You are on page 1of 18

Hahayogas Philosophy: A Fortuitous Union of Non-Dualities James Mallinson Oriental Institute University of Oxford jim@khecari.

com 0044 1672852294 0044 7973615591 Unpublished draft submitted to the Journal of Indian Philosophy Please do not cite without the authors permission Abstract: In its classical formulation as found in Svtmrmas Hahapradpik, hahayoga is a aiva appropriation of an older extra-Vedic soteriological method. But this appropriation was not accompanied by an imposition of aiva philosophy. In general, the texts of hahayoga reveal, if not a disdain for, at least an insouciance towards metaphysics. Yoga is a soteriology that works regardless of the yogins philosophy. But the various texts that were used to compile the Hahapradpik (a table identifying these borrowings is given at the end of the article) were not composed in metaphysical vacua. Analysis of their allusions to doctrine shows that the texts from which Svtmrma borrowed most were products of a Vedantic milieu - bearing testament to Vedntas newfound interest in yoga as a complement to jna - but that many others were aiva non-dual works. Because of the lack of importance given to the niceties of philosophy in hahayogic works, these two non-dualities were able to combine happily and thus the aiva tenets incorporated within hahayoga survived the demise of aivism as part of what was to become in the medieval period the dominant soteriological method in scholarly religious discourse in India.

Keywords: yoga, haha, Hahapradpik, aivism, Vednta

Rigorous philological study of hahayoga is in its infancy despite the global popularity of its practices and derivatives thereof. One reason for this may be that the root texts of hahayoga and their exegesis make little room for discussions of philosophy and so philologists of the usual bent have not been attracted to their study. Until recently aivism had suffered the same fate. For a long time its notoriety deterred scholars from its study, but the richness of its root texts and their philosophically underpinned exegesis has proved irresistible to a new generation of indologists, who have discovered that the study of aivism can not only satisfy their desire to understand more of Indias pre-modern religious culture through philology but also stimulate their philosophically enquiring minds. In this paper I wish to draw on recent text-critical study of works on hahayoga in order to make preliminary assessments of the place of philosophy therein. In doing so I hope to encourage scholars better qualified than I am to examine the minutiae of philosophical pronouncements within the hahayogic corpus. While such study may not unearth the treasures of the Kashmiri aiva exegesis, it will, I believe, contribute to our understanding of the development of Indian religion in the medieval period by revealing more details of how hahayoga, elements of which can be traced to all three of the first-millennium Brahmanic religions of India, i.e. Vedism, Vaiavism and aivism, enabled some of the tenets of the last to remain part of widely accepted soteriological methods even as Vedntainfluenced manifestations of the first became the dominant paradigm of scholarly religious thought. 1 aivisms Appropriation of Hahayoga Before we turn to the philosophical teachings found in hahayogic texts, in order to delineate the relationship between aivism and hahayoga, attention will be drawn to the way in which the latter was appropriated by the former. Classical hahayoga as formulated in its locus classicus, the fifteenth-century Hahapradpik, combines elements from a wide range of yogic teachings, but in essence comprises the gross physical techniques of an ancient extra-Vedic ascetic tradition overlaid with subtle visualisation-based aiva yoga. The purpose of Svtmrma, the Hahapradpiks compiler, was to lay claim to this new synthesis for a broad tradition of aiva siddha schools. In this he was entirely successful, although the parameters of the tradition he invoked were subsequently narrowed, with hahayogas originators coming to be identified with the first gurus of the then fledgling Nth sapradya.2 The distinguishing characteristic of hahayoga in its pre-Hahapradpik formulations is the practice of physical techniques known collectively in the Hahapradpik as mudrs, which are used to make the breath enter the central channel and to raise bindu, semen, up to its source in the head and keep it there. We find forerunners of two of these techniques, the relatively simple constrictions known as mlabandha and jlandharabandha,in aiva works, but the quintessentially hahayogic techniques of khecarmudr and vajrolimudr are first taught in a Vaiava text, the Datttreyayogastra, in which they are used for the preservation of bindu, unlike in subsequent formulations in which they are overlaid with aiva features such as the raising of Kualin, the flooding of the body with amta, and the absorption of commingled sexual fluids (Mallinson, ktism and Hahayoga, forthcoming). It is in the Hahapradpik that the practice of non-seated sanas, with which hahayoga has come to be identified, is first taught as one of its key components.3 Of the fifteen sanas taught therein, eight are relatively simple seated 1 Doubtless some elements of hahayogic practice originated outside of Brahmanic religion, in particular within the ramaa ascetic traditions (see Mallinson forthcoming), but when taught in the Sanskrit texts on hahayoga under consideration here they are of course couched in the language of Brahmanic religion. 2 The mahsiddhas listed by Svtmrma at Hahapradpik 1.5-8 include the Vraaiva Allma Prabhu, who in contemporaneous hagiography is portrayed as a rival of Goraka, the supposed founder of the Nth sapradya (nyasapdane upadea 21). 3 hahasya prathamgatvd sana prvam ucyate | kuryt tad sana sthairyam rogya cgalghavam || 1.17 || ... sana kumbhaka citra mudrkhya karaa tath |

postures for meditation, such as those found in a wide variety of earlier texts including Vysas Bhya on the Yogastras (ad 2.46), several aiva Tantras (from the earliest we have, the Nivsatattvasahit, onwards),4 and various Puras.5 Of the seven non-seated sanas taught in the Hahapradpik, one is avsana, the corpse pose, which is a reworking of a posture taught not as an sana but as a technique of layayoga in the Datttreyayogastra.6 Another, pacimottnsana, is taught in the ivasahit, which was probably composed not long before the Hahapradpik.7 I have failed to identify source passages for three of the non-seated sanas taught in the Hahapradpik, namely uttnakrmaka, dhanur and matsyendra sanas. The verses describing the remaining two, kukkua and mayra sana, are taken from the Vasihasahit, a c.13th-14th-century Vaiava work. 8 The Vasihasahits teachings on mayrsana can be traced back through a variety of earlier Vaiava works to the c.9th-century Vimnrcankalpa,9 a Vaikhnasa Sahit, which teaches mayrsana as one of the lowest of three grades of sana. Its prose description is found reworked into lokas in the Pdmasahit,10 a Pcartrika Sahit. Those lokas are found with some changes in another Pcartrika Sahit, the Ahirbudhnysahit,11 and again in the Vasihasahit.12 The Vasihasahits verses are then found in the Hahapradpik13 with the metre changed to upajti. Kukkusana is not taught in the Vimnrcankalpa, Pdmasahit or Yogayjavalkya, but the verses describing it in the Hahapradpik are found in the Ahirbudhnysahit and Vasihasahit in very similar forms.14 On its own this evidence would not point to much; all we could say is that the oldest known textual evidence for nonseated sanas is found in the Vaiava tradition. What makes it of particular interest is that the Matsyendrasahit, a atha ndnusandhnam abhysnukramo hahe ||1.56. 4 Nivsatattvasahit Nayastra 4.14c-15d. See Goodall 2004:348-351 nn. 728-732 and Vasudeva 2004:397-402 for references to sana in other aiva sources. 5 E.g. Skandapura 179.27, Mrkaeyapura 36.28. 6 Compare Datttreyayogastra 24c-25b with Hahapradpik 1.32. 7 Compare ivasahit 3.108-109 with Hahapradpik 1.28-29. The ivasahit borrows and paraphrases several verses from both the Amtasiddhi and Datttreyayogastra: ivasahit 2.1b, 2.1cd, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4ab = Amtasiddhi 1.15b, 1.16ab, 1.17ab+1.16cd, 1.17c-1.18b, 1.19ab; ivasahit 2.6c-9d, 2.11-12, 3.31, 4.27ab, 4.27dc, 4.28ab, 4.34cb, 5.13, 5.17c-20b = Amtasiddhi 3.1-4, 4.3-4, 19.2, 11.3cd, 11.4bc, 11.5ab, 11.7cd, 15.1, 16.1-3; ivasahit 4.31, 4.38, 5.14-15 Amtasiddhi 11.6, 12.6, 15.3. Several other verses in the ivasahits descriptions of mahmudr, mahbandha and mahvedha are derivative of verses in the Amtasiddhi. ivasahit 3.44a-3.45e, 3.48ab, 3.62ab, 3.63ab, 3.102-105, 4.88ab, 5.71 = Datttreyayogastra 143-146a, 155, 177, 178, 68-75, 313, 4344. Datttreyayogastra 143-162, 195-198, 221-241 are paraphrased at ivasahit 3.42-48, 3.60-61, 3.72-75. 8.5 of the 13.5 verses that the ivasahit shares with the Hahapradpik are not to be found in other texts so it is likely that the ivasahit was composed at some time between the Datttreyayogastra and Hahapradpik. 8 The Vaiavism of the Vasihasahit is not stated explicitly but Vasiha bows to Jaganntha before beginning his exposition of Brahms yoga (1.12) and the sagua dhyna that he teaches is of Viu Nryaa (4.26-31, 49-53). 9 Vimnrcankalpa paala 96: karatale bhmau sasthpya krparau nbhiprvayor nyasya na(unnata)tairpdau daavad vyomni sasthito mayrsanam iti | Colas (1988:279) remarks that the yogas of the Vimnrcankalpa, Ahirbudhnysahit and Vasihasahit are similar but does not note the textual parallels in their descriptions of mayrsana. He dates the Vaikhnasa Sahits to the 9th to 13th/14th centuries and tentatively identifies the Vimnrcankalpa as the earliest (2010:158). 10 Pdmasahit yogapda 1.21-22: avaabhya dhar samyak talbhy hastayor dvayo || krparau nbhiprve ca sthpayitv mayravat | samunnamya irapdau mayrsanam iyate || 11 Ahirbudhnysahit 31.36-37: niveya krparau samya nbhimaalaprvayo | avaabhya bhuva pitalbhy vyomni daavat || samonnatairapdo myrsanam iyate | etat sarvaviaghna ca sarvavydhinivraam || 12 Vasihasahit Yogaka 1.76-77 (which is also found at, and is likely to be the source of, Yogayjavalkya 3.15a-17b): avaabhya dhar samyak talbhy ca karadvayam | hastayo krparau cpi sthpayan nbhiprvayo || samunnatairapdo daavad vyomni sasthita | mayrsanam etad dhi sarvappavinanam || 76c krparau] em.; kharpare ed. 13 Hahapradpik 1.30: dharm avaabhya karadvayena tatkrparasthpitanbhiprva | uccsano daavad utthita khe myram etat pravadanti pham || 14 Ahirbudhnysahit 31.38, Vasihasahit Yogaka 1.78, Hahapradpik 1.23.

