that Patanjali is not a Vedantin, not following the path of bhakti marga and on top of it this is not from sruti, then why do we accept his definition ?

Patanjali is an apta-vakya (or a qualified speaker), and thus his statements on this matter should be regarded highly as much as the shruti.

 

Yoga-darshana may be incomplete in that it does not explain beyond the realm of realizing the Paramatma, but it is never false.

 

Patanjali defines yama as things to be avoided, and lists five. He defines niyama as things to be done, and lists four general categories. Prabhupada's definition is identical to this, though Prabhupada goes into more details (not posted in this thread) as to what is included in each category (in connection to the Bhagavatam verses quoted above).

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

To illustrate this, in an earlier post you said "Ram, the reason why I asked you to define it is that it appered you were not comfortable with my simplistic idea, "things not to be done". I don't have a definition beyond the dictionary meaning of the word."

It seems the original definition attributed to niyamas in this thread was things "not to be done". Then Ram had the question, how can there be niyamas for the soul?

 

Now that the definition has switched, and yama is "what is not to be done". The same question remains, but is now "how can there be yamas for the soul?"

 

The surrender to God as found in Patanjali's definition is actually for positive niyamas.

 

With the switching of definitions, we would now have to look at Patanjali's list of yamas, and then decide if there are indeed "things not to be done" for the soul.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

For further reference, here is Patanjali's list of yamas and niyamas (from Yoga Sutras):

 

Yamas: Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya (truth), Asteya (avoidance of theft), Brachmacarya (celibacy), Aparigraha (avoidance of greed).

 

(I.e. To not harm others, to not lie, to not steal, to remain celibate, and to be nonpossessive.)

 

Niyamas: Saucha (purity), Santosha (contentment), Tapas (austerities), Svadhyaya (study) and Ishvarapranidhana (surrender to God).

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, in response to my post JNDas seems to propose that Patanjali and Srila Prabhupada both may be accepted. As you are the one who is responsible for teaching on the topic, I would request you to give your opinion on my earlier post.

 

You may feel free to choose either, none or both with valid reasons.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

[raga]

Ram: If you agree with Patanjali's definition, then you have to make sure you do it after fully considering the fact that it contradicts your conception of "things not to be done" as a definition of niyama.

 

Quote from my earlier posting:

 

>> I am here taking the literal, broader meaning of yama and niyama, as "things not to be done" and "things to be done". <<

 

Kindly excuse me if I confused niyama with yama in a later posting. Thanks to everyone for specifying the conception of Patanjali on yama-niyama. To be honest, I am not all that much acquainted with the precepts of Patanjali.

 

In regards to Rupa's "niyamAgraha", in this context the term is used in its very common dictionary meaning, without particular reference to the definition of Patanjali. In this context, the "niyama" would consist of both, "yama-niyama", in the definition of Patanjali. It is just "vows and observances" in general.

 

In fact, to the best of my understanding, there is no specific definition of either yama or niyama in the Gaudiya tradition. The terms do not occur frequently in the Gosvami literature. I am now scanning through the Srimad Bhagavata, and only detecting the very same generic use of the concept, whenever it is given. Hence I have adopted the same "dictionary meaning", so to say.

 

From the list of "yama" as in Patanjali's text, none of them apply directly to the soul, though they are all constituents in facilitating acts with direct influence on the soul. So we agree on this, given that we wish to pursue the discussion in the wake of the definitions of Patanjali.

 

Of the "niyama", or on the positive side, Patanjali lists "Isvara Pranidhana", or surrender to God, which is certainly a vow directly related with the soul, since surrender and service unto the Lord is the sanAtana-dharma for the soul.

 

Now, my thesis again depends on the definition of Patanjali, which I am not familiar with. Going by its direct, dictionary meaning, my suggestion is true, but there may be a non-generic definition which proves it invalid for the context, and I stand to be corrected.

 

 

In fact every bonafide school of Vedanta defines the terms they use. I am sure that Gaudiya Vaishnavas would also have done so. Especially because Rupa Gosvami has used the term niyamAgraha. And others have commented. This is not an unimportant concept in gaudiya vaishnavism.

As I noted, the term "niyama", though used by Rupa, is used in a very generic sense. It is not that all words used need to be defined beyond the direct dictionary meaning, regardless of their importance or unimportance. Certainly regular practices, firm vows etc. are important in any disciplined tradition. More on this in my next posting.

