# The Amaraugha and Amaraughaprabodha of Gorakṣanātha

Jason E Birch

► To cite this version:

Jason E Birch. The Amaraugha and Amaraughaprabodha of Gorakṣanātha. Collection Indologie (157), pp.176, 2024, 978-81-8470-250-7. hal-05306873

HAL Id: hal-05306873

https://hal.science/hal-05306873v1

Submitted on 18 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
THE AMARAUGHA AND
AMARAUGHAPRABODHA OF GORAKṢANĀTHA

The Genesis of Haṭha and Rājayoga

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

A critical edition and annotated translation by
Jason BIRCH
OTHER BOOKS IN THE COLLECTION
INDOLOGIE SERIES

D'AUTRES OUVRAGES DANS LA COLLECTION
INDOLOGIE

The Holy Island in the Kāveri: a Hagiotopography. Critical Edition and Translation of the Śriraṅgamābātmya. R. Sathyanarayanan, Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz, IFP/EFEO, 2023, 230 p. (CI n°156).

Vidhiviveka of Maṇḍanamīśra with its commentary Nyāyakāṇikā of Vācaspatimiśra and its commentaries Jujadhbāṅkaraṇī and Svaditaṇkaraṇī of Parameśvara. Critically edited from available manuscripts, testimonia and paraphrases by Elliot M. Stern. IFP/EFEO, 2023, 2 vols (cxxiv, 1104 p.) (CI n°155).

The East Mebon Stele Inscription from Angkor (K. 528). A Sanskrit Eulogy of the tenth-century Khmer Sovereign Rājendravarman. Dominic Goodall, IFP/EFEO, 2022, 331 p. (CI n°154).

The Sumatipañjikā. A Commentary on Cāndrayākaraṇavṛtti 1.1 and 1.4. Ramhari Timalsina. IFP/EFEO, 2022, xx, 424 p. (CI n°153).

Mélanges à la mémoire de Pandit N.R. Bhatt. Studies in Memory of Pandit N.R. Bhatt. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, Dominic Goodall, Peter Pasedach, IFP/EFEO, 2022, xxiv, 491 p. (CI n°152).

Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntabhūṣanam. The Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntabhūṣaṇa of Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa with the Nirañjanī commentary by Ramyatna Shukla and Prakāsa explanatory notes by K.V. Ramakrishnamacharyulu. Part IV (from Śaktinirṇaya to Sphoṭavāda), Critically edited by K.V. Ramakrishnamacharyulu, IFP/SSSU/EFEO, 2022, xxxv, 829 p. (CI n° 151 / Shree Somnath Sanskrit University Shastra Grantha series n° 8).

The Amṛtasiddhi and Amṛtasiddhimūla. The Earliest Texts of the Haṭhayoga Tradition. Critically edited and translated by James Mallinson and Péter-Dániel Szántó, IFP/EFEO, 2021, 203 p. (CI n° 150/ Haṭha Yoga Series no 2).

To order, contact: / Pour commander, s'adresser à :

Institut Français de Pondichéry
(attn. Library and Publication Division)
P. B. 33, 11, St. Louis Street,
Pondicherry-605001, INDIA
Ph: +91-413-2331660/661
E-mail: library@ifpindia.org
Web: www.ifpindia.org

École française d'Extrême-Orient
P.O. Box 151, 16 & 19, Dumas Street,
Pondicherry - 605001, INDIA
Ph: +91-413-2334539
E-mail: shanti@efeo-pondicherry.org
Web: www.efeo.fr

# THE AMARAUGHA AND AMARAUGHAPRABODHA OF GORAKṢANĀTHA

## The Genesis of Haṭha and Rājayoga

The Lineage of Immortals (Sanskrit *Amaraugha*) is the earliest account of a fourfold system of yoga in which a physical practice called Haṭha is taught as the means to a deep state of meditation known as Rājayoga. The *Amaraugha* was composed in Sanskrit during the twelfth century and attributed to the author Gorakṣanātha. The physical yoga practices have a pre-history in a tantric Buddhist milieu but were here adapted for a Śaiva audience. The treatise explains how Śaiva yogis move *kuṇḍalinī*, unite Śakti with Śiva, and achieve Rājayoga. Three hundred years later, the author of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* incorporated almost all the *Amaraugha*'s verses on Haṭhayoga into his own work, which became a definitive exposition of physical yoga. The study of the *Amaraugha* reveals not only the genesis of Haṭha and Rājayoga but also the creation of the most influential model of Haṭhayoga in the early modern period. This book presents the first critical edition and annotated translation of the *Amaraugha*, as well as a later recension, called the *Amaraughaprabodha*, with an introduction that explores the profound significance of both works for the history of yoga.

La Lignée des Immortels (Amaraugha en sanskrit) est le récit le plus ancien d'un système de yoga en quatre parties où une pratique physique appelée Haṭha est enseignée comme moyen d'atteindre un état profond de méditation connu sous le nom de Rājayoga. L'Amaraugha a été composé en sanskrit au XIIe siècle et attribué à l'auteur Gorakṣanātha. Les pratiques physiques du yoga ont une préhistoire dans un milieu bouddhiste tantrique, mais elles ont été adaptées dans ce texte pour un public śivaïte. Le traité explique comment les yogis śivaïtes peuvent déplacer la kuṇḍalinī, unir Śakti à Śiva et atteindre le Rājayoga. Trois cents ans plus tard, l'auteur de la Haṭhapradīpikā a incorporé presque tous les vers de l'Amaraugha sur le Haṭhayoga dans son propre récit, qui est devenu une exposition définitive du yoga physique. L'étude de l'Amaraugha révèle non seulement la genèse du Haṭha et du Rājayoga, mais aussi la création du modèle le plus influent du Haṭhayoga au début de l'époque moderne. Ce livre présente la première édition critique, avec traduction annotée, de l'Amaraugha, ainsi qu'une recension ultérieure appelée Amaraughaprabodha. L'introduction explore la signification profonde des deux ouvrages pour l'histoire du yoga.

ISBN 978-81-8470-250-7

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

9 788184 702507

ISBN (IFP): 978-81-8470-250-7

ISBN 978-2-85539-263-9

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

9 782855 392639

ISBN (EFEO): 978-2-85539-263-9

ifp

Research
on Culture
Environment
& Society

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Institut Français
de Pondichéry

THE
HAṬHA YOGA
PROJECT

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

EFEO

École française
d'Extrême-Orient

Collection Indologie - 157
Haṭha Yoga Series - 3

# THE AMARAUGHA AND AMARAUGHAPRABODHA OF GORAKṢANĀTHA

## The Genesis of Haṭha and Rājayoga

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

A critical edition and annotated translation by
Jason BIRCH

Jason Birch was awarded his doctorate at the University of Oxford and is a Senior Research Fellow of the *Light on Hatha* project, hosted at SOAS University of London and the University of Marburg. He is co-Director of the *Yoga-cintāmaṇī* project at the University of Massachusetts Boston and an Associate Researcher of the *Suśruta* project at the University of Alberta. He has published articles on the history of Haṭha and Rājayoga, and co-authored a book on plastic surgery in the Nepalese version of the *Suśrutasaṃhitā*. From 2015 to 2020, he was a Post-doctoral Research Fellow of the ERC-funded Haṭha Yoga Project. He is a founding member of the SOAS Centre of Yoga Studies and the peer-reviewed *Journal of Yoga Studies*.

Jason Birch a obtenu son doctorat à l'université d'Oxford et est actuellement chercheur principal du projet « Light on Hatha yoga: A critical edition and translation of the Haṭhapradīpikā, the most important premodern text on physical yoga », hébergé par la SOAS de Londres et l'université de Marburg. Il est également codirecteur du projet Yogacintāmaṇī, hébergé par l'université de Massachusetts à Boston, et chercheur associé du projet Suśruta à l'université d'Alberta. Il a publié des articles sur l'histoire du Haṭha et du Rājayoga, et a coécrit un livre sur la chirurgie plastique dans la version népalaise de la *Suśrutasaṃhitā*. De 2015 jusqu'en 2020, il a été chercheur postdoctoral dans le cadre du projet Haṭha Yoga financé par l'ERC. Il est membre fondateur du SOAS Centre of Yoga Studies et du Journal of Yoga Studies, une revue à comité de lecture.
THE AMARAUGHA AND
AMARAUGHAPRABODHA OF GORAKṢANĀTHA

THE GENESIS OF HĀTHA AND RĀJAYOGA
L'Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP), UMIFRE 21 CNRS-MAE, est un établissement à autonomie financière sous la double tutelle du Ministère français des Affaires Etrangères (MAE) et du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). Il est partie intégrante du réseau des 27 centres de recherche de ce Ministère. Avec le Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH) à New Delhi, il forme l'UAR 3330 du CNRS « Savoirs et Mondes Indiens ». Il remplit des missions de recherche, d'expertise et de formation en Sciences Humaines et Sociales et en Écologie en Asie du Sud. Il s'intéresse particulièrement aux savoirs et patrimoines culturels indiens (langue et littérature sanskrite, histoire des religions, études tamoules...), aux dynamiques sociales contemporaines, et aux écosystèmes naturels de l'Inde du Sud.

The French Institute of Pondicherry (IFP), UMIFRE 21 CNRS-MAE, is a financially autonomous institution under the joint supervision of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MAE) and the French National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS). It is a part of the network of 27 research centres under this Ministry. It also forms part of the research unit 3330 'Savoirs et Mondes Indiens' of the CNRS, along with the Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH) in New Delhi. It fulfils its missions of research, expertise and training in Human and Social Sciences and Ecology in South Asia. It works particularly in the fields of Indian cultural knowledge and heritage (Sanskrit language and literature, history of religions, Tamil studies...), contemporary social dynamics and the natural ecosystems of South India.

French Institute of Pondicherry, 11, St. Louis Street, P.B. 33, Pondicherry—605001, India

Tel: (413) 2231609, Email: ifpdir@ifpindia.org

Website: http://www.ifpindia.org

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

L'École française d'Extrême-Orient (EFEO), fondée en 1900 à Hanoï, est un établissement relevant du ministère français de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche dont la mission scientifique est l'étude des civilisations classiques de l'Asie. Son champ de recherches s'étend de l'Inde à la Chine et au Japon et, englobant l'ensemble du Sud-Est asiatique, comprend la plupart des sociétés qui furent indianisées ou sinisées au cours de l'histoire. Autour de ses dix-sept centres et antennes, installés dans douze pays d'Asie, se sont constitués des réseaux de chercheurs locaux et internationaux sur lesquels l'École a pu s'appuyer pour construire son essor. L'EFEO aborde l'Asie par des recherches pluridisciplinaires et comparatistes, associant l'archéologie, l'histoire, l'anthropologie, la philologie, et les sciences religieuses. À Pondichéry, les projets de l'EFEO portent essentiellement sur l« indologie » classique : sanskrit, tamoul ancien, histoire, histoire de l'art et des religions.

The mission of The French School of Asian Studies (EFEO), founded in 1900 in Hanoi and today under the aegis of the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research, is to study the classical civilizations of Asia. Stretching from India, in the West, across the whole of South-East Asia to China and Japan, the EFEO's research areas cover most of the societies which have been 'Indianised' or 'Sinicised' over the course of history. A network of international scholars working at the EFEO's seventeen centres and branch offices, which are spread across twelve Asian countries, has been essential in the development of the School's research programme. Interdisciplinary projects bring together leading scholars in the fields of anthropology, archaeology, history, philology, and religious studies. In Pondicherry, the projects of the EFEO focus mainly on classical Indology: Sanskrit, Old Tamil, History, and History of art and of religions.

École française d'Extrême-Orient,
22, avenue du Président Wilson,
75116 Paris, France.

Tel: (33) 1 53 70 18 60

Website: http://www.efeo.fr/

Pondicherry Centre of the EFEO
16 & 19, Dumas Street,

Pondicherry—605001, India.

Tel: (91) (413) 2334539/2332504

Email: administration@efeo-pondicherry.org
THE HAṬHA YOGA SERIES

Yoga is central to Indian religious practice and culture. From probable origins among heterodox ascetics in the first millennium BCE it gradually became part of almost all of India's religious traditions. Key to yoga's importance in both its modern globalised manifestations and Indian religious practice are its physical techniques. Some ascetic physical practices are as ancient as yoga itself, while others appear to be innovations introduced at the beginning of the second millennium CE when a corpus of works on *haṭha* — as the method of yoga in which physical practices predominate is known in Sanskrit — was composed.

The *Haṭha Yoga Project* based at SOAS University of London (2015–2020, European Research Council Grant No. 647963), sought to improve the textual foundations for the study of *haṭha* yoga by critically editing ten of its most important texts, both from the period of formalisation, but also from key moments in its subsequent development up to the nineteenth century, and to supplement textual evidence with ethnographic observation of its ascetic practitioners in India today. This mini-series, launched within the “Collection Indologie,” will publish some of the fruits of the project, in particular editions and translations of Sanskrit manuals of Haṭha Yoga.

The *Haṭha Yoga Series* is not a closed collection: as well as the list of works of which editions and translations were promised as part of the project, studies of numerous related works were inspired or further advanced during the project's workshops, and some of these will also be published in the series.
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>The *Amaraughaprabodha*, Ms. No. 4340, Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Chennai.</figcaption></figure>
COLLECTION INDOLOGIE 157

HAṬHA YOGA SERIES 3

THE AMARAUGHA AND
AMARAUGHAPRABODHA OF GORAKṢANĀTHA

THE GENESIS OF HAṬHA AND RĀJAYOGA

A CRITICAL EDITION AND ANNOTATED TRANSLATION BY

JASON BIRCH

INSTITUT FRANÇAIS DE PONDICHÉRY

ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE D'EXTRÊME-ORIENT
Comité de rédaction / Editorial Board

Hugo DAVID, T. GANESAN, Dominic GOODALL, Borayin LARIOS, Blandine RIPERT

Comité Éditorial / Advisory Board

Diwakar ACHARYA (Kyoto University),

Nalini BALBIR (Université de Paris III et École pratique des hautes études),

Peter BISSCHOP (Leiden University),

Eloïse BRAC DE LA PERRIÈRE (Université de Paris IV),

Sylvain BROCQUET (Université d'Aix-Marseille),

Whitney Cox (Chicago University),

Richard DAVIS (Bard College, New York),

Arlo GRIFFITHS (École française d'Extrême-Orient),

Oskar vON HINÜBER (University of Freiburg im Breisgau),

Padma KAIMAL (Colgate University),

Kei KATAOKA (Kyushu University),

Vempati KUTUMBA SASTRY (Banaras Hindu University),

Leslie ORR (Concordia University),

Parul PANDYA Dhar (Delhi University),

Aloka PARASHER-SEN (University of Hyderabad),

V. SELVAKUMAR (Thanjavur University),

Kesavan VELUTHAT (Delhi University, retired).

Comité de Lecture / Peer-review

Les éditeurs font appel à des spécialistes de leur choix pour l'évaluation des manuscrits soumis.

The publishers of the series call on experts of their choice for the evaluation of manuscripts submitted.

© Institut Français de Pondichéry, 2024 (ISBN 978-81-8470-250-7)

© École française d'Extrême-Orient, 2024 (ISBN 978-2-85539-263-9)

Typeset by Jason BIRCH.

Cover Image: Gaṇeśa and Gorakṣanātha. Hindi Manuscript 884. Wellcome Collection. Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Printed at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, Pondicherry.
कायेनैव परीक्षेत वाक्पटुः किं करिष्यति ।
के चित्संवादमात्रेण किं भविष्यन्ति योगिनः ॥
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
# Contents

<table><tr><td>Acknowledgements</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>The Amaraugha</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Two Recensions, Two Names</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Synopsis of Content</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Authorship</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Date of Composition</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Previous Attempts to Date the Text</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>The Date based on New Evidence</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Region and Sectarian Affiliation</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Continuities and Discontinuities with the Amṛtasiddhi</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>From Raising Generative Fluids to Moving Kundalinī</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Forceful Vajrayāna and Śaiva Yogas</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>The Four Yogas</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Meaning of yoga in the Context of Four Yogas</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Mantrayoga</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>Layayoga</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Haṭhayoga</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Rājayoga</td><td>47</td></tr><tr><td>The Amaraugha's Haṭha and Subsequent Traditions</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>Editorial Matters</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Manuscripts</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Stemma</td><td>55</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Past Editions</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Editorial Policies</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Critical Edition of the <i>Amaraugha</i></td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>Critical Edition of the <i>Amaraughaprabodha</i></td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Annotated Translation of the <i>Amaraugha</i></td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>Annotated Translation of the <i>Amaraughaprabodha</i></td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>Abbreviations</td><td>143</td></tr><tr><td>Bibliography</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Primary Sources</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary Sources</td><td>156</td></tr><tr><td>Index</td><td>163</td></tr></table>
Acknowledgements

MY INTEREST IN THE AMARAUGHAPRABODHA arose in 2004 when I noticed one of its verses in a text on Rājayoga called the *Amanaska*, which I studied for my honours thesis at the University of Sydney under the supervision of Peter Oldmeadow. With the financial support of the Clarendon and Boden Funds at the University of Oxford (2008–2013), I undertook extensive fieldwork in India with Jacqueline Hargreaves and obtained copies of five manuscripts of the *Amaraughaprabodha*. I read the text with Alexis Sanderson and, with his guidance, edited and translated several of its verses for my doctoral thesis (Birch 2013). Having written about the historical importance of the *Amaraughaprabodha* in my thesis, I suggested to James Mallinson that we include it as one of the texts to be studied by the Haṭha Yoga Project.

My colleagues of the Haṭha Yoga Project, namely, James Mallinson, Mark Singleton and Daniela Bevilacqua, have played crucial roles in my efforts to understand the history of Haṭhayoga that informs this book. The few comments that I make on modern yoga owe much to long conversations with Elizabeth de Michelis, who has helped me gain a better understanding of how modern gurus and traditions of yoga have interpreted medieval Haṭha.

I offer my sincere thanks to James Mallinson and Mark Singleton for reading various drafts of my editions of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraugha-prabodha* and providing many valuable suggestions and comments. Private discussions and correspondence with Dominic Goodall, Alexis Sanderson, Somdev Vasudeva and Finn Gerety have helped me to solve specific problems with the text. S. V. B. K. V. Gupta obtained a copy of one manuscript of the *Amaraughaprabodha* and provided me with initial transcriptions of the Grantha manuscripts for both editions. Matthew Clark carefully proofread a final draft, and Dominik Wujastyk and Dominic Goodall gave helpful advice and comments in the last stages of finalising this book.

My work on the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* was greatly improved by reading draft editions of both texts at a workshop organised by the Haṭha Yoga Project (15-18 January 2018) at the École française d'Extrême-Orient,
Pondicherry. I thank those who attended this workshop and gave feedback and suggestions, namely (in alphabetical order), Christèle Barois, Alberta Ferrario, Dominic Goodall, S. V. B. K. V. Gupta, Jacqueline Hargreaves, Shaman Hatley, Nirajan Kafle, Murali Krishnan, James Mallinson, SAS Sarma, Mark Singleton and Somdev Vasudeva. At a second workshop on the *Amaraugha's* section on Haṭhayoga at the University of Kyoto, my work also benefited from the comments of Alessandro Battistini, Kei Kataoka, Andrey Klebanov, Sanne Mersch, Zhao Shihong, Kenji Takahashi, Somdev Vasudeva and Yuko Yokochi.

The following libraries kindly permitted me to make copies of manuscripts that have been used for this edition: the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Chennai; the Adyar Library and Research Centre, Chennai; the Oriental Institute at the Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda; and the Venkatěśavara Oriental Institute, Tirupati.

Finally, I am indebted to Jacqueline Hargreaves for her unwavering companionship and collaboration. My research for this paper was funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 647963).
Introduction
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
## The *Amaraugha*

THE AMARAUGHA IS THE NAME OF A SANSKRIT YOGA TEXT that manuscript colophons attribute to Gorakṣanātha, a reputed pioneer of a type of yoga called Haṭha and one of the founders of the Nātha order of ascetics. Emerging from the interplay of Śaiva and Vajrayāna siddha traditions at the beginning of the second millennium, the *Amaraugha* is likely the earliest surviving account of a fourfold system of yoga that established a basic relationship between Haṭha and Rājayoga. These two distinct methods of yoga originated independently but were combined to represent the basic dichotomy of physical and mental praxis that became a salient feature of medieval yoga traditions and is still something of a touchstone for many practitioners of modern yoga.

The *Amaraugha* contains one of the earliest definitions of Haṭhayoga, and it was a substantial source text of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, a mid-fifteenth century work that established an enduring paradigm for physical yoga. Therefore, the historical study of the *Amaraugha* provides the opportunity to investigate not only the genesis of Haṭhayoga but also the creation of its classic archetype.

A long recension of the text was first published under the title *Amaraugha-prabodha* by Kalyani Devi Mallik in 1954. Her title derives from the colophon of the one manuscript upon which she established her edition. Christian Bouy (1994: 18–19) proposed that the *Amaraugha-prabodha* predates the fifteenth century on the basis that Svātmārāma, the author of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, borrowed verses from it. This book presents newly discovered manuscript evidence for two recensions: the longer one published by Mallik and a shorter one preserved by two palm leaf manuscripts. The shorter recension, which is called the *Amaraugha* by the manuscript colophons, has been unknown to modern scholarship until now.

An analysis of the differences between the recensions reveals that the *Amaraugha* was the original work and the one known to Svātmārāma. Owing to its rudimentary nature and the similarities of some of its content with an eleventh-century Vajrayāna work called the *Amṛtasiddhi*, the *Amaraugha* is an early work on Haṭha that reveals how its physical methods were repurposed for moving *kuṇḍalinī* and achieving Rājayoga, which was essentially a Śaiva interpretation of meditative absorption (*samādhi*).
This book contains an introduction, annotated translations and critical editions of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha*. The introduction discusses the provenance, authorship and relationship of the recensions. The sections on the *Amaraugha's* continuities and discontinuities with the *Amṛtasiddhi* and its four yogas within the broader history of yoga aim to elucidate the genesis of Haṭha and Rājayoga. The remainder of the introduction contains an overview of the manuscript evidence and the editorial policies underlying both editions. Some subsections of the introduction summarise and bring up to date discussions of the same topics published in Birch 2019, which has been cited in cases where further details and references are relevant.

## Two Recensions, Two Names

THE SIX AVAILABLE MANUSCRIPTS contain two recensions and, judging from the colophons of the manuscripts, each recension has its own name.<fnref n="1" /> The short recension has forty-six verses and the colophons of its two manuscripts refer to the work as the *Amaraugha*. The long recension has seventy-four verses and the colophons of its four manuscripts call it the *Amaraughaprabodha*.<fnref n="2" /> In accordance with the colophons, the names *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* will be used throughout this book to refer to the short and long recensions, respectively.

A sixteenth-century compendium called the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* contains a citation which indicates that the short recension was known at that time as the *Amaraugha*. The author of this compendium cited the *Amaraugha* by name when quoting a passage on the 'great piercing' (*mahāvedha*). The cited passage

<footnote n="1">¹ I am using the word 'recension' as defined by West (1973: 16), 'When the rewriting becomes more than superficial, or when rearrangement is involved, one must speak of a new recension of the work [...].' The rewriting and rearrangement of the *Amaraugha* that resulted in the *Amaraughaprabodha* are discussed in the next section.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² The edited colophon of the *Amaraugha* is, 'Thus, the *Amaraugha* taught by Gorakṣa is complete' (*ity amaraughaṃ gorakṣaviracitaṃ sampūrṇam*), and the *Amaraughaprabodha*, 'Thus, the *Amaraughaprabodha* taught by Gorakṣanātha is complete' ('śrīgorakṣanāthaviracito 'maraughaprabodhaḥ sampūrṇaḥ'). Transcriptions of the colophons of the available manuscripts can be found at the end of the editions of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* in this book.</footnote>
is the same as that of the short recension and does not contain a verse that was
added to this passage in the long recension.<fnref n="3" />

The meaning of the term *amaraugha* is multivalent. The author of the *Amaraugha* (14) states that *amaraugha* has the name Rājayoga, which is the highest of the four yogas taught in the text. In *Amaraugha* 3, Rājayoga is defined as a meditative state free from mental activity (*cittavṛttirahita*), a statement that is redolent of the definition of *yoga* as *samādhi* in *Pātañjalayogaśāstra* 1–2 (*yogaḥ samādhiḥ* [...] *yogaś cittavṛttinirodhaḥ*). The meaning of *rājayoga* as both the best yoga (literally, ‘the yoga that is king [of all yogas]’) and a non-dual meditative state was clearly expressed in another Śaiva work, called the *Amanaska*, that probably predates the *Amaraugha* by a century or so.<fnref n="4" /> Therefore, Śaiva communities appear to have known the import of Rājayoga by the time the *Amaraugha* was composed, and the equivalence of *amaraugha* with Rājayoga is the most obvious meaning behind the name of the text. This meaning of *amaraugha* was accepted by Svātmārāma, who included it in a list of synonyms of the term *rājayoga* in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*.<fnref n="5" />

In an important passage of the *Amaraugha* (13–14), where the internal
processes leading up to the union of Śiva and Śakti are described, the author
appears to use the term *amaraugha* in the sense of a divine stream of teachings,
a connotation that is similar to that of the term *divyaugha* (‘the divine stream’)
in earlier Kaula scriptures (Birch 2019: 970). This is related to the more
literal meaning of *amaraugha* as ‘a stream (*ogha*) of immortals (*amara*),’ which
can be understood as referring to the lineage of immortal *siddhas* that began
with Matsyendranātha and Gorakṣanātha, the putative pioneers of Haṭhayoga
and founders of the ascetic order known in more recent times as the Nātha

<footnote n="3">³ For more information on the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha*, see Bouy 1994: 89–92. On the reference to the *Amaraugha* in the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha*, see footnote 17. On the *Amaraugha-prabodha*'s additional verse on *mahāvedha*, see footnote 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ On the eleventh century date of the *Amanaska* and the meaning of *rājayoga*, see Birch 2014: 406 n. 21.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵The term *amaraugha* appears, usually in a misspelt form, in the list of synonyms of *rājayoga* in witnesses of old versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*; e.g., 29899 (*amarogho ṭi cādvaitaṃ*) and 2241 (*araughaughatvīṃdrī ca*).</footnote>
sampradāya. In fact, one of the lineages (ovallī) descending from Matsyendra-
nātha was associated with his son Amaranātha, whose initiates were given
names ending in bodhi (Tantrālokaviveka on 4.265ab).<fnref n="6" /> In a thirteenth-century
Marathi work, the Līlācaritra,<fnref n="7" /> Gorakṣa is said to have converted Virūpākṣa
from a Vajra lineage (vajraolī) to the Śaiva Amara lineage (amaraolī), which
may allude to the Buddhist influence on the Haṭhayoga of the Amaraugha
(Mallinson 2019: 5).