13th-century aiva work attributed to Matsyendra, one of the gurus of the Ntha sapradya, also includes mayra and kukkua sanas among the fourteen sanas it teaches.15 The descriptions are rather obscure (and the text a little corrupt), but it is clear that they are different sanas from those taught in the Vaiava works mentioned above and that like all the other sanas taught in the Matsyendrasahit they are seated postures. 16 We cannot be sure that the Matsyendrasahit was known to Svtmrma, but there were certainly overlaps in their milieux: the Matsyendrasahit incorporates most of the Khecarvidy, from which four verses were borrowed to compile the Hahapradpik, and one other half-verse in the Matsyendrasahit is also found in the Hahapradpik.17 We can thus say with some confidence that the practice of non-seated sanas originated in a Vaiava rather than aiva milieu. Hahayogas Universalism In the light of this aiva appropriation of the techniques of hahayoga one might expect Svtmrma also to declare hahayoga to be grounded in one or other formulation of aiva metaphysics. Yet, as much as any other work that teaches hahayoga, the Hahapradpik is devoid of detailed philosophical teachings of any kind. Furthermore, its aiva orientation, which is to be inferred by its magala verses (1.1 and 4.1) and invocations of aiva siddhas (1.5-8), is not corroborated by descriptions of sect-markers such as mantras or maalas, nor even of the cakras that came to be synonymous with the practice of hahayoga. What we see here is the apotheosis of a process identified by Csaba Kiss in his analysis of the Matsyendrasahit, a text which he suggests is indicative of a phase in the history of yoga when yogic teachings tried to become detached, perhaps not for the first time, from the mainstream religion, in this case tantric aivism, by eliminating sectarian boundaries through the concealment of sectarian marks such as easily decodable deity names, mantras, and iconography and to prepare for a formative period of pan-Indian yoga, which can again become an alternative for the official/conservative religion. (Kiss 2011:162). Yet Svtmrma, despite going further down the line towards universalism than the compiler of the Matsyendrasahit, did not go as far as he might have done. The Hahapradpik, hamstrung by its purpose of claiming hahayoga for the aiva siddha tradition, makes only a half-hearted claim to universality when it states that through the practice of hahayoga success can be attained by the young, old, very old, ill or weak. 18 This verse is taken from one of the fifteen or so texts that Svtmrma used to compile the Hahapradpik, namely the Datttreyayogastra, which, as noted above, is a product of a Vaiava school in the tradition of extra-Vedic asceticism in which some of the physical practices of hahayoga first developed. The Datttreyayogastra, perhaps because its compiler, unlike Svtmrma, had no sectarian axe to grind, is more generous in its universalism than the Hahapradpik, following the verse borrowed by Svtmrma with the following two: brhmaa ramao vpi bauddho vpy rhato thav| 15 Matsyendrasahit 3.8a-13b: vmagulpham adha ktv ktvopari ca dakiam | gudenpya vai jnuyugala pariplya ca ||8|| vmahastgulmle-m-avaabhya yathbalam | dakahastgulmlai parivartya ca tat talau ||9|| rumladvaye pya nsgre sthpayed dau | kukkusanam etad vai manasa sthirakraam ||10|| rumladvaydhastt pdayugma nidhy ca | tayor madhye +sthira guda pchan+ udyamya nicala ||11|| tath karataladvandva samliya parasparam | rvor upari vinyasya nsikm avalokayet ||12|| mayrsanam etad vai sarvavydhivinanam | Cf. Kubjikmata 23.115-117 which also teaches a seated kukkusana. 16 Kiss (2009:52) qualifies his statement that the sanas in the Matsyendrasahit are all seated positions with probably, noting that the text is corrupt. 17 On the inclusion of the Khecarvidy in the Matsyendrasahit, see Mallinson 2007:5-9. Matsyendrasahit 4.44ab = Hahapradpik 4.17cd. Matsyendrasahit 4.23cd is the same as Hahapradpik 2.17ab, but it is also shared with Vivekamrtaa 100ab, which, since Hahapradpik 2.16-17 corresponds to Vivekamrtaa 99-100, is almost certainly the Hahapradpiks source. At Hahapradpik 1.18 Svtmrma says that he will teach sanas that were accepted by munis such as Vasiha and yogis such as Matsyendra. None of the Hahapradpiks sana teachings has parallels in the Matsyendrasahit. Variants of siddhsana and padmsana are said at 1.35 and 1.48 to be matsyendramata, but the verses teaching them are from the Vivekamrtaa (7, 35B), which is attributed to Goraka in its earliest manuscript and subsequent citations. Matsyendrsana is taught (as rmatysanthodita sana and matsyendrapha) at Hahapradpik 1.26-27 in verses which I have not found in earlier works. 18 Hahapradpik 1.64: yuv vddho 'tivddho v vydhito durbalo 'pi v | abhyst siddhim pnoti sarvayogev atandrita ||