 

That a broad meaning of the word is used herein is evident from the commentary of Radha Raman Gosvami, the first commentator on the title:<blockquote>"The word niyamagraha, when broken into its constituent parts, has two meanings: (1) niyama + agraha - over-zealous- ness in following rules, and (2) niyama + agraha - failure to accept rules. When the first meaning is applied, it refers to enthusiasm for those rules which yield an inferior result, such as promotion to the heavenly planets, leaving aside the endeavour for the superior attainment of the service of the Lord. When the second meaning is applied, it refers to indifference towards those rules which nourish bhakti.</blockquote>

 

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, in response to my post JNDas seems to propose that Patanjali and Srila Prabhupada both may be accepted. As you are the one who is responsible for teaching on the topic, I would request you to give your opinion on my earlier post.

 

You may feel free to choose either, none or both with valid reasons.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-20-2002).]

Perhaps my previous posting already answered the question.

 

Depending on the context, a single word may assume multiple defined meanings in a particular context, or it may be left undefined with its generic meaning. To give an example, this occurs often with the term "bhava", which has multiple defined meanings in addition to its dictionary meaning, within the literature of one school. None of them need to be rejected, but we need to settle for one at a time if we choose to discuss the meaning of "bhava" in the Gaudiya tradition, or alternatively we have to recognize different meanings separate from each other. In this discourse, my initial "idea" (not all that much of a definition), the definition of Patanjali and the commentary of Prabhupada have mixed. Let us pick any one of them and proceed with the discussion, their relevance for the path of bhakti.

 

I assume you hinted to the meaning of "restraint" when you initially commented on the Sidhda Pranali - thread, though I may be wrong. It may have been a generic "vows and discipline" instead. You were confident that they are important for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, and I expected a definition.

 

I noted that "niyamAgraha" was defined already back in the previous thread (http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-5.html) .

 

To bring us back to the original discussion, I would like to quote from your (Ram) first post in the Siddha Pranali thread:

 

"So a sadhaka should first endeavour to control the mind by following the niyamas of bhakti yoga.

 

We cannot see the Absolute Truth through our mental imagination leave alone participating in His lilas."

 

In fact, I understood from this that you have a conception at hand. And my original question (http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001200-3.html ):

 

Would you define the niyamas of bhakti yoga to be followed according to bhakti-sastra, as you see it?

 

I am curious Ram, what was your original idea about "niyamas of bhakti-yoga" when you said that?

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

I am curious Ram, what was your original idea about "niyamas of bhakti-yoga" when you said that?

Actually I thought of niyamas on the lines of Patanjali when I wrote that.(The phalas that I have written about in the same post are obviously from Patanjali's work). While I believe that Patanjali is true to Vedas, for the purposes of discussion I would like to ensure that is the case. The same for any one including Srila Prabhupada. We should establish the seed of some one's comments based on sastras.

 

I would like to add, the question "Are there niyamas for the soul ?" still remains. I am not changing it to "Are there yamas for the soul ?" as suggested by JNDas. The reason is that yamas precede niyamas in the yoga sutras. But niyamas are considered as pre-requisites for asana, pranayama, dharana, dhyana, etc. It is not such an advanced stage in yoga. And in all these stages the experience of atman is not yet there. My question is based on the premise that one who has not the atma dharshana cannot influence it by his actions. Ofcourse, my beliefs are based on my current understanding of the sastras. In case you (Raga) do not establish your current beliefs sastrically and if you are willing, I may go in to the sastric premise of what I said just now in detail. But my first preference is to learn.

[raga]

In case you (Raga) do not establish your current beliefs sastrically and if you are willing, I may go in to the sastric premise of what I said just now in detail. But my first preference is to learn.

Ram, I have already stated that among both yama-niyama of Patanjali, I do not see anything directly related to the soul besides Isvara Pranidhana.

 

It may be that even that is not so, since I am not acquainted with the Patanjali definition of Isvara Pranidhana.

 

All in all, the discussion goes way beyond my expertise, since I am not well acquainted with the precepts of Patanjali, nor am I keen to mix then with the Gaudiya Vaishnava-tradition, since the same has not been done by our acaryas.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Seeing as no one is actually acting on the level of soul (i.e. they are acting through the body and mind), it seems obvious that yama's and niyama's are in reference to regulating the body. But Raga mentioned before that he was refering to the effects of yama and niyama on the soul as opposed to the body. The effects of these rules and regulations certainly can be experienced by the soul directly (through influence on his consciousness). The example of vaishnava aparadha was appropriate, where physically it is the same as any other karmic activity (i.e. criticizing someone), but the effects go much beyond karmic reactions, actually putting a stop to one's devotional sentiment in the heart (i.e. the consciousness of the soul).

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

All in all, the discussion goes way beyond my expertise, since I am not well acquainted with the precepts of Patanjali, nor am I keen to mix then with the Gaudiya Vaishnava-tradition, since the same has not been done by our acaryas.