Furthermore, in the context of uniting Śiva and Śakti after the yogi's moon
has melted and the body has been filled with nectar, the use of the term
amaraugha evokes the sense of 'a stream of divine [nectar]', a phenomenon of
the yogic body that is connoted in other Śaiva texts by similar terms, such
as 'the immortal's liquor' (amaravāruṇī) and 'stream of nectar' (amṛtaugha).<fnref n="8" />
This more esoteric connotation of the term amaraugha is redolent of the nectar
of immortality (amṛta) in the Amṛtasiddhi, a Vajrayāna work which contains
some teachings that are similar to those on Haṭhayoga in the Amaraugha.
In the Amṛtasiddhi, nectar refers primarily to generative fluid (bindu), which
must be retained within the yogi's head to bring about immortality. Although
tantric Śaiva yogis may have been more interested in flooding the body with
nectar rather than retaining generative fluids and celibacy, the term amaraugha
would have signalled to both esoteric Buddhists and Śaivas a system of yoga
that affects the flow of nectar in the body.<fnref n="9" />

<footnote n="6">⁶ I offer my thanks to Alexis Sanderson for this reference, which is discussed in his forthcoming work on the first *āhnika* of the *Tantrāloka*.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ There does not seem to be a consensus about the date of the *Līlācaritra*, but some scholars ascribe it to the thirteenth century; e.g., 1278 CE Novetzke (2017: 107), 1286 CE Bankar (2019: 2), etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ *Amaravāruṇī* occurs in *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.46 and 3.48, the latter of which defines the term, ‘*Amaravāruṇī* is that essence which flows from the moon’ (*candrāt sravati yaḥ sāraḥ sā syād amaravāruṇī*). The term *amṛtaugha* occurs in at least two Śaiva works that predate the *Amaraugha*, namely the *Mālinīvijayottaratantra* (3.17 and 19.43) and *Amanaska* (2.58). It also occurs in the chapter on yoga of *Śāradātilakatantra* (25.61). On the importance of this Tantra, see Sanderson 2009: 252 and Bühnemann 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ On Haṭhayoga and generative fluids in the *Amaraugha*, see the subsection 'From Raising Generative Fluids to Raising *Kuṇḍalini*.'</footnote>
It is likely that the name *Amaraughaprabodha*, which means ‘awakening by means of *amaraugha* (i.e., Rājayoga)’, was created by the long recension’s redactor, who changed the text in two places to foreground the concept of awakening. In the first instance, the opening verse of the *Amaraughaprabodha* declares that its author teaches the ‘awakening’ (*prabodha*) of Gorakṣanātha whereas the first verse of the *Amaraugha* announces a teaching on the ‘nature’ (*svabhāva*) of Gorakṣanātha. In the second instance, the *Amaraughaprabodha* has an additional verse (65) stating that Gorakṣanātha taught this ‘awakening’ in the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*, a work whose name I have not found in other primary or secondary literature. The redactor of the *Amaraughaprabodha* summarised or borrowed content from the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*. However, the name of this work and the awakening of Gorakṣanātha are not mentioned in the *Amaraugha*. Therefore, it is likely that the long recension was named the *Amaraughaprabodha* by its redactor, and this name may have been inspired by content of the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*.

## Synopsis of Content

THE MAIN TOPIC OF BOTH RECENSIONS is a system of four yogas, namely, Mantra, Laya, Haṭha and Rājayoga. The text contains early definitions of the four yogas, and its discussion of them is terse and instructional. In fact, it is fair to say that its author was more intent on explaining the praxis of these yogas and how they relate to one another rather than the underlying doctrines and ideas.

As seen in Table 1, the structure of the *Amaraugha* can be succinctly summarised as consisting of an introductory passage, discrete teachings on each of the four yogas, and a conclusion. As I have argued elsewhere (Birch 2019: 953–958), the structure and content of the *Amaraughaprabodha* are not as coherent because of the insertion of additional verses at various places. The redactor of the *Amaraughaprabodha* added two verses to the introductory section, one from the eleventh-century *Amanaska* and another from an unknown work that is cited as the *Śrīsampuṭa*. Also, a large block of verses on the four types of practitioner was inserted before the teachings on the four
yogas. This block appears to be a redaction that combined material from the eleventh-century *Amṛtasiddhi* and the fifteenth-century Śivasaṃhitā or a source text of the latter.<fnref n="10" />

The largest additional block (verses 56–72) was affixed to the section on Rājayoga. The content of this block is quite discursive. It begins with a practice that aims at retaining the five elements of the body in order to prolong life. Then follows a summary of the yoga of the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*, four verses on the efficacy of yoga and the signs of success, and a passage on liberation-in-life, which includes a verse from the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, a *circa* thirteenth-century Vaiṣṇava yoga text. The efforts of the redactor of the *Amaraughaprabodha* to enlarge the *Amaraugha* by adding material from elsewhere, without always integrating it carefully, can be seen in several places (Birch 2019: 954). For example, a block of verses on the four types of practitioner in the *Amaraughaprabodha* (18–24) has been inserted after a question on the four types of yoga in the *Amaraugha* (14). Also, the redactor of the *Amaraughaprabodha* borrowed a verse from the *Amṛtasiddhi* and added it to the *Amaraugha’s* discussion of the haṭhayogic practice called the great piercing (*mahāvedha*). However, in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, this verse is describing the yogi’s posture in another practice known as the great seal (*mahāmudrā*).<fnref n="11" />

Furthermore, the relevance of some of the miscellaneous topics that were added to the section on Rājayoga in the *Amaraughaprabodha* (57–72) is not always apparent. For example, the passage on the five elements (*pañcabhūta*) does not seem to be connected to any of the four yogas. The contrived and com-pilatory nature of this section is revealed by the redactor’s borrowing of a verse from the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* and the mention of the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*, which may have contained material adapted from Buddhist works (Birch 2019: 954–957).<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Some terms and compounds in the *Amaraughaprabodha’s* discussion on the four practi-tioners are unique to the *Amṛtasiddhi* and others to the *Śivasaṃhitā*. For references, see Birch 2019: 949, n. 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹See Birch 2019: 957 and footnote 230 below.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²For a discussion of the verse in the *Amaraughaprabodha* that is similar to one in the *Sekoddeśa*, see footnote 242.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1: Content of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha*</caption><thead><tr><th>Topics</th><th>Amaraugha</th><th>Additional Topics</th><th>Amaraugha-prabodha</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Introduction</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Four Yogas</td><td>1-4</td><td>Salutations</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Rājayoga</td><td>5-9</td><td></td><td>2-5<br>6-7, 9</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Amanaska verse</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Śrisampuṭa verse</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Guru</td><td>10-12</td><td></td><td>13-15</td></tr><tr><td>Śiva/Śakti</td><td>13</td><td></td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Four Yogas</td><td>14</td><td></td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Four types of practitioner</td><td>18-24</td></tr><tr><td>Mantrayoga</td><td>15-16</td><td></td><td>25-26</td></tr><tr><td>Layayoga</td><td>17-18</td><td></td><td>27-28</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Haṭhayoga</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Great Seal</td><td>19-22</td><td></td><td>29-32</td></tr><tr><td>Great Lock</td><td>23-25</td><td></td><td>33-35</td></tr><tr><td>Great Piercing</td><td>26-36</td><td></td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>Three Seals</td><td>31-33</td><td></td><td>42-44</td></tr><tr><td>Four Stages</td><td>34</td><td></td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Beginning Stage</td><td>35-36</td><td></td><td>46-47</td></tr><tr><td>Unified Stage</td><td>37-38</td><td></td><td>48-49</td></tr><tr><td>Accumulation Stage</td><td>39-40</td><td></td><td>50-51</td></tr><tr><td>Perfection Stage</td><td>41</td><td></td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Rājayoga</td><td>42-44</td><td></td><td>53-55</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><strong>Miscellaneous</strong></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Five Elements</td><td>56-61</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Yoga of the Amaraughasaṃsiddhi</td><td>62-65</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Efficacy of the Teachings</td><td>66-69</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Rājayoga/Liberation-in-life</td><td>70-72</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>45-46</td><td></td><td>73-74</td></tr></tbody></table>
Authorship

AMONG THE EARLIEST MODERN PUBLICATIONS that mention the *Amaraugha-prabodha* in any detail are the first volume of Madras University's New Catalogus Catalogorum (1949) and Mallik's edition (1954). Both attribute the *Amaraughaprabodha* to Gorakṣanātha. Before these publications, the *Amaraughaprabodha* is absent in lists of Gorakṣanātha's works by modern scholars (e.g., Briggs 1938: 251-257 and Dvivedī 1950: 98-100) and in studies on the Nāths (e.g., Dasgupta 1946: 219-294). However, it has been included in more recent lists (e.g., Banerjea 1962: 26-28, Gonda 1977: 222 n. 28, etc.) and studies (e.g., Bouy 1994: 18-19, White 1996: 141, etc.).

The attribution of authorship to Gorakṣanātha is supported by the final colophon of the manuscript used by Mallik that states, ‘the *Amaraugha-prabodha*, which was composed by the glorious Gorakṣanātha, is complete.’<fnref n="13" /> In fact, all colophons of the available manuscripts of both the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* contain this scribal attribution, which was probably inspired by the mention of Gorakṣanātha in two verses of the *Amaraugha* (1 and 45) and three of the *Amaraughaprabodha* (2, 65 and 74).<fnref n="14" /> In both recensions, these verses declare that Gorakṣanātha taught the four yogas. Although such statements within the text itself may have prompted scribes to compose colophons attributing the text’s authorship to Gorakṣanātha, it is probable that the work was composed by someone within a *siddha* lineage who believed that Gorakṣanātha was the first to teach the four yogas. Be this as it may, the sectarian milieu in which the text was composed is undoubtedly a Śaiva *siddha* tradition. In addition to the mention of Gorakṣanātha, both recensions contain an opening salutation to Cauraṅgīnātha and Siddhabuddha, as well as several references to Śiva, his consort and *liṅga* in the text itself.<fnref n="15" />

<footnote n="13">¹³ Mallik 1954: 55 (iti śrimadgorakṣanāthaviracitaṃ amaraughaprabodhaṃ sampūrṇam).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ The colophons of each manuscript have been transcribed in the apparatus of both editions in this book.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ On the hagiography, epigraphy and art depicting Cauraṅgīnātha, see Bankar 2019. On the identity of Siddhabuddha, see footnote 141. In the *Amaraugha*, Śiva is mentioned in verses 13, 15 (as *śambhu*) and 17 (as *śitaṃ devaṃ*); his consort Śivā in 13 and his *liṅga* in 17 and 44.</footnote>
# Date of Composition

## Previous Attempts to Date the Text

IN HIS BOOK ON THE YOGA UPANIṣADS compiled from yoga texts of the Nātha lineage, Christian Bouy (1994: 19) examined Mallik's edition of the *Amaraughaprabodha* and identified twenty-two and half of its verses in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*.<fnref n="16" /> In spite of the fact that the *Haṭhapradīpikā* does not cite the names of its sources, Bouy proposed that it is an anthology of many earlier works on yoga, including the *Amaraughaprabodha* (1994: 80–86). If one accepts the logic behind the direction of borrowing, the *Amaraugha-prabodha* was composed before the mid-fifteenth century. Bouy (1994: 19) also noted that the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha*, which he dated from the sixteenth to seventeenth century (1994: 91), cites the *Amaraughaprabodha* by name. This provides a certain, albeit more recent, *terminus ad quem*.<fnref n="17" />

James Mallinson (2016) identified verses of the *Amaraughaprabodha* in the eleventh-century *Amṛtasiddhi*.<fnref n="18" /> Furthermore, the *Amaraughaprabodha* has a

<footnote>In the *Amaraughaprabodha*, Śiva is mentioned in verses 16, 25, 27 and 64, his consort Śivā in 16 and his linga in 27 and 55.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Mallinson (2014: 239) has estimated that the *Haṭhapradīpikā* borrowed twenty and a half verses from the *Amaraughaprabodha*. The discrepancy occurs because Bouy includes *Amaraughaprabodha* 9, which is very similar to *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.14, and *Amaraughaprabodha* 38b–39a, which may have been heavily redacted to create *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.25c–26a. I estimate that there are twenty-two and a half parallel verses in the *Amaraugha* and *Haṭhapradīpikā* (see footnote 22).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Bouy (1994: 19) does not provide a reference in the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* to its citation of the *Amaraughaprabodha*. Instead, he says that the reference would be included in a forthcoming article (Bouy 1994: 9 n. 5, 19 n. 55). However, it seems that this article was never published. I can confirm that *Amaraughaprabodha* 38–41 is quoted, with attribution to the *Amaraugha*, in the seventh chapter of the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* (IFP T1095, p. 48).</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ Six verses of the *Amaraughaprabodha* are similar to verses in the *Amṛtasiddhi*. These are *Amaraughaprabodha* 20, 32cd, 37ab, 37cd, 38, 39cd, 40ab, 45, 51ab ~ *Amṛtasiddhi* 16.1cd-16.2ab, 11.9cd, 11.3cd, 14.5cd, 14.6, 13.5cd, 13.7cd, 19.2, 22.2cd. Other sections of the *Amaraughaprabodha* appear to have been inspired by the *Amṛtasiddhi*. For example, a passage on the four types of practitioner (*Amaraughaprabodha* 18–24), in particular the last called *adhimātratara*, is close to *Amṛtasiddhi* 15.1, 15.3, 16.1cd–17.1, 18.1–5 and a sequence of piercing knots (*granthi*) that causes various sounds to arise (*Amaraughaprabodha* 46–52)</footnote>
verse from the second chapter of the *Amanaska* (Birch 2011: 528), which
can be dated to the eleventh or early twelfth century (Birch 2014: 406 n. 21),
and another from the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, circa thirteenth century.<fnref n="19" /> There
is also a verse cited and attributed to the *Śrīsampuṭa*, and a short passage
attributed to the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*. These borrowings indicate that the
*Amaraughaprabodha* is a compilation that was created sometime after the
*Dattātreyayogaśāstra*. This *terminus a quo* is only a tentative hypothesis because
the *Śrīsampuṭa* and *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi* are currently unknown works.

In an earlier publication (Birch 2011: 528), these observations led me to
propose that the *Amaraughaprabodha* was probably composed in the fourteenth
century, because it must have appeared after the earliest Haṭha and Rājayoga
texts and before the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. The discovery of the *Amaraugha* changes
the most likely date of the *Amaraughaprabodha's* composition.

The Date based on New Evidence

The *Amaraugha* does not contain verses from the *Amanaska* and *Dattātreya-yogaśāstra*, nor citations of the *Śrīsampuṭa* and *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*. For reasons stated below, it is improbable that the author of the *Amaraugha* borrowed

has some similarities to *Amṛtasiddhi* 13.10–11, 20.1ab, 20.7, 22.2cd, 25.1c, 31.1ab. The connection between the *Amaraughaprabodha* and the *Śivasaṃhitā* is less certain, despite the fact that they share a similar verse (*Amaraughaprabodha* 3 ~ *Śivasaṃhitā* 5.12) and have some identical compounds in the passage on the four types of practitioner (e.g., *Amaraughaprabodha* 19, 21, 22 ~ *Śivasaṃhitā* 5.14, 5.21, 5.24). The *Śivasaṃhitā* is a compilation, which borrowed a large number of verses from the *Amṛtasiddhi* (Mallinson 2016: 127–128, n. 36). The similarities between the *Amaraughaprabodha* and *Śivasaṃhitā* are largely explained by the fact that both borrow from the *Amṛtasiddhi*. In the few instances where the *Amaraughaprabodha* and *Śivasaṃhitā* have something in common that is not in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, the direction of borrowing and the sources involved is not certain. The contradictions between the *Śivasaṃhitā*'s chapters (Birch 2018: 107 n. 13) suggest that it has been crudely cobbled together from various sources, an unknown one of which might be responsible for *Amaraughaprabodha* 3 and the similar compounds in the section on the four types of practitioner.

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ *Amanaska* 2.32 = *Amaraughaprabodha* 8. This verse fits the *Amanaska*'s polemic theme of dismissing other methods of perfecting the body whereas it is somewhat out of place in the *Amaraughaprabodha*, hence my assertion that the latter is the borrower. *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 161 = *Amaraughaprabodha* 71. As far as I am aware, the short passage on Rājayoga in the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* is not a compilation.</footnote>
material directly from the *Amṛtasiddhi*.<fnref n="20" /> In my opinion, both texts likely borrowed from an older Buddhist source, and the *Amaraugha's* section on Haṭhayoga, which is more rudimentary than the parallel material on yoga in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, is probably closer to the original source. Be this as it may, the Vajrayāna origins of the *Amaraugha's* Haṭhayoga and the period of the *Amṛtasiddhi's* composition, which was prior to the second half of the eleventh century,<fnref n="21" /> provide an approximate *terminus a quo* of the *Amaraugha*.

A firm *terminus ad quem* of the *Amaraugha* remains the fifteenth-century *Haṭhapradīpikā*, as the latter contains twenty-two and a half of the former's verses on Haṭhayoga.<fnref n="22" /> It is likely that Svātmārāma used the *Amaraugha*, rather than the *Amaraughaprabodha*, for the following four reasons. Firstly, not one of the additional twenty-nine verses of the *Amaraughaprabodha* is in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. This omission is significant given that the *Amaraughaprabodha's* additional verses on Rājayoga would have been relevant to the fourth chapter of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. Secondly, at one place the order of the hemistichs in the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* diverge, and it is the *Amaraugha's* order that has been preserved in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*.<fnref n="23" /> Thirdly, the *Haṭhapradīpikā's* description of *mahāvedha* derives from the *Amaraugha* as it does not include an additional verse on the yogi's posture in the *Amaraughaprabodha*.<fnref n="24" /> Finally, as discussed in Birch 2019: 959, the readings of the shared verses

<footnote n="20">²⁰ See the section ‘Continuities and Discontinuities with the *Amṛtasiddhi*’.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ On the dating of the *Amṛtasiddhi*, see Schaeffer (2002: 517) and Mallinson and Szántó (2021: 3).</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² *Amaraugha* 7, 19–21, 22, 24, 25ab, 25cd, 26, 27cd, 28ab, 29cd–32, 33ab, 33cd, 34–42 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.14, 3.9–3.11, 3.13, 3.19, 3.22ab, 3.23cd, 3.24, 3.25cd, 3.26ab, 3.26cd–3.30, 3.30ef, 1.61ab, 4.69–4.77. The misalignment of many of the hemistichs in these parallel verses is the result of peculiarities in the Kaivalyadhama’s edition of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. The order of the hemistichs of the *Amaraugha's* verses align more closely to those of older versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, as represented by manuscripts G25-2, 2241, 29899, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ *Amaraugha* 31–32 = *Amaraughaprabodha* 42ab, 43ab, 42cd, 43cd = *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.30–31. Also, *Amaraugha* 31–32 occur in the oldest versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* in the same order.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ On the significance of the additional verse on *mahāvedha* in the *Amaraughaprabodha* (37), see footnote 230.</footnote>
in the *Haṭhapradīpikā* more often agree with those of the *Amaraugha* than the *Amaraughaprabodha*.<fnref n="25" /> Although none of these reasons is conclusive by itself, the weight of the evidence indicates that the *Amaraugha*, rather than the *Amaraughaprabodha*, was the source for the *Haṭhapradīpikā*.

The *terminus ad quem* of the *Amaraughaprabodha* may be the eighteenth-century *Varāhopaniṣat*.<fnref n="26" /> It remains somewhat uncertain as to whether the *Amaraughaprabodha* was a source for this Upaniṣad because the compilers of the *Varāhopaniṣat* did not cite their sources with attribution and both works are compilations, which means that a third unknown source may have been involved. The only other evidence for the *Amaraughaprabodha's* *terminus ad quem* is the four palm leaf manuscripts that preserve it, not one of which is dated nor likely older than the eighteenth century.

## Region and Sectarian Affiliation

THE PROVENANCE OF THE AMARAUGHA is probably Kadri, which is located in Mangalore, Karnataka. The main evidence for this is the text's opening invocation to the wise Siddhabuddha, who was Matsyendranātha's disciple from Kadri according to the *circa* 1400 CE Telugu work called the *Navanāthacaritra* (Mallinson 2019: 23–24). The *Amaraugha* appears to have been in circulation in South India until at least the eighteenth century, which may be deduced from the probable age of its two available palm-leaf Grantha

<footnote n="25">²⁵ The comparison in Birch 2019 was based on a printed edition of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. Manuscript witnesses of old versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* affirm the common readings of the *Amaraugha* and *Haṭhapradīpikā* that are highlighted in red font in the table of the Appendix of Birch 2019, and they also affirm the following readings that were not highlighted: pādaṃ prasāritaṃ, dhṛtvā, gativibodhakam and °mṛtyu°.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ *Amaraughaprabodha* 38–41ab = *Varāhopaniṣat* 5.60cd–5.63 and *Amaraughaprabodha* 56–61ab ~ *Varāhopaniṣat* 5.1–5.6ab. There are also five and a half verses common to the *Amaraughaprabodha* (47–51ab, 52cd–53ab) and the *Saubhāgyalakṣmyupaniṣat* (2.5cd–10). However, all of these verses and more occur in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, so the *Amaraughaprabodha* may not have been a source for the *Saubhāgyalakṣmī*. Bouy (1994: 85) notes that *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.5–7, 4.68–77b = *Saubhāgyalakṣmī* 2.14–16 and 2.4–10.</footnote>
manuscripts and its citation in the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha*, which was probably composed in the sixteenth or seventeenth century in Tamil Nadu.<fnref n="27" />

Overt references to Śiva, Śambhu and Śiva's *linga* reveal the Śaiva orientation of the *Amaraugha*.<fnref n="28" /> However, the method of Haṭhayoga in the *Amaraugha* appears to have been adapted from an esoteric tradition of Buddhism and repurposed for moving *kuṇḍalinī* and attaining a Śaiva form of Rājayoga. Remnants of the distinct terminology of Vajrayāna's system of four blisses, moments and voids remain buried as obscure terms in some of the verses on Haṭhayoga in the *Amaraugha* (as discussed in the next subsection). If this text was composed in Kadri at the time Buddhist communities were converting to Śaivism, it is an early record of Haṭha and Rājayoga emerging from the intersection of Śaiva and Vajrayāna *siddha* traditions that eventually produced the strong association between this combination of yogas and some of the *siddha* traditions descending from Gorakṣanātha. It also reveals that Śaivas jettisoned much of the Buddhist theory behind the physical praxis, which largely remained the same (Birch 2019: 960–961). Thus, the *Amaraugha* can be viewed as a blueprint, in a sense, for the doctrinal simplicity that distinguished other early systems of Haṭha and Rājayoga.

The region in which the *Amaraughaprabodha* was redacted is less certain as none of its additional verses point to a location. All the available manuscripts of the *Amaraughaprabodha* are in South Indian scripts. If the *Amaraughaprabodha* was the source of nine similar verses in the fifth chapter of the *Varāhopaniṣat*, then it would have been known in South India in the eighteenth century because this Upaniṣad was created at that time as part of the South Indian corpus of one hundred and eight Upaniṣads (Bouy 1994: 106). Moreover, the inclusion of content from the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* in

<footnote n="27">²⁷ The *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* is a vedantic compilation on yoga (Bouy 1994: 91), which cites several South Indian texts, like the *Śivayogapradīpikā* and the *Sūtasaṃhitā*, and was the source of several works in the South Indian corpus of 108 Upaniṣads (Bouy 1994: 89–91). A transcript (TV. 223) of a manuscript of the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* at the Sarasvati Mahal Library, Tanjore, begins with śrī *aruṇācaleśvarāya namaḥ*, which suggests that the manuscript was copied in Tiruvaṇṇāmalai, Tamil Nadu.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ For references to Śiva, etc., in the *Amaraugha*, see the section 'Authorship.'</footnote>
the *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* and *Varāhopaniṣat*, respectively, reflects the ongoing interest in yoga among South Indian vedāntic traditions from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century (Bouy 1994, Birch 2020a).

Some additional passages of the *Amaraughaprabodha* contain a mixture of Śaiva and Buddhist orientated material. In fact, the redactor likely borrowed directly from the *Amṛtasiddhi*. Although the *Amaraughaprabodha* may have been created after the fifteenth century, it remains possible that its redactor had access to the *Amṛtasiddhi* in the early modern period, as the latter was cited by name in the late sixteenth-century *Yogacintāmaṇi* and has remained available in Jodhpur, Nepal and South India, judging by the provenance of some of its surviving manuscripts.<fnref n="29" /> As noted above, the redactor of the *Amaraugha-prabodha* added a verse to the *Amaraugha's* passage on the great piercing (*mahāvedha*) that is a combination of hemistichs from different chapters of the *Amṛtasiddhi*.<fnref n="30" /> Also, an additional passage on the sun and moon (62–64) appears to summarise the yoga of the *Amṛtasiddhi* using terminology that is not in the *Amaraugha*. A verse (67) on the signs of visionary experience derives from an unknown Buddhist text but may have entered the *Amaraughaprabodha* via a Śaiva work on the same four yogas by Gorakṣanātha, perhaps called the *Amaraughasaṃsiddhi*. One of the additional verses on liberation-in-life (72) appears to have been modelled on or borrowed from Śaiva Kaula sources, as its content is very similar to some verses in the *Kaulajñānanirṇaya* and *Kulārṇavatantra*.<fnref n="31" />

<footnote n="29">²⁹ On the available manuscripts of the *Amṛtasiddhi*, see Mallinson and Szántó 2021: 25–34.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ For a discussion of *Amaraughaprabodha* 37, see footnote 230.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ The verses of the *Kaulajñānanirṇaya* (17.36–17.38) and *Kulārṇavatantra* (9.72–9.74) in question have been translated and discussed in Birch 2020: 227–228.</footnote>
Continuities and Discontinuities with the Amṛtasiddhi

THE SYSTEM OF HAT'HAYOGA in the *Amaraugha* (19-41) is very similar to the yoga of the *Amṛtasiddhi* in that both describe a physical practice of the same three seals, namely, the great seal (*mahāmudrā*), great lock (*mahā-bandha*) and great piercing (*mahāvedha*), along with the same four stages of yoga that overlay a sequence of blisses, sounds and void-like meditative states. The *Amṛtasiddhi* contains extensive, detailed passages on the theory behind the practice, which reveal that it was composed in a Vajrayāna milieu (Mallinson and Szántó 2021: 3-4). In addition to the similarities in their content, the *Amaraugha's* close relationship with the *Amṛtasiddhi* is further indicated by the two verses and four hemistichs they have in common, as well as some shared technical terminology, such as specific compounds for different types of bliss (*ānanda*) and void-like meditative states (*śūnya*).<fnref n="32" />

Despite their similarities, there are many significant differences between the *Amaraugha's* Haṭhayoga and the *Amṛtasiddhi's* yoga. Nearly all of the *Amṛtasiddhi's* esoteric and metaphysical theory is absent in the *Amaraugha's* simple formulation of Haṭha. Also, the *Amaraugha* excludes the many supernatural effects (*siddhi*) arising from the practice, and introduces metaphysics and terminology that are unique to earlier Śaiva traditions (Birch 2019: 960-963). As discussed in the next section, the *Amṛtasiddhi's* emphasis on retaining generative fluids contrasts with the *Amaraugha's* references to moving kuṇḍalinī and uniting Śiva and Śakti at the aperture of Brahmā. Moreover, the techniques and meditative stages central to the yoga of the *Amṛtasiddhi* have only a subordinate role in the *Amaraugha* as an optional auxiliary, called Haṭha, for attaining Rājayoga, the king of all yogas, which is essentially a Śaiva interpretation of meditative absorption (*samādhi*) that utilised terminology and concepts from earlier Śaiva works, such as the *Amanaska*.<fnref n="33" /> Unlike Haṭha,

<footnote n="32">³² *Amaraugha* 22cd, 25ab, 27, 28cd, 29ab, 34 ~ *Amṛtasiddhi* 11.9cd, 12.15ab, 14.6, 13.5cd, 13.7cd, 19.2 (see footnote 18). The discrepancy between this comparison and that of Mallinson and Szántó (2021: 11 n. 19) is that the latter includes *Amṛtasiddhi* 16.1c-2b and 11.3, which are only in the *Amaraughaaprabodha*, and omits 25ab ~ 12.15ab.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ On the *Amaraugha's* Rājayoga and the *Amanaska*, see the subsection 'Rājayoga.'</footnote>
Rājayoga was considered the goal of other yogas, and it was the only yoga that could bestow liberation-in-life (jīvanmukti).<fnref n="34" />

If it were the case that the redactor of the *Amaraugha* borrowed directly from the *Amṛtasiddhi*, then the former's section on Haṭhayoga would be a radically truncated and modified version of the latter's yoga. One might expect a redactor to produce abridged passages in cases where the theory and effects of the practice have been revised and simplified. However, it is more difficult to explain why the redactor of the *Amaraugha* might have gone to the trouble of rewriting the *Amṛtasiddhi's* descriptions of the same physical practice in such a truncated and obscure way.<fnref n="35" /> As I have argued elsewhere (Birch 2019: 965–966), it seems likely that the *Amaraugha's* descriptions of the three seals and four stages of yoga derive from a work containing a more succinct account than that of the *Amṛtasiddhi*. Since the *Amṛtasiddhi* also shows signs of being redacted from different sources and contains two verses and four hemistichs of the *Amaraugha*,<fnref n="36" /> it is likely that the *Amṛtasiddhi's* redactor was familiar with the source of the *Amaraugha's* Haṭhayoga, and elaborated on it by providing a clearer and more comprehensive explanation of the practice and esoteric Buddhist theory.