kpliko v crvka raddhay sahita sudh ||41|| yogbhysarato nitya sarvasiddhim avpnuyt | kriyyuktasya siddhi syd akriyasya katha bhavet ||42|| Whether a Brahmin, an ascetic, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Skull-Bearer or a materialist, the wise man who is endowed with faith and constantly devoted to the practice of [ haha] yoga will attain complete success. Such universalism is at least implicit in most works on hahayoga. Teachings on yoga in earlier aiva works, in contrast, are for initiates into the traditions of which their texts are products, 19 and often involve a progression of meditative conquests of the elements particular to their traditions ontology. A tattvajaya of this kind is found in the Nivsatattvasahits Nayastra (paala 3) and similar techniques feature in a wide range of subsequent aiva works. Hahayogic texts, on the other hand, restrict such practices to dhras on the five elements accepted by all Indic metaphysical systems or laya, dissolution, into those five elements, often in the course of Kualins rise up the central channel. A relatively late aiva work, the radtilaka,20 shares verses and practices with some hahayogic texts and also echoes their universalist understanding of yoga. At the beginning of its 25th and final paala we read: atha yoga pravakymi sga savitpradyakam| aikya jvtmanor hur yoga yogavirad||1|| ivtmanor abhedena pratipatti pare vidu| ivaaktytmaka jna jagur gamavedina||2|| purapuruasynye jnam hur vrad| Now I shall teach yoga, with its ancillaries, which bestows understanding [or moka in the form of the experience of eternal bliss - Rghavabhaa]. The experts in yoga say that yoga is union of the jva and the tman. Others say that it is knowledge of iva and the tman as not being different. Those who know the gamas say that it is knowledge of the nature of iva and akti. Other wise ones say that it is knowledge of the ancient purua. Rghavabhaa, the fifteenth-century commentator on the radtilaka, understands these four different opinions to be those of Vedntins, aivas, ktas and Bhedavdins (whom he identifies as Skhyas, Vaiavas and Naiyyikas, the latter two identifying purua with Nryaa and vara respectively). Then, with no further ado, the text goes on to teach an eight-fold system of yoga, the implication being that the practice of yoga will get the yogi the reward he or she wants, regardless of the yogis philosophical standpoint. Concomitant with this understanding of yoga is the widespread notion of yogipratyaka,yogic perception, with which the founders of a variety of traditions are said to have discovered the ultimate truth, whether that truth is conceived of as, for example, the Vedas for Naiyyikas or nyat for Mdhyamika Buddhists. The founder of the tradition did not need to know these truths to succeed in yoga; they were revealed as a result of his success in yoga. Later followers of such yogis have no need to rediscover these truths; they use meditation to deepen their understanding of them (Franco 2009a:9-10).21 Of course the yogic universalism espoused in varying degrees by the radtilaka, Datttreyayogastra and Hahapradpik does not mean that those texts were created in a doctrinal vacuum, nor is that same universalism found in all of the texts used by Svtmrma to compile the Hahapradpik. In what follows I shall examine those texts in order to make a preliminary assessment of their philosophical standpoints. More detailed analysis by specialists of the various traditions will no doubt cast a brighter light on the texts relationship with specific philosophical schools. The Philosophical Orientation of the Hahapradpiks Source Texts22 The Vivekamrtaa, Gorakaataka and Datttreyayogastra are three of the four texts which contribute twenty or more verses to the Hahapradpik. These three texts are all products of schools influenced by Vedanta. The opening 19 E.g. Mlinvijayottaratantra Yogapda 4.6cd: na cdhikrit dk vin yogo sti kare || 20 Sanderson (2007:230-233) gives the 13th century as the terminus ante quem of the radtilaka, adding that it is likely to have been composed in Orissa. 21 Franco (2009:6 n.22) distinguishes between yoga as a technique of gaining control over the body, senses and mind in order to attain a liberating insight and Yoga, the philosophical school. He adds that yoga is a technique or a method and as such is not connected to any philosophy or religion in particular; this is the understanding of yoga found in hahayogic texts. 22At the end of this paper is an appendix in which all the texts from which Svtmrma borrowed verses are listed, together with the locations of the shared verses in the Hahapradpik and the source texts.

verse of the Datttreyayogastra23 nails its Vaiava and vedantic colours to the mast: nsiharpie cidtmane sukhasvarpie| padais tribhis taddibhir nirpitya vai nama||1| To him who has the form of Narsiha, whose self is consciousness, whose true form is bliss, and who is defined by the three words beginning with tat, homage! Elsewhere in the Datttreyayogastra, samdhi is said to be the union of tman and paramtman (126ab), and when the yogin wants to cast off his body he is to dissolve it into parabrahman (127ab). Yet jna, the key to vedantic liberation, has almost no place in the Datttreyayogastra. It is mentioned only once - and then somewhat disparagingly - in the context of mantrayoga, the lowest of the three yogas taught in the text (the others being laya and haha). Through twelve years of mantra-repetition, the sdhaka will, usually (pryea), attain jna and the siddhis of aim and so forth. This yoga is for the lowest type of sdhaka, he of little wisdom (alpabuddhi).24 Both the Vivekamrtaa and Gorakaataka combine aiva yoga25 with vedantic metaphysics.26 There is no internal evidence to identify the place of composition of either text, but parallels with the more or less contemporaneous 27 Bhvrthadpik, Jndevs Marathi commentary on the Bhagavadgt (popularly known as the Jnevar), together with other external evidence, suggest origins in the Deccan. Like the Vivekamrtaa and Gorakaataka, the Jnevar teaches physical aiva yoga and the vedantic identification of tman and brahman. The yoga of the Gorakaataka in particular is very close to that of the Jnevar.28 The teachings in both the Vivekamrtaa and Gorakaataka are attributed to Goraka, and Jndev names Goraka among his teachers at Jnevar 18.1756. Goraka is said to have come from several different parts of India, but the majority of the early references to him are from the south or the Deccan. 29 The title of the Vivekamrtaa, as well as being suggestive of a vedantic, or at least 23 nsiharpie cidtmane sukhasvarpie| padais tribhis taddibhir nirpitya vai nama|| 24 Datttreyayogastra 12-14: ageu mtknysaprva mantra japet sudh | yena kenpi sdhya syn mantrayoga sa kathyate ||12|| mdus tasydhikr syd dvdabdais tu sdhant | pryea labhate jna siddh caivimdik||13|| alpabuddhir ima yoga sevate sdhakdhama | mantrayogo hy aya prokto yognm adhamas smta ||14||
12c yena kenpi sdhya syn ] em; yena kenpi siddha syt Haharatnval 1.9c, ya kacanbhisiddhyai B, ya ka canbhisiddhyai W1, ekena cpi siddhi M, ekacanbhisidhyai J1, eka ca tbhi sidhyai W2

25 The earliest aiva works to teach the central practices of what came to be known as hahayoga, i.e. the Amtasiddhi, Vivekamrtaa and Gorakaataka, do not call their yoga haha. 26 See Vivekamrtaa 88 and 151-152 for evidence of its aiva orientation. The Gorakaataka is not so explicit, but vv. 13, 80 indicate that iva is the highest god. For the texts vedantic teachings, see Vivekamrtaa 106-110, 15360, 164, 170-171 and Gorakaataka 88-100. 27 Jnevar 18.1711 says that the text was written in 1290 CE and this date is widely accepted, but see Kiehnle (1997:5) on the likelihood of this particular line having been interpolated at a later date. Our earliest definite evidence for the existence of the Vivekamrtaa is its being named in the c. 1400 CE Khecarvidy (1.14), although five of its verses are found in the 1363 CE rgadharapaddhati (rgadharapaddhati 4308a-4309b, 4374, 4407abc, 4418 = Vivekamrtaa 27a-28b, 7, 57abc, 59). The terminus ante quem of the Gorakaataka is also 1400 CE (Mallinson 2011b:263). 28 Their yogas use the three bandhas, jlandhara (Jnevar 6.207-208; Gorakaataka 61c-63b), uyna (Jnevar 6.209-210; Gorakaataka 57c-61b) and mla (Jnevar 6.192-199; Gorakaataka 52c-57b), to raise Kualin. 29 Our earliest references to Goraka are from the 13th century. Despite frequent claims in secondary literature that he came from Punjab (e.g. Briggs 1989:229), none of these early references is from the northwest of the subcontinent. In addition to that from the Jnevar, other 13th-century references to Goraka from the Deccan or south India include the c.1200-1220 CE Kannada Ragales of Harihara (Revaasiddhevara Ragale, Sthala 3, ll.25-65; I thank Professor Prithvi Datta Chandra Shobhi for confirming Hariharas dates and assisting me with the text - email communication June 2009); the Matsyendrasahit (paalas 1 and 55, the frame story; on the texts date and provenance, see Kiss 2009:26-28); the 1279 CE Kallevara temple inscription from the Chitaldroog district in Karnataka (Saletore 1937); the Marathi Lcaritra (although its surviving recension may not be as old as the 13th century (Tulpule 1979:319)). 13th-century references to Goraka from places other than the Deccan or south India include the 1287 CE Cintra Praasti inscription from Somnath (verse 42 - Bhler 1892:284); the Amtakaikodyotanibandha which is probably from the Bengal region (for bibliographic reference see ryamajurnmasagti; on the life of the texts author, Vibhticandra, see Stearns 1996); Abhayadattar's c.13th-century Tibetan account of the lives of the 84 Siddhas (I thank Professor Harunaga Isaacson for alerting me