But we can take Monier Williams definition instead?

 

Actually Patanjali (and many other rishis) are quoted by Gaudiya Acharya's to establish principles for which they are authorities on. It is something like quoting a dictionary. Some concepts are so basic that they are universally accepted by all Vedic schools of philosophy, and do not require a special Gaudiya interpretation.

 

Seeing as there has been no particular definition as given by a Gaudiya acharya (quoted here), we would have to accept the common traditional definitions, which would include patanjali's. Of course the Bhagavatam, which should be acceptable to Gaudiya acharya's, gives an identical view for yama and niyama as Patanjali:

 

tapasa brahmacaryena

samena ca damena ca

tyagena satya-saucabhyam

yamena niyamena va

 

Beginning with tapas, brahmacarya, truthfullness, cleanliness, etc., they match identically with Patanjali.

 

The Gita's list of 20 points of knowledge (13.8-12) expands this list, going into particular detail:

 

1) humility (amanitvam)

2) pridelessness (adambhitvam)

3) nonviolence (ahimsa)

4) tolerance (kshanti)

5) simplicity (arjavam)

6) approaching a bona fide spiritual master (acharya upasanam)

7) cleanliness (shaucham)

8) steadiness (sthairyam)

9) self-control (atma-vinigraha)

10) renunciation of the objects of sense gratification (indriya-artheshu vairagyam)

11) absence of false ego (anahankara)

12) the perception of the evil of birth, death, old age and disease (janma-mrityu-jara-vyadi duhkha-doshanudarshanam)

13) detachment (asakti)

14) freedom from entanglement with children, wife, home and the rest (anabhishvanga putra-dara-grihadishu)

15) even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events (nityam samacittatvam ishtanishtopapattishu)

16) constant and unalloyed devotion to Krishna (mayi ananya-yogena bhakti avyabhicarini)

17) resorting to solitary places (vivikta-desha-sevitvam)

18) detachment from the general mass of people (arati jana-samsadi)

19) accepting the importance of self-realization (adhyatma-jnana nityatvam)

20) philosophical search for the Absolute Truth (tattva-jnana artha darshanam)

 

 

If we compare this list to Patanjali's we will be able to classify these under the five and four categories of yama and niyama.

[raga]

But we can take Monier Williams definition instead? <http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/images/icons/smile.gif>

A generic definition of the word, sure.

 

The precepts of Patanjali are aimed for a certain path, the path of yoga, which I think you'll admit is not exactly the same as the path of bhakti.

 

Hence to insist the categorical definition of Patanjali would be the final word for the bhakti-tradition would be unjust, though the definition may be useful to comprehend the varieties of vows one may undertake.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

But why would it be acceptable to take the meaning from Monier Williams over that of a realized sage (apta vakya)? We may argue that the dictionary meaning is generic, but so is Patanjali's definition. Patanjali himself is our source for much sanskrit grammar through his commentary on Panini's sutras. It is Patanjali who establishes that the word Vasudeva in Panini's sutras refers to God and not an ordinary human mortal.

 

Some things we don't need to reject just because the source is not a Gaudiya Vaishnava. If Patanjali says water is wet, we can be quite comfortable accepting his view, despite him not having been initiated in Bengal. On certain topics, he is himself an authority, and accepted as such in the scriptures - and even by Gaudiya acharyas.

 

What is the position of Patanjali? In the Bhagavatam he is described as

 

siddha-ishah charanti jnana-hetavah

 

One of the perfected souls who wander the earth to spread spiritual knowledge.

 

Ashtanga yoga used to be part of the vaishnava path, up till the times of Natha Muni and Ishwara Muni in the Sri sampradaya (prior to Yamunacharya). Yamunacharya was the one who decided that it was no longer relevant for the modern times, and thus should not be taught. In this regards, Srila Prabhupada has written:

 

"Even Patanjali explains that the target of all yoga is Vishnu. Ashtanga-yoga is therefore part of Vaishnava practice because its ultimate goal is realization of Vishnu. The achievement of success in yoga is not acquisition of mystic power, which is condemned in the previous chapter, but, rather, freedom from all material designations and situation in one's constitutional position. That is the ultimate achievement in yoga practice."

 

With that in mind, I see no reason why one should reject Patanjali's general definition of a word (in favour of a western translator), simply because we don't know what Gaudiya's would define the word as.

 

If we compare the Bhagavatam's definition of yama and niyama, they are word for word identical with Patanjali's. Some principles are not unique for Gaudiyas, as we all follow the greater Vedic tradition - of which Patanjali is one of the pillars, i.e. rishis (as per Krishna's statement "rishibhir bahudha gita..." in the Gita).

