# From Isolation to Union: Pātañjala vis-à-vis Śaiva Understandings of the Meaning and Goal of Yoga

Andrea Acri

► To cite this version:

Andrea Acri. From Isolation to Union: Pātañjala vis-à-vis Śaiva Understandings of the Meaning and Goal of Yoga. UniorPress. 'Verità e bellezza'. Essays in Honour of Raffaele Torella (Volume I), 2022, 978-88-6719-209-0. 10.6093/978-88-6719-209-0 halshs-03891555

HAL Id: halshs-03891555

https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03891555

Submitted on 9 Dec 2022

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>
*From Isolation to Union:
Pātañjala vis-à-vis Śaiva Understandings of the
Meaning and Goal of Yoga*<fnref n="1" />

ANDREA ACRI

(École Pratique des Hautes Études, EPHE, PSL University)

## 1. Introduction

Two of the major currents of Sanskritic yoga in the medieval period were Pātañjala Yoga (also referred to as Aṣṭānga Yoga, ‘Yoga of [i.e., attained by] Eight Auxiliaries’), going back to the seminal Pātañjalayogaśāstra (PYŚ, ca. 325–425) <fnref n="2" /> and its commentaries, and Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga (‘Yoga of [i.e., attained by] Six Auxiliaries’), which was widespread in tantric Śaiva (and, to a lesser extent, Vaiṣṇava Pāñcarātra and Buddhist) <fnref n="3" /> scriptural and non-

<footnote n="1">¹ I am delighted to contribute to this volume in honour of my first academic mentor, who introduced me to the study of Sanskrit, Indian Philosophy, and tantric Śaiva traditions at the ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome in the early 2000s. His fascinating lectures, some of which I still vividly remember 20 years later, as well as his brilliant and erudite writings, inspired me to pursue the study of Śaivism. I will always be grateful to him for having encouraged me to pursue my interest in the Śaiva traditions from Java and Bali, which I developed during my studies in Rome and which still forms my main research focus to date.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² In this article, PYŚ refers to the Yogasūtra (YS) with the Bhāṣya commentary, possibly by the redactor and systematizer of the sūtras, i.e. Patañjali himself (Maas 2013: 61). On the dating of the PYŚ, see *ibid.*, and Bronkhorst 1985: 194.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Cf. Sferra 2000:14, referring (for Pāñcarātra) to the *Viṣṇusaṃhitā* (30.57ff.) and the *Sanatkumārasaṃhitā* (Rṣirātra 1.14cd, 3.59cd), and to a number of tantric</footnote>
scriptural sources. Recent scholarship has illuminated various
aspects of the textual and religio-philosophical history of these two
distinct yet related traditions, and also dealt with the relationship
between them, for instance with respect to the number and status
of the auxiliaries (aṅga).⁴ Considering the enormous amount of
available textual sources, more work needs to be done on the rela-
tionship between Pātañjala Yoga and Śaiva Yoga from the early
medieval period onwards. One particular vantage point from
which to approach this problem is the definition of yoga and its
ultimate goal. This is epitomized by the ideal of isolation (kaiva-
lya) of Spirit (puruṣa) from Nature (prakṛti) by way of the purifica-
tion of the mind (citta), espoused by Pātañjala Yoga, vis-à-vis the
ideal of union (sāyujya), qualitative sameness (samatā, tulya, etc.)
or identification (sātmya/tādātmya) with the Lord, championed by
the Śaiva varieties of Śaḍaṅga Yoga.

In this article I shall return to this topic — to the study of which
Prof. Torella has also contributed⁵ — by comparatively surveying
pertinent passages on the meaning and goal of yoga found in the
PYŚ and in selected genres of medieval Śaiva literature, namely
scriptural sources and commentaries belonging to the Pāśupata
and Saiddhāntika traditions, as well as Old Javanese Śaiva scriptu-
res. My aim here is not so much to present new material, but
rather to analyze and link together some relevant passages to
advance the argument that, even though Pātañjala and non-
Pātañjala systems of yoga might very well have emerged from a
shared prototypical milieu,⁶ the PYŚ appears to have exerted an
influence on the textual sources belonging to rival systems. For

Buddhist texts (ibid.: 15–16). Cf. also Zigmund-Cerbu 1963: 129–130, referring to a
Pāñcarātra Sanskrit inscription from the Khmer domains mentioning ṣaḍaṅgayoga.

⁴ Recent overviews of Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga and its relationship with Aṣṭaṅga Yoga are
Vasudeva 2004, 2017; Mallinson and Singleton 2017: 7–11 (cf. also 17–45 on the
definitions of yoga, the ancillaries, etc.). On Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga, cf. the seminal work
by Grönbold ([English translation] 1996), as well as Sferra (2000, esp. 11–16) and
Zigmund-Cerbu 1963.

⁵ See in particular his discussion of the perception of Pātañjala Yoga by non-dualist Śaiva authors (Torella 2019, 2020).

⁶ While Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga is likely to predate Pātañjala Yoga, it is not impossible
that, as suggested by Wallis (2016), Saiva sources 'drew on a common complex
yogic milieu of the classical period, which must have included many texts now
lost to us. The ṣaḍaṅgayoga was part of this milieu and clearly developed indepen-
dently of Patañjali's more famous aṣṭaṅgayoga.'
instance, it seems that many Śaiva authors, while providing their
own sectarian accounts of the ultimate goal of yoga, did have the
Pātañjala understandings in mind. This intertextuality reveals an
appropriation or creative (re)use<fnref n="7" /> of the Pātañjala terminology by
the Śaiva sources, and its application to affirm the hierarchically
higher soteriological efficacy of the Śaiva system. Whether charac-
terized by silent appropriation or more open criticism — by either
openly or subtly critiquing it, Śaiva authors intended to distin-
guish themselves from a system that they deemed to be a rival as
well as a partial truth —, this attitude suggests not only that the Sai-
vas may have been partly indebted to Pātañjala Yoga, but also that
they could not avoid engaging in a dialectic relationship with what
must have been a widespread and authoritative system of yoga in
the mainstream Brahmanical religio-philosophical discourse.<fnref n="8" />

2. Śaiva attitudes towards Pātañjala Yoga

Śaiva texts, both by anonymous and identifiable authors, display a
somewhat ambivalent stance towards yoga, championing one or
more approaches across the fourfold soteriological spectrum
formed by observances (caryā), ritual (kriyā), gnosis (jñāna), and
yoga — the last item representing a sort of ‘middle ground’ betwe-
en action and knowledge, in which to varying degrees internalized
psycho-physical practices play a role as propaedeutic means of sal-
vation and empowerment.<fnref n="9" /> As Torella (2019: 656) has recently

<footnote n="7">⁷ The label ‘adaptive reuse,’ traditionally employed in the domain of architecture, has been recently discussed by Freschi and Maas (2017) in the context of South Asian textual and religio-philosophical traditions, as comprising four main aspects, viz. ‘(1.) the involvement of at least one consciously acting agent, who, (2.) in order to achieve a certain purpose, (3.) resumes the usage (4.) of a clearly identifiable object after an interruption in its being used. The attribute “adaptive” presupposes that the reusing person pursues a specific purpose by adapting something already existent to his or her specific needs’ (ibid. 2017: 13). Deeming points 3 and especially 4 somewhat too restrictive, here I employ the term ‘reuse’ in a more general sense, as reflecting dynamics of conscious mimesis, appropriation and reelaboration characterizing traditional Indic text-building practices.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Birch and Hargreaves (2016: 37), commenting on Patañjali’s influence on medieval Brahmanical literature contend: ‘It is as though many erudite Brahmins kept the *Pātañjalayogaśastra* in their manuscript collections and pulled it off the shelf, so to speak, when in need of a reference on yoga.’</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ A pioneering yet still useful study of yoga in Śaiva Saiddhāntika texts is Brunner 1994.</footnote>
put it, ‘side by side with an utterly derogatory attitude, the texts of
non-dual Śaivism also address high praises to yoga.’ In this con-
text, ‘yoga’ refers to a variety of tantric yoga practices. These were
sometimes contrasted with Pātañjala Yoga, deemed to be a less
effective path characterized by detachment (vairāgya) and repeat-
ed practice (abhyāsa), as opposed to the tantric path characterized
by empowerment and quick and effortless efficacy in bringing
about the identification with Śiva or the supreme consciousness.<fnref n="10" />
For instance, the Kashmirian polymath Abhinavagupta (fl. ca.
975–1025) repeatedly critiques the yogāṅgas of Patañjali (and any
yogāṅgas, indeed) as an inferior, or even useless, method for reali-
zing the supreme consciousness that is the highest goal of the non-
dualist Krama system.<fnref n="11" /> Another point of disagreement between
Śaiva and Pātañjala Yoga traditions is the emphasis on God in the
former system, as opposed to its marginality in the latter, where
īśvara covers the secondary role of a perfect puruṣa that could
serve as an optional support for focusing the attention of chroni-
cally agitated minds, or that of a bestower of grace who may at best
help those who are in search of liberation (PYŚ 1.4, 2.1). This lack
of theism inevitably relegated the Pātañjala Yoga system (and
Sāṅkhya too, which provided much of its philosophical back-
ground) to a secondary position in the soteriological hierarchy in
the eyes of the Śaivas — a view that already emerges in the seminal
Pāśupata treatise Pañcārthabhāṣya (PBh) and continues to be
attested in later sources of the Śaiva Mantramārga.