jna-oriented, worldview, is paralleled by two early Marathi works, the Vivekadarpa and Vivekasindhu, of which the latter is said to be the first Marathi vedantic work (Vaudeville 1987:218). This evidence suggests that the Vivekamrtaa and Gorakaataka represent the Sanskrit textual underpinnings of the integration of aiva physical yoga and Vedanta in early medieval Maharashtra. 30 The Yogabja, a dialogue between the goddess and iva, teaches a similar combination of aiva yoga and vedantic philosophy and so may well be a product of the same milieu as the Vivekamrtaa and Gorakaataka. Yoga is the union of, among other pairs, tman and paramtman (89cd). It brings about jvanmukti (59ab, 170ab, 181cd), in which the body becomes one with brahman (186ab). The Yogabja is the source of 13 verses in the Hahapradpik, but of these 8 are also found in the Gorakaataka or Datttreyayogastra, indicating that the Yogabja postdates those works. Its yoga is identical to that of the Gorakaataka: akticlana is used, along with the three bandhas, to raise Kualin, and it teaches the Gorakaatakas four sahita kumbhakas. to the Amtakaikodyotanibandha reference and for sharing with me his opinion of the date and original language of Abhayadattars text (email communication April 2009)). Texts associated with Goraka show direct or indirect connections with the Kaula Pacimmnya tradition (the Gorakasahit is an inflation of the Kubjikmatatantra (Heilijgers-Seelen 1994); other works attributed to Goraka, such as the Vivekamrtaa, teach the Pacimmnya system of six cakras). Sanderson notes that the sites of 24 yoginphas listed in the Kubjikmata and other Kaula works are located in various parts of the subcontinent with eastern India and the Deccan strongly represented. The Far South, the upper Ganges valley, the Panjab, Kashmir and the North-West are absent (2011:77) and identifies the Maharashtran origins of the Kubjikmata and another important Pacimmnya text, the Manthnabhairava. The latter laments that the north is full of impediments and devoid of the Siddha lineages. From Maharashtra manuscripts of these works spread to Kerala, Tamilnadu, Kashmir, East India and the Kathmandu valley (ibid.:44-45), a spread matched by that of the Siddha Gorakas renown. The earliest reference to Goraka from Nepal is the 1382 CE Itum Bahal rock inscription, which describes Madanarma Varddhana, a senior minister of King Jayasthiti Malla, as gorakhtmajaiya, a pupil of a descendant of Gorakh (Vajracarya 1975:34). Narharinath (1953:5) reported that a copperplate inscription from the Maru Sattal temple in the Khamaapa in Kathmandus Durbar Square dated 1379 CE mentions Goraka in its opening line and this assertion has been repeated in other reports of the contents of the inscription and in secondary literature (Slusser & Vajrcrya 2005:451, Locke 1980:435). A new transcription by Kashinath Tamot reveals that Narharinth misread sambata 499 vaukla as samvat 499 devo go(gva)rako (Tamot 2009; I thank Kashinath Tamot and Jason Birch for for helping me with this and other inscriptions from the Kathmandu valley). On links between south India and Nepal in the 11th to 13th centuries, see Michaels 1985 and Lvi 1905:364-365. Goraka is not mentioned in the aiva exegesis of Kashmir. Perhaps the earliest text from that region with which he is connected is the Amaraughasana, which is attributed to Goraka in its manuscripts, one of which is dated 1525 ( Amaraughasana ed. intro. p.1). The five manuscripts of the text of which I am aware are all in rad script (tani Collection Unidentified Fragment No. 628 (Hori 2005:93-94); Benares Hindu University Acc. No. C4250 and C4723; Oriental Research Library Srinagar No. 23441; and the manuscript on which Shastris 1918 edition was based, which may be the same as the last). Supporting claims of its Kashmiri origin, the Amaraughasana shares its system of three aktis with the Netratantra (Amaraughasana 35, 42; Netratantra 7.1-2) and has verses in common with the Siddhasiddhntapaddhati (Amaraughasana 12-16 = Siddhasiddhntapaddhati 1.37-41; the rivers listed at Siddhasiddhntapaddhati 3.11 suggest that the text is from the northwest of the subcontinent) - but not with any earlier works on hahayoga. The earliest reference to Goraka from the northwest of the subcontinent is in the rgadharapaddhati (vv. 4372 and 4373), which was compiled near Jaipur in 1363 CE. Despite numerous reports of interactions between Sufis and Jogis from the thirteenth century onwards (see Digby 1970 and 2000:221-233, 288-291; Rizvi 1971:vii; Ernst 2007), no northwestern vernacular text mentions Gorakh until the Alakhbn of Gangohi (p.31 l.4, p.40 l.1, p. 46 l.3, p. 57 l.2) which probably dates to 1480 CE (Weightman 1992: 171-172). 30 Jndev names the teachers of his tradition as r Tripurri (iva), Macchaprasava (Matsyendra), Caurag, Gorakarya, Gahinnth, and Nivttinth ( Jnevar 18.1751-1760). These are all understood in hagiography and secondary literature to have been members of the Nth sapradya. Similarly, Kiehnle (1997:8-9) notes that in the contemporaneous Lcaritra Cakradhar mentions many Nths including Udhanth, Adainth, Vivanth, Indr Luip and Jandhar. What is striking about both these lists is that only those names which are not suffixed with -nth are recognisable from later lists of Nths. Meanwhile, the guru-parampar of Mukundarja, who was approximately contemporaneous with Jndev, shows that the tradition of teachers whose names ended in -nth in thirteenth-century Maharashtra was of a different kind from that associated with todays Nth sapradya: Mukundarjas two works, the Parammta and Vivekasindhu are exposition[s] of the Vednta written in the peculiar intellectual style of the Vedntin and he traces the lineage of his gurus to dintha as iva, through his guru Raghuntha and Harintha (= Cakradhara) (Tulpule 1979:325-326). Because of his identifying Jndevs teachers as Nths of the same stripe as the later Nth order, Tulpule has to hypothesise that the order curbed its literary output for nearly 500 years: A more solid contribution to the Marh literature of the 18th century came from those poets who belonged to the Ntha cult. They were somewhat dormant after the age of Jnadeva. (ibid.:420). Many scholars have fallen upon early instances of the word nth in a variety of languages as evidence of