 

If we want to zero in on a precise practical definition of yama and niyama as followed by Gaudiyas, then we need to turn to their nitya-naimittika shastras which explain the specific rules and regulations to follow. For this Hari-bhakti-vilasa and Sat Kriya Sar Dipika should be referred.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-21-2002).]

[raga]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, Neither did I ask you to accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada nor that of Patanjali. I just responded to your query honestly. As I said earlier you are free to establish your precepts based on the authority of the sastras. Otherwise, all that you are saying about (gaudiya vaishnava) vedanta would be without sastric basis and just so much disturbance to the society. And more than that to your good self.

Ram, which precepts do you want me to establish? If you wish to study all the practices of the Gaudiya tradition in the light of sruti-smrti, I recommed you get a copy of Sat-Sandarbha and Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa, which go extensively over the details of Gaudiya practice along with scriptural references.

 

JNDas, thanks for the comparative study of Patanjali & SB concepts of yama-niyama. Interesting. I would certainly not "reject" the version of Patanjali per se. My intention was to suggest it may not include everything we have in the category of "vows" in the Gaudiya tradition.

 

The definition of Patanjali is more specific than the generic dictionary definition. I think you'll agree that the specific five-fold definition of Patanjali is not what Rupa has particularly in mind when he speaks of "niyamAgraha".

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The definition of Patanjali is more specific than the generic dictionary definition. I think you'll agree that the specific five-fold definition of Patanjali is not what Rupa has particularly in mind when he speaks of "niyamAgraha".

It is an interesting verse, as it is outlining the basic yamas, one of which is to neglect the niyamas.

 

Certainly it does apply to the four niyamas as given by patanjali (and other broader lists given in other scriptures). What do the scriptures teach us to perform? Tapa (austerity), svadhyaya (study of vedas), yajna (performance of sacrifice), dana (giving of charity) and auspicious activities (that which brings punya-phalam).

 

Now if we see this in connection to Gita 8.28, it will become more clear:

 

vedeshu yajneshu tapahsu caiva

daneshu yat punya-phalam pradishtam

 

The scriptural injunctions that may be neglected or followed blindly (niyamagraha) are those that lead us to perform sacrifice, study the Vedas, perform austerities, give charity, and other pious activities. If we perform any of these activities externally without acknowledging the ultimate purpose (which is declared in the second half of Gita 8.28, i.e. yogi param sthanam upaiti) then this destroys one's devotional service. On the otherhand, if one fails to cultivate these scripturally sanctioned activities (i.e. study of Vedas - or svadhyaya in Patanjali's words, austerity - tapas, charity - or nonpossessiveness in Patanajali's words, and performance of sacrifice - surrender to God in Patanjali's words) one's devotion will similarly be destroyed.

 

One may hold that Rupa Goswami actually was referring to something more specific, like how to brush one's teeth, etc., but those types of niyamas are too external to deal with directly. For such things, the nitya-naimittika shastras give guidance. Other texts (such as Upadeshamrita) speak in terms of overall principles.

 

Having said that, just for a second let us look at Upadeshamrita and just roughly compare it to some lines from Patanjali.

 

In the second verse, Rupa Goswmai lists the following things to be avoided by devotees:

 

ati-aharah -- overeating or too much collecting

 

Patanjali teaches prati-ahara, control of one's food (or on a deeper level withdrawing the senses from the sense objects).

 

prayasah -- overendeavouring

 

Patanjali teaches santosha, or contentment, whereby one will no longer evndeavour for external things.

 

laulyam -- ardent longing or greed

 

Patanjali teaches aparigraha, or avoidance of greed.

 

I am not suggesting that Rupa Goswami is following Patanjali, but that some of these concepts are so universal that all schools can comfortably acknowledge them as the path to proper knowledge. Having all manifested from the same desire tree of the Vedas, all Vedic paths do have a certain structure which is identical.

 

Having said that, I do see a connection between Gita 8.28, Upadeshamrita verse 2, and Patanjali's definitions for yama and niyama, though it may not be directly stated by Rupa Goswami. It is more related to the common foundation, the ultimate source of all schools of knowledge, i.e. the Vedas.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-21-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Prajalpa and jana-sanga are also dealt with by Patanjali, but I don't have time to locate the relevant portions right now.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-21-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Ram, which precepts do you want me to establish? .

Raga, in my response to my posting in the Siddha Pranali thread,you said, "If you would believe it yourself, you would not have made your initial post in this forum, since there are many long-time practitioners of bhakti here who certainly are aware of the things you attempted to present."