A similarly negative, yet somewhat more ambivalent, stance
towards Pātañjala Yoga can be detected in the works by Śaiva
Saiddhāntika exegetes, like the strictly dualistic Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇa-

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Cf. verse 14 of the Kashmirian nondualist short work *Svabodhodayamañjarī* by Vāmanadatta, contrasting this method (described in *Yogasūtra* 1.12 and *Bhagavadgītā* 4.36cd) to the ‘effortless’ (*ayatnena*) method of suppression (*niro-dha*) championed by the text (Torella 2000: 404).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Torella 2019 lists such passages as *Tantrāloka* 4.87 (against the five *yamas* or restraints), 4.95 (against the three *aṅgas* of fixation, visualization, and absorption), 4.104 (against repeated practice, *abhyāsa*), 4.90ab (against breath-control), and 10.215cd–216ab (against withdrawal of the senses from their objects), as well as *Mālinīvijayavārttika* 2.106–107; compare Torella 2020: 846–847, and see also *Tantrasāra* 4.13–27. The consideration of the *aṅgas* as mere preliminaries to the yoga proper, which is the realization of Śiva’s powers, is a fairly widespread motif in Saiva literature.</footnote>
kaṇṭha (fl. ca. 900–950), Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha (II) (fl. ca. 950–1000), and Aghoraśiva (fl. ca. mid-12th c.). Since these authors reveal familiarity with the PYS, they seemingly consider Patañjali as an authority in matters of yoga. For instance, in his commentary to the *Yogapāda* (YP) of the *Mataṅgapārameśvaratantra*, Rāmakaṇṭha refers to the *Yogasūtras* (YS) no less than 28 times, and quotes 19 different *sūtras* (Creisméas 2015: 84–85).<fnref n="12" /> Other Saiddhāntika authors too pay occasional lip service to Patañjali: for instance, Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, in his commentary on the YP of the *Mṛgendratantra*, approvingly refers to the YS and Patañjali multiple times (e.g. ad YP 6, 7cd, 54c–55b), and so does Aghoraśiva’s commentary on the *Yogaprakaraṇa* of the *Sarvajñānottara*.<fnref n="13" /> Post-10th-c. Saiddhāntika commentator Śrī Kumāradeva also quotes Patañjali with approval,<fnref n="14" /> and Īśānaśiva in his *Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati* (YP 2) utilizes the eight *yogāṅgas* taught by Patañjali instead of the six taught in most tantric scriptures. At the same time, like their Pāśupata predecessors, those authors never hesitate to affirm the supremacy of Śaiva Yoga, and sometimes openly critique Patañjali as the promulgator of a system of yoga that leads only to partial liberation.<fnref n="15" /> But in doing so, they seem to implicitly acknowledge that that system was an obligatory point of reference in the domain of yoga by their time.

Influence from Pātañjala Yoga is detectable in some revealed Śaiva scriptures, such as Siddhāntatantras, especially those belonging to the later stratum of the corpus. Whereas the majority of the Siddhāntatantras adhered to the Śaiva Śaḍaṅga Yoga, post-10th-c. Sanskrit scriptures hailing from South India (alongside the 8th–9th

<footnote n="12">¹² Patañjali’s philosophy is referred to extensively by the same author in his commentary on the *Kiraṇa*, in the *Nareśvaraparīkṣāprakāśa*, and in the *Paramokṣa-nirāsakārikāvṛtti*, commenting on the homonymous work by Sadyojyotis (ca. 675–725). The latter critiques the ideal of *kaivalya* by Sāṅkhyas (as well as the adherents to the yoga of Patañjali) in verses 2a and 53–56 (Watson, Goodall and Sarma 2013: 225–228, 445–460).</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ On *Sarvajñānottara*, *Yogaprakaraṇa 2*, quoting YS 2.30 and 2.32 (on *yamas* and *niyamas*).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ Cf., e.g., *Tātparyadīpikā* on Bhoja’s *Tattvaprakāśa 52* (4th *pariccheda*), referring to the treatise of *bhagavat patañjali* (YS 1.10: *abhāvapratyayālambanā nidrā*), and echoing the wording of YS 1.15 (*dṛṣṭānuśravikaviṣayavītyaṇasya vaśīkārasaṁjñā vairagyam*) in the expression *avairāgyaṁ ca dṛṣṭānuśravikaviṣayarāgaḥ*.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ Cf., e.g., Rāmakaṇṭha on *Mataṅga* YP 1.3d.</footnote>
c. Kashmirian *Netratantra)*,<fnref n="16" /> such as the *Ajitāgama* (Kriyāpāda 2.29),<fnref n="17" /> the *Makuṭāgama* (*Prāṇāyāmavidhi* 1–2ab),<fnref n="18" /> the *Suprabhedāgama* (YP 3.53–55ab),<fnref n="19" /> the *Śaradātilakatantra* (YP 25.5–6),<fnref n="20" /> and the *Jñānasiddhyāgama*,<fnref n="21" /> as well as Tamil texts such as Tirumular’s *Tirumantiram*,<fnref n="22" /> adopt the eight auxiliaries of Pātañjala Yoga (or simply refer to Aṣṭāṅga Yoga) instead, while retaining at the same time their theistic yoga.<fnref n="23" /> Intriguingly enough, earlier scriptures preserved in both Nepalese and South Indian manuscripts present redacted versions of the auxiliaries in the manuscripts or editions from the latter region, thereby documenting a shift from *Ṣaḍaṅga* to Aṣṭāṅga Yoga.<fnref n="24" /> Some scriptures, such as the yoga sec-

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Cf. 8.9 (tataḥ prabhṛti mukto ’sau na punarjanma cāpnuyāt | aṣṭāṅgena tu yogena praṇpuyān nānyataḥ kvacit) and 8.21 (evam aṣṭāṅgayogena svabhāvasthaṃ paraṃ dhruvam | dṛṣṭvā vañcayate kālam amṛteśaṃ paraṃ vibhum), as well as the description of the auxiliaries in-between. The text, however, still upholds a theistic view: supreme absorption (*parah samādhiḥ*) implies the identification of the Self with Śiva (8.18).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ yamādy aṣṭāṅgayogena vimalīkṛtamānasaiḥ | pūjyate netarais tasya pūjākṛtyaṃ viśyamate |.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ yamaniyamāsanañ ca [em.; yamanīm āsanaṃ caiva ms.] prāṇāyāmam ataḥ param | pratyāhāraṃ ca dhyānaṃ ca dhāraṇā ca [em.; na ms.] samādhikam || aṣṭāṅgam iti vijñeyaṃ yoginām yogasādhanam | (= *Suprabhedāgama* YP 3.54).</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ śaivānām sādhanam proktam pañcadhā samudāḥtam | yogāṣṭakāṅgau vaksyāmi śṛṇuṣvaiśāgramānasaḥ || yamaniyamāsanañ ca prāṇāyāmaṃ tataḥ param | pratyāhāraṇ ca dhyānañ ca dhāraṇā ca samādhikam || aṣṭāṅgam iti vijñeyaṃ yoginām yogasādhanam |.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ yogāṣṭāṅgair imān jitvā yogino yogam āpnuyuḥ | yamaniyamāv āsana prāṇāyāmau tataḥ param || pratyāhāraṃ dhāraṇākhyam dhyānaṃ sārdhaṃ samādhinā | aṣṭāṅgāny āhur etāni yogino yogasādhane.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Cf. pp. 1, 21, 38. Sanderson (2014: 90) sees this work by Jñānaśivācārya as a product of a late medieval South Indian milieu 'showing a similar admixture of the Tamil Śaiva Siddhānta, Śaktism, and Vedānta.'</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Cf. *Tantra 3*, p. 86 (vv. 551–552), where Aṣṭāṅga Yoga is regarded as a means to reach *samādhi*, equated to *jñāna*.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Similarly, except the *Viṣṇuśaṃhitā* and the *Sanatkumārasaṃhitā*, the majority of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās adopt Aṣṭāṅga Yoga: cf. Sferra 2000: 14, n. 12.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ For instance, the Devakottai edition of the *Kiraṇatantra* (58.2c–3) substitutes *tarka* of *Ṣaḍaṅga* Yoga with *āsana*. Since the Nepalese manuscripts retain *tarka*, Vasudeva (2004: 377) has regarded this substitution ‘as an attempt [by a modern editor] to approximate the yoga of the *Kiraṇa* to the classical system of Patañjali’; Goodall (2004: 351–352, n. 735), however, has shown that the South Indian palm-leaf manuscripts on which the Devakottai edition was based already read *āsana*, thus suggesting that the adoption of the Pātañjala list of *aṅgas* goes back to the premodern period.</footnote>
tions of the relatively late and ‘śāstric’ *Mṛgendra*,<fnref n="25" /> reflect an
attempt to ‘hybridize’ the Śaiva and Pātañjala lists of aṅgas. An
analogous attempt is reflected in *haṭhayoga* texts, such as the
*Gheraṇḍasamhitā*, the *Gorakṣaśataka*, and the *Vivekamārtanda*,
which represents a distinct, ‘Patañjalified’ tradition of tantric
Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga.<fnref n="26" />

A similar attempt to bridge the two systems is documented in roughly coeval (Sanskrit-)Old Javanese Śaiva scriptures, for instance through the creation of hybrid lists of seven aṅgas halfway between Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga and Aṣṭāṅga Yoga, as in the case of the *Tattvajñāna*,<fnref n="27" /> or the adoption of certain Pātañjala elements and terminology in a Śaiva doctrinal framework, such as in the case of chapter 19 of the *Jñānasiddhānta*, or again the appropriation — and modification along theistic lines — of Pātañjala Yoga by incorporating excerpts from the PYŚ, as in the case of the *Dharma Pātañjala*.<fnref n="28" />