## From Raising Generative Fluids to Moving *Kuṇḍalinī*

The retaining and replenishing of generative fluid are salient themes of the *Amṛtasiddhi*. In fact, a full chapter of this work is devoted to explaining the importance of retaining generative fluid (*bindu*). When generative fluid is lost, it is said to result in old age and death, whereas when it is retained, it leads to life, perfection and a diamond body (7.25–26). Generative fluid is the nectar (*amṛta*)

<footnote n="34">³⁴ On Rājayoga and liberation-in-life, see Birch 2020: 223–228.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Most of the verses common to both the *Amaraugha* and *Amṛtasiddhi* (see footnote 32) are on the practice of the third seal, *mahāvedha*. In this instance, the redactor of the *Amaraugha* integrated these verses with others to produce a somewhat different account of this practice. One common hemistich on the great seal (*mahāmudrā*) concerns the name of this technique.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Verses 14.5–6 of the *Amṛtasiddhi* describe the practice of earlier chapters (11–13) with new terms and details, such as the *puruṣamudrā* and the effect of making the three channels shake (*āndolanaṃ [...] trimārgataḥ*).</footnote>
of the moon denoted by the name of the text, ‘the attainment of *amṛta* (*amṛta-siddhi*).<fnref n="37" />

In the *Amaraugha*, the role of generative fluid is related more to the notion of flooding the body with the moon's nectar rather than retention and celibacy. In the introductory section (10–13), generative fluid and internal resonance are referred to as great medicines (*mahauṣadhi*) and, under the guidance of a good guru, the yogi might increase generative fluid by moving the moon. However, these statements are followed by the *siddhas'* teaching, called *amaraugha*, which explains the process leading to the union of Śiva and Śivā. In this process, the moon melts and the body is filled with nectar.

However, in the more specific context of practising Haṭhayoga, both nectar (*amṛta*) and generative fluids (*bindu*) are unimportant in the *Amaraugha* because neither is mentioned in the section on Haṭha. This omission appears to have been deliberate because *Amaraugha* 4 states that there are two types of Haṭhayoga. These types are distinguished by whether internal resonance (*nināda*) or generative fluid (*bindu*) is utilised. The *Amaraugha's* account of Haṭha describes only the various resonances (*nāda*) that arise as the yogi progresses through the stages of the practice. Furthermore, the text's definition of Haṭha (3) specifies that it is a method of breath control and internal resonance. Therefore, it would seem that the *Amaraugha* teaches the first type of Haṭhayoga that is characterised by internal resonance. In contrast to this, the type of Haṭhayoga described in the Vajrayāna work called the *Vimalaprabhā* is said to achieve its aim by stopping the flow of generative fluid (*bindunirodha*).<fnref n="38" />

Celibacy is mentioned once in the *Amaraugha* (33). The yogi is advised to avoid fire, women and roads when beginning the practice of the three seals. Such a prescription implies that, when the yogi has learnt the practice, celibacy is no longer necessary. The redactor of the *Amaraugha* further insinuates that the observance of celibacy is unimportant by defining *vajroli* in non-physical

<footnote n="37">³⁷ The author of the *Amṛtasiddhi* refers to generative fluid as nectar (*amṛta*) at 3.2 and 7.26, the seventh chapter being the one on generative fluid (*bindu*).</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ For a discussion of the *Vimalaprabhā* and a translation of its definition of Haṭhayoga, see Birch 2011: 542–544.</footnote>
terms. In some subsequent systems of Haṭha that aim at retaining generative
fluids, *vajroli* is a technique of drawing up sexual fluids through the urethra.<fnref n="39" />
However, according to *Amaraugha* 7, *vajroli* is accomplished when the mind is
pure (*sattva*) and the breath is flowing in the central channel, which are two
factors that usually underlie the attainment of *samādhi*. The implication of the
*Amaraugha's* view is that the physical practice of drawing up generative fluids
is unnecessary because *vajroli* is achieved incidentally with the attainment of
Rājayoga.

The *Amaraugha* is not the only early Śaiva text on Haṭha that omits the
physical practice of *vajrolimudrā* and other deliberate efforts to retain generative
fluids. In fact, contrary to Mallinson's claim (2018: 183) that this *mudrā* is
predominant among the techniques of Haṭhayoga from the eleventh century
onwards, only one of the early Śaiva texts on Haṭha and Rājayoga, namely,
the *Śivasaṃhitā*, teaches the physical practice of *vajrolimudrā* or its variants,
*sahajoli* and *amaroli*. The practice of *vajroli* and celibacy are absent in the other
early Śaiva works, namely, the *Amaraugha, Yogabīja* and *Yogatārāvalī*. Like the
*Amaraugha*, the *Yogabīja* implies that retaining generative fluid arises after the
attainment of meditative absorption,<fnref n="40" /> and the *Yogatārāvalī* does not mention
generative fluid at all. Furthermore, the physical practice of *vajrolimudrā* is also
absent in two early Śaiva yoga texts that teach some of the key methods of
Haṭha. These are the *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* and *Gorakṣaśataka*.

It seems that the initial Śaiva response to the Vajrayāna yoga of retain-
ing generative fluids, as seen in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, was one of ambivalence.
While the authors of the *Amaraugha* and *Yogabīja* might have viewed the
replenishment of generative fluids as incidental to Rājayoga, the emphasis in

<footnote n="39">³⁹ The physical practice of *vajroli* is described in *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 150–158, *Śivasaṃhitā* 4.78–4.103 and *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.82–3.99.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ The sole reference to generative fluid (bindu) in the *Yogabīja* (101) occurs after the description of a yoga that is similar to that of the *Amaraugha's* Haṭhayoga. In explaining various effects it connects the retention of generative fluid to dissolution of the mind: 'By adopting a yogic posture and frequently [applying] this method of practice, the mind dissolves and generative fluid does not go downwards' (*anenābhyāsayogena nityam āsanabandhataḥ | cittaṃ vilīnatām eti bindur no yāty adhas tathā*).</footnote>
Śaiva practice shifted from raising generative fluids to moving kuṇḍalinī. This shift in emphasis starts with the *Amaraugha* but is much more apparent in the *Yogabīja*, *Yogatārāvalī* and *Gorakṣaśataka*, in which a model of awakening kuṇḍalinī by physical yoga practices is developed further. This model becomes a primary feature of subsequent works on Haṭha as seen, for example, in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. The third chapter of this archetypal work frames the practice of the ten seals (*mudrā*) wholly within the paradigm of awakening kuṇḍalinī:

> So, in order to awaken the goddess sleeping at the opening of the door of Brahmā, [the yogi] should with every effort carry out the practice of the *mudrās*.<fnref n="41" />

The model of raising generative fluid was incorporated into some early systems of Haṭha through the practice of certain techniques, in particular the seals of khecarī and vajroli. The *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* teaches the physical practice of vajroli as one of the ten seals. The first Śaiva work to include the model of retaining generative fluids was the twelfth or thirteenth-century *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* (51–57), which contains a passage on khecarīmudrā and generative fluids. The *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* omits vajroli but is one of the earliest examples of a Śaiva yoga text that integrates models of moving kuṇḍalinī and generative fluids. This dual-model approach, so to speak, was then adopted by subsequent Śaiva works that taught the ten seals, such as the *Śivasaṃhitā* and *Haṭhapradīpikā*, and became normative in Haṭha texts composed after the fifteenth century.

The close relationship between the *Amṛtasiddhi’s* yoga and the *Amaraugha’s* Haṭha accentuates a shift from raising generative fluids to moving kuṇḍalinī. This occurred with the transition of physical yoga practices from a Buddhist monastic milieu to Śaiva communities. Ambivalence towards celibacy among Śaivas may have stemmed from earlier Kaula traditions. Although Gorakṣa-nātha is depicted in legends as reforming the orgasmic sexual rites of Kaula traditions, the early permutations of these reforms appear not to have included the physical practice of vajroli, and retaining generative fluids may have been considered incidental, rather than a necessary means, to the attainment of Rāja-yoga.

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Haṭhapradīpikā 3.5 (tasmāt sarvaprayatnena prabodhayitum īśvarīm | brahmadvāramukhe suptāṃ mudrābhyāsaṃ samācaret).</footnote>
## Forceful Vajrayāna and Śaiva Yogas

In the *Amaraugha's* account of Haṭhayoga (20cd–21ab), the great seal is likened, in effect, to a stick used to kill a snake. It strikes the coiled kuṇḍalinī, and the force of the blow straightens her. This simile reveals that Śaivas understood the notion of force (haṭha) in Haṭhayoga as referring to the forceful effect of its techniques on kuṇḍalinī. This understanding probably extended to the practice of the three seals. Their aim was essentially to force prāṇa up through the central channel to pierce the three knots. Similar forceful effects, in particular on apānavāyu and kuṇḍalinī, can be found in other early works on Haṭhayoga (Birch 2011: 544–545). Such indications of forceful effects provide the strongest evidence for the intended meaning of haṭhayoga in the formative phase of this type of yoga.

Mādhavacandra, the author of the *Amṛtasiddhi*, shows little interest in the notion of forceful yoga. Violent metaphors, such as hitting a snake, and words that might denote forceful actions in the practice of yoga are absent from his writing. Had he been so inclined, he could have accentuated the force and violence of yoga in the metaphysical narrative underlying the physical practice because the application of the seal called the great piercing effectively kills the gods Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Rudra, who block the central channel. However, in Mādhavacandra’s account, these gods merely tremble and then die.<fnref n="42" />

Despite the absence of forceful yoga in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, there are clear similarities in the notion of force in some Vajrayāna and early Śaiva works on Haṭhayoga. Forceful action is conspicuous in a definition of haṭhayoga in various Vajrayāna works, perhaps the earliest being the eleventh-century *Vimalaprabhā*, a commentary on the *Kālacakratantra*. This definition essentially states that Haṭhayoga forcefully (haṭhena) moves the breath into the central channel (Birch 2011: 542–544). This is a precursor of the Śaiva view in which the practice of Haṭhayoga forcefully awakens kuṇḍalinī and moves the breath into the central channel, as seen in the *Amaraugha* and subsequent works on

<footnote n="42">⁴² *Amṛtasiddhi* 13.8–13.10.</footnote>
Haṭha.<fnref n="43" /> Other explanations of haṭhayoga in Vajrayāna concern the sequence of four blisses in which the usual order of the last two blisses is reversed (Isaacson and Sferra 2014: 100–101). This notion of forceful yoga, which is absent in the Amṛtasiddhi and Amaraugha, seems not to have influenced subsequent traditions of Haṭha, perhaps because sequences of four blisses were not appropriated by Śaivas.

It is likely that the author of the *Amaraugha* adopted the name Haṭha because of its past association with methods of breath control that forced *prāṇa* into the central channel. The emphasis on breath control in definitions of *haṭhayoga* in some Vajrayāṇa works is consistent with the emphasis on breath control in the definition of *haṭhayoga* in the *Amaraugha*.<fnref n="44" /> The author of the *Amaraugha* knew of another type of Haṭha for raising generative fluid but chose, it seems, to teach only the one based on breath control and internal resonance.<fnref n="45" /> The violence inherent in this method is more forthrightly implied by the revised definition of *haṭhayoga* in the *Amaraughaprabodha*, which uses a term for breath control that can also mean the action of ‘breaking’ (prabhañjanavidhāna).<fnref n="46" />

The belief that Haṭha is mainly a system of breath control persisted after
the *Haṭhapradīpikā* was composed. This is particularly evident in the work of
erudite pundits who tried to integrate Haṭha within yoga systems with eight
auxiliaries (*aṣṭāṅga*). In such cases, Haṭha was often equated with *prāṇāyāma*.<fnref n="47" />

<footnote n="43">⁴³ For references to Haṭhayoga’s forceful effect on kuṇḍalinī, see Birch 2011: 544 notes 89–90.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Apart from the definition of *haṭhayoga* in the *Vimalaprabhā* (noted above), manipulating the breath is also mentioned in definitions of *haṭhayoga* in the *Gūḍhapada* and *Yogimanoharā* (for references, see Mallinson 2020: 181–182).</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ *Amaraugha* 3–4 (discussed in the previous subsection, ‘From Raising Generative Fluids to Raising Kuṇḍalinī’).</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ On the *Amaraughaprabodha’s* definition of Haṭhayoga, see footnote 207.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ For example, *Yogacintāmaṇi* Ms. No. 6922, f. 6r, l. 3 (*haṭhas tu prāṇāyāma eva*); *Yogasiddhāntacandrikā* 1.34 (*haṭhayoga yogabījaṃ prāṇāyāmaḥ prakīrttitaḥ*); *Yuktabhavadeva* 7.131 ([...] *prāṇādisthirīkaraṇopāyo haṭhayogaḥ*); *Mahākālasaṃhitā*, *Guhyakālīkhaṇḍa* 1125 ([...] *haṭhayogaḥ prāṇāyāmavidhis tathā*); *Jyotsnā* 1.1 ([...] *prāṇāyāmo haṭhayoga iti*), etc.</footnote>
The characterization of physical yoga as a difficult or painful practice is an unlikely reason behind the name Haṭhayoga in Vajrayāna and Śaiva traditions because such characterizations were generally made by opponents of physical yoga rather than its proponents (pace Mallinson and Singleton 2017: xx).<fnref n="48" /> Those who opposed physical methods of asceticism or Haṭhayoga as effective means to liberation were inclined to advocate for gnostic or subitist methods, which they sometimes designated ‘easy’ (sukhopāya).<fnref n="49" /> In the context of debates on easy and difficult (kaṣṭa) methods, all graduated systems of yoga, and sometimes any means to liberation based more on action than gnosis, are rejected. Therefore, in such debates the meaning of kaṣṭa includes, but is not specific to, Haṭhayoga and its physical techniques.<fnref n="50" />

## The Four Yogas

IF THE AMARAUGHA WAS COMPOSED in the twelfth century or before, as I have argued, it is the earliest surviving account of the fourfold yoga of Mantra, Laya, Haṭha and Rājayoga. This system features in many subsequent yoga texts and was eventually incorporated into three Yoga Upaniṣads.<fnref n="51" /> It was the

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ For relevant passages criticising physical yoga or Haṭhayoga in the *Amanaska, Mokṣopāya, Jīvanmuktiveka* and other texts, see Birch 2011: 537, 547–548, 550–552. Also, for a similar reference in the *Mahākālasaṃhitā*, see Mallinson and Singleton 2017: 12, 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Good examples are the authors of the *Amanaska* and *Mokṣopāya* (see the previous footnote for references).</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ A good example of this occurs in the *Tantrasadbhāva* (1.37c-41c), in which kaṣṭayoga is mentioned in the plural together with mudrās, maṇḍalas, mantras, exhalation (recaka), inhalation (pūraka) and meditation (dhyāna). When teaching an easy method (sukhopāya) for quelling thought, Kṣemarāja in his commentary on sūtra 18 of the *Pratyabhijñāḥrdaya* justifies it as easy because all systems of restraining (yantraṇā), such as prāṇāyāma, mudrā and bandha, have been removed (prāṇāyāmamudrābandhādisamastayantraṇātantratroṭanena sukhopāyam). The *Yogabīja* (121), which advocates the practice of Haṭhayoga, appears to directly respond to the debate over easy and difficult methods by referring to the four yogas (layādi) as easy (sahaja); ‘There are various difficult methods or the easy one, such as Laya, [Mantra and Haṭha]. They are not established on the path to liberation without the central channel’ (nānāvidhāḥ kriyāḥ kaṣṭāḥ sahajaṃ vā layādikam | na tu tan mokṣamārge syāt prasiddhaṃ paścimaṃ vinā).</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ These are the *Yogatattvopanisat* (19), *Varāhopaniṣat* (5.10) and *Yogaśikhopaniṣat* (1.129).</footnote>
basis for the interdependent relationship between Haṭha and Rājayoga that was
foregrounded in the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. The combination of Haṭha and Rājayoga
became a prominent paradigm for integrating physical techniques with medit-
ative practices that has endured into the modern era (Birch 2014: 404).

The second verse of the *Amaraugha* introduces the four yogas in the sequence of Laya, Haṭha, Mantra, and Rājayoga. The next verse defines them in that order, and the author alludes to it twice with the compound *layādi* (1 and 14), which suggests that Layayoga is the first of the four. However, as seen in Table 1, the overall structure of the *Amaraugha* presents the four yogas in the order of Mantra, Laya, Haṭha and Rājayoga. The different sequences may be a result of the author's efforts at redacting material from various sources because, as discussed below, other texts mention the first three yogas in different sequences.

At the end of the *Amaraugha* (45), Rājayoga is said to be the goal of the first three yogas, and the author's description of the final stage of Haṭha's practice implies that Rājayoga is the result. Rājayoga as the goal of practice is true for all works that incorporate the four yogas,<fnref n="52" /> the *Haṭharatnāvalī* being the only exception.<fnref n="53" /> However, variations in the order of the first three yogas are seen in other yoga texts, several of which reveal that there were different ideas behind their sequencing.

In fourfold systems of yoga that predate the sixteenth century, Mantra, Laya and Haṭha are ordered differently in various works. Four sequences and their corresponding texts are listed in Table 2. The first sequence of Mantra, Laya and Haṭha, which shapes the structure of the *Amaraugha*, also

<footnote n="52">⁵² A seeming exception is the fourteenth-century Śārṅgadharapaddhati (4347), which introduces these yogas in the order of Mantra, Laya, Rāja and Haṭhayoga. However, it goes on to teach them in the order of Mantra, Laya, Haṭha and Rājayoga.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ Śrīnivāsa, the author of the seventeenth-century *Haṭharatnāvalī* (1.8), reverses the usual order of Haṭha and Rājayoga (*mantrayogo layaś caiva rājayogas tṛtīyakaḥ | haṭhayogaś caturthaḥ syāt prāṇinām mokṣadāyakaḥ*), and teaches them in that order. His work draws heavily on the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, and his unusual sequencing of Rāja and Haṭhayoga appears to be an attempt to reconcile the fourfold system of yogas with a discourse in which Haṭhayoga is foregrounded. Nonetheless, he includes verses from the *Haṭhapradīpikā* stating that Haṭha is the means to Rājayoga (e.g., *Haṭharatnāvalī* 1.4, 1.17 = *Haṭhapradīpikā* 1.2, 1.67).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2: The Four Yogas</caption><thead><tr><td>Sequence of Yogas</td><td>Text</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Mantra, Laya, Haṭha, Rājayoga</td><td>Amaraugha, Amaraughaprabodha,<br/>Dattātreyayogaśāstra, Śivayogapradīpikā<br/>Śivayogasāramu</td></tr><tr><td>2. Mantra, Haṭha, Laya, Rājayoga</td><td>Yogabīja, Śivasaṃhitā, Śaivaratnākara</td></tr><tr><td>3. Laya, Haṭha, Mantra, Rājayoga</td><td>Amaraugha, Amaraughaprabodha</td></tr><tr><td>4. Laya, Mantra, Haṭha, Rājayoga</td><td>Vivekadarpaṇa</td></tr></tbody></table>

appears in two other Sanskrit yoga texts, the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* (9) and *Śivayogapradīpikā* (1.4), as well as a Telugu yoga text called the *Śivayogasāramu* (1927: 32–33), which Krishna and Kandi (2014: 180) date to the fourteenth century.<fnref n="54" /> A second sequence, Mantra, Haṭha and Laya, is seen in the *Yoga-bīja* (104) and *Śivasaṃhitā* (5.12), and is mentioned in passing in Jyotirnātha’s *Śaivaratnākara* (1.39).<fnref n="55" /> A third sequence, Laya, Haṭha and Mantra, is found only in the opening verses of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha*, and the fourth sequence, Laya, Mantra and Haṭha, is mentioned in an early Marathi text called the *Vivekadarpaṇa* (chapter 15). All of the above-listed works are Śaiva, the *Śivayogapradīpikā* and *Śaivaratnākara* being Vīraśaiva. The exception is the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, which is a Vaiṣṇava work.

Several texts reveal the reasons behind the first two sequences in Table 2. Both the *Amaraughaprabodha* (18–24) and *Śivasaṃhitā* (5.13–5.28)

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ The *Śivayogasāramu* postdates the early twelfth century because it refers to Vāmadeva in the context of Rājayoga (1927: 41–42), which indicates that its author knew the *Amanaska*. On the date of the *Amanaska*, see footnote 4. In fact, the author may have known the South Indian recension of the *Amanaska*, because he was familiar with the *tāraka* and *amanaska* division. The *Śivayogasāramu* also has similar content to the *Śivayogapradīpikā* (1.10), which divides its Rājayoga into *sāṅkhya*, *tāraka* and *amanaska*.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ I would like to thank Elaine Fisher for informing me of this reference. She believes the *Śaivaratnākara* may have been composed in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century (p.c. 10.3.2019).</footnote>
contain passages that connect the four yogas to the four types of practitioner.<fnref n="56" /> Although the *Amaraugha* does not mention the four types of practitioner, the *Amṛtasiddhi* (chapters 15–18) contains the earliest account of them. In the *Amaraughaprabodha* and *Śivasaṃhitā*, the four types of practitioner are linked to the sequence of Mantra, Laya, Haṭha and Rājayoga. This sequence is the same as that shaping the structure of the *Amaraugha*. Both texts stipulate that Mantrayoga is for the weak practitioner, Layayoga for the average, Haṭhayoga for the capable and Rājayoga for the exceptional.<fnref n="57" /> This scheme is alluded to in the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* when its author notes that the lowest grade of practitioner, who has little intelligence, should do Mantrayoga, which is then designated the lowest of the yogas.<fnref n="58" /> The *Śivasaṃhitā* integrates a timeframe within this fourfold scheme of yogas and practitioners. The weak practitioner takes twelve years to succeed with Mantra, the average practitioner eight years with Laya, the capable practitioner six years with Haṭha and the exceptional three years with Rājayoga.

The rationale behind the second sequence in Table 2 is explained in the *Yogabīja* (104–111). The four yogas are introduced as sequential and internal stages of the ‘great yoga’ (*mahāyoga*).<fnref n="59" /> The sequential nature of the yogas can be seen in Śiva’s following explanation, which describes how one yoga leads to the next:

> With a *ha* sound, the breath goes out and with a *sa* sound it enters in. This is the mantra *haṃsa haṃsa*. All beings repeat it. Because of the guru’s teaching, the repetition is reversed in the *suṣumṇā*.

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ Although *Śivasaṃhitā* 5.12 lists the four yogas as Mantra, Haṭha, Laya, Rājayoga (the second sequence in Table 2), the section on the four types of practitioner that follows this (5.13–5.28) is based on the order of Mantra, Laya, Haṭha, Rājayoga (the first sequence in Table 2).</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ For further details, see the translation of *Amaraughaprabodha* 18–24.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 14 (*alpabuddhir imaṃ yogam sevate sādhakādhamaḥ* | mantrayogo hy ayaṃ prokto yogānām adhamas smṛtaḥ).</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ *Yogabīja* 104; ‘Mantra, Haṭha, Laya and Rāja. [These] are sequentially internal stages in yoga. This unique fourfold [system] is called the great yoga’ (*mantro haṭho layo rājā yoge ’ntarbhūmikāḥ kramāt* | eka eva caturdhāyaṃ mahāyogo ’bhidhīyate).</footnote>
[channel]. When so 'ham, so 'ham is achieved, it is called Mantra-yoga. Because of Mantrayoga, cognition [of so 'ham] arises in the central channel. When the inanimate [elements of the body] are forcefully consumed, it is called Haṭhayoga. Because the inanimate elements are consumed, the mind dissolves. When Layayoga arises, the breath becomes still, and because of the dissolution [of mind], happiness, the supreme state of bliss in one's own self, is attained. [The yogi] who has obtained the state of [powers], beginning with minimisation, shines because of Rājayoga. Upon the union of prāṇa and apāna, [the yogi] knows the fourfold yoga which has been briefly explained, O goddess. Śiva has said that it is not [taught] otherwise.<fnref n="60" />

The redactor of the *Amaraugha* did not indicate why the text contains two different sequences of the four yogas. Such a discrepancy in the sequencing suggests that the redactor drew material from different sources. Nonetheless, the reason for the sequence Mantra, Laya, Haṭha, which shapes the structure of the work as a whole, is most probably the four types of practitioner as described in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, *Śivasaṃhitā* and *Amaraughaprabodha*.

The fourfold system of yoga was also incorporated into some yoga texts and compendiums that were composed in the early modern period.<fnref n="61" /> However, after the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, this system was overshadowed by the binary scheme of Haṭha and Rājayoga. The Haṭha-Rāja format may have been inspired by

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Yogabīja 105–111 (hakāreṇa bahir yāti sakāreṇa viśen marut | haṃsa haṃseti mantro 'yam sarve jīvā japanti vai || guruvākyāt suṣumṇāyāṃ viparīto bhavej japaḥ | so 'haṃ so 'ham iti prāpte mantrayogas tadocyate || pratītir mantrayogāc ca jāyate paścime pathi | haṭhena grasyate jāḍyaṃ haṭhayogaḥ sa ucyate || jāḍyagrāsaṃ samādāya cittaṃ yāti vilīnatām | pavanaḥ sthairyam āyāti layayogodaye sati || layāt saṃprāpyate saukhyaṃ svātmānandaṃ paraṃ padam | aṇimādipadaṃ prāpto rājate rājayogataḥ || prāṇāpānasamāyoge jñeyaṃ yogacatuṣṭayam | saṃkṣepāt kathitaṃ devi nānyathā śivabhāṣitam).</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Examples include the *Haṭharatnāvalī* (1.8), *Yogamārgaprakāśikā* (1.11), *Rājayogabhāṣya* (p. 8), *Yogacintāmaṇi* of Śivānandasarasvatī (p. 10), *Yogasārasaṅgraha* (p. 2), *Yogatārāvalī-vyākhyā* (f. 3v), *Rājayogasiddhāntarahasya* (p. 5), etc. Also, see footnote 51 for references in three Yoga Upaniṣads.</footnote>
the Yogatārāvalī, which was known to the author of the Haṭhapradīpikā.<fnref n="62" /> By extending the repertoire of Haṭhayoga's physical practices to include complex āsanas and therapeutic interventions known as the ṣaṭkarma, the author of the Haṭhapradīpikā established a basic paradigm for integrating physical and meditative practices. Svātmārāma emphasised that the physical methods and meditative states were interdependent in the sense that Rājayoga could only be achieved by Haṭha and Haṭhayoga was fruitless without the attainment of Rājayoga.<fnref n="63" /> Although a degree of interdependence also underlies the sequential relationship of the four yogas in the Yogabīja, it was not the organising principle behind the four yogas of the Amaraugha, which seems to allow exceptional practitioners to undertake Rājayoga without practising the first three yogas.