Unlike the aforementioned texts, the Yogabja sets out the relationship between jna and yoga. The first 89 of its 190 verses are an exposition of why yoga must be practised: jna is a prerequisite for liberation but yoga is needed too, in order to perfect the body. This is the first articulation within a text that teaches hahayoga of a doctrine that was starting to find currency in contemporaneous vedantic works, namely that to achieve jvanmukti, yoga is needed in addition to jna. For Vedntins, yoga was necessary not to perfect the body but to eradicate the vsans and annihilate the mind, as expounded by Vidyraya in the 1380 CE Jvanmuktiviveka (prakaraas 2 and 3).31 Svtmrma used more than a quarter of the Amaraughaprabodhas 74 verses when compiling the Hahapradpik. A aiva work32 attributed to Goraka and invoking gurus of the Nth sapradya in its opening verse, it contains little in the way of metaphysical teachings, or even allusions to metaphysical principles, and in the main describes physical haha techniques. The Vasihasahit, 15.5 verses of which, describing sanas and pryma, were used by Svtmrma, was composed before 1300 CE (Bouy 1994:82 n.343) and incorporates Kualin yoga within a Vedic and Vaiava vedantic framework. 33 Its philosophical standpoint is bhedbhedavda, not pure advaita (Vasihasahit introduction p.23). Vasiha states that both Vedic ritual action and jna, which consists of yoga, are needed for liberation (1.29, 31), which is attainable while alive (4.47). The Amanaska, of which 11 verses are found in the Hahapradpik, is, at first glance, an odd choice of source text for Svtmrma. It pours scorn on a variety of soteriological methods including archetypal haha practices (2.31-32), espousing instead the practice of the no-mind state of its title. Accordingly, all of the verses which Svtmrma borrows from it are found in the Hahapradpiks fourth upadea, which teaches samdhi rather than physical yoga practices. Perhaps it was with a view to catering to the vedantic interest in yoga as a means of eradicating the vsans and destroying the mind that he included the Amanaskas teachings in the Hahapradpik. At 4.60, in a verse for which I have not identified a source text but which precedes a verse from the Amanaska, Svtmrma equates the mind with jna and says that both must be destroyed. The Amanaska incorporates both aiva and vedantic non-dual terminology. 34 Thus the supreme tattva is described in terms redolent of aiva non-dualism such as nikala (2.41, 77, 91), while the sleep and waking states described at 2.5964 are derived from the four states of consciousness taught in Gauapdas Kriks. The last text that contributes a significant number of verses to the Hahapradpik is the ivasahit. 8.5 of the 14 verses that they have in common are not found in any other text which predates the Hahapradpik. The ivasahit teaches a yoga grounded in the Vedanta-inflected southern rvidy tradition, a manifestation of Dakimnya Kaula aivism associated with the akarcryas of Shringeri and Kanchi. 35 Its first paala sets forth its advaita world-view from the first verse, and dismisses a variety of other doctrines. Elsewhere its aiva orientation is made clear. 36 But none of its verses which are found in the Hahapradpik teaches doctrine; they are exclusively concerned with the physical techniques of hahayoga. the existence of a Nth sapradya, but in all such instances nth either refers to a semi-divine being, is being used as an honorific term of address, or, as is the case in the majority of instances, is referring to a god, usually the supreme being. An example from the tradition under examination here is given by Kiehnle, who (2005:484) translates Jnevar 6.291 (pie pic grsu | to h nthasaketic asu | pari dunu gel uddeu | mahviu ||) with the swallowing of the body by the body, this is the secret in the context of the Nths, but [here] Mahviu gave the explanation. It is from this verse that Kiehnle takes the title of her article, The Secret of the Nths, but ntha here refers to iva (cf. Datttreyayogastra, 15-26 which teaches ivas saketas, i.e. the secret doctrines of layayoga, and Yogabja 136). The context confirms this, since iva, the original teacher of the technique, is being contrasted with Viu, who (as Ka) is now passing on the teaching. See Mallinson 2011a:409 on how the use of the word Nth to denote a sapradya of human ascetics is not found until the eighteenthcentury. 31 Cf. Aparoknubhti 143. Haha texts typically propose a simpler method than Vidyrayas: Gorakaataka 9 (which is found at Hahapradpik 4.22) says that there are two hetus of the mind, vsans and breath. On one being destroyed, so is the other (and so too the mind): hetudvaya ca cittasya vsan ca samraa | tayor vinaa ekasmis tau dvv api vinayata|| On Vidyrayas preferral of gentle ( mdu) yoga over hahayoga, see Jvanmuktiviveka 1.3.27. 32 See verses 16, 25, 27 and 64. 33 The Vasihasahits yoga does not include the mudrs which distinguish early hahayoga as set out in the earliest text to teach it, the Datttreyayogastra. 34 I am grateful to Jason Birch for this and many other insights into the Amanaska that he has passed on to me in conversations and email correspondence. 35 On the evidence for the ivasahits being a product of this rvidy tradition, see Mallinson forthcoming, ktism and Hahayoga. 36 Thus the final reward of the practices taught in the text, which culminate in one crore repetitions of the rvidy mantrarja, is the attainment of the place of iva (5.252).

Of the remaining six texts borrowed from by Svtmrma (none of which contributes more than four verses), five are from Kaula aiva milieux: the Khecarvidy, Matsyendrasahit, Candrvalokana, Yogaviaya and Kaulajnaniraya. Again, none of the verses taken from these texts teaches metaphysics, but these works are, where explicit, grounded in aiva non-dualism. The remaining text, the Uttaragt, is a short Bhagavadgt-style dialogue between Ka and Arjuna, said in some of its manuscript colophons to be part of the Mahbhrata, but certainly composed considerably later than the main body of the epic. Ka teaches Arjuna a yogic method of realising the truth of advaita Vednta. Indicators of the texts relatively late date are its inclusion of the doctrine of 72,000 ns with the Suumn forming the central channel in between the I and Pigal ( Uttaragt 2.15, 20) and of the aiva non-dual practice of meditating on the absolute as space, 37 which is found in the first of its two verses borrowed by Svtmrma (Uttaragt 1.9c-10b = Hahapradpik 4.55): khamadhye kuru ctmnam tmamadhye ca kha kuru | sarva ca khamaya ktv na kicid api cintayet || Put the self in space and space in the self. Make everything space and think of nothing. Thus Svtmrma, while rarely borrowing verses that teach metaphysical doctrine and being somewhat indiscriminate in his choice of those,38 continued and contributed to a process that was already underway, in which vedantic and aiva non-dualism were synthesised, albeit with the vedantic brahman ultimately winning out as the accepted understanding of the absolute. Vedantic early haha texts already echoed the Uttaragts instruction to meditate on the void in order to obtain moka, in contrast to aivism, in which meditating on the void is a means of attaining ivahood.39 This synthesis is in the main harmonious and unchallenged by critical exegesis such as that found in Abhinavaguptas commentaries on Utpaladevas varapratyabhijkrik (II.4), in which passive vedantic ontology is rebutted in favour of the dynamic consciousness of the Pratyabhij (Rati 2011:668-712). And it is assisted by fortuitous ambiguities and yogic leas. In aiva haha sources, the stem form brahma refers to Brahm. When reinterpreted in a vedantic light, however, it can mean brahman. Thus the brahmarandhra, for example, is no longer the aperture of Brahm, but that of brahman (Mallinson 2007:205 n.240). The polyvalence of certain elements of aiva terminology, which in aiva texts refer to visualised elements in the subtle body, allows them to be reformulated in hahayogic texts with referents all along the ontological spectrum, from the grossest to the most sublime. In khecarmudr, when the tongue enters the hollow (kha) above the palate, the mind enters the void ( kha).40 The bhastrik kumbhaka, the bellows method of breathing, removes the phlegm and so forth that constitute the brahmrgala, the bolt of Brahm/brahman at the top of the central channel, allowing Kualin to pierce the granthis and continue on her upward path ( Gorakaataka 47-48, Yogabja 111-112, Hahapradpik 2.66-67).41 The aiva subtle body, as a microcosm of the universe, is predicated on aiva ontology, but this was soon forgotten when it was adopted as the template of the hahayogic body. Even the relatively early (pre-1300) Vasihasahit had no trouble accommodating Kualin yoga within its orthodox brahmanic teachings. Where we do see some awkwardness is in the synthesis of the two maps of the subtle body that underly hahayogic theory, that of Kualin's ascent through the cakras and that of the keeping of bindu, semen, in its lunar store in the head. The former originated within Pacimmnya works such as the Kubjikmatatantra (Heilijgers-Seelen 1994); the latter is first found in the circa 11th-century Amtasiddhi.42 Thus the all-inclusive Hahapradpik teaches two khecarmudrs. One (3.31-53) seals bindu in the head, the other (4.43-4.55) floods the body with amta. Conclusion Hahayoga is a practical soteriology independent of metaphysical speculation. Metaphysics underpins gnostic and ritual 37 Early Vedntic works do compare jna and brahman with the void (Watson 2010:99,108) but the practice of meditating on the void is not taught therein. 38 Svtmrma includes verses from texts from different vedantic schools, such as the bhedbhedavdin Vasihasahit and kevaldvaita Uttaragt, and, despite attributing the creation of haha to a group of aiva mahsiddhas, includes verses with Vaiava overtones (e.g. 4.100, or 4.58, which is taken from the Laghuyogavsiha and preserves the vocative rma found in its source text). 39 E.g. Datttreyayogastra 124, Vivekamrtaa 153. On meditation on the void in aivism, see Vasudeva 2004:263271. 40 Vivekamrtaa 50ab ( = Hahapradpik 3.40ab): citta carati khe yasmj jihv carati khe gat| 41 On the hahayogic corporealisation of elements of the subtle body, see Mallinson 2007:27-28). 42 Although it shares two and a half verses with the Hahapradpik, the Amtasiddhi appears not to have been used directly by Svtmrma, since those verses are also found in the Amaraughaprabodha, which shares a large number of verses from the Amtasiddhi (as does the ivasahit). On the details of these shared verses, see Mallinson forthcoming notes 31 and 34.