These attempts by post-9th-c. authors and transmitters of Śaiva
texts to ‘interpolate’ certain passages in order to make them com-
pliant with Pātañjala Yoga, or to hybridize Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga and
Pātañjala Yoga, suggest a gradual rise in status and importance of
the latter system in the course of the second half of the first mil-
lennium CE across the wider Indic world.<fnref n="29" /> On the other hand,
they also tell us that Pātañjala Yoga had achieved a somewhat para-
doxical status in the religio-philosophical discourse, namely that
of an authoritative system that did not engender a robust philoso-

<footnote n="25">²⁵ See YP 3, listing eight auxiliaries including the six of Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga (in which vīkṣaṇa = tarka) plus japa and yoga itself as the climax: prāṇāyāmaḥ pra-tyāhāro dhāraṇā dhanavīkṣaṇe | japaḥ samādhir ity aṅgāny aṅgī yogo 'ṣṭamaḥ svayam.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ On these texts, and the relationship between Patañjali and *haṭhayoga*, see Larson 2009 and Mallinson 2007; on Śaivism’s appropriation of *haṭhayoga*, see Mallinson 2014.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ This text includes seven auxiliaries, i.e. the six standard auxiliaries of Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga plus āsana of Pātañjala Yoga. See Table 19.1 in Acri 2021.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ For a survey of these sources and, more generally, of yoga in Indonesia, see Acri 2021.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ The rise and ‘canonization’ of Pātañjala Yoga into Classical Yoga seems to have occurred in parallel to the rise and ‘canonization’ of the philosophical system of Vedānta — which elected Pātañjala Yoga as one of the valid means to achieve liberation — within what we now call ‘Hinduism.’ The rise of Vedānta influenced also Śaivism, which in South India flourished as a non-dualist Tamil variety of Śaiva Siddhānta from the 11th/12th c. onwards.</footnote>
phical tradition — its textual corpus being limited to a handful of authoritative commentaries —, but that was restated in different ways by different currents, including the theistic ones.<fnref n="30" />

The above-mentioned facts highlight the close dialectic inter-
relationship existing between these two systems of yoga and their
textual corpora throughout the medieval and early modern
period. Starting from these premises, in what follows I will compa-
ratively discuss some select textual passages containing definitions
of yoga and its goal in the PYŚ and medieval Śaiva literature.

3. *The PYŚ*

As remarked above, while Śaiva authors diverged from Pātañjala
Yoga sources on such relatively marginal aspects as the definition
and number of the *aṅgas* or the emphasis on *aṅgas*<sup>31</sup> other than
*samādhi* as their climax,<sup>32</sup> or again the accentuation of sudden
realization rather than gradual practice, a more central point of
disagreement was the very definition of yoga and its ultimate goal.
For instance, the commentary on YS 1.1 (*atha yogānuśāsanam*,
‘here begins the authoritative teaching on yoga’) clarifies that *yoga*
is to be intended in the sense of absorption (*yogaḥ samādhiḥ*), i.e.,
*samādhau* (and then, by implication, not in the sense of connec-

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Insofar that its primary focus was not on philosophy but on practice, Pātañjala Yoga as formulated in the PYŚ was prone to transcend the boundaries of distinct philosophical schools, lending itself to integration into the scriptures of rival systems. The PYŚ was described by Larson (1999) as a ‘tradition text’ of ‘non-sectarian’ nature, which, conflating Sāṅkhya and Buddhist formulations, was itself characterized by a hybrid character. It has also been argued by various scholars (whose views are summarized in Larson 2008: 62–64) that the doctrine of the eight ancillaries originally belonged to a different—and possibly older—system and was merged into the PYŚ by the editor and commentator of the *sūtras*.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ For instance, *āsanas*, *yamas*, and *niyamas* are usually mentioned in Śaiva texts containing accounts of Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga, yet they are considered mere preparatory practices to the *upāyas* or *yogāṅgas* proper.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² While Pātañjala Yoga does not include *tarka* among the auxiliaries (but one may argue that, historically, *samprajñāta samādhi* is related to *tarka*), some Śaiva texts, such as the *Mālinīvijayottara* and post-10th-c. Kashmirian nondual Śaiva exegetes, consider it the most important among the auxiliaries (Vasudeva 2004: 373). In many early Śaiva texts, *samādhi* is not regarded as the most important *aṅga*, and it is never regarded as a synonym of yoga, unlike in the PYŚ (Mallinson and Singleton 2017: 325).</footnote>
tion, i.e. yoge).<fnref n="33" /> Thus, the root yuj entails *samādhāna* ('concentration,' or 'absorption') into one's own Self, that is to say isolation (*kaivalya*) of *puruṣa* from *prakṛti*. That goal is achieved through the purification of *citta* from the three constituents (*guṇa*) of Nature, which thereby ceases to mistakenly identify itself with the *puruṣa*.<fnref n="34" /> It follows that in the PYŚ *samādhi* is not only one, and the highest, among the ancillaries of yoga, but rather forms its very essence, which leads to the state of isolation amounting to final release.

Having defined yoga as the depletion of the activities of the mind (*yogaś cittavṛttinirodhaḥ*) in sūtra 1.2, the PYŚ goes on to describe the ultimate goal resulting from the higher type of *samādhi* in sūtra 1.3: tadā draṣṭuḥ svarūpe 'vasthānam, 'Then the seer is established in its own form.' This is a key sūtra, echoes of which, as I will argue, appear to recur in many of the passages discussed in this article. A central term is *avasthānam*, from the stem *ava+sthā*, which could be rendered into English as 'to stay, abide, stop at any place,' 'to abide in a state or condition,' 'to remain or continue (doing anything),' 'to be found, exist, be present,' 'to enter, be absorbed in' (Monier-Williams 1899: 106). The last two meanings seem to be particularly appropriate here in view of the meaning of *samādhi* as 'intense absorption or a kind of trance' (ibid.: 1159), alongside the other meanings of the stem *samādhā*, 'to place, set, lay, fix, direct, settle, adjust' (ibid.). Thus, the Pātañjala system regards liberation as the spirit or Soul being immersed and permanently established in itself.

The aforementioned state coincides with the end of its mistaken connection or identification (*saṃyoga*) with the tainted, outer-oriented mind, which is part of *prakṛti*:<fnref n="35" /> in *samādhi*, the realization of the ontological difference between the subject and Nature, cal-

<footnote n="33">³³ A definition explicitly mentioning the derivation from the *Dhātupāṭha* (IV.68) is found in Bhoja's commentary on the YS, the *Rājamārtaṇḍa* (ca. early 11th c.), on the same sūtra (*yogo yuktah samādhānaṃ | yuja samādhau*), as well as in Vācaspatimiśra's (9th c.) commentary (*Tattvavaisāradī*) on the PYŚ (ad. 1.1, p. 2), which explicitly excludes *yujir yoge* (as in *Dhātupāṭha* VII.7). Cf. below, n. 66.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Cf. YS 3.55: *sattvapuruṣayoh śuddhisāmye kaivalyam iti*, 'When the purity of the consciousness (*sattva* ≈ *buddhi*) is equal to that of the Spirit, Isolation [occurs].'</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ Cf. YS 2.17: *draṣṭṛdṛśayoh saṃyogo heyahetuḥ*, 'The connection between the seer and what is seen is the cause of what is to be removed (i.e., suffering).'</footnote>
led vivekakhyāti, causes the cessation of suffering and the comple-
te separation (or isolation or aloneness, kaivalya) of the subject
from Nature. This state of liberation is conceived of as an unre-
stricted self-awareness of the subject, which is then established in
its essential form (svarūpapratiṣṭha: see PYŚ 4.34). The term
svarūpapratiṣṭha, which can be regarded as conveying a meaning
that is analogous to that of sūtra 1.3, occurs multiple times in the
PYŚ, viz. in 1.2, 1.3, 2.25, 3.50, and 4.34 — the final, climatic sūtra
of the work; cf. svarūpapratilambhe in 2.6. Clearly, all these key
terms epitomize the Pātañjala idea of liberation as kaivalya.

Having briefly presented relevant textual passages of the PYŚ
and the key ideas conveyed by them, I shall now discuss instances
of critique and/or reuse of this Pātañjala Yoga material in Śaiva
literature.

4. Pāśupata sources

The view that yoga is to be intended in the sense of ‘union’ be-
tween the individual Soul and the Lord is already found in the
‘proto-tantric’ Pāśupata system, the earliest documented move-
ment of Śaivism. Attesting to an early form of Śaiva yoga, this tradi-
tion — or rather constellation of traditions, collectively part of the
Atimārga movement — arguably constitutes the prototypical sys-
tem from which many medieval currents of Śaiva yoga originated.

For the Pāñcārthika Pāśupata system, whose philosophical tenets are outlined in Kauṇḍinya’s PBh (prob. 4th/5th c.) on the Pāśupatasūtras (PS) and in the Gaṇakārikās (GK; prob. 8th c.) with Bhāsarvajña’s Ratnaṭīkā (RṬ; prob. 10th c.), yoga (in the sense of ‘union with God’) is one of the five principles or padārthaś systematized by Kauṇḍinya. The Pāśupatas knew a specific form of yoga, called pāśupatayoga. This yoga, which is not described in the philosophical treatises but in Purāṇic texts,<fnref n="36" /> mainly consisted in such disciplines as breath-control and postures, supernatural powers, as well as a form of ‘yogic suicide’ (utkrānti).<fnref n="37" /> As such, it approached

<footnote n="36">³⁶ See the early *Skandapurāṇa* (chapters 174–183); chapters 11, 14 and 15 of the *Vāyupurāṇa*; ch. 33 of the *Vāyavīyasaṃhitā* of the *Śivapurāṇa*; as well as several chapters in the *Lingapurāṇa*.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷ The Pāśupata adept had to die before being united with Rudra (Sanderson 2014: 10–11). It is relevant to point out here that utkrānti is already mentioned as a means leading to liberation in PYŚ 3.39.</footnote>
the *kriyāyoga* outlined in the second chapter of the PYŚ, but, unlike it, it was also characterized by a strongly theistic nuance.