## Meaning of yoga in the Context of Four Yogas

Although the Amaraugha does not contain a definition of the term yoga, the author defined rājayoga in a way that is redolent of the meaning of yoga as both samādhi and union. At the beginning of the text (3), rājayoga is defined similarly to yoga and samādhi in the Pātañjalayogaśāstra <fnref n="64" /> and, towards the end of the text (41cd–42ab), it is said to arise when the mind becomes one (ekībhūta) with the internal resonance.<fnref n="65" /> However, seeing that Mantra, Laya and Haṭha are described as the means to attain the state of Rājayoga in Amaraugha 45, the term yoga is better understood as ‘method’ (upāya) in the context of the four yogas.

In light of the definitions of the first three yogas in Amaraugha 3, Layayoga can be interpreted as the method of constant flowing thought; Haṭhayoga as

<footnote n="62">⁶² Yogatārāvalī 2 and 4 ~ Haṭhapradīpikā 4.6 and 4.81.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ The interdependence of Haṭha and Rājayoga are implied in several verses of the Haṭhapradīpikā, but stated explicitly in 2.76: ‘Rājayoga is not accomplished without Haṭha, nor Haṭha without Rājayoga. Therefore, [the yogi] should practise both until the final stage of completion’ (haṭhaṃ vinā rājayogo rājayogaṃ vinā haṭhaḥ | na sidhyati tato yugmam ā niṣpatteḥ samabhyaset). This verse is also in the Śivasaṃhitā (5.222).</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ Cf. Amaraugha 3d (cittavṛttirahita) and Pātañjalayogaśāstra 1.1–2 (yogaḥ samādhiḥ [...] yogaś cittavṛttinirodhaḥ).</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ This interpretation relies on reading Amaraugha 41cd and 42ab together.</footnote>
the method of manipulating the breath and internal resonance, and Mantra-yoga as the method of reciting mantras. In keeping with this interpretation, the redactor of the *Amaraughaprabodha* (65) refers to these yogas as ‘methods’ (*layādyupāya*°).

The defining of specific yogas, such as Haṭha, as methods can be seen in the works of more scholarly compilers and commentators. For example, Bhavadevamiśra defined Haṭhayoga as ‘a method (*upāya*) for making the breath, [mind] and so on steady with forceful intent.’<fnref n="66" /> Nārāyanatirtha glossed Haṭhayoga as ‘a method (*upāya*) for stabilising the mind.’<fnref n="67" /> And in a slightly different rendering of *Amaraugha* 45cd, the redactor of the *Yogamārgaprakāśikā* understood Haṭhayoga, and by implication Mantra and Laya, as a method:

> Mantra, Laya, and the Haṭha method (*upāya*) bring about
> Rājayoga.<fnref n="68" />

The most notable analysis of the meaning of *yoga* in the context of the four yogas is that of the erudite scholar Śivānandasarasvatī, who lived in Varanasi in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. At the beginning of his *Yogacintāmaṇi*, he surveys definitions of the term *yoga* in various Purāṇas and yoga texts. After discussing the meaning of *yoga* as *samādhi* and the twofold nature of *samādhi* denoted by *samprajñāta* and *asamprajñātasamādhi* in Pātañjalayoga, he confronts the issue of the meaning of *yoga* in specific names, such as Mantrayoga. As seen in the following passage, he concludes that Mantrayoga is so-called because it is a ‘means’ (*sādhana*) for accomplishing yoga through mantras:

> Formerly, the twofold nature of *samādhi* has been revealed in statements of the Purāṇas and [yoga texts] that have been mentioned [by me]. But surely [as stated in scripture], ‘yogis who have seen the truth have taught that yoga is fourfold:

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ Yuktabhavadeva 7.131 (*haṭhenāgrahaṇa prāṇādisthirīkaraṇopāyo haṭhayogaḥ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Yogasiddhāntacandrikā 1.34 (*cittasya sthityupāyaṃ haṭhayogam āha*).</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Yogamārgaprakāśikā 4.1 (*mantro layo haṭhopāyo rājayogāya kalpate*).</footnote>
Mantra, Laya, Rāja and Haṭhayoga.'<fnref n="69" /> Since hearing thus about the fourfold nature of yoga and since one perceives the fact that the word ‘yoga’ has many meanings because one sees the use of the word ‘yoga’ in Karmayoga, Bhaktiyoga Vairāgyayoga, Sāṅkhyayoga and the like in Gītās, such as the *Brahmagītā, Viṣṇuġītā, Īśvaragītā and Śivagītā*, how can one conclude, ‘this alone is yoga’? If [such an objection is raised], it is true because, like the use of the word ‘livelihood’ for a plough, which is a means to a livelihood, it is reasonable to use of the word ‘yoga’ for a means to [accomplishing] yoga directly or indirectly, such as Mantrayoga. For so [it has been taught that] yoga and the accomplishment of yoga arise simply from Īśvara’s favour that has been propitiated by mantra repetition, fire sacrifice, worship and so on, and not otherwise.<fnref n="70" />

Since the *Amaraugha* is among the earliest works to bring together Mantra, Laya, Haṭha and Rājayoga, it provides a window onto the early formation of this tetrad of yogas. In the following subsections of this book, the salient features of each yoga will be discussed in light of earlier traditions, as well as subsequent accounts of the four yogas.

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ The origin of this verse is not clear. Seeing that Śivānanda cited it as an authoritative statement, it could be from the *Yogarājopaniṣat* (1ab–2cd). This remains speculative because Śivānanda did not mention the *Yogarājopaniṣat* in his work, and he often cites texts with attribution. As discussed in footnote 52, this verse derives from the *Śārīgadharapaddhati* (4347), of which the *Yogarājopaniṣat* is a redaction (Birch 2014: 426 n. 37). However, it is unlikely that Śivānanda would consider the *Śārīgadharapaddhati* an authority on yoga and cite from it.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Yogacintāmaṇi, Ms. No. 6922, f. 5v ll. 4–8 (darśitaṃ codāhṛtapurāṇādivākyeṣu samādhi-dvaividhyaṃ pūrvam eva || nanu– mantrayogo layaś caiva rājayogo haṭhas tathā | yogaś caturvidhaḥ prokto yogibhis tattvadarśibhiḥ || iti yogasya caturvidhatvaśravaṇād brahmaviṣṇviśvaraśivādigītāsu karmayogo bhaktiyogo vairāgyayogaḥ sāṃkhyayoga ityādiṣu yogaśabdaprayogadarśanena ca yoga-śabdasyānekārthatvapratīteḥ, kathaṃ nirṇayo ’yam eva yoga iti cet | satyaṃ, jīvanasādhane lāṅgale jīvanaśabdaprayogavat sākṣāt paramparayā vā yogasādhaneṣu mantrayogādiṣu yogaśabdaprayogo-papatteḥ | tathā hi mantrajapahpūjādiṣu samārādhiteśvaraprasādād eva yogo yogasiddhiś ca bhavati, nānyathā).</footnote>
## Mantrayoga

The practice of Mantrayoga in the *Amaraugha* (15–16) begins with meditation on *om*, which the author describes as a one-syllable mantra. The yogi then meditates on a white deity and a mantra beginning with *om* in the heart and then in a *mandala*. The mantra is recited one hundred thousand times and a fire sacrifice (*homa*) is performed for every tenth repetition. This practice is said to prevent the yogi from suffering a violent death and, presumably, if it were practised for long enough, would lead to Rājayoga.<fnref n="71" />

It is notable that the *Amaraugha* does not mention a mantra specific to a particular deity or sect. This is consistent with other accounts of Mantrayoga in subsequent texts on the four yogas.<fnref n="72" /> In fact, the use of *om* as a universal mantra has antecedents in earlier traditions of Śaivism, which attempted to reduce mantric diversity by using *om* for everything (TAK III 2013: 508). Also, the practice of meditating on *om* has been a feature of theistic yoga traditions as far back as the *Pātañjalayogaśāstra*.<fnref n="73" /> Although the Śaiva orientation of the *Amaraugha* is unambiguous, the use of a universal mantra and the relative simplicity of the mantric dimension of the practice anticipate the trans-sectarian role of the four yogas in some yoga texts of the early modern period.

In the context of four yogas, the inclusion of fire sacrifice (*homa*) in Mantrayoga is unusual, if not unique to the *Amaraugha*. Nevertheless, in early Śaiva traditions, reciting a mantra, visualising a white deity and performing external ritual action in which life-giving substances, such as milk and butter,

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ The Śivasaṃhitā (5.16) states that the yogi obtains success with Mantrayoga in twelve years.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² For example, the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* (12–14) mentions only that the yogi should recite a mantra after installing the letters into his limbs (*aṅgeṣu māṭṛkānyāsapūrvam mantraam japet sudhīḥ*). The *Yogabija* (106–107) describes the practice of Mantrayoga as the recitation of *so ’ham (so ’ham so ’ham iti prāpto mantrayogaḥ sa ucyate)*). This is called the *ajapā* mantra in other texts (e.g., *Vivekamārtaṇḍa 29–31*). The *Śārṅgadharapaddhati* (4349) defines Mantrayoga as a practice accomplished by those skilled in repeating mantras of deities, such as Brahmā, Viṣṇu or Śiva, and mentions Vatsarāja as an example of such an adept (*brahmaviṣṇuśivādīnām mantrajāpyaviśāradaiḥ | sādhyate mantrayogas tu vatsarājādibhir yathā*).</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ For a discussion of meditation on *praṇava* in the *Pātañjalayogaśāstra*, see Maas 2009: 276–280.</footnote>
are offered into a fire, are distinctive features of rejuvenation (*puṣṭi*) rites.<fnref n="74" /> If a fire sacrifice had to be performed for every tenth repetition,<fnref n="75" /> the practice of Mantrayoga would be very expensive in terms of purchasing enough honey, milk, ghee and lotuses for the ten thousand sacrifices that must accompany the one hundred thousand recitations. The implication is that Mantrayoga requires a substantial amount of ritual practice to bring about the declared result. It is, perhaps, telling that the result is avoiding a violent death rather than death altogether. This may reflect the status of Mantrayoga as the lowest of the four yogas, which is stated or insinuated in other texts as well,<fnref n="76" /> and it implies that the attainment of immortality was reserved for those who succeeded at Haṭha and Rājayoga.

## Layayoga

The Layayoga of the *Amaraugha* (18–19) is a visualisation practice that appears to have two stages. The yogi begins by visualising nectar flowing in his body and then meditates on Śiva in the form of a *linga* that shines like a jewel. In yoga texts, the term *laya* can literally mean ‘dissolution’ of the mind, and is often used as a synonym for *samādhi*.<fnref n="77" /> Also, during the second millennium, some commentators on the *Yogasūtra* glossed ‘cessation’ (*nirodha*) in *sūtra* 1.2 (*yogaś*

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴I would like to thank Alexis Sanderson (p.c. 27.6.2020) for pointing this out to me. The main reference he provided is *Tantrāloka* 1.119–1.122 and relevant passages from the *Niśvāsakārikā* (48.69–48.71b), *Tantrasadbhāva* (f. 50, 66c and 67r), *Niśvāsagubhya* (10.12c–10.13), *Kubjikāmata* (8.44a) and *Bṛhatkālottara* (f. 72).</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ This instruction is specified by the compound *daśāṃśam* in *Amaraugha* 16c.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ For references in the *Śivasaṃhitā*, *Amaraughaaprabodha* and *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, see the section above on the Four Yogas.</footnote>

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ The term *laya* clearly has this meaning in the *Amanaska* (2.22), a Śaiva yoga text that predates the *Amaraugha* by a century or so. For example, ‘an extraordinary dissolution [of mind] (*laya*) arises in which all intentional thoughts are severed and all movement has ceased. It is only intelligible to oneself and beyond the sphere of words (*ucchinnasarvasaṅkalpo niḥṣeṣāśeṣaceṣṭitaḥ* | *svāvagamyo layaḥ ko ṭpi jāyate vāgagocaraḥ*). In *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.3–4.4, *laya* is included as a synonym for *samādhi*.</footnote>
cittavṛttinirodhaḥ) as *laya*,<fnref n="78" /> and several erudite authors of yoga compendiums equate it with the lower level of *samādhi* called *samprajñāta*.<fnref n="79" /> In contexts of meditation, antecedents to the concept of *laya* as the dissolution of mind occur in Śaiva Tantras that predate the *Amaraugha*.<fnref n="80" /> However, in Buddhist and Vedantic works, it generally means mental inertia, sluggishness, sleep and loss of consciousness, and appears in some lists of obstacles to meditation or gnosis.<fnref n="81" />

The *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* clearly states that Layayoga is accomplished by the dissolution of the mind (*cittalaya*), and it teaches various esoteric techniques for this purpose.<fnref n="82" /> The author attributes eighty million of these techniques to Śiva.<fnref n="83" /> Several of those described are similar to the simple contemplative practices of some earlier Śaiva Tantras, such as the *Vijñānabhairavatantra* and *Svabodhodayamañjarī*, which teach methods for dissolving the mind (*mano-laya*).<fnref n="84" /> In terms of its simplicity, the Layayoga of the *Amaraugha* is consistent

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ For example, Bhojadeva’s *Rājamārthaṇḍa* 1.2; ‘The cessation of those [mental activities, that is to say,] the dissolution [of them] in their own cause is known as yoga’ (tāsāṃ nirodho [...] svakāraṇe layo yoga ity ākhyāyate). Cf. *Vijñānabhikṣu’s Pātañjalabhāṣyavārttika* 1.2 ([...] vṛttayas tāsāṃ nirodhas tāsāṃ layākhyo [...]) and *Yogasiddhāntacandrikā* 1.2 (tāsāṃ nirodha upaśamo nirindhanāgṛnivat svakāraṇe layaḥ).</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ For example, Śivānanda’s *Yogacintāmaṇi* p. 11 (*layaḥ samprajñātaḥ*) and Nārāyaṇatīrtha’s *Yogasiddhāntacandrikā* 1.41 ([...] *samāpattiḥ samyagāpattir layaḥ samprajñātalakṣaṇo yogo bhavatīty arthaḥ [...]).</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ The word *līna* is used in Bhāgavatotpala’s definition of meditation (*dhyāna*) in *Spandapradīpikā* 31. The word *laya* or a derivative form of the root *lī* occur in the context of dissolving the mind in *Vijñānabhairavatantra* 37, 56, 58–60, 71, 79, 115, *Svabodhodayamañjarī* 43, *Śāktavijñāna* 28, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ Sluggishness of mind (*cetaso līnatta*) is one of five hindrances in the *Kāyasutta* of the *Tripiṭaka* (*Saṃyutta* Nikāya 1898, part 5: 64). In Vedantic works, examples include the *Maitrāyaṇīyopaniṣat* 6.34.7 and Gauḍapāda’s *Māṇḍūkyopaniṣatkārikā* 3.42 (and see the commentary of Śaṅkara on this verse, which glosses *laya* as *suṣupta*). Also see *Aparokṣānubhūti* 127–128 and *Yuktabhavadeva* 1.38–1.39, where *laya* is included as an obstacle to attaining *samādhi* and yoga.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 15ab: ‘Because of the dissolution of mind brought about by esoteric techniques, Layayoga arises’ (*layayogaś cittalayāt saṅketais tu prajāyate*).</footnote>

<footnote n="83">⁸³ *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 15cd (*ādināthena saṅketā aṣṭakoṭiḥ prakīrtitāḥ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ The *Dattātreyayogaśāstra’s* techniques of Layayoga (21 – 26) can be summarised as</footnote>
with the meditative techniques of these works. However, the influence of its Layayoga on subsequent yoga texts was negligible, perhaps because the history of this type of yoga is characterised by the plurality of its methods, which over the centuries came to include absorption of the mind in the internal resonance (*nāda*)<sup>85</sup> and systems of cakras.<sup>86</sup>

## Haṭhayoga

The section on Haṭhayoga in the *Amaraugha* (19–41) is three times the length of the combined discussion of the other three yogas, and the end of its account is dovetailed with the description of Rājayoga. Thus, the structure of the text alone signifies that Haṭha was of paramount importance to the author in attain-

meditation on the void, gazing on the tip of the nose, meditating on the back of the head, gazing between the eyebrows, meditating on the forehead and brow, meditating on the two big toes and lying on the ground like a corpse. Several of the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*'s methods of Layayoga are indeed the same or very similar to the contemplative techniques of the *Vijñānabhairavatantra*. For example, lying on the ground (*Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 24c-d and *Vijñānabhairavatantra* 82) and fixing the gaze (*dṛṣṭi*) on something (see *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 22a-b, 23 and *Vijñānabhairavatantra* 59, 60, 76, 80, 84, 120). Also, several of the techniques in the *Vijñānabhairavatantra* (50, 56, 112, 115), as well as the *Svabodhodayamañjarī* (36), involve or produce *cittalaya* and *manolaya*.

<sup>85</sup> A verse in the *Yogatārāvalī* (2) states that one hundred and twenty-five thousand concentration techniques (*avadhāna*) of absorption have been taught by Śiva and that *nādā-nusandhāna* is the most revered of them (*sadā śivoktāni sapādalakṣalayāvadhānāni lasantu loke | nādānusandhānasamādhim ekaṃ manyāmahe mānyatamaṃ layānām*). This statement is echoed in *Haṭhapradīpikā* 1.45d; ‘there is no absorption like [that of] the internal resonance’ (*na nādasadrśo layaḥ*). The association between *laya* and *nāda* is reiterated in many works composed from the fifteenth century onwards. Examples include *Śivasaṃhitā* 5.44, *Śivayogapradīpikā* 1.6, *Haṭharatnāvalī* 1.12, *Yogamārgaprakāśikā* 4.20ab, *Rājayogāmṛta* 2.5cd–2.6ab, *Haṭhatattva-kaumudī* 54.1, etc.

<sup>86</sup> The fourteenth-century Śārṅgadharapaddhati (4350-63) may contain the earliest surviving account of a Layayoga which aims at absorption of the mind in cakras. Its short description mentions nine cakras, and it was mastered by sages such as Kṛṣṇadvaiśyāna (i.e., Vyāsa) (kṛṣṇadvaiśyānaṇḍyais tu sādhito layasaṃjñitaḥ | navasv eva hi cakreṣu layaṃ kṛtvā mahātmabhiḥ). This practice was alluded to by Śivānandasarasvatī in his *Yogacintāmaṇi* (p.13), ‘Also in regard to Layayoga, the dissolution of breath and mind in the nine cakras is called Layayoga’ (*layayoge ṇi navasv eva cakreṣu marunmanasor layo layayoga ity ucyate*).
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: The great seal (mahāmudrā). Yogasopāna 1905: 54.</figcaption></figure>

ing Rājayoga. The practice of Haṭha consists of performing sequentially three physical actions generally referred to as ‘seals’ (*mudrā*), namely, the great seal (*mahāmudrā*), great lock (*mahābandha*) and great piercing (*mahāvedha*). The salient features of the first seal are the yogi’s asymmetrical seated position, in which the spine is flexed, and the application of the throat lock (*kaṇṭhabandha*), as depicted in Figure 1. The throat lock is not explained in the *Amaraugha*. However, it is likely referring to what subsequent Haṭha texts call Jālandhara’s lock (*jālandharabandha*), a technique of contracting the throat and placing the chin on the chest to block the channels in the neck.<fnref n="87" />

The practice of the first seal is followed by the second, the great lock. The author of *Amaraugha* does not comment on the yogi's posture in the great lock, which implies that the yogi remains in the position adopted for the great seal. This is affirmed by the more detailed passage on the great lock in the

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ For a translation of a verse in the *Haṭhapradīpikā* that explains jālandharabandha and for Brahmānanda's comments on the meaning of 'throat lock' (*kaṇṭhabandha*), see footnote 169.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: The leg position of the great lock in the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, etc. A detail of *virāsanamu, Haṭhayogapradīpikā* 1903: plate 1.</figcaption></figure>

*Amṛtasiddhi*, which states explicitly that the yogi should hold the position of the great seal when performing the great lock.<fnref n="88" /> In contrast to this, subsequent yoga texts, such as the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* (135) and *Śivasaṃhitā* (4.37-38), prescribe a cross-legged position for the great lock, in which the heel of one foot is pressed against the perineum while the other foot rests on the thigh of the opposite leg, as represented in Figure 2.<fnref n="89" />

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ *Amṛtasiddhi* 12.3, '[The yogi] should inhale, perform a retention, hold the [great] seal that alleviates fear, and [then] quickly apply the [great] lock, which has been kept secret [even] from the gods and demons (pūrakaṃ kumbhakaṃ kṛtvā dhṛtvā mudrāṃ bhayāpahām | bandhaṃ saṃyojayet kṣipraṃ surāsurasugopitam).</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ Neither the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* nor the *Śivasaṃhitā* state where the hands should be</footnote>
Although only the throat lock is applied in the practice of the great seal, both the throat and root lock (mūlabandha) are necessary for the great lock. This feature of the *Amaraugha's* great lock is consistent with the more comprehensive instructions in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, which stipulates that the yogi should engage the root lock by contracting the anus and perineum to make the *apāna* wind move upwards.<fnref n="90" /> This ultimately results in the union of three bodily winds, namely, *samāna*, *apāna* and *prāṇa*, as well as the reversal of the downward flow in all channels of the body.<fnref n="91" /> The author of the *Amaraugha* (25) simply says that the great lock awakens an upward flow in all channels, which likely refers to the upward flow caused by the root lock. The *Amṛtasiddhi* explains that this upward flow prevents the elements and essences of the body from escaping, and likens the great lock to a dam blocking a river's flow from a catchment.<fnref n="92" />

Unlike the *Amṛtasiddhi*, the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha* include the instruction that the yogi should inhale through the mouth when performing the great seal and lock. The reason for the omission of such an important detail in the *Amṛtasiddhi* remains unknown but, given that the *Amṛtasiddhi's* account of the practice is more elaborate than the *Amaraugha's*, it would appear that inhaling through the mouth was not a feature of these seals in Vajrayāna

placed. The illustration in Figure 2 actually depicts the version of *vīrāsana* illustrated in *Haṭhayogapradīpika* 1903.

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ *Amṛtasiddhi* 12.4, '[The yogi] should contract the anus along with the perineum at the same time, make *apāna* go upwards and unite it with *samāna*' (guḍaṃ yonisamāyuktam ākuṃcya caikakālataḥ | apānam ūrdhvagaṃ kṛtvā samānena ca yojayet).</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ *Amṛtasiddhi* 12.6, 'And [the yogi] causes the [united *apāna* and *samāna*] wind to ascend to *prāṇa*, makes *prāṇa* face downwards, and causes them to move so that an upward flow arises because of the union of *prāṇā* and *apāṇa*' (prāṇe cāropya vāyuṃ ca kṛtvā prāṇam adhomukham | vāhayed ūrdhvagatyarthaṃ prāṇāpānaikayogataḥ).</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² *Amṛtasiddhi* 12.8–10, 'All of the channels, which invariably flow downwards, are reversed because of this great lock. Owing to the downward flow [of the channels], the outward-flowing elements and essences escape from the body like rivers [flowing] from their catchments. Just as an outside dam stops the flow [of water], so this bodily [lock stops the outward flow of elements and essences]. Yogis should always know this.' (nādyaḥ śravanti yāḥ sarvā adhomārgeṇa sarvadā | mahatānena bandhena viparītā bhavanti tāḥ || adhovāhena tattvāni śarīrād bāhyagāmi ca | sārāṇi prapalāyante svakṣetrāt srotaso yathā || yathā bāhyagataḥ setuḥ pravāhasya nirodhakaḥ | tathā śarīragaś cāyaṃ jñātavyo yogibhiḥ sadā).</footnote>
yoga. This instruction was likely original to the *Amaraugha* because it also appears in the same verses on the great seal and lock in some early versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*. Thus, the instruction is not peculiar to the transmission of the *Amaraugha* and its later recension.<fnref n="93" /> In more recent versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, including that established by Brahmānanda in his *Jyotsnā*, the injunction to inhale through the mouth has been removed.<fnref n="94" /> Apart from the breath retentions called śītalī and sītkārī, the practice of breathing in through the mouth is rarely mentioned in medieval works on yoga, which may account for why it was removed from the descriptions of the great seal and lock in more recent versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*.

The *Amaraugha* mentions several benefits of practising the great seal and lock that are not in the *Amṛtasiddhi*. The great seal awakens kuṇḍalinī and makes her as straight as a stick. The significance of kuṇḍalinī in Śaiva traditions of Haṭha has been discussed in the previous section.<fnref n="95" /> Also, the great lock is said to produce the confluence of the three main channels (*triveṇī*) and cause the mind to reach a place called Kedāra.<fnref n="96" /> The terms *triveṇī* and *kedāra* occur in other Śaiva works in lists of sacred place names (Birch 2019: 967). They were probably mentioned in the *Amaraugha* to make the practice of the great lock appeal to a Śaiva audience. Since the author of the *Amaraugha* did not explain the implications of the upward flow in the channels that is caused by this lock, as noted above in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, Śaivas may have understood the upward flow as the movement of the mind through the central channel to Kedāra, which they probably believed to be located in the head (Birch 2019: 967 n. 57).

The practice of the second seal is followed by the third, the great piercing. Upon completing the great lock, the yogi changes position so that the hands and feet are placed evenly on the ground. The yogi then applies the throat lock,

<footnote n="93">⁹³ For references in manuscripts of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, see the testimonia in the critical apparatus for *Amaraugha* 19 and 24.</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ For example, instead of pūrayen mukhe in *Amaraugha* 19d, *Haṭhapradīpikā* manuscript 399/1895-1902 has pūrayen sukham and *Jyotsnā* 3.10d has dhārayed dṛḍham. And instead of pūrayitvā mukhe in *Amaraugha* 24a, *Haṭhapradīpikā* manuscript 30109 and *Jyotsnā* 3.20a have pūrayitvā tato.</footnote>

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ See the section, 'From Raising Generative Fluids to Raising Kuṇḍalini'.</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ *Amaraugha* 25.</footnote>
inhales, holds the breath, and taps on the hips. The *Amaraugha's* descriptions of the body's position and the tapping motion are vague. The position of the great piercing is clearly not the same as that of the great seal and lock because the body is said to be symmetrical in so far as the hands and legs are aligned in the same way (*sama*). In the *Amṛtasiddhi*, the yogi's posture in the great seal is described as follows:

> Remaining very steady, [the yogi] should adopt the *liṅga* [gesture] with the hands on the ground, then keep both feet facing downwards and still, like the pole star, lift up the hips and tap the spine (*mahāmeru*) with both heels of the upright feet and the very tip of the thunderbolt breath.<fnref n="97" />

If the author of the *Amaraugha* had this particular posture in mind, then the remark that the hands are placed the same way (*sama*) would allude to a *liṅga* gesture of some sort. This seems unlikely because in other Śaiva and Vajrāyana works the hands are not positioned symmetrically in a *liṅga* gesture.<fnref n="98" /> Indeed, had the author of the *Amaraugha* known the *Amṛtasiddhi* and borrowed material from it, it is rather difficult to explain why the *liṅga* gesture was omitted in the *Amaraugha's* account of the great piercing when the *liṅga* is a salient feature of its Laya and Rājayoga.

Also, the *Amaraugha's* author does not mention that the feet point downwards or that the spine taps against the heels. In the *Amṛtasiddhi*, the fact that both feet point downwards implies that the yogi has bent the knee of the leg that was extended in the great lock, then joined the soles of the feet and raised the heels while keeping the toes on the ground. With the legs in a squatting position, as shown in Figure 3, the yogi then taps the base of the spine against the heels.