 

This implie that I was talking "basics". You were busy presenting information about niyamas for the soul, gradation of niyamas, niyamas to be followed at different ashramas, niyamas for different levels of advancement in devotional service etc. On your request, we moved the discussion the "basics" to this thread.

 

But it so turned out that even you got confused what the niyamas are inspite of the assertion,"Upadesamrta we all know". This is based on your own assertion in the 'niyamas for the soul' thread, "Kindly excuse me if I confused niyama with yama in a later posting. - Raga"

 

I am still insisting that the the "basics" are important before we proceed to so called advanced topics. If we cannot be clear in "basics", how can we go on to "advanced" levels ? All I am saying is that you be kind enough to establish the basic precepts on which you are building your case in the Siddha Pranali Thread.

 

[raga]

All I am saying is that you be kind enough to establish the basic precepts on which you are building your case in the Siddha Pranali Thread.

I have started the discussion by posting the basic yama-niyama from Upadesamrta as well as the definition of Saranagati from Hari Bhakti Vilasa. That was the basic precepts I gave for "rules and regulations".

 

Study the Upadesamrta. Then read the four books mentioned in the beginning of the discussion in addition to Gita and Bhagavatam. That's the basics.

 

Bhagavad Gita -- Overview of essential tattva-vicara

Srimad Bhagavata -- In-depth view on tattva-vicara and lila (7th skandha -- varna-asrama "rules and regulations)

Upadesamrta -- Overview of bhakti-marga from the beginning to the end

Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu -- In-depth view of various practices of bhakti and rasa-tattva

Raga Vartma Candrika -- Overview on the path of raganuga; five-fold classification of favourable and unfavourable items

Prema Bhakti Candrika -- Poetry on essential items for developing Prema Bhakti

 

What would you like to have established?

 

You were busy presenting information about niyamas for the soul, gradation of niyamas, niyamas to be followed at different ashramas, niyamas for different levels of advancement in devotional service etc. On your request, we moved the discussion the "basics" to this thread.

 

This is all in the books referred to above. We just never got beyond the beginning.

 

I am still insisting that the the "basics" are important before we proceed to so called advanced topics. If we cannot be clear in "basics", how can we go on to "advanced" levels ?

Of course basics are important to clarify first. I think I clarified them in the very first post I made, before we got into analyzing the word "niyama" from thirteen different angles without proceeding with the very simple basics I posted on the first place.

 

JNDas has contributed relevant content on the parallels of vows from Patanjali and the instructions of Rupa Gosvami. Would we like to proceed with them to get something essential discussed, or is there something you'd like to have clarified prior to that?

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Would we like to proceed with them to get something essential discussed, or is there something you'd like to have clarified prior to that?

Raga, as I said in my post you made a perfect start. If you see the first 6 - 7 posts, it flows smoothly. But you lost me when you failed to explain how "niyamas affect the soul" by using pramanas. And later by not defining niyamas.

 

Niyamas for the soul is not a traditional concept. When you introduce these concepts, it has to be substantiated based on the sastras. I deferred discussion on your "examples to prove the point" because I first wanted to know if there is a sastric basis for your interpretation.

 

If you do, we should definitely proceed with the discussion. Hari bol.

 

[Bhaktavasya]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, as I said in my post you made a perfect start. If you see the first 6 - 7 posts, it flows smoothly. But you lost me when you failed to explain how "niyamas affect the soul" by using pramanas. And later by not defining niyamas.

 

Niyamas for the soul is not a traditional concept. When you introduce these concepts, it has to be substantiated based on the sastras. I deferred discussion on your "examples to prove the point" because I first wanted to know if there is a sastric basis for your interpretation.

 

If you do, we should definitely proceed with the discussion. Hari bol.

Ram; if this thread was a theatre play, the audience would be laughing out loud right now. Raga has shown *infinite* patience in this scene.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Ram, I have already stated that among both yama-niyama of Patanjali, I do not see anything directly related to the soul besides Isvara Pranidhana.

 

It may be that even that is not so, since I am not acquainted with the Patanjali definition of Isvara Pranidhana.

 

All in all, the discussion goes way beyond my expertise, since I am not well acquainted with the precepts of Patanjali, nor am I keen to mix then with the Gaudiya Vaishnava-tradition, since the same has not been done by our acaryas.

Raga, Neither did I ask you to accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada nor that of Patanjali. I just responded to your query honestly. As I said earlier you are free to establish your precepts based on the authority of the sastras. Otherwise, all that you are saying about (gaudiya vaishnava) vedanta would be without sastric basis and just so much disturbance to the society. And more than that to your good self.