soteriologies, providing the object of knowledge for the former and encoding the latter with meaning, but neither gnosis nor ritual alone can bring about liberation according to hahayogic texts. The Hahapradpik declares that there is no jna until the breath is led into the central channel and bindu is held firm. He who claims to have jna without doing so is a liar (4.114 cf. 4.15). Kriy is essential for hahayoga, but it no longer means ritual action, having become yogic practice itself (Datttreyayogastra 42, 45-46). Yet hahayogic works do not do away with metaphysics altogether and include a variety of references to non-duality, in particular in the context of samdhi, the yogic summum bonum.43 This is of course in keeping with an understanding of yoga as a unificatory liberating experience, its ineffability concomitant with pronouncements of the nirguatva of the absolute. The period of composition of the hahayogic corpus came at a time when the aiva Age was reaching its end and Vednta was becoming the dominant paradigm of scholarly religious thought. Hahayogas partiality for Vedntic non-duality would by then have raised few sectarian hackles. 44 Eliade (1973:143-161) declared the period from the 4th century BCE to the 4th century CE to be the Triumph of Yoga, yet yogas true triumph came during the first half of the second millennium CE. It is then that, thanks to the composition of the hahayogic corpus, yogas practices ceased to be the preserve of ascetics or initiates into tantric cults; that mainstream formulations of yoga - in which haha and Ptajala yoga were not distinguished - first teach it to be an essential counterpart to jna in the pursuit of liberation, wedding it forever with Vedntic soteriology; and that yoga first appears as one of the six daranas in a Sanskrit doxography, the twelfth-century Sarvasiddhntasagraha (Halbfass 1988:352-353).45 The texts of the early hahayogic corpus quickly floated free of any sectarian moorings and became common property, allowing them to be used not only to compile the Hahapradpik, but, in the 17th century, to create a corpus of yoga Upaniads (Bouy 1994). Indeed, hahayogas lack of sectarianism and metaphysical dogma was such that its practice was readily adopted by Muslims in India in the 15th to 17th centuries (Ernst 2003, Sakaki 2005) and many of its tenets, if not its grosser practices, were espoused and recycled by Hindi nirgu poets such as Kabr. What of the place of aivism in this new yoga? Although hahayoga provided a home for a variety of aiva practices and concepts, its philosophical basis came to be dominated by advaita Vednta. The lack of importance given to metaphysics and the concomitant antisectarianism found in the texts of hahayoga composed in its formative period were mirrored by the homogeneity of the ascetic milieu of that time, amongst which yogas innovators were usually to be found. It was not until the 16th to 17th centuries that concrete sectarian identities began to take shape among these groups and it was then that the Nth sapradya first established its corporate identity (Mallinson 2011a). Part of this process was the composition and writing down of a Nth sectarian textual corpus including the Siddhasiddhntapaddhati and vernacular works such as the Macchdra Gorakh Bodh and Pr Skal.46 These works display an ambivalent attitude towards hahayoga - teachings on the subject are trumped by the all-encompassing scorn of the avadhta - but they do make a place for expositions of aiva metaphysics. With the Nth sapradya coming to be understood erroneously as the sole originators of hahayoga, scholars seeking to write about its philosophy, on failing to find a thorough metaphysical grounding in its source texts, have turned to the Siddhasiddhntapaddhati, thus continuing the aiva appropriation of hahayoga by placing excessive emphasis on its aiva origins and neglecting its Vedntic heritage (e.g. Banerjea 1961). Appendix Borrowings in the Hahapradpik47 Amanaska Amaraughaprabodha (AY) (AP) 11 20.5

43 E.g. Vivekamrtaa 164 ( = Hahapradpik 4.7): tatsama ca dvayor aikya jvtmaparamtmano | pranaasarvasakalpa samdhi so 'bhidhyate || 44 But hahayogas (for some) incompatibility with bhakti did make it a target for poets of the later bhakti movement such as Tulsds (e.g. Kavitval, Uttaraka 7.84; I thank Patton Burchett for pointing out this reference to me). 45 The Sarvasiddhntasagraha explicitly subordinates all daranas to Vednta (Halbfass:356); its inclusion of yoga among the daranas points to the Vedntins new interest in yoga. 46 Both these vernacular texts are included in the Gorakhb, Ptbaradatta Baathvls compilation of Hindi Nth works. 47 As can be seen in the following table, many verses are found in more than one source text. When counting the number of verses contributed by a text, I count only those for which I consider it the primary source. Thus the Hahapradpik shares 12.5 verses with the Yogabja, but only 4 of those are found in the Yogabja and not elsewhere.

Uttaragt Kaulajnaniraya Khecarvidy Gorakaataka Candrvalokana Datttreyayogastra Matsyendrasahit Laghuyogavsiha Yogabja Yogaviaya Vivekamrtaa Vasihasahit ivasahit

(UG) (KJN) (KhV) (G ) (CA) (DY) (MaSa) (LYV) (YB) (YV) (VM) (VS) (S)

2 1 4 31.5 4 20.5 0.5 2 4 0.5 47.5 verses 15.5 verses 8.5

The parallel that I consider to be Svtmrma's source is given first, with additional parallels in parentheses. If there are two likely sources, the text I consider oldest is given first. Some sources are found only in parentheses (the Amtasiddhi (AS), Ahirbudhnyasahit (ABS), Yogayjavalkya (YY) and radtilaka (T)); they are likely to be the original source texts of those verses, but Svtmrma used texts which borrowed from them.

1.11 1.12cd 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.32ab 1.35 1.36 1.38 1.43 1.44 1.45-46 1.48 1.50a-1.52b 1.53ab 1.54 1.57 1.58 1.61ab

S 5.254 G 32cd VS 1.68 ( = T 25.12, ABS 31.40, YY 3.3, S 3.113) VS 1.70, ( = YY 3.5) VS 1.72, ( = YY 3.8) VS 1.80, (ab = ABS 31.35ab) VS 1.78 (ABS 31.38) S 3.108 (change of metre) S 3.109 (change of metre) VS 1.76-77 (change of metre) DY 24cd VM 7 VS 1.81 DY 32c-34b S 5.47 VM 8 DY 35-36 (S 3.102-103) VM 35B48 VS 1.73-75b (YY 3.9a-11b) VS 1.79ab (YY 3.12ab) VS 1.79c-f (YY 3.12c-f) VM 37 G 12c-13b AP 44cd

48 The Baroda Vivekamrtaa manuscript has two verses numbered 35, which I distinguish with A and B.

1.64 1.65 1.66 2.2-3 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9ab 2.9cd 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.14 2.15 2.16-17 2.18 2.19ab 2.20 2.40 2.45ab 2.45cd 2.46 2.48cd 2.50ab 2.50cd 2.51-53 2.57-58 2.59 2.60-67 2.71cd 2.71ef 2.72ab 2.72c-72f 2.73 2.76 3.2 3.5 3.6ab 3.9 3.10-11b 3.13ab 3.13cd

DY 40 DY 42c-43b DY 46 VM 71-72 VM 76 VM 77 VM 79 DY 63ab DY 61cd VM 81 cf. DY 63a-65b cf. DY 75a-76b (VS 3.22) S 3.43 VM 101 VM 99-100 (2.17ab = MaSa 4.23cd) VM 102 DY 67cd VM 82 VM 73 G 61cd (YB 121cd) G 57cd (cf. YB 118ab) YB 123c-124b G 34ab cf. G 35 G 36ab (YB 103cd) G 36c-39b G 39c-41b G 14 (T 25.10cd+11cd, ABS 31.34) G 41c-49b (2.65-67 = YB 110c-112d) VS 3.28cd (YY 6.32ab) VS 3.29ab (YY 6.32cd, G 30ab) VS 3.28ab (YY 6.31cd) VS 3.27 (YY 6.30c-31b) VS 3.30a-30d (DY 146-147, YY 6.33) S 5.222a-d S 4.21 S 4.22 S 4.23ab AP 29 (AS 11.3; cd also = AP 37ab) AP 30-31 AP 32ab AP 32cd (AS 11.9cd)