We do not know much about the philosophical framework of this system of yoga, but some textual passages suggest that it may have been indebted to ideas elaborated in both Pātañjala and Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika milieus. Hara (2002: 25–26) argued that, although Pāśupata theologians tried to deviate as much as possible from (Pātañjala) Yoga and even looked down upon it, condemning it as a false view and regarding its goal (*kaivalya*) as leading to suffering, its tradition still ‘supplied the basic framework (Grundgerüst) for the formation of the Pāśupata theology’ (*ibid.*: 46); furthermore, Pāśupata Śaivism ‘tried to distinguish itself from the “Yoga” as a philosophical system, while taking full advantage of the “yoga” as a common heritage (Gemeingut) of Indian culture’ (*ibid*.). Similarly, Hara (*ibid.*: 153) argued that the Pāśupata philosophical system emerged from Sāṅkhya and Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika ideas.<fnref n="38" /> It is, therefore, not unreasonable to suppose that, while the yoga of the Pāśupatas tried to distinguish itself from those of its predecessors, especially by evolving in a theistic direction, it was also intellectually indebted to them.

Be this as it may, the critique of ‘Yoga’ alongside Sāṅkhya (*sāṅkhyayoga*),<fnref n="39" /> and the association of both with *kaivalya* that we

<footnote n="38">³⁸ ‘Although the date of Kaṇḍinya is still uncertain, the main source he used for the philosophical foundation obviously was from the Sāṃkhya school of thought, though we meet occasionally the concepts of Nyāya as well as Vaiśeṣika’; cf. Gonda 1963: 214. Several scholars (cf., e.g., Bhandarkar 1913: 117; Matilal 1977: 85; Lorenzen 1991: 110, 134–135, 191; Hara 2002: 278) have noted that Pāśupatism was indebted to the Vaiśeṣika system, and vice-versa. Cf. Preisendanz 2011: ‘Śaivism was the dominant religious background of the Vaiśeṣika tradition from at least the classical period onward [...]. Pāśupatas were among those who were interested in Vaiśeṣika and wrote on it, and thus influenced the development of the tradition.’</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ At least seven occurrences of this compound are found in the PBh (viz. *ad 1.1* [twice], *2.17*, *5.7*, *5.39* [twice]). The fact that this compound should not be interpreted as ‘the method (*yoga*) of Sāṅkhya’ is suggested not only by the context, but also by the fact that in PBh *ad 5.8* we find a separation between Yoga and Sāṅkhya: *evaṃ yat sāṃkhyaṃ yogaś ca varṇayati [...]*. Cf. PBh *ad 5.46*: *yogavīṣeṣaḥ | anyeṣāṃ kaivalyam | iha tu viṣeṣo vikaraṇam iti, ‘Now the method of distinction with respect to yoga. In other systems the final goal is perfect isolation (*kaivalya*), but here the final goal is better, namely, freedom from the instruments’ (tr. Hara 2002: 24), and *ad 5.40*, stating that the Pāśupata system is not founded on Yoga*</footnote>
find in the PBh suggest that Kaunḍinya had a non-theistic/non-Pāśupata form of yoga in mind. This may very well have been Pātañjala Yoga; assuming that the PBh was composed at a slightly later date than the PYŚ, it is not impossible that Kaunḍinya might have had access to that text. Thus, while the yoga described in Pāśupata philosophical treatises bears some similarities with the yoga described in the *Vaiśeṣikasūtra* (VS),⁴⁰ thereby reflecting a different prototypical line of filiation — perhaps, a lost non-Pātañjala *Yogaśāstra* attributed to Hiraṇyagarbha,⁴¹ or other sources belonging to an early ‘common yogic milieu’⁴² —, one may still try to detect instances of intertextuality between the PYŚ and the PBh (as well as the later RṬ) — something that has already been noted, for instance, with respect to such yogic items as the *siddhis* or the *yamas* and *niyamas* featuring in the PBh.⁴³

In PBh 1.1, Kaunḍinya defines yoga as a (particular) contact (*saṃyoga*) between the Soul (*ātman*) and the Lord (*īśvara*): *atrātmeśvarasaṃyogo yogah*. In this expression, which occurs no less

(in the Pātañjala sense?) as it forms an incomplete kind of knowledge leading to *kaivalya*. Compare RṬ, p. 14.28 and p. 15.3 (Pāśupata Yoga is superior as it brings about the complete end of suffering, not just *kaivalya*). Hara (*ibid*.*) notes that ‘the schools from which Kaunḍinya tries to distinguish his own are Sāṃkhya and Yoga’, whose highest goals are relegated to a position of secondary importance. PBh *ad* 1.1, p. 5.15–16, states that Sāṅkhyas and the Lords of Saṅkhya and (Pātañjala) Yoga are beasts (*paśu*); on pp. 2–3, it states that those attaining *kaiva-lya* (*kaivalyagatah*; cf. RṬ p. 23.5–7) are still in the cycle of transmigration, while the Pāśupata adept, being beyond *kaivalya* (*kaivalyavyatiriktaḥ*, PBh *ad* 5.40), obtains the end of suffering (Hara 2002: 27).

⁴⁰ It should be noted that the relevant *sūtras*, describing yoga and *mokṣa*, were attributed by Wezler (1982) to the later, (Pātañjala?) yoga-influenced layers of the text. See *infra*.

⁴¹ Harimoto (2021: 72) has hypothesizes the existence of an early system of yoga comprising five *aṅgas* (*āsana*, *prāṇāyāma*, *pratyāhāra*, and *dhāraṇā*) subscrib- ing to the Vaiśeṣika mechanism of perception caused by contact (*sambandha/ sannikarṣa/saṃyoga*) between objects, sense faculties, mind, and the Self (cf. PYŚ 2.54–55), and according to which yoga consisted in the contact (*saṃyoga*) be- tween mind and Self only (cf. *Vivaraṇa* on PYŚ 1.1; Harimoto 2014: 200–203). Harimoto traces this type of yoga back to a pre-Pātañjala *yogaśāstra* traditionally ascribed to Hiraṇyagarbha (= Brahmā), which used Vaiśeṣika frameworks to describe its philosophical and soteriological system. Cf. below, n. 63.

⁴² Cf. above, n. 6.

⁴³ See Hara 2002 (esp. 17–46); cf. also the practice of ‘eruption’ of the breath (*udghāta*) described in the PYŚ, the PBh, and several tantric texts (see Mallinson and Singleton 2017: 132–133).
than seven times in the PBh,<fnref n="44" /> yoga coincides with the climax of
the system. This definition mirrors the particular contact (*saṃyo-
ga*) between the thinking-organ (*manas*) and the *ātman* in the
Vaiśeṣika definition of yoga (and *mokṣa*) in VS 5.2.16–17, which has
been regarded by Wezler (1982) as an influence by (Pātañjala?)
Yoga — for a yoga-centred soteriology was not part of the original
system, being unattested in the earliest stratum of the VS.<fnref n="45" /> In
Kauṇḍinya’s formulation of *saṃyoga*, the term *īśvara* is used instead
of *manas*, which gives to the definition of yoga a theistic orientation.
Now, the ‘special contact’ postulated by the Vaiśeṣikas presuppos-
es the absence (i.e., its elimination by way of yoga) of the ‘wrong
contact’, engendering suffering, between the *manas* and the Soul:
cf. VS 5.2.20, *tadabhāve saṃyogābhāvo ’prādurbhāvah sa mokṣah*,
‘Since this [>*adṛṣṭa*] does not exist, there is no contact [between
internal organ and Soul, i.e. life], and the non-manifestation [of a
new body]. That is liberation.’<fnref n="46" /> This *sūtra* closely mirrors YS 2.25:
*tadabhāvāt saṃyogābhāvo hānaṃ tad dṛṣeh kaivalyam*, ‘Since this
[ignorance that is the cause of the pain to be eliminated] does not
exist, there is no contact [between the mind and the spirit]. This
is the elimination [of pain], the isolation of consciousness.’<fnref n="47" />