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ Amṛtasiddhi 13.6-7 (karābhyāṃ liṅgam āropya prthivyāṃ dhruvasaṃnibham | tathā hi niścalaṃ kṛtvā pādadvayam adhomukham || avakrapādamūlābhyāṃ kaṭim utthāpya susthiraḥ | āsphālayen mahāmeruṃ vāyuvajrāgrakoṭitaḥ).</footnote>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ Various descriptions of a *liṅgamudrā* occur in Śaiva and Vajrāyana works. They usually involve clasping together the fingers of both hands while keeping one or both thumbs pointing upwards. Another version has the ring and little fingers of both hands wrapped around the thumbs. For references, see Mallinson and Szánto 2021: 131–132 n. 180.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: The leg position of the great piercing in the *Amṛtasiddhi*. *Utkaṭāsana, Yogāsana*, f. 20b.</figcaption></figure>

However, the *Amaraugha's* description that the legs are placed the same way (*sama*) is so vague that the yogi could be in a squatting position similar to that described in the *Amṛtasiddhi* or the yogi could be sitting with the soles of the feet together, the perineum against the heels and the knees on the ground in a position similar to the pose of the gracious Gorakṣa (*bhadragorakṣāsana*), which is described in the *Jogapradīpyakā* (129–130) and represented in Figure 4.<fnref n="99" />

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ Jogapradīpyakā 129–130, ‘Now the pose of the gracious Gorakṣa. [The yogi] should join the soles of both feet and hold their nearest side on the ground. He places [himself] on the nearest edge [of the soles] in such a way that his perineum (mūla dvāri) remains on them. Pressing the legs against the ground, he should keep the hands on both legs. [The yogi] who fixes the gaze on the trikuṭī should praise the gracious Gorakṣa’ (atha bhadragorakha āsana | doū pagathalī saṃpuṭa karai, kora vārilī bhūpari dharai | kora vārilī rākhe aise, tāpari mūla dvāri ṭiki baisai || goḍā pīḍī bhūva pari dāṣai, hātha dou goḍā pari rākhai | diṣṭi trikuṭī madhya ju ṭhānai, tāko gorakha bhadra bakhānai). I am yet to find vārilī attested in any dictionary. It appears elsewhere</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: The leg position of the great piercing in the *Amaraugha*. *Bhadragorakṣāsana, Jogapradīpyakā*, f. 24.</figcaption></figure>
The possibility that the great piercing was done in a seated (rather than squatting) position in Haṭhayoga is supported by subsequent interpretations of this practice in the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra, Śivasaṃhitā* and *Haṭhapradīpikā*, which stipulate that the great lock and piercing are to be practised in the cross-legged seated position that was depicted in Figure 2.<fnref n="100" />

Moreover, the *Amaraugha's* instruction to align the hands the same way on the ground and tap on the hips and buttocks (*kaṭi*), rather than tap the heels against the spine (*mahāmeru*) as prescribed in the *Amṛtasiddhi*, is close to the *Haṭhapradīpikā's* instructions on the great piercing:

> With both hands even on the ground, [the yogi] should tap the buttocks gently.<fnref n="101" />

In this case, the hands would be placed on the ground either side of the body. This would enable the yogi to lift the hips and tap them against the ground. One has to infer that each tapping action causes the heel to press against the perineum, as Brahmānanda explains in his commentary on this verse.<fnref n="102" /> This is possible in both the cross-legged position of Figure 2 and the symmetrical seated position of Figure 4.

According to the *Amaraugha* (27–29), when the position of the great piercing has been assumed, the yogi should use the breath to pierce the four seats (*catuṣpīṭha*) and tap the great Meru, that is the spine, with breaths that

with *kora* in the *Jogapradīpyakā* (211a, 283b) and seems to mean ‘the nearest (*vāra*) side/edge.’

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ The posture of the great lock is described thus in *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.18, ‘[the yogi] should fix the heel of the left foot on the perineum, having placed the right foot on the left thigh’ (*pārṣṇiṃ vāmasya pādasya yonisthāne niyojayet* | vāmorūpari *saṃsthāpya dakṣiṇaṃ caraṇaṃ tathā). This posture is referred to at the beginning of the description of the great piercing in *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.25a, ‘the yogi, seated in the great lock, [...]’ (*mahābandhasthito yogī*).</footnote>

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.26ab (*samahastayugo bhūmau śhicau saṃtāḍayec chanaiḥ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² *Jyotsnā* 3.27, ‘Having supported [the body] with the hands, whose palms are placed on the ground, [the yogi] gently, [that is] softly, taps, [that is] taps together [both buttocks], which have been raised a little from the ground along with the left foot, whose heel is placed against the region of the perineum, [he taps] only on the ground’ (*bhūmisaṃlagnatalayor hastayor avalambanena yonisthānasamlagnapārṣṇinā vāmapādena saha bhūmeḥ kiñcid utthāpitau śanair mandaṃ santāḍayet samyak tāḍayet, bhūmāv eva*).</footnote>
are like thunderbolts. The four seats, which are also mentioned in passing
by the redactor of the *Amṛtasiddhi* (13.5), might have been understood by
Śaivas as four places in the head or as four *cakras*.<fnref n="103" /> The image of the breath
as a thunderbolt also occurs in the *Amṛtasiddhi* (13.7), and references to a
double-lidded vessel (*puṭadvaya*) and the connection between the moon, sun
and fire may have derived from Vajrayāna yoga’s alchemical metaphors and
metaphysics. However, these terms were probably interpreted by subsequent
Śaiva traditions as referring to the three main channels of the body, namely,
*iḍā, piṅgalā and suṣumṇā*.<fnref n="104" />

The great piercing is said to make the breath burst upwards, which is
required for the process of sequentially piercing the three knots (granthi) that
obstruct the upward flow of the breath in the central channel. A daily regimen
of practising the three seals every three hours enables the yogi to progress
through the four stages of yoga called beginning (ārambha), unified (ghaṭa),
accumulation (paricaya) and perfection (niṣpatti). Each stage is characterised
by the arising of a particular meditative void (śūnya), bliss (ānanda) and internal
resonance (nāda), as well as some supernatural effects, such as the attainment
of a divine body and freedom from old age and death.

Much of the terminology and sequential effects of these four stages of
yoga derive from Vajrayāna and are described more fully in the *Amṛtasiddhi*. By
comparison, the *Amaraugha’s* account is much simpler as some of the concepts
and terms peculiar to Vajrayāna, such as the four moments, are absent. By
retaining terminology and ideas that could be understood by Śaivas in light of
their own tradition (Birch 2019: 968–969) and linking the attainment of the
fourth stage (i.e., *niṣpatti*) with Rājayoga, the author of the *Amaraugha* created
a basic template for the practice of fusing the mind with internal resonance
(*nādānusandhāna*) that became a salient feature of subsequent traditions of
Haṭha.<fnref n="105" />

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ See footnote 186 for a discussion of *catuṣpīṭha*.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ On the meaning of *puṭadvaya* in the *Amaraugha*, see footnote 188, and on the connection of the moon, sun and fire, see footnote 189.</footnote>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ This is discussed in the subsection ‘The *Amaraugha’s* Haṭhayoga and Subsequent Traditions.’</footnote>
## Rājayoga

Nearly all of the earliest surviving works on Rājayoga are Śaiva. The one exception is the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, which is a Vaiṣṇava work on the four yogas.<fnref n="106" /> The *Amaraugha's* short explanation of Rājayoga anticipates three salient characteristics of this type of yoga in other early Śaiva works. The first is Rājayoga's definition as a state of meditative absorption in which the mind is absent or unified. At the beginning of the text, the author of the *Amaraugha* (2–3) describes Rājayoga as a non-dual state free of mental activity, and similar descriptions occur in the *Amanaska*, *Yogatārāvalī*, *Śivasaṃhitā* and *Haṭhapradīpikā*.<fnref n="107" />

The second characteristic is Rājayoga's soteriological status: the attainment of it results in liberation from transmigration. In *Amaraugha* 42–43, it is said that when Rājayoga arises, there is no bondage and the yogi becomes an equal to god (īśvarasama). Equality with Śiva (śivatulyatā) is an expression of the highest salvific attainment in dualist Śaiva traditions. The author of the *Amaraugha* was silent on whether the yogi is liberated-in-life (jīvanmukti) or at death (videhamukti). Such ambiguity would have enabled Śaivas of various traditions to read their own distinct beliefs on liberation into the text.<fnref n="108" /> Be this as it may, several of the *Amaraugha* prabodha's additional verses on Rājayoga (70–72) state explicitly that the yogi is liberated-in-life and wanders the earth

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ The earliest surviving work on Rājayoga is the second chapter of an eleventh-century Śaiva text called the *Amanaska* (on the date, see Birch 2014: 406 note 12). Subsequent early Śaiva works include the *Yogabīja*, *Yogatārāvalī*, *Śivasaṃhitā* and *Haṭhapradīpikā*. The exception mentioned above is the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra*, in which Rājayoga is the goal of the first three.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ *Amanaska* 2.32d, '[the state] of Rājayoga in which one's mind is absent' (*vigatanijamano-rājayoga*); *Yogatārāvalī* 16, 'Having removed everything beginning with the states of I and mine, those whose minds are steady in the venerable [state of] Rājayoga are not observers nor objects to be observed. Only pure awareness prevails' (*ahaṃmamatvādy apahāya sarvaṃ śrīrājayoge sthiramānasānām* | na draṣṭṛtā nāsti ca dṛśyabhāvaḥ sā jṛmbhate kevalasaṃvid eva); *Śivasaṃhitā* 5.12cd, 'the fourth is Rājayoga, which is free from the state of duality (*caturtho rājayogaḥ syāt sa dvidhābhāvavarjitaḥ*); *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.3–4.4, 'Rājayoga [...] and the non-dual [state] are synonyms' (*rājayogaḥ [...] tathādvaitaṃ [...] cety ekavācakāḥ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ On the distinction between Dual and Non-dual conceptions of Śaiva liberation, see Sanderson 1992: 282–285.</footnote>
doing as he pleases. This is consistent with other works on Rājayoga, in which
liberation-in-life is the highest goal (Birch 2020: 221–224).

The third characteristic is Rājayoga’s transcendence of the praxis and
theory of yoga. The author of the *Amaraugha* (43) asserts that Rājayoga is
beyond the internal resonance (nāda), which implies that it transcends all
other techniques of Haṭha. It is also said that the state of Rājayoga cannot
be described as conscious or unconscious and, when it has been accomplished,
the practice of yoga is superfluous. These ideas are particularly prominent in
the *Yogatārāvali’s* discussion of Rājayoga:

> When Rājayoga is flourishing, there are no gazing points, no
> binding of the mind [to one place], no [proper] time or place [for
> practice], no [deliberate] stopping of the breath nor exertion of
> concentration and meditation. For those established in Rājayoga,
> who have a gaze free from all objects, there is no waking nor state
> of deep sleep, nor life nor death. Is it not amazing? <fnref n="109" />

The *Amaraugha’s* final verse on Rājayoga conveys a somewhat stronger
sectarian sentiment than the earlier verses that articulate the more general char-
acteristics of Rājayoga mentioned above. *Amaraugha* 44 defines the *liṅga* and
describes the power of consciousness, gnosis and mind of one who has achieved
Rājayoga. In particular, the dissolution of the universe into the *liṅga* seems to
lay bare the redactor’s intention to emphasise the importance of Rājayoga to
Śaivas. One might further speculate that such an explicitly Śaiva interpretation
of Rājayoga was intended to affirm the subordinate role of Haṭha as one of three
auxiliary methods for achieving Śaiva yoga. It was several centuries after the
composition of the *Amaraugha*, when Haṭha’s association with Vajrayāna was
largely forgotten, that the subordinate status of Haṭha changed. As evinced by
works such as the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, Haṭha grew to overshadow Rājayoga.

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ Yogatārāvalī 14–15 (na dṛṣṭilakṣyāṇi na cittabandho na deśakālau na ca vāyurodhaḥ | na dhāraṇādhyānapariśramo vā samedhamāne sati rājayoge || aśeṣadṛśyojjhitadṛṇimayānām avaśhitānām iha rājayoge | na jāgaro nāsti suṣuptibhāvo na jīvitaṁ no maraṇaṁ nu citram).</footnote>
The *Amaraugha's* Haṭha and Subsequent Traditions

SVĀTMĀRĀMA, THE AUTHOR OF THE HAṬHAPRADĪPIKĀ, incorporated nearly all of the *Amaraugha's* verses on Haṭha.<fnref n="110" /> He augmented the *Amaraugha's* terse descriptions of the three seals with verses from the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* and *Vivekamārtaṇḍa*.<fnref n="111" /> The influence of his other source texts changed some facets of the practice as it was described in the *Amaraugha*. The most significant change is the posture in which the great lock and piercing are performed. Svātmārāma also added a few new details, such as the injunction to practise the great seal and lock the same number of times on the right and left sides of the body.<fnref n="112" /> However, he retained the asymmetrical posture of the great seal, the dynamic tapping motion of the great piercing, and the need to practise the three seals together. The *Amaraugha's* passage on the four stages of yoga, in which the knots are pierced and various blisses, sounds and voids arise, was incorporated into the fourth chapter of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* as the practice of *nādānusandhāna* ('fusing the mind with the internal resonance').<fnref n="113" />

Through the lens of Svātmārāma's redacting, the *Amaraugha's* Haṭhayoga was the physical routine of the three seals combined with the meditative practice of *nādānusandhāna*. This rudimentary system was, in a sense, the nucleus of subsequent formulations of Haṭhayoga. By the time the *Haṭhapradīpikā* was composed, the physical practice of Haṭhayoga had been expanded to include complex āsanas, a set of six therapeutic interventions called the *ṣaṭkarma*, eight breath retentions known as *kumbhaka*, and a collection of ten seals.<fnref n="114" /> Half of the collection of ten seals appears to derive from the *Amaraugha's* physical prac-

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ See footnote 16 for a reference and discussion of the verses shared between the *Amaraugha* and *Haṭhapradīpikā*.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ For example, the following parallels exist for the *Haṭhapradīpikā's* description of *mahāmudrā*: *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.9–3.11, 3.13, 3.14–3.17 = *Amaraugha* 19–21, 22. *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.14–3.17 = *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* 60–63. *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.18ab = *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* 132cd.</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.14 and 3.20.</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ *Amaraugha* 34–42 = *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.69–4.77.</footnote>

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ The earliest record of these ten seals appears to be the *Dattātreyayogaśāstra* (30–32) and then the *Śivasaṃhitā* (4.23–4.24) and *Haṭhapradīpikā* (3.6–3.7).</footnote>
tice because two of the additional seals (i.e., *mūlabandha* and *jālandharabandha*) are the locks (*bandha*) inherent in the *Amaraugha's* three seals.

Svātmārāma also enlarged the meditative side of the Haṭha practice by adding material to the *Amaraugha's* account of nādānusandhāna. This included a separate sequence of more than ten resonances and methods of closing the ears, eyes, nose and mouth with the thumbs and fingers. These concepts and methods derive from earlier yoga traditions of Śaivism.<fnref n="115" />

The widespread acceptance of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* as an authority on Haṭha-yoga and the extensive citations of it in yoga compendiums ensured that much of the practice and terminology of the *Amaraugha's* Haṭha continued to be used by authors of yoga texts up until the nineteenth century.<fnref n="116" /> After the decline of Buddhism in India, the meaning of some technical terms of Vajrayāna origin in the *Amaraugha* has been interpreted by commentators in accordance with doctrines of more recent traditions. For example, the alchemical connotations of the terms *dvipuṭa* and *puṭadvaya* have been lost and understood by commentators as *dvināsāpūta* ('the two nostrils') and the channels *iḍā* and *piṅgalā*.<fnref n="117" /> In the *Yogacintāmaṇi*, Śivānanda rewrote the verse on the death-like state of *kuṇḍalinī*, which might have been inspired by the alchemical process of killing (*māraṇa*) substances to make them inert, to say that *kuṇḍalinī* destroys the state of death.<fnref n="118" /> Bhavadeva interpreted this verse in the *Amaraugha* to mean

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ For a discussion of a sequential system of ten resonances in earlier Saiva traditions, see Vasudeva 2004: 274–280. The closing of the ears, eyes, etc. are mentioned in *Haṭhapradīpikā* 4.68 and 4.82ab. On the early history of ṣaṇmukhīmudrā or ṣaṇmukhīkaraṇa, see Vasudeva 2004: 272 n. 66.</footnote>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ On the influence of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* after the sixteenth century, see Bouy 1994 and Birch 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ After quoting the *Haṭhapradīpikā* on mahāmudrā, Bhavadeva glosses *dvipuṭāśritā* as nāsā-puṭadvayāśritā (Yuktabhavadeva 7.187). In the *Jyotsnā* (3.27), Brahmānanda glosses *puṭadvaya* as *puṭayor* *dvayam* *iḍāpiṅgalayor yugmam*.</footnote>

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ *Yogacintāmaṇi*, p. 133; ‘Then she destroys the state of death, which is the basis of adversity’ (*tathāsau maraṇāvasthām harate vipadāśrayām*). A similar reading is found in an eighteenth-century recension of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* with ten chapters (5.17ab) (*tadā sā maraṇāvasthā harate dvipuṭāśritā*). A commentary on this text, the *Yogaprakāśikā* (5.17) understands this as mahāmudrā destroying the state of death, which resides in the two nostrils (*yadā kuṇḍalinībodhasamaye vāyor bahir nirgamanam antaḥ praveśa iti yat puṭadvayaṁ tam*</footnote>
that, after the practice of the great seal, kuṇḍalinī resides in the two nostrils.<fnref n="119" /> Furthermore, it is likely that Svātmārāma and others understood a verse from the *Amaraugha* (30ab) on the conjunction of the moon, sun and fire as referring to the intersection of the channels called iḍā, piṅgalā and suṣumnā, because this meaning of moon, sun and fire can be found in early Śaiva works and two yoga texts, the *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* and *Śivasaṃhitā*, which were known to him.<fnref n="120" />

## Editorial Matters

### Manuscripts

FOUR MANUSCRIPTS WERE REPORTED under the entry ‘amaraughaprabodha’ in the first volume of the *New Catalogus Catalogorum* of Madras University (1949: 254).<fnref n="121" /> These were included among seven manuscripts reported in the *Descriptive Catalogue of Yoga Manuscripts* of the Kaivalyadhama S. M. Y. M. Samiti (2005: 22–25). One entry in this catalogue is a mistake,<fnref n="122" /> and one reported manuscript may no longer exist.<fnref n="123" /> Five of the manuscripts in Kaivalyadhama’s catalogue have been collated for this edition, and I have also obtained

<footnote>āśritāṁ maraṇāvasthāṁ harate mahāmudreti bhāvah.</footnote>

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ In *Yuktabhavadeva* 7.187, Bhavadeva says, ‘When the retention of the breath is being done thus, kuṇḍalinī becomes agitated and resides in the two nostrils along with apāna and prāṇa’ (*evaṁ vāyudhāraṇāyāṁ kriyamāṇāyāṁ vyākulā bhūtā kuṇḍalinī apānaprāṇābhyāṁ saha nāsāpuṭadvayāśritā bhavati)*.</footnote>

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ In the context of nāḍīs, references to somasūryāgni occur in the *Tantrasadbhāva* (24.141) and *Svacchandatantra* (7.153–154). Also, see *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* 20–21 and *Śivasaṃhitā* 2.17. In *Jyotsnā* 3.28, Brahmānanda understands them in this way (*somaś ca sūryaś cāgniś ca somasūryā-gnayaḥ, somasūryāgniśabdais tadadhiṣṭhitā nāḍya iḍāpiṅgalāsuṣumṇā grābyās teṣāṁ sambandhaḥ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ These manuscripts are Nos. 7970c, 4339, 4340 and 2831(o).</footnote>

<footnote n="122">¹²² This catalogue (2005: 24–25) mentions a manuscript of the *Amaraughaprabodha* at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library in Chennai with manuscript number D-4349. However, the catalogue of Raṅgācārya and Bahudur (1910: 3229) for this library indicates that D-4349 is a manuscript of the *Pātañjalayogasūtram*. Therefore, this entry in the Kaivalyadhama catalogue appears to be a mistake.</footnote>

<footnote n="123">¹²³ This is manuscript D-4339 which is supposed to be held at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library in Chennai. It appears to have been the manuscript used by Mallik (1954) and has not been available to researchers since at least 2004 (see footnote 128).</footnote>
a copy of a manuscript of the *Amaraughaprabodha* at the Venkaṭeśvara Oriental Institute in Tirupati, which was not reported in Kaivalyadhama's catalogue or the NCC.<fnref n="124" /> The six available manuscripts are on palm-leaf and written in Grantha script. None of them has a scribal date.

Two of the six manuscripts preserve the *Amaraugha*. Both are complete and do not contain any indication of lacunae. These have the silga S₁ and S₂ in this edition. Details of both are as follows:

### S₁

**Library:** Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras

**Catalogue:** *A Triennial Catalogue of Manuscripts Collected during the Triennium 1916-17 to 1918-19 for the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, Kuppuswami Sastri.*
Madras: Government Press, 1922: 4077.

**Ms. No:** R2831(0) (SR1448)

**Material:** Palm Leaf **Script:** Grantha **Folios:** 4 (188v-191r)

**No. of verses:** 46 **Condition:** Complete

**Opening comments:** *om*

**Final Colophon:** *ity amaraugha[ṃ] gorakṣaviracitaṃ saṃpūrṇam*

**Comments after Final Colophon:** *śrīyogamatasiddhāntanipuṇāya parivrāḍrūpadhāriṇe || śrīmacchaṅkarācāryasvāmine namaḥ || hariḥ oṃ śrīrāmāya namaḥ ||*

### S₂

**Library:** Adyar Library and Research Centre

**Catalogue:** *Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts, vol. 8 (Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya).* Parameswara Aithal,

<footnote n="124">¹²⁴ The details of this manuscript are: serial number 412 and stock number 179(a) in Sri Venkatesvara University and Sastri 1956. I offer my thanks to Dr. S. V. B. K. V. Gupta for obtaining a copy of this manuscript for me.</footnote>
in collaboration with T. H. Visvathan, and A. A. Ramanathan.
Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. 1972:
12-13.

Ms. No: 70528

Material: Palm Leaf Script: Grantha Folios: 5 (1r-5v)

No. of verses: 46 Condition: Complete

Final Colophon: ity amaraugho śrīgorakṣaviracitaṃ śatakaṃ samāpyate

Comments after the Colophon: yāvan naiva praviśati ciraṃ mār[u]to madhyamārge yāvad bindur na bhavati dṛdhaṃ prāṇavātaprabandhe | yāvat vyomnā sahajasadṛśaṃ jāyate nātṛtatvaṃ tāvat sarvaṃ vadati yad idaṃ dambhamīrṣyāpra-lāpaḥ || hariḥ sampūrṇam<fnref n="125" />

The other four available manuscripts preserve the *Amaraughaprabodha*. They
have the sigla L₁, L₂, L₃ and L₄ in this edition. Their details are as follows:

L₁

Library: Oriental Institute, the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda

Catalogue: *An Alphabetical List of Manuscripts in the Oriental Institute, Baroda*, vol 1. Raghavan Nambiyar Śiromani. Baroda: Oriental Institute. 1942: 618.

Ms. No: 7970(c)

Material: Palm Leaf Script: Grantha Folios: 5 (24v-31r)

No. of verses: 75 Condition: Complete

Opening comments (f. 1r): śaravaṇabhavāya namaḥ

Final Colophon: śrīgorakṣanāthaviracitaṃ amaraughaprabodhaḥ sampūrṇaṃ

<footnote n="125">¹²⁵ Cf. Haṭhapradīpikā 4.114.</footnote>
L₂

**Library:** Adyar Library and Research Centre

**Catalogue:** *Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts*, vol. 8 (Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya). Parameswara Aithal, in collaboration with T. H. Visvathan, and A. A. Ramanathan. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre. 1972: 12–13.

**Ms. No:** 75278

**Material:** Palm Leaf **Script:** Grantha **Folios:** 4 (69–76)<fnref n="126" />

**No. of verses:** 75

**Condition:** Complete

**Final Colophon:** *iti śrīmadgorakṣanāthaviracitaṃ amaraughaprabodhaḥ saṃpūrṇaṃ*

L₃

**Library:** Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras

**Catalogue:** *A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras*, vol. 9. Raṅgācārya, M and Bahudur, R. Madras: Government Press. 1910: 3222.

**Ms. No:** 4340

**Material:** Palm Leaf **Script:** Grantha **Folios:** 5 (41r–45v)

**No. of verses:** 75

**Condition:** Complete

**Final Colophon:** *iti śrīmadgorakṣanāthaviracitaṃ amaraughaprabodhaḥ saṃpūrṇaṃ*

<footnote n="126">¹²⁶ The numbering 69–76 corresponds to a new set of numbers written on both sides of each leaf in Arabic numerals. Some of the original folio numbers are not legible.</footnote>
L₄

**Library:** Venkaṭeśvara Oriental Institute, Tirupati

**Catalogue:** *An Alphabetical Index Sanskrit, Telugu and Tamil Manuscripts (Palm Leaf and Paper) in Sri Ventakeswara Oriental Research Institute Library, Tirupati.* Tirupati: T. T. D. press. 1956: 15.

**Ms. No:** 179(a)

**Material:** Palm Leaf

**Script:** Grantha

**Folios:** 4 (3–10)<fnref n="127" />

**No. of verses:** 75

**Condition:** Complete (but badly damaged)

**Opening comments:** *śrīmadgorakṣanāthaviracitaḥ*

**Final Colophon:** *iti śrīmadgorakṣanāthaviracitam amaraughaprabodhaḥ saṃpūrṇaḥ*

## Stemma

The stemma of the manuscript transmission bifurcates into the two manuscripts of the short recension (i.e., the *Amaraugha*) and the four of the long recension (i.e., the *Amaraughaprabodha*), as shown in Figure 5. The manuscripts of each group are fairly close to one another, although none can be dismissed as an apograph of another.

## Past Editions

The earliest printed edition of the *Amaraughaprabodha* was published in 1954 by Kalyani Devi Mallik. According to the introduction in her book (1954: 34) the edition is based on a single manuscript, which she says has the number D-4339 and is ('from Tirupati) Madras.' This number is the same as that of a manuscript of the *Amaraughaprabodha* described in the *Descriptive Catalogue*

<footnote n="127">¹²⁷ The numbering 3-10 corresponds to a new set of numbers written on both sides of each leaf in Arabic numerals. Some of the original folio numbers are not legible.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: A Hypothetical Stemma of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha*</figcaption></figure>

of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (Raṅgācārya and Bahadur 1910: 3220–3221). Unfortunately, I have not been able to consult this manuscript, which now seems to have been lost.<fnref n="128" /> Therefore, Mallik’s edition has been collated in this edition. In the hypothetical stemma in Figure 1, this edition would appear on the branch of L₂, L₃ and L₄. In the critical apparatus, it has the siglum E_d. Its bibliographic details are as follows:

E_d

Title: *Siddha-Siddhānta-Paddhati and Other Works of the Nātha*
*Yogīs*

Editor: S. M. T. Kalyani Mallik [foreword by P. C. Divanji]

Publisher and Year: Poona Oriental Book House, 1954

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ When I visited the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras in 2004, I requested manuscript D-4339 and was told that the bundle (no. 4336) to which it belonged could not be found. I have since requested it in 2010 and 2016, but to no avail.</footnote>
Pages: 48–54

Notes: Ms. No. D-4339 (from Tirupati) Madras (1954: 34)

Opening comments (1954: 48): śrīmadgorakṣanāthaviracitaḥ
amaraughaprabodhaḥ

Final Colophon: iti śrīmadgorakṣanāthaviracitam amaraugha-
prabodhaṃ saṃpūrṇam

It is difficult to say how accurately Mallik rendered manuscript D-4339. Several of her conjectures are enclosed in round brackets and kept separate from the main text, which gives the impression that her edition is a diplomatic transcription of the manuscript. However, there is evidence to suggest that her edition has tacit emendations and inaccuracies.<fnref n="129" />

A more recent printed edition of the *Amaraughaprabodha*, which was edited by Bholānātha Nātha and published in an appendix to his book called the *Bhārater Nāthamārger Dharmīya Paricaya* (1974), was recently brought to my attention by Lubomír Ondračka. The appendix has other yoga texts, including the *Candrāvalokana*, *Yogaviṣaya*, *Yogabīja*, and *Amṛtasiddhi*. These texts can be found together in some South Indian manuscript bundles of yoga texts, such as the bundles numbered 4336 and 4337 at the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library at Madras University (Raṅgācārya and Bahadur 1910: 3217–3219).