3.14-17 3.18ab 3.19 3.22ab 3.23cd 3.24 3.25ab 3.26ab 3.26cd 3.27 3.29ab 3.29cd 3.30ab 3.30c-f 3.31 3.33-35 3.38-40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.49 3.50 3.53ab 3.54 3.55-56 3.57-8 3.60 3.61 3.62-63 3.64 3.65-68 3.69 3.70-71 3.72ab 3.78 3.78c-79f 3.80-81 3.82a-83b 3.86c-87d 3.88cd 3.101 3.102 3.103 3.109 3.110

VM 60-63 DY 132cd AP 34 AP 35ab AP 35cd AP 36 ( AS 13.3; 3.24cd = S 4.47ab) cf. SS 4.43ab cf. SS 4.43cd AP 40cd AP 41 AP 42ab AP 43ab AP 42cd AP 43c-44b VM 47 KhV 1.44-46 VM 48-50 VM 50 VM 53 VM 125 VM 130 VM 131 VM 128 VM 118 Kulacmaitantra (cited in ivastravimarin ad II.5) G 58 (YB 118c-119b) VM 43-44 DY 141c-143b (YB 119c-121b) VM 42 G 52c-53b ( = G 75) DY 144-145 (YB 116-117) VM 41 G 53c-57b DY 138 VM 45-46 YV 19ab VM 135 DY 146-147 DY 148c-150b DY 152a-153b (3.82ab = S 4.79ab) DY 156c-157d (3.87cd = S 4.88ab) VM 52ab VM 35A VM 33 VM 39 YB 92 G 59

3.111 3.112 3.113-114 3.115 4.2 4.5-6 4.7 4.8 4.16 4.17cd 4.19 4.22 4.24-25 4.31-32 4.33 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.54 4.55 4.56 4.58 4.61 4.69 4.70-77 4.100 4.108 4.109 4.110 4.112 4.113

YB 125 YB 94 G 22c-24b G 26c-27b G 63c-64b VM 162-163 VM 164 AY 2.5 CA 30 MaSa 4.44ab DY 108 G 9 AY 2.27-28 AY 2.21-22 KJN 3.2c-3b AY 2.9 AY 2.10 (CA 1) CA 2 AY 2.8 AY 2.11 CA 3 KhV 3.19 CA 25 UG 1.9c-10b LYV 6.15.79 LYV 3.7.27 AY 2.79 AP 45 (AS 19.2, S 3.31) AP 46-53 UG 1.42 VM 168 VM 166 G 7 AY 2.59 VM 169

I am very grateful to Jason Birch for giving me general advice on how I might go about this article and specific comments on a draft of it. I thank also Alex Watson, who gave me very useful feedback on a draft, and Isabelle Rati, who helped me with references. The table of borrowings in the Hahapradpik owes a great deal to the work of the late Christian Bouy, whose pioneering 1994 monograph paved the way for philological study of the hahayogic corpus and who kindly provided me with copies of several manuscript sources.

Aparoknubhti, Vidyrayaktay Aparokadpikkhyakay savalit, ed. Kamla Devi. Akayavaa Prakana,

1988. Amanaskayoga, ed. Jason Birch. Critical edition submitted for DPhil. University of Oxford, 2012. Amaraughaprabodha, of Gorakantha, ed. K.Mallik in Mallik 1954. Amaraughasana, of Gorakantha, ed. Pt. Mukund Rm str. Kasmir Series of Texts and Studies 20. Srinagar, 1918. Amtasiddhi of Virpkantha. Maharaja Mansingh Pustak Prakash, Jodhpur, Acc. No. 1242. Alakhbn or Rushdnm of Shaikh Abd-ul-Quddus Gangohi, ed. Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi and Shailesh Zaidi. Aligarh: Bharat Prakashan Mandir, 1971. Ahirbudhnysahit, ed. M.D.Ramanujacharya under the supervision of F.Otto Schrader; revised by V.Krishnamacharya. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1966. ryamajurnmasagti with Amtakaik-ippan by Bhiku Ravirjna and Amtakaikodyota-nibandha of Vibhticandra, ed.B.Lal. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1994. Uttaragt, ed. S.V. Oka. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute Post-Graduate and Research Department Series No. 3. Poona: Bhandarkar Institute Press, 1957. Kavitvali of Tulsds, in ukla, Rmcandra; Bhagvn Dn; and Brajratna Ds, eds. 1973 (2030 VS)1974 (2031 VS). Tuls Granthval, vols. 12. Benares: Ngr Pracri Sabh. Kubjikmatatantra, Kullikmnya version, ed. T. Goudriaan and J.A. Schoterman. Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1988. Kaulajnaniraya of Matsyendrantha, ed. Prabodh Candra Bagchi in Kaulajnaniraya and Some Minor Texts of the School of Matsyendrantha. Calcutta Sanskrit Series, No. 3. Calcutta: Metropolitan, 1934. Khecarvidy, ed. James Mallinson. The Khecarvidy of dintha. A critical edition and annotated translation of an early text of hahayoga. London: Routledge, 2007. Gorakaataka. Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, MS No. R 7874. See also Mallinson 2011b. Gorakasahit, ed. Janrdana str Peya. Sarasvatbhavanagranthaml Vol. 111. Varanasi: Samprnandasasktavivavidylaye, 2006. Gorakhb, ed. P.D. Baathvl. Prayg: Hind Shity Sammelan, 1960.

Candrvalokana. Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, MS No. D 4345. Jvanmuktiviveka. See Goodding 2002. (r)-Jnevar of Jnadeva, ed. G.S. Naadkar. 5 vols. Mumbai: Prak Gopl Naadkar, 2001. Datttreyayogastra. Unpublished edition by James Mallinson based on Datttreyayogastra, ed. Brahmamitra Avasth, Svm Keavnanda Yoga Sasthna 1982 (B); Man Singh Pustak Prakash Nos.1936 (J1); Wai Praj Phal 6/4-399 (W1), 6163 (W2); Baroda Oriental Institute 4107 (V); Mysore Government Oriental Manuscripts Library 4369 (M); Thanjavur Palace Library B6390 (T). 49 Nivsatattvasahit Netratantra with commentary (Uddyota) by Kemarja, ed. Madhusdan Kaul str. KSTS 46. Srinagar, 1926. Pdmasahit, ed. S.Padmanabhan and R.N.Sampath. Madras: Pancaratra Parisodhana Parisad, 1974. Bhgavatapuram, ed. Vasudeva arman. Bombay : Nirnaya Sagar, 1905. 49 This edition was read with Professor Alexis Sanderson, Jason Birch, Pter Szant and Andrea Acri in Oxford in early 2012, all of whom I thank for their valuable emendations and suggestions.