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ PBh 1.1, 1.20, 2.11, 5.2, 5.12, 5.20, 5.23.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ Cf. VS 5.2.16–17: *indriyamano ’rthasannikarṣāt sukhaduḥkhe tadanārambhātma-
sthe manasi | saśarīrasya sukhaduḥkhābhāvah | sa yogah, ‘Pleasure and pain [arise]
out of the drawing near to each other of sense(s), internal organ, and object [of
cognition]; this (i.e. the drawing near to each other...) does not arise when the
internal organ is in the soul. [Then] there is neither pleasure nor pain for the
embodied [soul]. This is yoga’ (as reconstructed and translated by Wezler 1982:
663, who emends saṃyoga into sa yogah); Candrānanda’s Vṛtti (9th c.) on sūtra 17,
yadā hy ātmani mano ’vasthitam nendriyesu, ‘when the internal organ is established
in the soul and not in the organs of senses’ (ibid.: 650–652); and 9.13, ātmany
ātmamanasoh saṃyogaviséṣād ātmapratyakṣam, ‘Because of a particular contact of
soul and internal organ [taking place] in the soul [there arises] perception of the
soul’ (ibid.: 666). Wezler (ibid.: 673–674) tentatively identified in the *Padārtha-
dharmasaṅgraha* by Praśastapāda (early 6th c.) a *terminus post quem* for the redac-
tion of these *sūtras* into the VS, but also reminded that ‘one must not necessari-
ly take for granted that these alterations and expansions of the VS cannot but be
posterior to him’. This bears implications for the issue of intertextuality dis-
cussed here. For an analogous influence by the PYŚ on the *Nyāyasūtrabhāṣya* by
Pakṣilasvāmin Vātsyāyana, see Oberhammer (1964) and Wezler (1984).</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ According to Wezler (1982: 651, 669), this *sūtra* too would belong to the
later, Pātañjala Yoga-influenced layer of the text.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ This wrong type of contact was defined in YS 2.17: *draṣṭṛdṛśayoh saṃyogo*</footnote>
Thus, while the PBh's definition of yoga, echoing the formulation found in the VS, departs from the one given in the PYŚ, it also seems to presuppose it as an intermediary step, so to speak. That this was the case may also be evinced by the sequence of sūtras 5.33-40 of the PS:

labhate rudrasāyujyaṃ || sadā rudram anusmaran || chittvā doṣāṇāṃ hetujālasya mūlam || buddhyā || svaṃ cittamṛc8 || sthāpayitvā ca rudre || ekaḥ kṣemī san vītaśokaḥ || apramādī gacched duḥkhānām antam īśaprasādāt ||

[The Pāśupata adept] obtains union with Rudra, keeping Rudra in his mind at all times. Having cut the root of the net of causes of faults by means of intellect and having fixed the mind by itself on Rudra [continuously], alone, secure, free from sorrow, careful, he may reach the end of suffering, because of the grace of the Lord.

This above-quoted string of sūtras, explaining the category of 'yoga', characterizes the climax of the system, that is to say the final stage (avasthā) of the fivefold ascetic career of the Pāśupata adept according to Kauṇḍinya, during which he puts an end to his life in a charnel ground through 'yoga.' It presents conceptual and terminological analogies with both the PYŚ's and the VS's definition of yoga. First, sūtras 33-34 declare that the goal of the system, union with Rudra (rudrasāyujyaṃ), is to be obtained through constant recollection (anusmara) of him.<fnref n="49" /> Second, sūtras 35-36 identify in the intellect (buddhi) the instrument to cut the root of the net of causes of faults (doṣāṇāṃ hetujālasya mūlam — a concept that is close to the Sāṅkhya idea of samyagdṛṣṭi or 'right knowledge' taking place in the buddhi (or in the citta, for Yoga). This operation discriminates the difference between prakṛti and

heyahetuḥ, 'The connection between the seer and what is seen is the cause of what is to be removed (i.e., suffering).'

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ I apply the emendation, suggested by Sanderson (*2004), of saṃcittam to svaṃ cittam. Compare RṬ ad GK 1.7: yo vidyānugṛhītayā buddhyā svaṃ cittam nirālambanaṃ karoti so 'mūḍha ity ucyate, and Pampāmāhātmya 11.61cd-62ab: tasmād asmin svakaṃ cittam samstāpatyantaniścalam (cf. Bisschop 2006: 17).</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Anusmara seems to be an equivalent of dhyāna of both Śaḍaṅga Yoga and Aṣṭaṅga Yoga (or, rather, of tarka of Śaḍaṅga Yoga), here denoting a type of meditation involving the visualization of the deity Compare the expression īśva-rapraṇidhāna in the Kriyāyoga section of the PYŚ.</footnote>
puruṣa, thereby leading to their separation. Third, in contrast to the PYŚ's ideal of kaivalya as the Spirit's establishment in its own form, as well as the VS's establishment of the manas in the Soul, sūtras 37–38 define the climax of ‘yoga’ as establishing the citta — not a distinctive term of Sāṅkhya or Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, but rather of Pātañjala Yoga philosophy<fnref n="50" /> — existing ‘by itself’ (svaṃ) in Rudra (sthāpayitvā ca rudre), thereby shifting the target from the Soul/ Self to the deity. Kaunḍinya glosses svaṃ as svayam eva svaguṇatve- na, ‘by itself, with only its inherent property’, which calls to mind the Pātañjala Yoga idea of an untainted, ‘self-contained’ citta or buddhi leading to kaivalya.<fnref n="51" /> Thus, it is as if Kaunḍinya — who, just like Patañjali, might have not only arranged but also redacted and even compiled some of the sūtras — wanted to convey the idea that the pure citta in the state of kaivalya, triggered by buddhi, con- stitutes an intermediary stage, and that the final stage consists in its permanent fixation on Rudra. According to the commentary, this state is also achieved through the control of the senses from their objects (evaṃ viṣayebhya indriyāṇāṃ jayaḥ kartavyaḥ, PBh 5.38), a practice that is described in VS 5.2.16 (indriyamano 'rtha- sannikarṣāt), as well as in YS 2.54 (svaviṣayāsaṃprayoge citta- svarūpānukāra ivendriyāṇāṃ pratyāhāraḥ) and Bhāṣya thereon (where it is regarded as leading to cittanirodha). The ensuing state of release (ekaḥ kṣemī san vītaśokaḥ, PS 5.39), introduced in the PBh with a polemic note against ‘those released by way of the Sāṅkhya and Yoga and who have reached isolation (kaivalya) [but] lack knowledge of themselves or of anyone else,’<fnref n="52" /> includes the end of suffering — an ideal shared by Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika soterio- logy and, implicitly, Pātañjala Yoga (cf. YS 2.25).

One may compare the expression sthāpayitvā (the causative form of the root sthā) in PS 5.38 (as well as rudrastham, ‘fixed on Rudra,’ in PBh ad 5.37) to similar expressions based on the same

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Citta occurs only once in the PS (5.37), but some 18 times in the PBh. Cf. PBh ad 5.37, where antaḥkaraṇa, coupled with manas, glosses citta (cittaṃ mano 'ntaḥkaraṇam ity arthaḥ). Note that the treatment of citta, antaḥkaraṇa and manas in Śaiva (Mantramārga) sources is often imprecise (Vasudeva 2004: 425).</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ Compare RṬ ad GK 1.7: yo vidyānugṛhītayā buddhyā svaṃ cittaṃ nirālambanaṃ karoti so 'mūḍha ity ucyate || tayā dhāraṇayā nirmalīkṛtaṃ cittaṃ rudratattve sthāpitaṃ sudīrghakālaṃ na cyavata.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² sāṃkhyayogamuktāḥ kaivalyagatāḥ svātmaparātmajñānarahitāḥ. Cf. notes 39, 56.</footnote>
Andrea Acri

verbal root sthā in the climatic passages of the PYS quoted above (i.e., *avasthānam* in 1.3 and *pratiṣṭha* in 4.34), as well as to *ātmasthe* in VS 5.2.16 (compare *ātmani mano 'vasthitam* in Candrānanda's *Vṛtti* on VS 5.2.17). The root sthā is commented in PBh on 5.38 as follows:

atra ṣṭhā gatinivṛttau | cittasya rudrād avyavadhānaṃ shtitir ity ucyate |
[...] rudre cittam upaśleṣayitavyaṃ nānyatrety arthaḥ | evaṃ viṣayebhya
indriyāṇāṃ jayaḥ kartavyaḥ |

Here the root sthā means to cessation of motion. The state of rest is the non-separation of the mind with Rudra. [...] The meaning is: the mind should join Rudra and nothing else. Thus, one should restrain the sense-organs from their objects.

Although the root sthā is used the context of the final and perpetual abiding of the mind in Rudra rather than of the Soul in its own form, its gloss as ‘cessation of motion’ (*gatinivṛttau*) finds a parallel in the PYS’s explanation of the actionlessness of the *puruṣa* in 1.9.<fnref n="53" />

A definition of yoga (*lakṣaṇaṃ... yogasya*) and liberation as the *manas* abiding in the Soul and the conjunction of the Soul with the Lord is found in the Pāśupata Yoga section (ch. 1)<fnref n="54" /> of the early *Skandapurāṇa* (ca. 6th–7th c.):

pratyayasya bahir lopo manasyātmani saṃsthite || 14cd
abhisandhiḥ pare caiva iśvarasyātmanaś ca ha |
eṣa yoga iti vyāsa kīrtitah śambhunā purā || 15

When the mind abides in the Soul, [there arises] the interruption of the mental conditions pertaining to the outer reality, as well as the conjunction of the Lord and the Soul in the supreme reality. O Vyāsa, this was declared to be yoga by Śambhu in former times.

This passage, which traces the teaching of yoga to Śambhu (either Śiva or Brahmā, i.e. Hiraṇyagarbha?), contains echoes of both the Vaiśeṣika and Pāśupata definitions of yoga, apparently conceived

<footnote n="53">⁵³ ‘Thus [another example]: The Spirit is one whose fundamental properties have been denied, it is without action. In [the sentence] “The arrow comes to a standstill, will come to a standstill, has come to a standstill”, the meaning of the verbal root (sthā, “to stand still”) is to be understood as the cessation of motion’ (tathā — pratiṣiddhavastudharmā, niṣkriyaḥ puruṣaḥ | tiṣṭhati bāṇaḥ, sthāsyati, sthi-taḥ, iti gatinivṛttau dhātvarthaḥ).</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ This is the *Dhyānavidhi*, ch. 174 of the *Skandapurāṇa* (Bhaṭṭarāī’s ed.).</footnote>
of as two steps towards liberation — the first purifying the *manas* by isolating it from the sense-objects and establishing it in the Soul, the second conjoining the Soul with Rudra.