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ The Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras (Raṅgācārya and Bahadur 1910: 3220–3221) transcribed the first four and last five verses of manuscript D-4339. When one compares this transcription to Mallik’s edition, there are two instances where the catalogue has suggested a correction in brackets, which has been adopted by Mallik (3b catalogue tṛtīya(kaḥ), Mallik tṛtīyakaḥ and 4a catalogue laya(ḥ), Mallik layaḥ). Therefore, one wonders how many tacit emendations Mallik may have made. Without the manuscript at hand, it is not possible to determine whether the catalogue’s transcription is more accurate than Mallik’s. Nonetheless, the following discrepancies can be noted: several poor readings in the catalogue’s transcription may have been tacitly emended by Mallik (e.g., 71c catalogue rājayogaṃ padaṃ, Mallik rājayogapadaṃ; 72d catalogue kleśāpaho, Mallik kleśāpahā). Also, Mallik may have introduced the following errors: 2d catalogue prabodhaḥ pratyayātmakaḥ, Mallik prabodhapratyayātmakaḥ; 4a catalogue pradiṣṭo, Mallik pradiṣṭaḥ; 4c catalogue mantrayogo, Mallik mantrayogaḥ; 72c catalogue bhogāspadaṃ, Mallik bhogāspadam; 73c catalogue proktā, Mallik proktāḥ.</footnote>
Nātha does not include an apparatus nor bibliographic information on the witness(es) upon which his version of the *Amaraughaprabodha* was based. It is probably a transcription for the most part of a manuscript from South India because its readings are close to those of South Indian manuscripts used for this edition and, in some instances, he has correctly filled lacunae in Mallik's edition.<fnref n="130" /> Although this indicates that Nātha used a different manuscript to Mallik, his edition has some of the readings that are unique to her edition, which suggests he also had access to her edition, manuscript D-4339 or a manuscript close to D-4339.<fnref n="131" />

Elsewhere in his book Nātha (1974: 202) notes that his sources have many errors and that he copied them without emending.<fnref n="132" /> This might account for the large number of errors in his edition.<fnref n="133" /> Also, it has several significant lacunae.<fnref n="134" /> There are some unique readings which could be tacit emendations or readings of a manuscript that is currently not available.<fnref n="135" /> Therefore, its

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ A good example of this is seen in verse 46. In Mallik's edition (1954: 52), the second quarter of this verse is rendered as *ānandā....nyasambhavam*. Nātha correctly filled the lacuna with *ānandaṃ śūnyasambhavam*.</footnote>

<footnote n="131">¹³¹ For example, the following readings are only found in Nātha's and Mallik's editons; *niryāte* (16), *maheśvare* (24), *sravantaṃ* (27), *cubuke* (34), *kṛtvā* (35), *āhṛtya* (38) and *rājayogaṃ padaṃ* (71). The instance of *cubuke* is telling because Mallik supplied a correction in brackets, i.e, *cu ci) buke*. However, Nātha's edition reproduces the error that was in manuscript D-4339.</footnote>

<footnote n="132">¹³² The relevant passage is: 'Errors are seen in many places in these manuscripts, which are probably caused by the scribe. I am not a special scholar (*paṇḍit*) on the Sanskrit language, nor do I have knowledge of yoga, therefore there will surely be mistakes and defects in my translations into Bengali. As far as my abilities have allowed me, I have copied in an unchanged manner what is in the manuscripts. I hope that in the future some Bengali *paṇḍit* specially versed in Sanskrit *śāstras* will publish a flawless translation of these manuscripts.' I wish to thank Lubomír Ondračka for pointing this passage out to me and for his translation (p.c. 9.6.2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="133">¹³³ Nātha's errors include (but are not limited to); *vividhyād* (6), *pralabhyate* (7), which is unmetrical, °yuvati° (8), *ṛte syāt* (8), *coktā* (10), *tāvijñāya* (13), *ca* is missing in 23, *limगब्भа* (27), *āsphānaṃ* (37), which is unmetrical, *ākāśo* (57), *veputhaś* (60), °kau śilya° (65), *ami* (67), *saumaraughaṃ* (69), *binduḥ* (69) and *bhāṣikun* (70).</footnote>

<footnote n="134">¹³⁴ The lacunae are 16b, 40b-41a and 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ Variant readings in Nātha's edition which might derive from an unknown manuscript are *nityānandalayāt* (6), *koṣṭīṃ* (8), *suṣyati* (14), *atiśūnye ṭi* (49), *dvaite* (68) and *jīvati tatra* (71).</footnote>
readings have been reported in the apparatus of the long recension under the
siglum $E_n$.<fnref n="136" />

$E_n$

Title: *Bhārater Nāthamārger Dharmīya Paricaya*

Editor: Bholānātha Nātha

Publisher and Year: Kalikātā: Āsām-baṅga yogi-sammilanī, 1974
[BS caitra 1380]

Pages: 143–148

Opening comments (1974: 143): *Amaraugha Prabodhaḥ*

Final Colophon: iti śrīmat goraśanāthaviracitaḥ amaraughaprabodhaḥ saṃpūrṇaḥ

Editorial Policies

If one includes Mallik's and Bholānātha's editions, there are eight available witnesses that can be used to create critical editions of the *Amaraugha* and *Amaraughaprabodha*. In collating the witnesses, the siglum *β* has been used to represent the two witnesses of the *Amaraugha*, and *θ* to represent the witnesses of the *Amaraughaprabodha*.<fnref n="137" />

Both recensions have been edited and translated separately in this book so that the reader may easily see and appreciate the differences between them. Wherever the witnesses of one recension agree on a plausible reading that is likely authorial, it has been accepted. Implausible readings, scribal errors and other problems in one recension have been repaired by using the other recension and the available testimonia.

Examples of possible instances where Nātha has tried unsuccessfully to patch problems with the text are *kīṭavannāḍi*° (6) and *labhen na nṛpaja* (7).

<footnote n="136">¹³⁶ Since the unique readings of this more recently acquired edition were not helpful for establishing the text of the short recension, it was not included in the apparatus of the *Amaraugha*.</footnote>

<footnote n="137">¹³⁷ In the critical edition of the *Amaraugha*, θ includes Mallik’s edition and, in the critical edition of the *Amaraughaprabodha*, it includes both Mallik’s and Nātha’s editions.</footnote>
Since the *Haṭhapradīpikā* contains nearly all of the *Amaraugha's* verses on Haṭhayoga, this text has been the most important of the testimonia. Modern editions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā* present a version of the work that was established by a relatively recent commentary called the *Jyotsnā*, whose author revised the text considerably. Since the *Amaraugha* was one of the sources of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*, I have relied on, cited and sometimes collated as testimonia several individual manuscripts that preserve early versions of the *Haṭhapradīpikā*.<fnref n="138" /> Other important testimonia are the *Amṛtasiddhi* and *Śivasaṃhitā*. Also, the fifth chapter of the *Varāhopaniṣat* was helpful for editing some of the additional verses of the *Amaraughaprabodha*.

The apparatus of the edition has four layers. The first defines the sigla and indicates which witnesses have been collated on each page. The second records the variant readings. Each lemma in the apparatus is preceded by the number of the verse quarter (e.g., 1a, 1b, 1c, or 1d), and followed by a lemma sign (i.e., a right-sided square bracket). After the lemma sign the sigla of the witnesses are reported and then the variants, which are separated by a colon. A bullet (•) is placed between lemmas in the same verse quarter. This register of the apparatus is positive at all times except when there is only one variant reading, in which case the sigla of the witnesses that have the lemma are omitted.<fnref n="139" /> For example:

mantrayogas] mantrayogaṃ S₂

This entry means that all the witnesses have the reading *mantrayogas* except S₂, which has *mantrayogaṃ*.

When I have proposed a reading that is not in any of the witnesses, the new reading is designated as a correction, emendation, conjecture or diagnostic conjecture depending on my confidence in proposing the change. In this regard, I have generally followed the policy of Sanderson (2009: 348–349). When a

<footnote n="138">¹³⁸ For identifying the importance of these manuscripts, I am grateful to my colleagues, in particular Mitsuyo Demoto and Nils Jacob Liersch, who are currently on the Light on Haṭha Project at SOAS University of London and Philipps-Universität Marburg.</footnote>

<footnote n="139">¹³⁹ My reasons for adopting a positive apparatus are largely the same as those outlined in Goodall 1998: cxxi.</footnote>
colleague's conjecture has been adopted, their surname appears next to it and their full name is given in the list of abbreviations. If the reason behind a conjecture is not overly apparent, it is discussed in the footnotes to the translation of the verse. The plus sign (+) has been used to represent an illegible letter or a letter missing because of damage to the manuscript. A curved long dash (–) indicates a gap or space in the text of a witness that was deliberately made by the scribe. The third layer of the footnotes contains testimonia, that is, verses or passages from other works that are relevant to the edited text. The final layer has comments on the metre, scribal omissions, variations in the order of hemistichs and other such information on the witnesses.

Folio numbers of the witnesses have not been recorded in the edition. Also, scribal corrections and deletions have not been noted when they are unimportant for establishing the text. I have standardised the *sandhi* and inserted *avagrahas* where needed. Also, systematic unconventional spellings have been standardised (e.g., *haṭa* → *haṭha*, *tatva* → *tattva*, *vindu* → *bindu*, *mūrchā* → *mūrcchā*, *kratvā* → *kṛtvā*, *ūddhva* → *ūrdhva*, etc), but spelling errors (e.g., *asana* for *āsana*) have been recorded just as they are in the apparatus. The use of *anusvāras*, instead of homorganic nasals, before consonants is ubiquitous among all the manuscripts that were collated. Where homorganic nasals are used as such in my collation, the reader can generally assume that the manuscript had an *anusvāra*. In order to avoid as much as possible the problem of variant readings appearing unnecessarily different from a lemma of standardised spelling (e.g., *mūrtiliṅgaṃ* ] *mūrttiliṁge*), I have reported *anusvāras* and the gemination of consonants in variant readings only where it seems relevant for establishing the text.

The annotated translation includes the verse numbers and Sanskrit words in round brackets. English words that have been supplied to facilitate the translation or provide contextual information that is not immediately apparent have been placed in square brackets. The footnotes contain more information on technical terms and discussions of problems with the text.
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
Critical Edition of the *Amaraugha*
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
## अमरौघः
नमश्चौरङ्गिनाथाय सिद्धबुद्धाय धीमते ।

लयादिप्रतिपन्नानां कलहोत्सुकचेतसाम् ।

कथ्यते नाथगोरक्षस्वभावः प्रत्ययात्मकः ॥ १ ॥

लययोगो हठश्वैव मन्त्रयोगस्तृतीयकः ।

चतुर्थो राजयोगश्च द्विधाभावविवर्जितः ॥२॥

यश्चित्तसन्ततगतिः स लयः प्रदिष्टो

यश्च प्रभञ्जननिनादकृतो हठः सः ।

Witnesses: $\beta$ = S<sub>1</sub> S<sub>2</sub> . $\theta$ = L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub>

1a layādi° ] $\theta$ : layāti S<sub>1</sub> : bhayāti S<sub>2</sub> 1b kalahotsuka° ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : kalaho-tyuka° L<sub>3</sub> : kalā adbhuta° $\beta$ : ka++++++ L<sub>4</sub> 1c kathyate nāthagorakṣa° ] conj. SANDERSON : kalpyate nāthagorakṣaḥ S<sub>2</sub> : kathyate goraghonāthaḥ S<sub>1</sub> : gorakṣakeṇa kathitaḥ L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : gorakṣakeṇa kathita L<sub>4</sub> 1d °svabhāvaḥ ] conj. : svabhāva° $\beta$ : prabodha° L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : pratvobha° L<sub>3</sub> • pratyayātmakaḥ ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : °pratyayātmakaṃ $\beta$ : °pratyayātmikaḥ L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> 2b mantrayogas ] mantrayogaṃ S<sub>2</sub> • trṭīyakaḥ ] $\beta$ : tritīyakaḥ L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : trṭiyyakaḥ L<sub>1</sub> 2c rājayogaś ca ] $\beta$ L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : rājayoga L<sub>1</sub> (unmetr.) : rāja+++ L<sub>4</sub> 2d dvidhābhāvavivarjitaḥ ] $\beta$ : dvidhābhavavivarjitaḥ L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : ++++++++ L<sub>4</sub> 3a yaś cittasantata° ] S<sub>2</sub> L<sub>2</sub> : yaś cittama santata° S<sub>1</sub> : yac cittasantata° L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : yaś cittasantati° L<sub>1</sub> • °gatiḥ ] $\beta$ : °layaḥ $\theta$ • layaḥ pradiṣṭo ] S<sub>1</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : layapratiṣṭho S<sub>2</sub> : layaḥ pratiṣṭo L<sub>4</sub> : layapradiṣṭo L<sub>1</sub> : layapradiṣṭāya L<sub>2</sub> (unmetr.) 3b yaś ca ] $\beta$ L<sub>3</sub> : yas tu L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> • °ninādakṛto ] $\beta$ : °vidhānarato $\theta$ • haṭhaḥ saḥ ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : haṭhaś ca $\beta$ : haṭhasthaḥ L<sub>2</sub>

Incipit: cauraṅgināthāya ] emend. : coraṅganāthāya S<sub>1</sub> : cāraṅgināthāya L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : cāṅgīranāthāya L<sub>1</sub> : śrīraṅganāthāya S<sub>2</sub>
यो मन्त्रमूर्तिवशगः स तु मन्त्रयोगो
यश्वित्तवृत्तिरहितः स तु राजयोगः॥३॥
औषधोऽध्यात्मकश्चेति लययोगो द्विधा क्व चित्।
हठोऽपि द्विविधः प्रोक्तो नाद्बिन्दुनिषेवणात्॥४॥
षद्क्रमप्रतिपत्तिहेतुकम् † इदं मन्त्रं न तदृश्यते †
भ्रूनासाविवरे न वत्मनि मनो लग्नं कथञ्चिद्भवेत्।
आधारे पवनो न याति विविधादभ्यासतो योगिनां
नित्यानन्दमयात्प्रबोधनिलयाच्छीराजयोगाद्दते॥५॥

Witnesses: β = S<sub>1</sub> S<sub>2</sub> . θ = L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub>

3c °vaśagaḥ ] +śagaḥ L₃ 3d °rahitaḥ sa tu rājayogaḥ ] +++++++ L₄ 4a auṣadho ] β : oṣadhyo L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : auṣadhyo E₉ • 'dhyātmakaś ] L₁ L₄ E₉ : 'dhyātmikaś L₂ L₃ : 'dyātmanaś S₁ : dhyāpanaś S₂ 4b layayogo ] β : rāja-yogo θ 4c dvividhaḥ ] θ : dvividhā S₁ : dvividhāḥ S₂ • prokto ] β : kvāpi θ 4d nāda° ] S₁ : rāda° S₂ : vāyu° L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : vā+ L₄ • °binduni-şevaṇāt ] ++++++ L₄ 5a şaṭkarmapratipatti° ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : şaṭkarmapratipanna° S₂ S₁ : +++++patti L₄ • °hetukam idaṃ ] °hetukatadaṃ S₁ • na tad ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : tato β : na tā L₁ 5b bhrū° ] β L₁ L₃ E₉ : ghrū° L₂ L₄ • °nāsā-vivare na vartmani mano ] conj. : °nāsāvivare ca vartmani mano S₁ : °nāsāvivare ca vatrani mano S₂ : °nāsādiṣu kiṭavann abhimano L₁ : °nāsādiṣu kiṭavan na hi mano L₂ L₃ L₄ : °nāsādiṣu kiṭavanna(da)bhimano E₉ • lagnam ] β : magnam L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : mannam L₄ • kathañ cid bhavet ] S₁ L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : katham bhāvayet S₂ : ++++++ L₄ 5c ādhāre pavano ] +++++ L₄ • vividhād abhyāsato ] S₁ L₁ L₃ E₉ : vividhābhyāsena yo S₂ : vividhād abhyasato L₂ : vividhāndabhyāsato L₄ • yoginam ] θ : dehato β 5d °mayāt ] θ : °mayam β • prabodha° ] β : prabhāva° θ • °nilayāc ] E₉ : °nilayāt L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : °nilayam β • chrīrājayogād ] E₉ : śrīrājayogād S₂ L₂ L₃ L₄ : rājayogād S₁ (unmetr.) : ++jayogād L₁

<footnote n="3">3 Metre = vasantatilakā 5 Metre = śārdūlavikrīḍita</footnote>
नित्यं मन्त्रपरो लभेत भवतां नैवाधिपत्यं तथा
दिव्यस्त्रीनवसङ्गमोऽप्यनुदिनं न ध्यायतो लभ्यते ।
हस्तिन्यस्तुरगाः करेणुकरभाः शाल्यान्नदा गोप्रदा
जायन्ते हठयोगिनस्तु वशगा नैतत्प्रसादं विना ॥ ६ ॥
चित्ते तु सत्त्वमापन्ने वायौ ब्रजति मध्यमे ।
तदामरौघवन्त्रोलिस्तदाशाजीवितस्य च ॥ ७ ॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

6a nityaṃ] ++ L₄ • mantraparo ] β : mantrayato Lᵢ L₂ L₃ E₉ : +++ L₄ • labh-eta ] β : labhen na Lᵢ L₂ L₃ E₉ : +++ L₄ • bhavatāṃ ] conj. GOODALL : bhavatīṃ β : nrpatā L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : nrpatāṃ(tiḥ) E₉ • tathā ] θ : bhavet β 6b na dhyāyato ] L₃ L₄ E₉ : pa dhyāyato S₂ : paryāyato S₁ : na dhyāyate L₂ : dhyāyanti te L₁ 6c hastinyas ] conj. SANDERSON : hastyaśvās S₁ : hastyaścās S₂ : hastinyās L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : ha+++ L₁ • turagāḥ ] S₂ : turagā S₁ : turagaḥ θ • kareṇu° ] S₂ : kareṇaṃ S₁ (unmetr.) : kharāc ca θ • karabhāḥ ] conj. : kalabhāḥ S₂ : kabhu-bhāḥ S₁ : karabhaḥ L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : +++ L₄ • śālyānnadā ] S₁ : śālyannadā S₂ : śālyodanam L₂ L₃ E₉ : śāllyodanam L₁ : +++nam L₄ • gopradā ] S₂ : gopradāḥ S₁ : kodravāt θ 6d haṭhayoginas tu vaśagā naitatprasādaṃ vinā ] conj. HATLEY/GOODALL : haṭhayoginas tu vaśagāś cāyaṃ prasādaṃ vinā S₂ : haṭhayoginas tu vaśa-gaś ceyaṃ prasādaṃ vinā S₁ : haṭhataḥ kathaṃ vada vibho svīyaṃ prabhāvaṃ vinā θ 7a citte tu sattvam ] β : citte samatvam L₁ L₂ E₉ : cittau samatvam L₃ L₄ 7b āpanne ] āpanno L₁ 7c tadāmaraughavajrolis ] conj. : tadāmaraughavajroli S₁ : tadāmaraudhavajrolī S₂ : eṣāmarauli vajroli L₃ : eṣāmarāli vajroli L₁ : eṣāmarauli va-jrauli L₄ : yeṣāmarāli vajrauli L₂ : eṣāmarolī vajrolī E₉ 7d tadāśājivitasya ca ] β : tadā meni mameti ca L₁ : tadā mati mateti ca E₉ : mameti ca mameti ca L₂ : tadā meti mameti mateti ca L₃ (unmetr.) : mateti mame++ L₄

<footnote n="7">7 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* E 1528-1 (citte samatvam āpanne vāyau vrajati madhyame | tadā-maraughavajrolī tadāśājivite 'pi ca)</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Metre = śārdūlavikriḍita</footnote>
यदि जीवेदौषधीमिः संसारे निरुपद्रवः ।

आमयार्त्ता जरायस्ता म्रियन्ते भिषजः कथम्॥८॥

चरकानुचरणचतुराश्चटुलधियः सुश्रुतश्रवणलोलाः ।

अमनस्कौषधिवर्ज कथमखिलजगद्क्षयं भवति ॥९॥

बिन्दुनादौ महौषध्यौ विद्येते सर्वजन्तुषु ।

तावद्विज्ञाय सर्वेऽपि म्रियन्ते गुरुवर्जिताः ॥१०॥

Witnesses: β = S<sub>1</sub> S<sub>2</sub> . θ = L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub>

8a yadi jived auṣadhībhiḥ ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : doṣadhībhiryyāṃdivoyaḥ S<sub>1</sub> : doṣadhībhiryyāṃdivoyaṃ S<sub>2</sub> : yadi jived auṣadhī+ L<sub>4</sub> 8b saṃsāre ] +++ L<sub>4</sub> • nir-upadravaḥ ] β : nirupadrave L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : +++++ L<sub>4</sub> : nirpadṛve L<sub>1</sub> (unmetr.) 8c āmayyārttā ] conj. HATLEY : amayyāttā S<sub>2</sub> : amaryātto S<sub>1</sub> : āmayāstā L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : ++yāstā L<sub>4</sub> • jarā° ] carā° L<sub>4</sub> 8d mriyante ] S<sub>2</sub> L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : mṛyante S<sub>1</sub> L<sub>4</sub> • bhiṣajaḥ ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : bheṣajaṃ β : bhiṣajaṃ L<sub>4</sub> 9a carakānu-caraṇacaturāś ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : carakānucaraṇacaturā L<sub>4</sub> : cirakālacaṭulacaraṇāś S<sub>1</sub> : cirakālacaṭulacaraṇā S<sub>2</sub> 9b caṭuladhiyaḥ ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : caṭaladhiya L<sub>4</sub> : caraṇadhiyaḥ β • suśrutaśravaṇalolāḥ ] L<sub>2</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : saṃśrutaśravaṇalolaḥ β : suśrita-śravaṇalolāḥ L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : suśrītaśra+++ L<sub>4</sub> 9c amanaskauṣadhivarjaṃ ] emend. : amavaskauṣadhivarjaṃ S<sub>2</sub> : ama+skauṣadhivarjaṃ S<sub>1</sub> : amanaskauṣadhivarjyāḥ L<sub>1</sub> : amanaskauṣadhivajyā L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : +++++++ L<sub>4</sub> : amanaskauṣadhi+vā+jyā E<sub>d</sub> • katham ] ++m L<sub>4</sub> 9d akhilajagad akṣayaṃ ] conj. GOODALL : akhilam jagad akṣayaṃ β : akhilagadantakṣayo L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : akhilam jagadantakṣayo L<sub>1</sub> : akhilagandatakṣayo L<sub>4</sub> : akhilāṅgataṃ tatkṣayo E<sub>d</sub> 10a bindunādau ] L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : bindunādo L<sub>1</sub> : bindunāda β • mahauṣadhyau ] S<sub>2</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : mahoṣadhyau S<sub>1</sub> L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> 10c tāvad vijñāya ] β L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : tāvat vijñāya L<sub>1</sub> : tāv avijñāya L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> • sarve ] ca sarve S<sub>2</sub> (unmetr.) 10d guruvarjitāḥ ] β L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : guṇavajjitāḥ L<sub>1</sub> : guru+++ L<sub>4</sub>

<footnote n="9">9 Metre = gīti</footnote>
चालयेच्च वृथा वायुं भानुमग्निञ्च धोष्यति ।

अथेन्दुं चालयेत्तस्माद्विन्दुश्चलति वर्धते ॥ ११ ॥

यो जानाति च तत्सारं सद्गुरुपदेशतः ।

कायक्लेशजराव्याधिपापमृत्युभयं कुतः ॥ १२ ॥

निर्वाते चित्तराजे विशति खररुचौ मेरुदुर्गे समन्ताद्

उद्रिक्ते वहिभावे द्रवति शशधरे पूरयत्याशु कायम् ।

उद्यत्यानन्दवृन्दे त्यजति तवममेत्यादिमोहान्धकारे

प्रोद्भिन्ने ब्रह्मरन्ध्रे जयति शिवशिवासङ्गमः कोऽप्यपूर्वः ॥ १३ ॥

Witnesses: β = S<sub>1</sub> S<sub>2</sub> . θ = L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub>

11a cālayec ca vrthā ] β : cālayet sāṃpratam L<sub>1</sub> : cālayet saṃvrtaṃ L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> :
+++++vrtaṃ L<sub>4</sub> • vāyum ] vāyu L<sub>1</sub> 11b dhoṣyati ] emend. MALLINSON : dhuṣyati
L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : duṣkṛtiḥ β : dhukṣyati E<sub>d</sub> 11c athendum cālayet ] S<sub>2</sub> : athendu
cālayet S<sub>1</sub> : jvalann asau calaty θ • tasmād ] corr. : tasmāt β : asmāt L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> :
asmād E<sub>d</sub> 11d vardhate ] S<sub>2</sub> : vaddhate S<sub>1</sub> : parvate L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : parvati L<sub>3</sub> :
pārvati E<sub>d</sub> 12a jānāti ca tatsāraṃ ] conj. GOODALL : jānāti ca yat pāraṃ β : jānāty
anayoḥ sāraṃ θ 12b sadguror ] satgu+ L<sub>4</sub> • upadeśataḥ ] S<sub>2</sub> L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> :
upadeśakaḥ S<sub>1</sub> :++++ L<sub>4</sub> 12c kāyakleśa° ] β E<sub>d</sub> : kālakleśa° L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : +++
L<sub>4</sub> • °vyādhi° ] °vyādhiḥ S<sub>2</sub> 12d kutaḥ ] β L<sub>2</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : kṛtaḥ L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> 13a
nirvāte ] niryāte E<sub>d</sub> • cittarāje ] β : cittarāte θ • viśati ] β : vrajati θ • khara-
rucau ] θ : khararuce β • merudurge ] β : merumārgaṃ θ 13b udrikte ] conj.:
udrakte L<sub>4</sub> : durvṛtte β : udrajñe L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : dudrajñe L<sub>1</sub> E<sub>d</sub> • dravati ] β : sravati
L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : +++ L<sub>4</sub> • śaśadhare ] +++ L<sub>4</sub> • pūrayaty āśu ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> :
pūrayitvā tu β : ++yaty āśu L<sub>4</sub> • kāyam ] β : kāye θ 13c udyaty ānandavrnde ]
L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : unnaty ānandakande S<sub>2</sub> : utp+uty ānantakande S<sub>1</sub> : udayatyānanda-
vṛnde L<sub>1</sub> (unmetr.) • tyajati ] jatyat L<sub>2</sub> • tava° ] śiva° S<sub>2</sub> • °mametyādi° ]
L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : °mamevandi° L<sub>1</sub> : °mukhetyādi° β • mohāndhakāre ] ++hāndha-
kāre L<sub>4</sub> 13d śivaśivāsaṅgamaḥ ] β E<sub>d</sub> : śivaśi+saṃgamaḥ L<sub>2</sub> : śivaśivāsaṅgamaṃ
L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : śivaśivāsaṅga+ L<sub>3</sub> • apūrvaḥ ] apūrvam L<sub>1</sub>