Matsyendrasahit. See Kiss 2009. Mrkaeyapura, ed. K.M. Banerjea. Calcutta: Bishops College Press, 1862. Laghuyogavsiha, ed. Vasudeva Sharma Panasikara. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985. Lcaritra of Mhibhaa, ed. V.B. Kolte. Muba: Mahrra Rjya Shitya Saskti Maala, 1978. Ragales of Harihara. Mahkavi Hampeya Hariharadevakta Ntana Purtanara Ragalegalu , ed. M.S.Sunkapura. Dharwar: Kannada Adhyayana Pitha, Karnataka University, 1976. Yogabja, ed. Rm Ll rvstav. Gorakhpur: r Gorakhnth Mandir, 1982. Yogayjavalkya, ed. P.C. Divanji. Bombay: Royal Asiatic Society, 1954. Vasihasahit (Yogaka), eds. Swami Digambarji, Pitambar Jha, Gyan Shankar Sahay (first edition); Swami Maheshananda, B.R. Sharma, G.S. Sahay, R.K. Bodhe (revised edition). Lonval: Kaivalyadhm rmanmdhav Yogamandir Samiti, 2005. Vimnrcankalpa, ed. rsvmhthrmj. Madras: Venkateshwar Press, 1926. Vivekamrtaa of Gorakadeva. Oriental Institute of Baroda Library. Acc. No. 4110. radtilakam of Lakmaadeikendra, paala 25, ed. G.Bhnemann. See Bhnemann 2001. rgadharapaddhati, ed. Peter Peterson. Bombay: Government Central Book Depot, 1888. ivasahit, ed. and tr. J. Mallinson. New York: YogaVidya.com, 2007. ivastra with the commentary (vimarin) of Rjnaka Kemarja , ed. J.C.Chatterji. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 1. Shrinagar, 1911. nyasapdane, eds. S.C. Nandimath, L.M.A. Menezes, R.C. Hiremath, M.S. Sunkapur. 5 Vols. Dharwar: Karnatak University, 1965-1972. Siddhasiddhntapaddhati of Gorakantha, ed. M.L. Gharote and G.K. Pai. Lonavla: Lonavla Yoga Institute, 2005. Skandapura, ed. Kaprasda Bhaar (Skandapurasya Ambikkhaa). Kathmandu: Mahendrasaskravivavidylaya, 1988. Hahapradpik of Svtmrma, eds. Svm Digambarj and Dr Ptambar Jh. Lonavla: Kaivalyadhm S.M.Y.M.Samiti, 1970. Banerjea, Akshaya Kumar. (1983). Philosophy of Gorakhnath with Goraksha-Vacana-Sangraha. England: Combe Springs Press. Bouy, Christian. (1994). Les Ntha-Yogin et les Upaniads. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard. Briggs, George Weston. (1989 [1938]). Gorakhnth and the Knphaa Yogs. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Bhler, G. (1892). The Cintra Praasti of the reign of Sarangadeva. Epigraphia Indica Vol. 1, 271-287. Calcutta: Archeological Survey of India. Bhnemann, Gudrun. (2001). The Iconography of Hindu Tantric Deities volume II. The Pantheons of the Prapacasra and the radtilaka. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

Colas, Grard. (1988). Le yoga de l'officiant Vaikhanasa. Journal Asiatique 276 (3-4), 245-283.

----------------------. (2010) Vaiava Sahits. Brill Encyclopedia of Hinduism Vol.2, 153-167. Leiden: Brill. Digby, Simon. (1970) Encounters with Jogs in Indian f hagiography. Unpublished paper presented at a seminar on Aspects of Religion in South Asia at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Eliade, Mircea. (1973 [1954]). Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ernst, Carl W. (2003). The Islamization of Yoga in the Amrtakunda Translations. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 13:2, 1-23. ----------------------. Accounts of yogis in Arabic and Persian historical and travel texts. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 33, 409-426. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Franco, Eli. (2009) Introduction. Yogic Perception, Meditation and Altered States of Consciousness , ed. Eli Franco in collaboration with Dagmar Einer, 1-51. Vienna: Verlag der sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Goodall, Dominic. (2004) The Parkhyatantra. A Scripture of the aiva Siddhnta. A critical edition and annotated translation. Pondicherry: Publications de lInstitut franais dIndologie No. 98. Goodding, Robert. (2002) The Treatise on Liberation-in-Life, Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of the Jvanmuktiviveka of Vidyraya. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Texas. Halbfass, Wilhelm. (1988) India and Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press. Heilijgers-Seelen, Dory. (1994) The System of Five Cakras in Kubjikmatatantra 14-16. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Hori, Shinichir. (2005) Additional Notes on the Unidentified Sanskrit Fragments in the tani Collection at Rykoku University Library. Journal of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, 91-97. Kiehnle, Catharina. (1997) Songs on Yoga. Texts and Teachings of the Mahrrian Nths. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. . (2005) The Secret of the Nths: The Ascent of Kualin according to Jnevar 6.151-328. Bulletin des tudes Indiennes 22-23, 447-494. Kiss, Csaba. (2009). Matsyendrantha's Compendium (Matsyendrasahit). A critical edition and annotated translation of Matsyendrasahit 1-13 and 55 with analysis. Unpublished DPhil. thesis submitted to Oxford University. Kiss, Csaba. (2011) The Matsyendrasahit: A Yogin-centred Thirteenth-century Yoga Text of the South Indian mbhava Cult. Yogi Heroes and Poets: Histories and Legends of the Nths, eds. David N.Lorenzen and Adrin Muoz, 143-162. New York: SUNY. Lvi, Sylvain. (1905) Le Npal: tude Historique d'un Royaume Hindou. Vol. 1. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Locke, John K. (1980) Karunamaya. The Cult of Avalokitesvara-Matsyendranath In the Valley of Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Prakashan. Mallik, Kalyani. (1954) The Siddha Siddhnta Paddhati and Other Works of Nath Yogis. Poona: Poona Oriental Book House. Mallinson, James. (2007) The Khecarvidy of dintha. A critical edition and annotated translation of an early text of hahayoga. London: Routledge. ----------------------. (2011a) Nth Sapradya. Brill Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 3, ed. Knut A. Jacobsen, 407-428. Leiden: Brill. ----------------------. (2011b) The Original Gorakaataka. Yoga in Practice, ed. D.G.White, 257272. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Michaels, Axel. (1985) On 12th-13th Century relations between Nepal and South India. Journal of the Nepal Research Centre Vol. VII, 69-73. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH.

Narharinth, Yog. (1953) Khamaapa. Saskta-sandea Vol. 1, No. 6, 4-10. Rati, Isabelle. (2011) Le Soi et LAutre. Leiden: Brill. Rizvi, S.A.A. (1971) See Alakhbn. Sakaki, Kazuyo. (2005) Yogico-tantric Traditions in the awd al-ayt. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 7, 135-156. Saletore, B.A. (1937) The Knapha Jogis in Southern History. The Poona Orientalist 1, 16-22. Sanderson, Alexis. (2007) Atharvavedins in Tantric Territory: The Agirasakalpa Texts of the Oriya Paippaldins and their Connection with the Trika and the Klkula, with critical editions of the Parjapavidhi, the Parmantravidhi, and the Bhadraklmantravidhiprakaraa. The Atharvaveda and its Paippalda akh: Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition, eds. Arlo Griffiths and Annette Schmiedchen, 195-311. ----------------------. (2011) aivism, Society and the State. Unpublished paper. Slusser, Mary & Vajracarya, Dhanavajra. (2005) Two Medieval Nepalese Buildings: An Architectural and Cultural Study. Art and Culture of Nepal: Selected Papers, by Mary Shepherd Slusser with contributions by Gautam V. Vajracharya and Manuela Fuller, 429-503. Kathmandu: Mandala Publications. [This article first appeared in Artibus Asiae, vol. 36 No. 3 (1974) pp. 169-218.] Stearns, Cyrus. (1996) The Life and Tibetan Legacy of the Indian Mahpaita Vibhticandra. The Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies Vol.19 No.1, 127-171. Tamot, Kashinath. (2009) Devo Gorako is not there. Blog post at http://www.nepalmandal.org/archive/200901. Tulpule, Shankar Gopal. (1979) Classical Marh Literature. A History of Indian Literature Vol. IX, fasc. 4. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrowitz. Vajrcrya, Dhanavajra. (1975) aktil Bhadra Rmavarddhanaru r tatklika Nepl. 12-36 in Prim 7 (vikram samvat 2022 Krttik), 12-36. Vasudeva, Somadeva. (2004) The Yoga of the Mlinvijayottaratantra. Pondicherry: Publications de lInstitut franais dIndologie No. 97. Vaudeville, Charlotte. (1987) The Shaiva-Vaishnava Synthesis in Maharashtrian Santism. The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India, ed. Karine Schomer and W.H.McLeod, 215-228. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Watson, Alex. (2010) Rmakahas Concept of Unchanging Cognition ( nityajna): Influence from Buddhism, Skhya and Vednta. From Vasubandhu to Caitanya: Studies in Indian Philosophy and Its Textual History, ed. Johannes Bronkhorst and Karin Preisendanz, 79-120. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Weightman, S.C.R. (1992) The text of Alakh Bn. Devotional Literature in South Asia: Current Research 1985-1988, ed. R.S.McGregor., 172-178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.