A definition of liberation as the establishment of the *citta* in Rudra is elaborated in a passage of a much later text, the prob. 10th-c. RT on the GK (1.6ab, pp. 16.3–11), which bears close similarities with the section of the PS/PBh discussed above:

> doṣahetujālasya mūlākhyānivṛttau cittasya rudre 'vasthānam atyanta-
> niścalatvam sthitir ucyate | [...] kevalarudratattvāvasthiticittatvam
> yogitvam | anurudhyamānacittavṛttitvam nityātmatvam | [...] śarīrādi-
> viyuktatvam ekatvam | [...] bāhyādhyātmikakriyāśūnyatvam niṣkriya-
> tvam | samastacintārahitatvam vītaśokatvam ity etāni lakṣaṇāny asya
> yogasyātyantotkṛṣṭatvapratipādanārtham uktāni |

Fixedness is when the mind, upon the destruction of what is cal-
led the root of the net of causes of faults comes to rest in Rudra
and is absolutely immovable. [...] The condition of yogin (yogitva)
means that the mind rests uniquely on the principle of Rudra. The
condition of being of constant Soul means the state where all the
activity of the mind (cittavṛtti) is depleted. [...] The state of being
alone (ekatva) means the separation of the body [from the Soul],
etc. [...] The state of actionlessness means absence of both bodily
and spiritual action. Freedom from suffering means the absence
of all concerns. These characteristics are mentioned in order to
show the extreme eminence of [this type of] union.

The commentary on fixedness (*sthitī*), the fourth attainment
(*lābha*) in the system outlined by the text, closely echoes PBh
5.35-40: *atyantanīścalatvam* ('the state of being absolutely immova-
ble') conveys the same idea of *gatinivṛttau*, and so does *niṣkriya-
tvam* ('the state of being without action'), which parallels the
*niṣkriyaḥ* (*puruṣah*) of PYS 1.9.5-6 referred to above. Further, the
expression *cittasya rudre 'vasthānam* (cf. *kevalarudratattvāvasthitici-
*ttatvam* in the same passage) roughly corresponds to *cittasya rudrād
avyavadhānam* in PBh 5.38; the former expression may be regar-
ded as a virtual ‘calque’ of *draṣṭuh svarūpe 'vasthānam* in PYS 1.3,
shifting the focus from the Self to Rudra. Another notable expres-
sion is *anurudhyamānacittavṛttitvam* ('the state where all the activi-
ty of the mind is depleted'), qualifying *nityātmatvam*,<fnref n="55" /> which

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Cf. PBh ad 5.3, discussing the state of constancy (*nityatva*) of the Soul when the adept, having stilled the mind by modifying its link with the objects of per-</footnote>
recalls the *yogaś cittavyttinirodhaḥ* of YS 1.2. It implies that, while
yoga itself is not the stilling or cleansing of the mind, a
stilled/pure mind is a necessary condition for reaching libera-
tion.<fnref n="56" /> Further, the definition of the state ensuing from the cleans-
ing of the mind, i.e. aloneness (*ekatva*), intended as the separation
of the body from the Soul and so forth (cf. *ekah* in PS 5.39), calls
to mind the concept of liberation as absence of the connection
between *manas* and the Soul, which causes the non-manifestation
of a new body, expounded in VS 5.2.20. However, I wonder whe-
ther the expression also implies a reference to (or reuse of) the
Pātañjala Yoga concept of *kaivalya*, which, as we have seen above,
in the Pāśupata system seems to have been understood as a neces-
sary yet intermediate step in the process of attaining yoga or final
liberation as union with Rudra — the superiority of pāśupatayoga
lying in its theistic force.

It is tempting to regard the above-discussed kaleidoscope of
conceptual and terminological correspondences detected among
relevant passages of the PYŚ, the VS, the PS-*cum*-PBh, the early
*Skandapurāṇa*, and the RṬ as an instance of intertextuality span-
ning several centuries. Admittedly, it is often difficult to disentan-
gle the exact relationship between those correspondences and
echoes, not to mention the directionality of any actual borrowings
— for example, one may hypothesize that both the VS and the
PBh independently drew these concepts from a non-Pātañjala
Hairanyagarbha system of yoga (Harimoto 2021: 72), or some
kind of shared yogic milieu. However, it does not seem unreasona-
ble to propose that the PBh, while critiquing Sāṅkhya and
(Pātañjala) Yoga, might have had in mind the PYŚ. This is con-
sistent with the window proposed for the dating of the PBh to the
4th/5th c. CE, which is nearly coeval to the probable date of compi-
lation of the PYŚ (i.e. 325-425), and suggests that soon after its

ception and fixing it on God, is joined to Rudra: *tasmin nirvṛtte maheśvare yukto
nitya ity ucyate | ātmā iti kṣetrajñām āha,*[The Soul] is called “constant” when this
[object, i.e. God] has been achieved and one is united with the Great Lord. They
call “Soul” the knower of the field.́

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ This stance reflects a common trend in Śaiva definitions of yoga (see below), according to which a mind stilled/cleansed by way of (Pātañjala) yoga is a necessary yet not sufficient condition to reach release, being only capable of leading the adept to *kaivalya*.</footnote>
first diffusion this text had already started to be perceived as an
authoritative source in the Indic religio-philosophical discourse.
Further, the apparent similarities existing between the PYŚ and
the RṬ suggest that the latter text consciously reused the former
when formulating its own theistic soteriology.<fnref n="57" /> The fact that the
reuse of the PYŚ is more evident in the RṬ supports the view that
the status of the former text became increasingly important in
theistic milieus near the end of the first millennium CE.

5. Śaiva Saiddhāntika sources

In harmony with the Pāśupata scriptures and commentaries
discussed above, Śaiva sources of the tantric Mantramārga reflect
a thoroughly theistic understanding of the meaning and goal of
yoga. As many such definitions of yoga in Mantramārga scriptural
sources have been studied before,<fnref n="58" /> there is no need to delve into
them here. I would like to return, however, to a passage of the
Trika scripture *Mālinīvijayottara* (1.46–47) that describes a specific
form of initiation called yogadīkṣā:

yogadīkṣāṃ samāsādya jñātvā yogam samabhyaset |
yogasiddhiṃ avāpnoti tadante śāśvataṃ padam ||
anena kramayogena saṃprāptah paramaṃ padam |
na bhūyaḥ paśutām eti śuddhe svātmani tiṣṭhati ||

After receiving initiation into yoga and learning [the fundamen-
tals of] yoga, he should practise [it]. He will attain the perfection
of yoga and at its end the eternal state. By this sequence of events
the ultimate state is attained. One does not return into bondage
but abides in one's own pure self. (tr. Vasudeva 2004: 245)

Vasudeva (2004: 245) notes that yogadīkṣā is not a variety of initia-
tion commonly encountered in Śaiva scriptures, and argues that it
may reflect an originally Pāśupata method, for the compounds

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ Cf. Maas 2020: ‘Soon after its composition, the *Pātañjalayogaśāstra* was recognized widely as an authoritative exposition of Sāṃkhya philosophy.’ Elsewhere, Maas (2013: 66) proposes a slightly later timeframe: ‘the PYŚ was widely accepted to be the authoritative exposition of Yoga at the beginning of the seventh century.’</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ See, e.g., Brunner 1994; Vasudeva 2004; Mallinson and Singleton 2017: 19–23.</footnote>
yogadīkṣaḥ and yogadīkṣitaḥ occur in the Pāśupata inscription of Paldi (Udaipur).<fnref n="59" /> This may very well be the case, and yet the supreme state (*paramaṃ padam*) conceived of as the elimination of bondage and ‘abiding in one’s own pure Self’ (*śuddhe svātmani tiṣṭhati*) strikes me as similar to the Pātañjala yoga goal of isolation, as worded in YS 1.3, 2.25, 3.50, and 4.34. Thus, one may detect a terminological influence from the PYŚ,<fnref n="60" /> whether direct or via a PYŚ-influenced Pāśupata source. It goes without saying that the passage may have been formulated with a theistic background in mind: since the supreme state mentioned in the verse must reflect the goal of the Śaivas, abiding into one’s pure Self can only correspond to identity with the Lord, as per the non-dualist stance of the *Mālinīvijayottara*.

I will now discuss selected passages drawn from commentaries on the Yogapādas of Saiddhāntika scriptures by authors who, while still subscribing to Śaiva Śaḍaṅga Yoga, reveal an either implicit or explicit knowledge of Patañjali’s system. Whether their intent was polemic or neutral, those passages suggest that those authors, when characterizing Śaiva Yoga, considered the PYŚ an obligatory reference (counter)point.