<footnote n="16">16 Metre = sragdharā</footnote>
एक एवामरौघोऽयं राजयोगाभिधानकः ।

लयादिभिः समायुक्तश्चतुर्धोदीर्यते कथम् ॥ १४ ॥

अथ मन्त्रयोगः

ओमित्येकाक्षरं मन्त्रं ततः सप्रणवादिकम् ।

सितं शंभुं हृदि ध्यात्वा तत्पयोः भिन्नमण्डले ॥ १५ ॥

लक्षकं जपतो मृत्युं नाशयेदपि दारुणम् ।

दशांशं होमतः कुण्डे क्षौद्रक्षीरघृताम्बुजैः ॥ १६ ॥

अथ लययोगः

कामरूपे सितं देवं लिङ्गाभं मणिसन्निभम् ।

द्रवन्तं चामृतं प्रेक्ष्य यो ध्यायेन्निजविग्ने ॥ १७ ॥

Witnesses: β = S<sub>1</sub> S<sub>2</sub> . θ = L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub>

14a evāmaraugho ] β E<sub>d</sub> : evāmarogho L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> • 'yaṃ ] β : hi θ 14b
°dhānakaḥ ] θ : °dhānakaṃ β 14c layādibhiḥ ] mayādibhiḥ E<sub>d</sub> 14d caturdho-
dīryate ] emend. GOODALL : caturthodīryate β L<sub>3</sub> : caturthodīyyate L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>4</sub> :
caturthodīyate E<sub>d</sub> 15a atha mantrayogaḥ ] S<sub>1</sub> : atha mantrayogaḥ prārabhya kathy-
ate S<sub>2</sub> : tatra mantram θ • om ] β L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : ham L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>3</sub> : aha(o)m E<sub>d</sub> • ekākṣaraṃ ]
ekākṣara L<sub>3</sub> 15b sapraṇavādikam ] L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : sampraṇavābhidham β :
tatsapraṇavādikam E<sub>d</sub> (unmetr.) 15c sitaṃ ] S<sub>1</sub> : sītaṃ S<sub>2</sub> : śivam θ 15d
tatpayo ] β : dvādaše θ 16a lakṣakaṃ japato ] S<sub>1</sub> : lekṣakaṃ japato S<sub>2</sub> : ekalakṣa-
japān θ • mṛtyuṃ ] mṛtyur L<sub>3</sub> 16b api dāruṇam ] β : atidāruṇam θ 16c
daśāṃśa ] daśāṅgāṃ S<sub>2</sub> • homataḥ ] β : havanam θ • kuṇḍe ] β : kṛtvā θ 16d
kṣaudra° ] kṣaudraṃ L<sub>1</sub> • °ghṛtāmbujaiḥ ] °kṛtāmbujaiḥ L<sub>1</sub> 17a atha laya-
yogaḥ ] β : atha layaḥ θ • kāmarūpe ] θ : kāmarūpaṃ β • sitaṃ ] β : śivam θ
17b liṅgābhaṃ ] S<sub>1</sub> L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : liṅgābha+ L<sub>4</sub> : lindagābhaṃ S<sub>2</sub> (unmetr.) 17c
dravantaṃ ] β : sravantaṃ E<sub>d</sub> : sravantaś L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> : sra+ntaś L<sub>4</sub> • cāmṛ-
taṃ prekṣya ] β : cāmṛtarasam L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> E<sub>d</sub> : cā+++saṃ L<sub>4</sub> 17d dhyāyen ]
ddhyāyan S<sub>1</sub>
निरन्तरकृताभ्यासात्षण्मासात्सिद्धिभाग्भवेत्।
वलिभिः पलितैर्मुक्तो जीवेदब्दशतत्रयम्॥१८॥

अथ हठयोगः
पादमूलेन वामेन योनिं सम्पीड्य दक्षिणम् ।
पादं प्रसारितं धृत्वा कराभ्यां पूरयेन्मुखे ॥ १९ ॥
कण्ठे बन्धं समारोप्य धारयेद्वायुमूर्ध्वतः ।
यथा दण्डाहतः सर्पो दण्डाकारः प्रजायते ॥ २० ॥

ऋज्वीभूता तथा शक्तिः कुण्डली सहसा भवेत्।

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

18b ṣaṇmāsāt ] ṣāṇmāsāt L₂ • siddhibhāg ] E_d : siddhibhāk L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : siddhido β 18c valibhiḥ palitair mukto ] β : valīpalitanirmukto L₁ L₂ E_d : valīpalitanirmukto L₄ : valīpalitanirmukte L₃ 19a atha haṭhayogaḥ ] β : atha haṭhaḥ L₁ L₂ L₃ E_d : śrī atha haṭhaḥ L₄ 19c pādaṃ prasāritaṃ ] β : prasāritaṃ padāṃ L₂ L₃ L₄ E_d : prasāritaṃ pada L₁ • dhṛtvā ] β : kṛtvā θ 19d mukhe ] mukham L₁ 20a kaṇṭhe ] kaṇṭhaṃ L₁ • bandhaṃ ] baddhaṃ L₄ 20b samāropya dhārayed ] β : samāropya ādhārād L₂ : samāropya cādhārād L₁ : samāropyādhārād L₃ L₄ E_d (unmetr.) 20c sarpo ] sarvo L₁ 20d daṇḍākāraḥ ] β L₁ E_d : daṇḍakāra L₂ L₃ L₄ 21a ṛjvī° ] β L₂ E_d : ṛjvi° L₃ : ṛjvā° L₁ : ṛ+ L₄ • °bhūtā ] ++ L₄ • tathā ] β : tadā L₁ L₂ L₃ E_d : ++ L₄ • śaktiḥ ] β E_d : śakti° L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄

19 = *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (pādamūlena vāmena yoniṃ saṃpīḍya dakṣiṇam | pādaṃ prasāritaṃ dhṛtvā karābhyāṃ pūrayen mukhe || dhṛtvā ] 2241 : kṛtvā G25-2. mukhe ] E1528-1 : mukham G25-2 : drḍham *Jyotsnā* 3.10d). Cf. *Amṛtasiddhi* 11.3 (yoniṃ saṃpīḍya vāmena pādamūlena yatnataḥ | savyaṃ prasāritaṃ pādaṃ karābhyāṃ dhārayed drḍham) 20 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (kaṇṭhe bandha[ṃ] samāropya dhārayed vāyum ūrdhvataḥ | yathā daṇḍāhataḥ sarpo daṇḍākāraḥ prajāyate)
तदासौ मरणावस्था जायते द्विपुटाश्रिता ॥२१॥

महाक्लेशादयो दोषा भिद्यन्ते मरणादयः ।

महामुद्रां तु तेनैव वदन्ति विबुधोत्तमाः ॥२२॥

महामुद्रा दृढा येन साधकोऽयं प्रसिध्यति ।

कथ्यते च महाबन्ध्यो जरामृत्युविनाशकः ॥२३॥

पूरयित्वा मुखे वायुं चिबुकं हृदये दृढम् ।

निभृत्य योनिमाकुञ्च मनो मध्ये नियोजयेत् ॥२४॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

<footnote>22a mahākleśādayo doṣā] S₁: mahākleśādayo doṣāḥ S₂: mahārogā mahākleśā θ</footnote>

<footnote>22b bhidyante] $\beta$: jīryante $\theta$ 22c tu] $\beta$: ca L₁ L₃ L₄ E₉: ci L₂ • tenaiva] $\beta$ L₁: tenaināṃ L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉</footnote>

<footnote>22d vibudhottamāḥ] hi budhottamāḥ L₁ 23a dṛḍhā] $\beta$: kṛtā $\theta$ 23b sādhako ’yaṃ] $\beta$: sādhakāya $\theta$ 23c ca] $\beta$: ’sau $\theta$</footnote>

<footnote>23d jarāmṛtyuvināśakaḥ] S₁: mahāmṛtyuvināśakaḥ S₂: jarāmaraṇanāśakaḥ $\theta$</footnote>

<footnote>24b cibukaṃ hṛdaye dṛḍham] $\beta$: hṛdaye cibuke kṛte L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄: hṛdaye cu ci buke kṛte E₉ 24c nibhṛtya] emend.: nibhṛtaṃ $\beta$ L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉: nirātaṃ L₁ 24d ākuñcya] $\beta$: ākuñcen $\theta$</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (*rjvībhūtā* tathā śaktiḥ kuṇḍalī sahasā bhavet | tadāsau maraṇāvasthā jāyate dvipuṭāśritā || *rjvībhūtā* ] 2241 : *r̥bhūtrā* G25-2 : rajvībhūtā E1528-1. jāyate ] E1528-1 : harate G25-2) 22 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (mahākleśā yato doṣāḥ jīryante maraṇādayaḥ | mahāmudrāṃ ca tenaiva vadanti vibudhottamāḥ || °kleśā yato ] G25-2 : kleśādayo 29899. jīryante ] G25-2 : kṣīyante 29899. °mudrāṃ ca tenaiva ] 29899 : °mudrā ca tenai G25-2). Cf. *Vivekamārtaṇḍa* 62 (kṣayakuṣṭhagudāvartagulmājirṇajvaravyathāḥ | tasya doṣāḥ kṣayam yānti mahāmudrāṃ tu yo ’bhyaset) 24 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (*pūrayitvā* mukhe vāyuṃ hṛdaye cubukaṃ dṛḍham | niṣpīḍya yonim ākuñcya mano madhye niyojayet || niṣpīḍya ] G25-2 : nibhṛtya 29899) : *Haṭharatnāvalī* 2.44 (*pūrayen* mukhato vāyuṃ hṛdaye cibukaṃ dṛḍham | nibhṛtya yonim ākuñcya mano madhye niyojayet) and *Yuktabhava-deva* 7.191 (*pūrayitvā* tato vāyuṃ cibukaṃ dṛḍham | niḥkṣipya yonim ākuñcya mano madhye niyojayet)</footnote>
अयञ्च सर्वनाडीनामृध्वंगतिविबोधकः ।
त्रिवेणीसङ्गमं धत्ते केदारं प्रापयेन्मनः ॥ २५ ॥
रूपलावण्यसम्पन्ना यथा स्त्री पुरुषं विना ।
महामुद्रामहाबन्धौ निष्फलौ वेधवर्जितौ ॥ २६ ॥
पुनरास्फालयेत्कट्यां सुस्थिरं कण्ठमुद्रया ।
वायूनां गतिमारुध्य कृत्वा पूरककुम्भकौ ॥ २७ ॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

25b °gativibodhakaḥ] $\beta$ : °gativiśodhanaḥ $\theta$ 25c °saṅgamaṃ] $S_2 L_1 L_3 L_4 E_d$ : °saṅgame $S_1$ : °saṅgama $L_2$ • dhatte] $\beta$ : gatvā $L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4$ : kṛtvā $E_d$ 26a °sampannā] °sampanno $L_3$ 26c °bandhau] $E_d$ : °bandho $\beta L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4$ 26d niṣphalau vedhavarjitau] $\theta$ : niṣphalo vedhavarjitaḥ $\beta$ 27a āsphālayed] $\beta$ : āsphālanam $\theta$ • kaṭyāṃ] $\theta$ : yasya $\beta$ 27b susthiram] $\beta L_3 L_4 E_d$ : sasthiram $L_1$ : susvaram L2 • kaṇṭhamudrayā] karṇamudrayā $S_1$ 27c vāyūnāṃ] $\beta$ : vāyūnā $\theta$ • ārudhya] $\beta$ : āvṛtya $L_1 L_2 L_4$ : āśritya $L_3$ : āhṛtya $E_d$ 27d kṛtvā] $\theta$ : dhṛtvā $\beta$

25ab ~ Amṛtasiddhi 12.15ab (bandho 'yaṃ sarvanāḍināṃ ūrdhvagatinirodhakaḥ)
25 ~ Haṭhapradīpikā 29899 (ayaṃ tu sarvanāḍinām ūrdhvamṛgativibodhakaḥ | triveṇī-
saṅgamaṃ dhatte kedāraṃ prāpayen manaḥ || °gativibodhakaḥ] 29899 : °gamana-
bodhakaḥ G25-2) 26 = Haṭhapradīpikā G25-2 (rūpalāvaṇyasampannā yathā strī
puruṣaṃ vinā | mahāmudrāmahābandhau niṣphalau vedhavarjitau || °bandhau] emend.:
°bandho G25-2). Cf. Amṛtasiddhi 13.3 (guṇarūpavatī nārī niṣphalā puruṣaṃ vinā |
mahāmudrāmahābandhau vinā vedhena niṣphalau) 27 ~ Amṛtasiddhi 14.6 (punar
āsphālanam kaṭyāḥ sthiram puruṣamudrayā || vāyūnāṃ gatim āvṛtya kṛtvā pūrakakum-
bhakau) : Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha (with attribution to the Amaraugha) p. 48 (punar
āsphālayed atya susthiram karṇamudrayā | vāyunāṃ gatim āvṛtya dhṛtvā pūrakakum-
bhakau) and Varāhopaniṣat 60cd-61ab (punar āsphālayed adya susthiram kaṇṭhamu-
drayā | vāyūnāṃ gatim āvṛtya dhṛtvā pūrakakumbhakau). Cf. Haṭhapradīpikā 3.25
(mahābandhasthito yogī kṛtvā pūrakam ekadhīḥ | vāyūnāṃ gatim āvṛtya nibhṛtaṃ
kaṇṭhamudrayā)
समहस्तयुगो भूमौ समपादयुगस्तथा ।
वेधयेत्क्रमयोगेन चतुष्षीठं तु वायुना ॥२८॥
आस्फालयेन्महामेरुं वायुवज्रप्रकोटिभिः ।
पुटद्वयं समाक्रम्य वायुः स्फुरति सत्वरम् ॥२९॥
सोमसूर्याग्निसंबन्धं जानीयादमृताय वै ।
मृतावस्था समुत्पन्ना ततो मृत्युभयं कुतः ॥३०॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

28a bhūmau] $\beta$ : bhūtvā $\theta$ 28b tathā] tadā $L_1$ 28c vedhayet] $\theta$ : vedhaka° $\beta$ • kramayogena] $S_2 L_1 L_2 E_d$ : śramayogena $S_1$ : kramayegena $L_3 L_4$ 29a mahāmerum] mahāmerū $E_d$ 29b vāyuvajra°] emend. : vāyuvajre $S_2$ : vāyuvajñe $S_1$ : vāyuvajrā° $\theta$ • °prakoṭibhiḥ] $\beta$ : °gnikoṭibhiḥ $\theta$ 29c samākramya] $\theta$ : samākṛṣya $\beta$ 29d vāyuḥ] $E_d$ : vāyu $\beta L_1 L_2 L_4 L_3$ 30a °sambandhaṃ] $L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$ : °sambandhāj $S_1$ : °sambandhāt $S_2$ : °sambandhā $L_1$ 30b jānīyād] dāniryyād $L_1$ • vai] ca $S_2$ 30d mṛtyubhayaṃ] mṛtyubhayaḥ $L_1$

28ab Cf. *Haṭhapradīpikā* 3.26ab (samahastayugo bhūmau sphicau sanāḍayec chanaiḥ)
28 ~ *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* p. 48 (saha hastayugau bhumau samam padayugas tathā | vedhakakramayogena catuḥpīṭhaṃ tu vāyunā) and *Varāhopaniṣat* 61cd-62ab (sama-hastayugaṃ bhūmau samam pādayugaṃ tathā | vedhakakramayogena catuṣpīṭhaṃ tu vāyunā) 28cd ~ *Amṛtasiddhi* 13.5cd (vedhayet kramayogena catuḥpīṭham ca vāyunā) 29ab ~ *Amṛtasiddhi* 13.7cd (āsphālayen mahāmerum vāyuvajrāgrakoṭibhiḥ) 29 ~ *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* p. 48 (āsphālayen mahāmekaṃ vāyuvajre prakoṭibhiḥ | puṭadvayaṃ samākṛṣya vāyuḥ spurati satvaram) and *Varāhopaniṣat* 62cd-63ab (āsphā-layen mahāmerum vāyuvaktre prakoṭibhiḥ | puṭadvayaṃ samākṛṣya vāyuḥ sphurati satvaram) 29cd ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* 2241 (puṭadvayaṃ samākṛṣya vāyuḥ sphurati madhyagaḥ) and *Yogatattvopaniṣat* 116cd (puṭadvayaṃ samākramya vāyuḥ sphurati satvaram) 30ab = *Varāhopaniṣat* 63cd 30 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* 2241 (somasūryāg-nisambandho jāyate cāmṛtāya vai | mṛtāvasthā samutpannā tato mṛtyubhayaṃ kutaḥ || °sambandho] emend. : sambandhāj 2241 : °sambandhā 29899. vai] 29899 : te 2241) and *Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha* p. 48 (sūryāgnisomasaṃbandhā jāniyād amṛtāya vai | mṛtāvasthā samutpannā tato mṛtyubhayaṃ kutaḥ)
एतत्तयं महागुह्यं जरामृत्युविनाशनम् ।
वहिवृद्धिकरञ्चैव अणिमादिगुणप्रदम् ॥ ३१ ॥
अष्टधा क्रियते चैव यामे यामे दिने दिने ।
पुण्यसञ्चयसम्भावि पापौघभिदुरं सदा ॥ ३२ ॥
सम्यक्शिक्षावतामेव स्वल्पं प्रथमसाधने ।
वहिस्त्रीपथसेवानाम् आदौ वर्जनमाचरेत् ॥ ३३ ॥
आरम्भश्च घटश्रैव परिचयस्तृतीयकः ।

Witnesses: β = S<sub>1</sub> S<sub>2</sub> . θ = L<sub>1</sub> L<sub>2</sub> L<sub>3</sub> L<sub>4</sub> E<sub>d</sub>

31a °guhyam] β L₃ : °guṇyam L₁ L₂ L₄ E₉ 31c °karañ] °karac L₂ 32a caiva] β : caitad L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : cai+d L₁ 32c puṇya°] β L₂ L₄ : puṇyam L₁ L₃ E₉ • °sañcaya°] θ : °sañcāra° β • °sambhāvi] S₁ : °sambhāvī S₂ : °saṃhārī θ 32d pāpaughabhiduraṃ] pāpaubhāduraṃ L₁ (unmetr.) • sadā] tathā S₂ 33a °śikṣāvatām] °śikṣāvatān S₂ • eva] β : evaṃ θ 33b °sādhane] °sādhakaḥ S₁ 33c °patha°] °pathi° S₁ 34a ārambhaś] S₂ L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : āram- bhaṃ S₁ : ābhakaś L₁ 34b paricayas tṛtīyakaḥ] emend. : paricaryaḥ prakīrtitaḥ S₁ : tathā paricaya smṛtaḥ S₂ : pracayaś ca tritīyakaḥ L₂ L₃ : pracayaś ca tṛtīryakaḥ L₁ : pracayaṃ ca tritīyakaṃ L₄ : pratyayaś ca tṛtīyakaḥ E₉

31 = Haṭhapradīpikā 2241 32 ~ Haṭhapradīpikā 2241 (aṣṭadhā kriyate caiva yāme yāme dine dine | puṇyasaṃbhārasambhāvi pāpaughabhiduraṃ sadā) 33 ~ Haṭhapra- dīpikā G25-2 (samyakśikṣāvatām eva svalpaṃ prathamasādhane | vahnistrīpathasevā- nām ādau varjanam ācaret || °sevānām] 2241 : °sevanam G25-2)

31cd L₁ L₂ L₃ insert 31cd after 32ab
निष्पत्तिः सर्वयोगेषु योगावस्था चतुर्विधा ॥ ३४ ॥
ब्रह्मग्रन्थेस्तथा भेदाद् आनन्दः शून्यसम्भवः ।
विचित्रकणको देहेऽनाहतः श्रृयते ध्वनिः ॥ ३५ ॥
दिव्यदेहश्च तेजस्वी दिव्यगन्ध्यो ह्यरोगवान् ।
संपूर्णहृदये शून्ये त्वारम्भे योगवान्भवेत् ॥ ३६ ॥
द्वितीये सङ्खटीकृत्य वायुर्भवति मध्यगः ।

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

34c niṣpattiḥ] niṣpannāḥ S₁ • sarvayogeṣu] θ : sarvayogānāṃ S₁ : cety avasathā ca S₂ (unmetr.) 34d yogāvasthā caturvidhā] θ : cetasas tasya bhūmikāḥ β 35a °granthes tathā] S₁ : °granthes tato S₂ : °granther bhaved L₁ L₃ L₄ : °granthir bhaved L₂ : °granthe bhaved E_d • bhedād] S₁ : bhedāt S₂ : vedhād L₁ L₃ L₄ E_d : vedhā L₂ 35b ānandaḥ śūnyasambhavaḥ] β L₂ L₃ L₄ : anandaḥ śūnyasambhavaḥ L₁ : ānandā+nyasambhavam E_d 35c °kvaṇako] θ : °kvaṇiko β 35d 'nāhataḥ] L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : nāhataḥ E_d : 'nāhate S₂ : nāhate S₁ • dhvaniḥ] dhvanim L₄ 36a divyadehaś ca] β E_d : divyadehasya L₁ L₄ : divyadeha+ L₃ : divyadehas s+ L₂ 36b °gandho hy] β : °gandhas tv θ 36c °hṛdaye śūnye tv] β : °hṛdayaḥ śūra θ 36d yogavān] S₂ : yogivān S₁ : yogino θ 37a dvitīye saṁ°] β : dvitīyāyāṃ θ

34 ~ Amṛtasiddhi 19.2 (ārambhaś ca ghaṭaś caiva paricayas tṛtīyakaḥ | niṣpattiḥ sarva-śeṣeṣu yogāvasthāḥ prakīrtitāḥ) : *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (ārambhaś ca ghaṭaś caiva tathā paricayo 'pi ca | niṣpattiḥ sarvayogeṣu yogāvasthā prakīrtitā) : *Upāsanāsārasaṁ-graha* (T1095 p. 50) (ārambhaś ca ghaṭaś caiva tathā paricayas tathā | niṣpattiś ceti kathitāḥ cetasas tasya bhūmikāḥ) and *Varāhopaniṣat* 5.71cd-72ab (āraṃbhaś ca ghaṭaś caiva punaḥ paricayas tathā | niṣpattiś ceti kathitāś catasras tasya bhūmikāḥ) 35 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (brahmagranthir bhaved bhinna ānandaḥ śūnyasambhavaḥ | vicitrakvaṇako dehe 'nāhataḥ śrūyate dhvaniḥ || vicitrakvaṇako] 29899 : vicitras tat- kṣaṇād G25-2. 'nāhataḥ] 29899 : sarvataḥ G25-2) 36 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* 2241 (divyadehaś ca tejasvī divyagandhas tv arogavān | sampūrṇahṛdaye śūnye ārambhe yogavān bhavet || °hṛdaye G25-2 : hṛdaya 2241) 37a-c ~ Amṛtasiddhi 20.1ab (dvitīyāyām avasthāyāyāṃ yogī drḍhāsano bhavet)
दृढासनो भवेद्योगी ज्ञानी देवसमस्तदा ॥ ३७ ॥
विष्णुग्रन्थेस्ततो भेदात्परमानन्दसूचकः ।
अतिशून्ये विमर्द्श्य भेरीशब्दस्ततो भवेत् ॥ ३८ ॥
तृतीयायां ततो भित्त्वा निनादो मर्दलध्वनिः ।
महाशून्यं ततो जातं सर्वसिद्धिसमाश्रयम् ॥ ३९ ॥
परमानन्दरोचित्वात्सहजानन्दसम्भवः ।
दोषदुः खजरामृत्युक्षुधानिद्राविवर्जितः ॥ ४० ॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2$. $\theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

37d jñānī devasamas tadā] $\beta$ : jñānād eva samaprabhaḥ $\theta$ 38a tato] $\beta$ : tathā $\theta$ • bhedāt] $\beta$ : vedhāt $L_3 L_2 L_4 E_d : \sim L_1$ 38c atiśūnye] $L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d :$ atiśūnyo $\beta L_1$ 38d bherīśabdas] bherīnādas $S_2$ • tato] $\beta$ : tathā $L_1 E_d :$ tadā $L_2 L_3 L_4$ 39a trṭīyāyāṃ] trṭiyāyāṃ $L_1$ 39b bhittvā ninādo] $S_1$ : bhītvā-dinādau $S_2$ : bhittvā vipāko $L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4$ : bhittvā vipāko(vihāyo) $E_d$ • mardala°] $S_1 E_d :$ maddala° $S_2 L_1 L_2 L_4 L_3$ 39c tato] $\beta$ : tadā $\theta$ 39d sarva-siddhi°] $\beta$ : sarvasandhi° $L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4$ : sarvasandhi(siddhi) $E_d$ • °samāśrayam] °samāśrayaḥ $L_1$ 40a paramānandarocitvāt] $\beta$ : cittānandaṃ tato jitvā $\theta$ 40c doṣaduḥkha°] $\beta$ : doṣamṛtyu° $\theta$ • °mṛtyu°] $\beta$ : °duḥkha° $\theta$

37 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (dvitīyāyāṃ ghaṭīkṛtya vāyur bhavati madhyagaḥ | dṛḍhāsano bhaved yogī jñānī devasamas tathā) 38 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (viṣṇugranthir yadā bhinnaḥ paramānandasūcakaḥ | atiśūnyavibhedaś ca bherīśabdas tathā bhavet) 39 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (trṭīyāyāṃ tato bhittvā vihāyo mardaladhvaniḥ | mahāśūnyaṃ tathā yāti sarvasiddhisamāśrayam || trṭīyāyāṃ] 29899 : karṇikāṃ tu G25-2. vihāyo] E1528-1 : vihāya G25-2) 40ab ~ *Amṛtasiddhi* 22.2cd (kālānandaṃ tadā jitvā sahajānandasamṛbhavaḥ) 40 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* G25-2 (cittānandaṃ tato jitvā sahajānandasambhavaḥ | doṣaduḥkhakṣudhānidrājarāmṛtyuvivarjitaḥ || jitvā] 29899 : bhittvā G25-2)
रुद्रग्रन्थि ततो भित्त्वा सर्वपीठगतोऽनिलः ।

निष्पत्तौ वैणवः शब्दः क्वणद्वीणाक्णा भवेत्॥४१॥

अथ राजयोगः

एकीभूतं तदा चित्तं राजयोगाभिधानकम् ।

सृष्टिसंहारकर्तासौ योगीश्वरसमो भवेत्॥४२॥

न नादो न च बन्धश्च न चित्तं नाप्यचेतनम् ।

नाभ्यासमुत्तरं किञ्चिद्राजयोगो निगद्यते॥४३॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2 \cdot \theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

41a bhittvā] S₂ L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : bhittva L₁ : jitvā S₁ 41b sarva°] S₂ : sarvaṃ S₁ : sattva° θ • °pīṭhagato 'nilaḥ] θ : °pīṭhaṃ gato 'nilaḥ S₂ : °pīṭhagatānilaḥ S₁ 41c niṣpattau] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : niṣpanno S₁ : niṣpannā S₂ : ++ttau L₁ • vaiṇavaḥ] β L₂ L₄ E₉ : veṇavaḥ L₁ L₃ • śabdaḥ] S₁ E₉ : śabdo S₂ : śabda L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ 41d kvaṇadvīṇākvaṇo] conj. : kvaṇañ cailakvaṇo S₁ : kvaṇañ caiva kvaṇo S₂ : kvaṇadvitakvaṇo L₃ : kvaṇanvitakvaṇo L₂ : kvaṇanvitakva+ L₄ : kvaṇatbhakvaṇo L₁ : kvaṇanvīta(nniva)kvaṇo E₉ • bhavet] ++ L₄ 42a atha rājayogaḥ] β : om. θ • tadā] tathā S₂ 42b rājayogābhidhānakam] S₁ L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : rājayogo 'bhidhīyate S₂ : ++yogā hi dhānakam L₄ 42c sṛṣṭi°] β L₃ L₄ E₉ : saṣṭi° L₂ : sṛṣṭiḥ L₁ • kartāsau] kartārau L₁ 42d yogīśvara°] yogeśvara° S₂ 43a bandhaś] β : binduśθ 43b cittam] β : cetoθ • nāpy] nārpy L₄ • acetanam] β : acetanaḥ L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ : ace++ḥ L₄ 43c nābhyāsam uttaram] conj. GOODALL : nābhyāsam antaraṃ β : nābhyāsadustaraṃ θ