An oft-quoted passage featuring a typically Śaiva definition of yoga as union with Śiva is the commentary by Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha on *Mṛgendratantra* YP 2a (*tadātmavattvaṃ yogitvaṃ*). In line with what we expect from the orthodox current of dualistic Śaiva Siddhānta espoused by Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, it is introduced by a statement and a quotation from the early Saiddhāntika work *Svāyambhuva-sūtrasaṅgraha* (Vidyāpāda [VP] 2.24) on the centrality of initiation (*dīkṣā*) as the sole means capable of bestowing liberation, defined as *niratiśayakaivalya*, i.e. isolation without superior.<fnref n="61" /> A translation by Sanderson runs as follows:

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Indeed, *yogadīkṣitaḥ* also occurs in PBh *ad* 1.9. A description of *yogadīkṣā* also constitutes the main subject of Paṭala 17 of the Saiddhāntika *Kālottarāgama*.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Cf. also the *śloka*-quarter *ātmani cetanaḥ sthitah* in the *Dharma Pātañjala* (quoted below, p. 61). It is perhaps not coincidental that another passage of the *Mālinīvijayottara* that deals with the propaedeutic role of initiation in the qualification for Śaiva Yoga has been shown to betray an influence from the PYŚ: cf. 4.6–8, referring to *sabīja* yoga, which corresponds to *sabīja samādhi* of YS 1.46 (Vasudeva 2004: 244).</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ *dīkṣaiva mocayaty ūrdhvaṃ śaivaṃ dhāma nayaty api* || *iti śruter dīkṣāyā eva nira-ṭiśayakaivalyāvāptihetutvāt*. A relatively early Saiddhāntika scripture that characterises</footnote>
tadātmavattvaṃ yogitvam | 2a

yujyate śivatvalakṣaṇayā svasvarūpābhivyaktyāvaśyam iti yogī | tasya bhāvo yogitvam ātmavattvāvinābhāvi | ata eva 'yujir yoge' ity asya dhātor yogaśabdo jñeyaḥ na tu 'yuja samādhau' iti | asya samādhirūpasya tadaṅgatveneṣṭatvāt ||

To have self-mastery [is] to be a yogin.

The term Yogin means ‘one who is necessarily conjoined with’ (¬√yuj) the manifestation of his nature[. A yogin], in other words, [is one who must experience] the Śiva-state (śivatvam). It is being a yogin [in this sense] that is the invariable concomitant of self-mastery. It should be understood, therefore, that the term Yoga derives its meaning not from √yuj ‘to be absorbed [in contemplation]’ but from √yuj ‘to join.’ This is supported by the fact that Yoga in the form of absorption (samādhiḥ) is taught [separately] as one of its auxiliaries. (tr. Sanderson *1999: 4)

Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha stresses the theistic nature of yoga by explicitly stating that *yuj* is to be understood as ‘union’ (rather than *samādhi*, as in the PYŚ), and this union is ‘unity of nature’ with the Lord; further, he explains that *samādhi* is one of the auxiliaries of yoga, thus implicitly critiquing the PYŚ’s view that *samādhi* is a synonym of yoga itself.<fnref n="62" /> Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha here is seemingly playing with words, for *tadātmavattvam* can mean both (in a general sense) ‘self-mastery’<fnref n="63" /> and (in a more specifically Śaiva sense) ‘to

<footnote>rizes the attainment of Śiva-ness as the goal of yoga (and not of initiation) is the *Sarvajñānottara* (Yogaprakaraṇa 30): ‘Having entered into that [state of unity with Śiva brought about by yoga], the knower of yoga visibly becomes Śiva, whose nature is immortality, who is omniscient, omnipervasive, subtle, the Lord of every thing and the all-doer’, *amṛtātmā śivaḥ sākṣāt tasmin viṣṭas tu yogavit* | *sarvajñāḥ sarvagaḥ sūkṣmaḥ sarveśaḥ sarvakṛd bhavet*. Aghoraśiva, commenting upon this passage, tries to bring it in line with the Saiddhāntika orthodoxy by identifying yoga as part of *dīkṣā*.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² Cf. Aghoraśiva’s gloss on *Sarvajñānottara*, *Yogaprakaraṇa 2: na tu pātañjalāder* [em.; *patañjalāder* ms.] *iva samādhirūpaṃ tasya yogāṅgatvena śruteḥ* [em.; *śrute* ms.].</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ As suggested by *jitākṣayopapadyate* ('It is accomplished by he whose senses have been controlled') in *pāda 2b*, and its gloss *jitendriyasya tv acirād eva svarūpalābhah* ('He whose senses have been controlled quickly obtains his essential nature'). Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha closes the passage with a quotation by Sanaka that echoes the definition of Yoga in the VŚ 5.2.16–17 (quoted above, n. 45): 'When a person has controlled his senses, their objects, the subtle elements, and his mind, he becomes free of all desire and dissolves into his ultimate identity' (*indriyā-ṇīndriyārthāṃśa ca tanmātrāṇi manas tathā* | *niyamya gatisaṅkalpaḥ paramātmani liya-</footnote>
Andrea Acri

possess one’s *ātman’: as pointed out by Brunner (1994: 428–429),
to understand the statement tadātmavattvam yogitvam we must
remember that, according to Saiddhāntika scriptures, ‘the es-
sence of any sentient being [...] is not different from Śiva’s own[;
...] to “possess one’s ātman” is therefore to have become like
Śiva.’⁶⁴ As Nārāyaṇakantha explains, the yogin is characterized by
Śiva-ness as the inevitable consequence of the manifestation of his
real nature (śivatvalakṣaṇayā svasvarūpābhivyaktyāvaśyam).
Abhivyakti is typically used in Śaiva texts as a technical term deno-
ting the ‘manifestation’ of the divine qualities or powers (for
instance, jñānaśakti and kriyāśakti) intrinsic to Śiva’s nature that
takes place in the liberated adept. Thus, one’s real nature is nei-
ther the isolated, pure Soul (untainted by guṇas and identification
with prakṛti), as the Pātañjala view would have it, nor the exclusive
union with Rudra, as the Pāśupatas would have it, but rather the
manifestation of the pure Soul’s intrinsic Śiva-ness, which
amounts to qualitative (but not numerical) sameness with Śiva.⁶⁵
Explicitly (and polemically) reinterpreting the sense of yuj against
the PYS’s understanding in the background,⁶⁶ the above-quoted
passage appears to constitute a manifesto of the superiority of the
Saiddhāntika ideal of yoga and its goal vis-à-vis the Pātañjala one.

te iti). Sanaka here may be one of the sons of Brahmā, also called Hairaṇya-
garbha, who was deemed to be the revealer of the yoga-themed treatise Dha-
rmaputrikā (Barois 2020: 12–13; 29 n. 55), and the promulgator of a non- or pre-
Pātañjala yogasāstra (Harimoto 2021: 72).

⁶⁴ Contrast the Pāśupata definition of yogitvam as the mind’s resting unique-
ly on the principle of Rudra (kevalarudratattvavasthiticittatvam) expounded in R&T
1.6ab.

⁶⁵ A nondualistic Śaiva definitions of yoga as identity (i.e., both qualitative and numerical sameness) with the Lord is found, e.g., in Kṣemarāja’s *Uddyota* on *Svacchandatantra* 6.45cd: [...] *yogaṃ tadaikātmyaṣrāptim*, ‘[...] yoga is the attainment of identity with that.’

⁶⁶ Analogous reinterpretations are found in Rāmakaṇtha's *Malaṅgavṛtti*, introduction to YP 1.7 mentioning the auxiliaries (*atha kaścid 'yuja samādhāv' iti dhātvarthānusāreṇa 'yogaḥ samādhir' iti bhrāntyā manyate pātañjalabhāṣyakāra iti*); and in Aghoraśiva's commentary on *Sarvajñānottara*, *Yogaprakaraṇa* 1.2 (*ata eva yujīr yoga* [em.; yujin yoga eva ms.] *ity asmād dhātor yogaśabdah, na tu yuja samādhāv iti*). As pointed out above (n. 33), since neither the *Yogasūtrabhāṣya* nor Bhoja's *Rājamārthaṇḍa* make an explicit reference to the rejected etymology of yuj in the sense of 'connection' (and the latter does not homologize *yoga* to *samādhi*), the commentary that Rāmakaṇtha had in mind was probably the *Tattvavaiśāradī* by Vācaspatimiśra (*ad* PYŚ 1.1): see Creisméas 2015: 90.
I will now turn to a passage by the Saiddhāntika exegete Rāma-
kaṇṭha (II), Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha’s son. In his commentary to the YP of
the *Mataṅga*, this author mentions Pātañjala Yoga several times,
mainly to criticize its philosophical and soteriological positions.<fnref n="67" />
At the very outset, he specifies that the form of yoga explained in
the Tantra is the Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga, not the Aṣṭāṅga Yoga of Patañjali
and others,<fnref n="68" /> and concludes in the following manner:

uttamaś cāyam pātañjalādigītayogavidhibhyaḥ, asya vaksyamāṇana-
yenātmayogatayā tebhyo buddhiyogebhyaḥ prakṛṣṭatvam yataḥ | 1.1

Further, this [yoga taught in the Tantra] is superior (uttamaḥ) to
the yogic methods of the treatises of Patañjali etc., for it is preemi-
nent compared to those yogas of the intellect (buddhiyogebhyaḥ) by
virtue of being the yoga of the Soul (ātmayogatayā), following the
method that is going to be expounded.