41ab ~ Amṛtasiddhi 30.1ab (rudragranthiṃ tadā bhittvā pavanaḥ sarvapīṭhagaḥ) 41 ~ Haṭhapradīpikā 2241 (rudragranthiṃ tato bhittvā sarvapīṭhagato 'nilaḥ | niṣpattau vaiṇavaḥ śabdaḥ kvaṇadvīṇākvaṇo bhavet || niṣpattau] 29899 : niṣpatto 2241. °vīṇā- kvaṇo] emend. : °vīṇakvaṇo E1528-1 : °vīṇotvaṇo 2241). Cf. Amṛtasiddhi 31.2 (niṣ- panno 'yaṃ yadā yogī brahmadvāreṇa niḥṣṭaḥ | tadā vīṇādhvanis tatra vāyuḥ śabdāyate kalam) 42 ~ Haṭhapradīpikā G25-2 (ekībhūtaṃ tadā cittam rājayogābhidhānakam | sṛṣṭisaṃhārakartāsau yogīśvarasamo bhavet || °bhidhānakam] 29899 : °bhidhāyanam G25-2. kartāsau] 29899 : kartasau G25-2)
लीनं यत्र चराचरं सुखवशात्तलिङ्गमित्युच्यते
सा चिच्छक्तिरचिन्त्यरूपगहना लोकत्रयोद्भासिनी ।
तज्ज्ञानं यदशोषवस्तुविषयव्यापारवारापहं
तच्चित्तं यदसीमकालपटलप्रध्वंसनं हेलया ॥४४॥
श्रीमद्गोरक्षनाथेन सदामरौघवर्तिना ।
लयमन्त्रहठाः प्रोक्ता राजयोगाय केवलम् ॥४५॥
कायेनैव परीक्षेत वाक्पटुः किं करिष्यति ।
के चित्संवादमात्रेण किं भविष्यन्ति योगिनः ॥४६॥
इत्यमरौघं गोरक्षविरचितं संपूर्णम् ॥

Witnesses: $\beta = S_1 S_2$. $\theta = L_1 L_2 L_3 L_4 E_d$

44a sukhavaśāt] β : layavaśāt θ 44b sā cicchaktir] β : sā śaktir yad θ • acintya°] acin+ L₄ • °gahanā] °gahanāl E₉ • °bhāsinī] bhāsini L₁ 44c taj jñānam] β : tad dhyānam L₁ L₃ L₄ E₉ : ta dhyānam L₂ • yad aśeṣa°] β L₁ L₄ E₉ : yadi śeṣa° L₂ L₃ • °vyāpāravārāpaham] conj. : °vyāpāravārāvaham S₂ : °vyāpārāpaham S₁ (unmetr.) : °vyāpārahīnan manas θ 44d tac cittam] β : tat kṣātram L₂ L₃ L₄ : takṣātram L₁ : tat kṣātra E₉ • yad asīmakāla°] θ : yad asītikāla° β • °paṭala°] °pāṭalam S₂ (unmetr.) • °pradhvaṃsanam] β : °dhyānāsanam θ 45b °vartinā] S₁ L₁ L₂ L₄ E₉ : °vartinaḥ L₃ : vartrina S₂ 45c °haṭhāḥ] S₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : °haṭhā S₁ L₁ L₂ • proktā] proktāḥ S₂ L₁ 46a parīkṣeta] parīkṣetā S₂ 46b vākpaṭuḥ] conj. GOODALL/VASUDEVA : vākpaṭhuḥ E₉ : vābodaiḥ S₁ : vāsādaiḥ S₂ : vākpaṭhaḥ L₁ L₂ L₄ : vākpāṭhaḥ L₃ • kariṣyati] L₁ L₂ L₃ : prayojanam β : kari++ L₄ 46d yoginaḥ] yogināḥ S₂

<footnote n="44">44 Metre = śārdūlavikrīḍita 46cd om. θ Colophon: ity amaraugha gorakṣavira-
citaṃ saṃpūrṇam S₁: ity amaraugha śrīgorakṣaviracitaṃ śatakaṃ samāpyate S₂:
śrīgorakṣanāthaviracitaṃ amaraughaprabodhaḥ saṃpūrṇam L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
Critical Edition of *Amaraughaprabodha*
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
## अमरौघप्रबोधः

आं नमोऽस्वादिनाथाय मीननाथाय वै नमः ।
नमश्चौरज्जिनाथाय सिद्धबुद्धाय धीमते ॥ १ ॥
लयादिप्रतिपन्नानां कलहोत्सुकचेतसाम् ।
गोरक्षकेण कथितः प्रबोधः प्रत्ययात्मकः ॥२॥
लययोगो हठश्रैव मन्त्रयोगस्तृतीयकः ।
चतुर्थो राजयोगश्च द्विधाभावविवर्जितः ॥३॥
यश्चित्तसन्ततिलयः स लयः प्रदिष्टो

Witnesses: θ = L₁ L₃ L₂ L₄ E₉ En. β = S₁ S₂ (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)

1a oṃ namo 'stv ādināthāya ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En : namo 'stu ādināthāya L₁ 1b vai ]
te L₁ 1c cauraṅgināthāya ] En : cāraṅgināthāya L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ : cāṅgīranāthāya
L₁ : coraṅganāthāya S₁ : śrīraṅganāthāya S₂ 2a layādi° ] θ : layāti S₁ : bhayāti S₂
2b kalahotsuka° ] L₁ L₂ E₉ En : kalahotyuka° L₃ : kalā adbhuta° β : ka+++++
L₄ 2c gorakṣakeṇa kathitaḥ ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : gorakṣakeṇa kathita L₄ :
kathyate goraghonāthaḥ S₁ : kalpyate nāthagorakṣaḥ S₂ 2d prabodhaḥ ]
prabodha° θ : svabhāva° β • °pratyayātmakaḥ ] L₁ L₄ E₉ En : °pratyayātmakaṃ
β : °pratyayātmikaḥ L₂ L₃ 3b mantrayogas ] mantrayogaṃ S₂ • trtīyakaḥ ]
β : tritīyakaḥ L₂ L₃ L₄ : trtiyyakaḥ L₁ 3c rājayogaś ca ] L₂ L₃ E₉ En β :
rājayoga L₁ (unmetr.) : rāja+++ L₄ 3d dvidhābhāvavivarjitaḥ ] β : dvidhābhava-
vivarjitaḥ L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : ++++++++ L₄ 4a yaś cittasantati° ] L₁ : yaś cittam
santata° S₁ : yac cittasantata° L₃ L₄ E₉ : yaś cittasantata° S₂ L₂ En • layaḥ ] θ :
°gatiḥ β • layaḥ pradiṣṭo ] S₁ L₃ E₉ En : layaḥ pratiṣṭo L₄ : layapradiṣṭo L₁ :
layapratiṣṭho S₂ : layapradiṣṭāya L₂ (unmetr.)
यश्च प्रभञ्जनविधानरतो हठः सः ।

यो मन्त्रमूर्तिवशगः स तु मन्त्रयोगो

यश्चित्तवृत्तिरहितः स तु राजयोगः ॥४॥

औषधोऽध्यात्मकश्रेति राजयोगो द्विधा क्वचित्।

हठोऽपि द्विविधः क्वापि वायुबिन्दुनिषेवणात्॥५॥

षक्कर्मप्रतिपत्तिहेतुकम् † इदं मन्त्रं न तदृश्यते †

भ्रूनासादिषु कीटवन्न हि मनो लग्नं कथश्चिद्भवेत्।

<footnote>Witnesses: θ = L₁ L₃ L₂ L₄ E₉ Eₘ. β = S₁ S₂ (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)</footnote>

<footnote>4b yaś ca ] L₃ Eₙ β : yas tu L₁ L₂ L₄ E₉ • °vidhāna° ] θ : °nināda° β • °rato ] θ : °kṛto β • haṭhaḥ saḥ ] L₁ L₃ L₄ E₉ Eₘ : haṭhasthaḥ L₂ : haṭhaś ca β 4c °vaśagaḥ ] +śagaḥ L₃ 4d rahitaḥ sa tu rājayogaḥ ] ++++++++ L₄ 5a auṣadho ] β : oṣadhyo L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : auṣadhyo E₉ : oṣadhyā Eₙ • 'dhyātmakaś ] L₁ L₄ E₉ : 'dhyātmikaś L₂ L₃ Eₙ : 'dyātmanaś S₁ : dhyāpanaś S₂ 5b rājayogo ] θ : layayogo β 5c dvividhaḥ ] θ : dvividhā S₁ : dvividhāḥ S₂ • kvāpi ] θ : prokto β 5d vāyu° ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ Eₘ : nāda° S₁ : rāda° S₂ : vā+ L₄ • °binduniṣevaṇāt ] +++++ L₄ 6a ṣaṭkarmapratipatti° ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ Eₘ : ṣaṭkarmapratipanna° S₂ S₁ : +++++patti L₄ • °hetukam idaṃ ] °hetukatadaṃ S₁ • na tad ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ Eₘ : tato β : na tā L₁ 6b bhrū° ] L₁ L₃ E₉ Eₘ β : ghrū° L₂ L₄ • °nāsādiṣu kīṭavan na hi mano ] L₂ L₃ L₄ : °nāsādiṣu kīṭavann abhimano L₁ : °nāsādiṣu kīṭavanna(da)bhimano E₉ : °nāsādiṣu kīṭavan nābhimano Eₙ (unmetr.) : °nāsāvivare ca vartmani mano S₁ : °nāsāvivare ca vatrani mano S₂ • lagnaṃ ] β : magnaṃ L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ Eₘ : mannaṃ L₄ • kathañ cid bhavet ] L₁ L₂ S₁ L₃ E₉ Eₘ : kathaṃ bhāvayet S₂ : +++++ L₄</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Metre = vasantatilakā</footnote>
आधारे पवनो न याति विविधादभ्यासतो योगिनां
नित्यानन्दमयप्रभावनिलयाच्छीराजयोगाद्दते ॥६॥
नित्यं मन्त्रयतो लभेन्न नृपतां नैवाधिपत्यं तथा
दिव्यस्त्रीनवसङ्गमोऽप्यनुदिनं न ध्यायतो लभ्यते ।
हस्तिन्यास्तुरगः खरान्न करभः शाल्योदनं कोद्रवात्
जायन्ते हठतः कथं वद् विभो स्वीयं प्रभावं विना ॥७॥

Witnesses: θ = L₁ L₃ L₂ L₄ E₉ En. β = S₁ S₂ (1cd-7, 9ab, 111-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)

6c ādhāre pavano ] +++++ L₄ • vividhād abhyāsato ] L₁ L₃ E₉ S₁ : vividhād abhyasato L₂ : vividhāndabhyāsato L₄ : vividhābhyāsena yo S₂ vividhyad abhyāsato En (unmetr.) • yogināṃ ] θ : dehato β 6d °maya° ] conj. SANDERSON : °mayāt θ : °mayam β : layāt En • prabhāva° ] θ : prabodha° β • °nilayāc ] E₉ : °nilayāt L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ En : °nilayam β • chrīrājayogād ] E₉ : śrīrājayogād L₂ L₃ L₄ En S₂ : rājayogād S₁ (unmetr.) : ++jayogād L₁ 7a nityaṃ ] ++ L₄ • mantrayato ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : +++ L₄ : mantraparo β • labhen na ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : + L₄ : labheta β • nṛpatāṃ ] conj. : nṛpatāṃ(tiḥ) E₉ : nṛpatā L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : nṛpaja En (unmetr.) : bhavatīṃ β • tathā ] θ : bhavet β 7b na dhyāyato ] L₃ L₄ E₉ En : na dhyāyate L₂ : dhyāyanti te L₁ : pa dhyāyato S₂ : paryāyato S₁ • labhyate ] °palabhyate En (unmetr.) 7c hastinyās turagaḥ ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En : ha+++turagaḥ L₁ : hastyaśvās turagā S₁ : hastyaścās turagāḥ S₂ • kharān na ] conj. : kharāc ca L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En : kharaba L₁ : kareṇu S₂ : kareṇaṃ S₁ (unmetr.) • karabhaḥ ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : kalabhāḥ S₂ : kabhubhāḥ S₁ : +++ L₄ • śālyo-danam ] L₂ L₃ E₉ En : śālvyodanam L₁ : śālyānnadā S₁ : śālyannadā S₂ : +++naṃ L₄ • kodravāt ] θ : gopradāḥ S₁ : gopradā S₂ 7d haṭhataḥ kathaṃ vada vibho svīyam prabhāvam vinā ] θ : haṭhayoginas tu vaśagaś ceyam prasādaṃ vinā S₁ : haṭha-yoginas tu vaśagāś cāyam prasādaṃ vinā S₂

<footnote n="6">6 Metre = śārdūlavikrīḍita 7 Metre = śārdūlavikrīḍita</footnote>
के चिन्मूत्रं पिबन्ति स्वमलमशनतः के चिदश्लन्ति लालां
के चित्काष्ठप्रविष्टा युवतिभगपतद्विन्दुमूर्ध्वं नयन्ति ।
के चित्खादन्ति धातून्निरखिलतनुसिरावायुसञ्चारदक्षा
नैतेषां देहसिद्धिर्विगतनिजमनोराजयोगाद्गतेऽस्मात् ॥८॥
चित्ते समत्वमापन्ने वायौ व्रजति मध्यमे ।

<footnote>Witnesses: $θ = L_1 L_3 L_2 L_4 E_d E_n$. $β = S_I S_2$ (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)</footnote>

<footnote>8a svamalam ] conj. : pramalam $L_1 L_3 L_4 E_d E_n$ : prabalam $L_2$ • $lālāṃ$ ] ++ $L_4$ 8b ke cit ] ++t $L_4$ • $kāṣṭhapraviṣṭā$ ] conj. GOODALL : kaṣṭaṃ praviṣṭo $L_2$ : kaḥṣṭhaṃ praviṣṭo $L_3$ : kaṣṭ+praviṣṭo $L_4$ : kaṃ+ṃ praviṣṭo $L_1$ : $kāṣṭhīṃ$ praviṣṭo $E_d$ : koṣṭīṃ praviṣṭo $E_n$ • bhagapatad° ] $L_1 L_2 L_3$ : bhagavatad $E_d$ : bhaga++$L_4$ : bhagapatan $E_n$ 8c khādanti dhātūn ] $L_2 L_3 E_d E_n$ : khādanti dhātrūn $L_1$ : khādantī yātran $L_4$ • °sirā° ] °sīrā° $L_2$ 8d dehasiddhir ] $L_1 L_3 E_d E_n$ : dehisiddhir $L_2$ : +++++r $L_4$ • vigatanija° ] $L_1 L_3 L_4 E_d E_n$ : vigatannija° $L_2$ 9a citte samatvam ] $L_1 L_2 E_d$ : citte tu sattvam $β$ : cittau samatvam $L_3 L_4 E_n$ • āpanne ] āpanno $L_1$</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 ~ Amanaska 2.32 (ke cin mūtraṃ pibanti svamalam atha tanoḥ ke cid ujjhanti lālāṃ, ke cit koṣṭhaṃ praviṣṭā yuvatibhagapatadbindum ūrdhvam nayanti | ke cit khādanti dhātūn akhilatanuśirāvāyusaṃcāradakṣāḥ, naiteṣāṃ dehasiddhir vigatanijamano-rājayogād ṛte syāt)</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 Metre = sragdharā</footnote>
एषामरौघवज्ज्रोली + तदा चाभिमतेति च + ||९||

तथा च श्रीसम्पुटे

बिभ्राणः पवनं हठान्नियमितं ग्रस्तोऽस्ति मीनोदरे

कैवर्त्त भगवान्विमुच्य सहसा यावन्न चेतत्यसौ ।

तं चोक्त्वा गिरिशेन भाषितमिदं कालो न चेतः परं

पार्वत्या सह मीननाथमवदन्नित्यं चिरं जीवति॥१०॥

<footnote>Witnesses: $\theta = L_1 L_3 L_2 L_4 E_d E_n$. $\beta = S_1 S_2 (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)$</footnote>

<footnote>9c eṣāmarolivajrolī] conj. : eṣāmaraulivajroli L₃ : eṣāmarauli vajrauli L₄ Eₙ : eṣāmarālivajroli L₁ : yeṣāmarāli vajrauli L₂ : eṣāmarolī vajrolī] E₉ : tadāmaraugha-vajroli S₁ : tadāmaraudhavajrolī S₂ 9d tadā cābhimateti ca] diagnostic conj. : tadā menimameti ca L₁ : tadā matimateti ca E₉ : tadā metimateti ca Eₙ : tadā meti mameti mateti ca L₃ (unmetr.) : mameti ca mameti ca L₂ : mateti mame++ L₄ : tadāśājivitasya ca β 10a pavanaṃ] pavana L₃ 10a niyamitaṃ grasto] conj. : GOODALL : niyamitaṃ grāso L₂ L₄ E₉ Eₙ : niyamitaṃ graso L₃ : niyamitam agrāso L₁ (unmetr.) 10b kaivartaṃ] conj. : MALLINSON : kaivalyo L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ Eₙ : kaivalye L₁ • yāvan] yavan L₁ • cetaty asau] +++ L₄ 10c coktvā] cokvā L₁ • param] paraḥ L₁ 10d saha] sahasā L₂ (unmetr.) • jīvati] conj. : jīmahi L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ Eₙ : jīmahī L₄</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 ~ *Haṭhapradīpikā* 30069 (citte samatvam āpanne vāyau vrajati madhyame | eṣā-maraughavajrolī sadā cābhimateti ca || eṣāmaraugha°] 29899 : eṣā naulīti 30069). Cf. Testimonia for *Amaraugha* 7</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Metre = śārdūlavikrīḍita</footnote>
यदि जीवेदौषधीमिः संसारे निरुपद्रवः ।

आमयार्त्ता जरायस्ता म्रियन्ते भिषजः कथम् ॥ ११ ॥

चरकानुचरणचतुराश्चटुलधियः सुश्रुतश्रवणलोलाः ।

अमनस्कौषधिवर्ज कथमखिलजगदक्षयं भवति ॥ १२ ॥

बिन्दुनादौ महोषध्यौ विद्येते सर्वजन्तुषु ।

तावविज्ञाय सर्वेऽपि म्रियन्ते गुरुवज्जिताः ॥ १३ ॥

<footnote>Witnesses: $\theta$ = L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En. $\beta$ = S₁ S₂ (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)</footnote>

<footnote>11a yadi jived auṣadhībhiḥ ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : yadi jived auṣadhī+ L₄ : doṣadhī-bhiryyāṃdivoyaḥ S₁ : doṣadhībhīyyāṃdivoyaṃ S₂ 11b saṃsāre ]+++ L₄ • nir-upadravaḥ ] $\beta$ : nirupadrave L₂ L₃ E₉ En : +++++ L₄ : nirpadṛve L₁ (unmetr.) 11c āmayārttā ] conj. HATLEY : āmayāstā L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : amayyāttā S₂ : amaryātto S₁ : ++yāstā L₄ • jarā° ] carā° L₄ 11d mriyante ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En S₂ : mṛyante L₄ S₁ • bhiṣajaḥ ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : bhiṣajaṃ L₄ : bheṣajaṃ $\beta$ 12a carakānucaraṇacaturāś ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : carakānucaraṇacaturā L₄ : cirakālacaṭula-caraṃṣ S₁ : cirakālacāralacaraṇā S₂ 12b caṭuladhiyaḥ ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : caṭala-dhiya L₄ : caraṇadhiyaḥ $\beta$ • suśrutaśravaṇalolāḥ ] L₂ E₉ En : suśritaśravaṇalolāḥ L₁ L₃ : suśrītaśra++++ L₄ : saṃśrtaśravaṇalolāḥ $\beta$ 12c amanaskauṣadhi° ] L₁ L₂ L₃ E₉ En : amavaskauṣadhi° S₂ : ama+skauṣadhi° S₁ : +++++ L₄ • °var-jaṃ ] $\beta$ : °varjyāḥ L₁ : °vajyā L₂ L₃ : °vājyā En : °vā+jyā E₉ : ++ T • katham ] ++m L₄ 12d akhilajagad akṣayaṃ ] conj. GOODALL : akhilam jagad akṣayam $\beta$ : akhilagadantakṣayo L₂ L₃ : akhilam jagadantakṣayo L₁ : akhilagadaṃ tam kṣayo En : akhilagandatakṣayo L₄ : akhilāṅgataṃ tatkṣayo E₉ 13a bindunādau ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En : bindunādo L₁ : bindunāda $\beta$ 13b mahauṣadhyau ] E₉ S₂ : mahoṣadhyau L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ S₁ : mahauṣadhau En 13c tāv avijñāya ] L₄ E₉ : tāvad vijñāya L₂ L₃ $\beta$ : tāvat vijñāya L₁ : tāvijñāya En (unmetr.) • sarve ] ca sarve S₂ (unmetr.) 13d guruvarjitāḥ ] L₂ L₃ E₉ En $\beta$ : guṇavajjitāḥ L₁ : guru+++ L₄</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Metre = giti</footnote>
चालयेत्संवृतं वायुं भानुमग्निश्च धोष्यति ।

ज्वलन्नसौ चलत्यस्माद्विन्दुश्चलति पर्वते ॥१४॥

यो जानात्यनयोः सारं सद्गुरोरुपदेशतः ।

कायक्लेशजराव्याधिपापमृत्युभयं कुतः ॥१५॥

निर्वाते चित्तराजे ब्रजति खररुचौ मेरुमार्गं समन्ताद्

उद्रिक्ते वह्निभावे स्त्रवति शशाधरे पूरयत्याशु कायम् ।

<footnote>Witnesses: θ = L₁ L₃ L₂ L₄ E_d E_n. β = S₁ S₂ (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)</footnote>

<footnote>14a cālayet saṃvṛtam] L₂ L₃ E_d E_n : cālayet sāṃpratam L₁ : cālayec ca vṛthā
β : +++++vṛtam L₄ • vāyum] vāyu L₁ 14b dhoṣyati] emend. MALLINSON:
dhuṣyati L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : duṣkṛtiḥ β : dhukṣyati E_d : suṣyati E_n 14c jvalann
asau calaty] θ : athendu cālayet S₁ : athendum cālayet S₂ • asmād] E_d : asmāt
L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : tasmāt β 14d binduś] jīvaś E_n • parvate] L₁ L₂ L₄ : parvati
L₃ : pārvati E_d : pārvatī E_n : vardhate S₂ : vaddhate S₁ 15a jānāty anayoḥ
sāram] θ : jānāti ca yat pāram β 15b sadguror] satgu+ L₄ • upadeśataḥ]
L₁ L₂ L₃ E_d E_n S₂ : upadeśakaḥ S₁ : +++++ L₄ 15c kāyakleśa°] E_d β : kālakleśa°
L₁ L₂ L₃ E_n : +++++ L₄ • °vyādhi°] °vyādhiḥ S₂ 15d kutaḥ] L₂ E_d E_n β :
kṛtaḥ L₁ L₃ L₄ 16a nirvāte] : niryāte E_d E_n • cittarāje] β : cittarāte θ • vra-
jati] θ : viśati β • khararucau] θ : khararuce β • merumārgam] θ : merudurge
β 16b udrikte] conj. : udrakte L₄ : udrajñe L₁ L₂ L₃ : dudrajñe E_d : durvṛtte
β • sravati] L₁ L₂ L₃ E_d : dravati β : +++ L₄ • śaśadhare] ++++ L₄ • pūra-
yaty āśu] L₁ L₂ L₃ E_d : pūrayitvā tu β : ++yaty āśu L₄ • kāyam] β : kāye θ</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Metre = sragdharā 16b om. E_n</footnote>
उद्यत्यानन्दवृन्दे त्यजति तवममेत्यादिमोहान्धकारे
प्रोद्भिन्ने ब्रह्मरन्ध्रे जयति शिवशिवासङ्गमः कोऽप्यपूर्वः ॥ १६ ॥
एक एवामरौघो हि राजयोगाभिधानकः ।

लयादिभिः समायुक्तश्चतुर्धोदीर्यते कथम् ॥ १७ ॥
मृदुमध्याधिमात्रश्च अधिमात्रतरस्तथा ।

चतुर्धा साधको ज्ञेयस्तसोपानमिहोच्यते ॥ १८ ॥

मन्दोत्साही मन्दरागी पराधीनो विदूषकः ।

व्याधिस्थो हीनसत्त्वश्च गृहवासी मृदुः स्मृतः ॥ १९ ॥

Witnesses: θ = L₁ L₃ L₂ L₄ E₉ En. β = S₁ S₂ (1cd-7, 9ab, 11-17, 25-36, 38-55, 74-75ab)

16c udyaty ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En : udayaty L₁ (unmetr.) : utp+uty S₁ : unnaty S₂ • ānanda° ] θ S₂ : ānanta° S₁ • °vṛnde ] θ : °kande β • tyajati ] jatyat L₂ • tava° ] śiva° S₂ • °mametyādi° ] L₂ L₃ L₄ E₉ En : °mamevandi° L₁ : °mukhetyādi° β • °mohāndhakāre ] ++hāndhakāre L₄ 16d °śivāsaṅgamaḥ ] E₉ En β : °śi+saṃgamaḥ L₂ : °śivāsaṅgamaṃ L₁ L₄ : °śivāsaṅga+ L₃ • apūrvah ] apūrvam L₁ 17a evāmaraugho hi ] E₉ En : evāmarogho hi L₁ L₂ L₃ L₄ : evāmaraugho yaṃ β 17b rājayogābhi° ] rājayogo 'bhi° En • °dhānakaḥ ] θ : °dhānakaṃ β 17c layādibhiḥ ] mayādibhiḥ E₉ 17d caturdhodīryate ] emend. GOODALL : caturthodīryate L₃ En β : caturthodīyyate L₁ L₂ L₄ : caturthodīyate E₉ 18a °ādhimātraś ] °ādhamātraś E₉ 19d gṛhavāsī ] En : grahavāsī L₂ L₄ : grahavāsi L₁ L₃ : gra(gṛ)havāsī E₉ • mṛduḥ ] E₉ : mṛdu L₁ L₂ L₃ En : mṛ+ L₄

18 Cf. Amṛtasiddhi 15.1 (śattvāś caturvidhā jñeyā mṛdumadhyādhimātrakāḥ || adhimātratarāḥ śreṣṭhā bhavābdhilaṅghane kṣamāḥ) and Śivasaṃhitā 5.13 (caturdhā sādhako jñeyo mṛdumadhyādhimātrakaḥ | adhimātratamaḥ śreṣṭho bhavābdhilaṅghana-kṣamaḥ) 19 Cf. Amṛtasiddhi 15.3 (vyādhitā durbalā vṛddhā niḥsattvā gṛhavāsinaḥ | mandotsāhā mandavīryā jñātavyā mṛdavo narāḥ) and Śivasaṃhitā 5.14 (mandotsāhī susaṃmūḍho vyādhistho gurudūṣakaḥ | lobhī pāpamatiś caiva bahvāsī vanitāśrayaḥ)