Here Rāmakaṇṭha assigns a higher position to the Śaiva Yoga
taught in the *Mataṅga* with respect to the yoga taught by Patañjali
by using *buddhi* as a synonym of *citta*, which is the soteriological ful-
crum of the PYŚ, so as to contrast it to the notion that the fulcrum
of Śaiva Yoga is the *ātman*, which is ultimately a Śiva. An analogous
point seems to be adumbrated by Aghoraśiva when commenting
on *Sarvajñānottara, Yogaprakaraṇa* 1.1, to defend the superiority of
Śaiva Yoga vis-à-vis Pātañjala Yoga: ‘This [yoga] purifies the Soul,
not the mind, as the followers of Patañjali maintain, because the
yoga of Śiva causes the manifestation of omniscience and so forth’
(puruṣasyaivāyaṃ saṃskārako na tu pātañjalānām<fnref n="69" /> iva cittasyety
arthaḥ, śivayogasya sarvajñatvādiprakāśakatvāt<fnref n="70" />).<fnref n="71" />

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ For a thorough analysis of Rāmakaṇṭha’s commentary, see Creisméas 2015.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ *Mataṅgaśāramēśvaravṛtti* YP 1.1: *sa cāyam ṣaḍaṅgo vidhir asmiṃs tantre, na tv aṣṭāṅgo vidhir yathā pātañjalādividhiṣv [pātāñjalādividhiṣv ms.]* abhihitah.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ Em.; *na _ tamjalānām iva* ms.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Em.; *sarvajñatvādiprakāśakāt* ms.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ A similar hierarchizing view, according to a lower position to Pātañjala Yoga with respect to Śaiva soteriology, is the distinction between ‘pervasion of the Self’ (*ātmavyāpti*) and ‘pervasion of Śiva’ (*śivavyāpti*) made by Kṣemarāja in his commentary on *Svacchandatantra* 4.387–390, 433–434. As noted by Torella (2019: 651), *ātmavyāpti* ‘corresponds to the state of *kaivalya*, sought by the followers of the Sāmkhya and Pātañjala yoga, in which “the self becomes aware of its own form having overcome the identification with the bonds” (IV.434ab pāśāvaloka-nam tyaktvā svarūpālokanam hi yat).’ This forms an intermediate step that should not be pursued by the yogin seeking the ultimate *śivavyāpti*.</footnote>
The division between higher (i.e., internal and subtle) and lower (i.e., external and coarse) yoga is expounded in *Matañga* VP 1.2–5, which declares that the latter causes extreme suffering (*atīvaduḥkhadaḥ*) and is only necessary to cleanse the mind of the yogin. Having done so, he realizes the establishment (*avasthānam* ... *vyaktim āyāti*) of the subject in its own nature, by virtue of the yoga’s function as an auxiliary. As noted by Créismeas (2015: 89), here we find a possible reuse of the key term *avasthānam* found in YS 1.3, but in a Śaiva sense. In his commentary, Rāmakaṇḍha unpacks his critique of Pātañjala Yoga, as well as his reorientation along Śaiva lines, by explaining that the *buddhiyoga* is produced by confusion (*bhrānti*), as its adepts believe that the Self has no agency (cf. *niṣkriyaḥ puruṣaḥ*, PYŚ 1.9), whereas in reality it is the supreme agent and knower. Further, the depletion of the mind’s activity (*cittavṛttinirodha*, an obvious reference to the yoga of the PYŚ), while cleansing (*apamārjana*) the mind, actually produces extreme suffering (*atiduḥkhada*), hindering as it does the manifestation of the innate powers of knowledge and action (*sarvajñakartṛtva*).

For Rāmakaṇḍha, the status of Pātañjala Yoga as an auxiliary (aṅga) — as opposed to the preeminence of Śaiva Yoga, accomplished through visualizations (bhāvanā) and a relation (sambandha)<fnref n="72" /> with the Lord (*Mataṅgavṛtti ad* YP 1.4–5) — implies that it can only allow the adept to reach the intermediary state of *pralayakevalin* ('isolated by final dissolution'). This term is found in several post-scriptural Saiddhāntika sources, sometimes along with that of another category of semi-liberated Souls, the *vijñānakevalin* ('isolated by knowledge'). For the Śaivas, a *kevalin* is not, as in Pātañjala Yoga, one who is isolated from *prakṛti* and *puruṣa*, but one who is separated from some (but not all) the bonds — for instance, the *guṇas*, as in Pātañjala Yoga — fettering the individual non-liberated Soul.<fnref n="73" /> The intermediate position of the *kevalin* is in

<footnote n="72">⁷² Compare *Mataṅgavṛtti* YP 1.10d–11ab, which defines the relation between the meditator and the meditated (i.e., the Lord) as *sthiti* ('maintenance' or 'fixation'), which in its turn amounts to yoga (*dhyeyasya dhyeyarūpatayā dhyātuśa dhyātṛrūpeṇa yā sthitih, sa eva yogah sambandhas tayoḥ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Saiddhāntika sources (e.g., *Svāambhuvasūtrasaṅgraha* VP 1.5, *Kiraṇa* VP 1.23, *Suprabhedāgama* 3.53, etc.) list *kevala* ('isolated') as an intermediary state of the Soul between the bound experiencer (*sakala, bhoktṛ*) and the liberated through initiation (*amala, śuddha*). See below, n. 76.</footnote>
harmony with the one accorded by the Śaivas to Pātañjala Yoga,
and suggests an intentional reuse of the climactic word of the lat-
ter system along inclusivistic lines.

6. Old Javanese Śaiva sources

While the most widespread form of yoga documented in Sanskrit-
Old Javanese Śaiva literature from Java and Bali is the tantric
Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga,<fnref n="74" /> Aṣṭāṅga Yoga was by no means unknown. Besides
the hybrid lists of auxiliaries attempting to bridge Ṣaḍaṅga and
Aṣṭāṅga Yoga mentioned above, such as the one in the *Tattva-
jñāna*, including the six *aṅgas* of Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga plus *āsana*, we find
fragments of Pātañjala Yoga doctrines interspersed within other-
wise thoroughly Śaiva texts that uphold Ṣaḍaṅga Yoga. For in-
stance, a cluster of verses in the *Jñānasiddhānta* (ch. 19.5–7) — one
of which finds a parallel in the *Kiraṇatantra* — defining the cate-
gories of individual Souls and the climax of liberation as becom-
ing the Spotless Śiva echoes Pātañjala Yoga ideas, and a termino-
logy that may be traced to the PYŚ (see Acri 2011; 2021: 278).<fnref n="75" /> The
definition of the mind (*citta*) projected towards liberation as śu-
ddhasūkṣmasvayambhogī ‘pure, subtle, experiencing itself only’ in v.
6 echoes the characterization of the state of *kaivalya* found in YS
1.3, 3.55, etc. Further, the triadic repartition of the conditions of
the Soul (*sakala*, *kevala*, and *śuddha*) that is commonly found in
Saiddhāntika sources is reinterpreted in the commentary to v. 5,<fnref n="76" />
which declares that the condition of impurity (*malinatva*) means
that the mind (*citta*) is not separated from the three constituents,

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ See, for example, a widespread verse listing the six *aṅgas* in Sanskrit-Old Javanese Śaiva *tutur* and *tattva* texts, which has parallels in several Siddhāntatantras (see Table 19.1 in Acri 2021: 277). Those Old Javanese sources appear to have inherited their Śaiva Yoga system from relatively early Saiddhāntika texts that were in circulation in the Archipelago, such as the *Mataṅga*, the *Kālottara*, and the *Kiraṇa*.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ E.g., PYŚ 1.15–16, 1.24, 2.27, and 4.34. A clear echo is the mention of *saṃya-ma* in v. 7 (cf. PYŚ 3.4) as leading to liberation, as well as lower dispassion (*vāhyavairāgya* [a spelling variant of *bāhyavairāgya*]), higher dispassion (*paravairāgya*), and fixation on God (*īśvarapraṇidhāna*); the couplet *vāhyavairāgya* and *paravairāgya* correspond to *apara-* and *para-vairagya* in Yogasūtrabhāṣya 1.15–16, while *īśvarapraṇidhāna* occurs in YS 2.45.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ sakalaḥ kevalaḥ śuddhas tryavasthaḥ puruṣaḥ smṛtaḥ | malinatvacittamokṣaḥ kalpyate nirmalaḥ śivaḥ (≈ Kiraṇatantra VP 1.23; cf. above, n. 73).</footnote>
thereby indicating the state of bound Soul. This viewpoint may
reflect an archaic doctrinal status quo, in which Saiddhāntika
ideas around stain (*mala*) had not yet been codified. Of course, it
is also possible — perhaps more likely — that this reflects a rela-
tively late attempt to attune Śaiva and Pātañjala Yoga ideas.<fnref n="77" />

What is by far the most significant Old Javanese source for our
knowledge of Pātañjala Yoga in the Archipelago is the *Dharma
Pātañjala*, a scripture presenting a detailed exposition of the doc-
trinal and philosophical tenets of the form of Śaiva Siddhānta that
was prevalent in Java (Acri 2017). It devotes a long section (about
one-third of its length), which it calls *yogapāda* in the manner of
Sanskrit Siddhāntatantras, to Pātañjala Yoga. This section appa-
rently follows the first three chapters of the PYŚ, either inter-
weaving a few Sanskrit verses from an untraced versified recension
of the *sūtras* with an Old Javanese commentary, or directly render-
ing into Old Javanese what might have been a likewise unknown
Sanskrit commentary. Although the prose section often bears a
strong resemblance to the arrangement and formulation of the
topics treated in the PYŚ, it occasionally diverges from the com-
mentary, either by presenting specific doctrinal details that are
found in other (sub-)commentaries, or by adding seemingly origi-
nal elements that are as yet unattested elsewhere. Being shaped by
an eminently theistic agenda, and imbued with Śaiva tenets, the
*Dharma Pātañjala* aims at attuning Pātañjala Yoga (and philoso-
phy) to Śaiva yoga (and philosophy). The author’s priority was
apparently to present a synthetic account of the most important
doctrinal points and practical techniques of Pātañjala Yoga, and
reformulate them in an idiom that was consonant with the local
Śaiva theological milieu. It seems, therefore, relevant for the pre-
sent enquiry to analyze some pertinent passages below.

At its very outset, before the start of the Yoga section, the
*Dharma Pātañjala* stresses the soteriological importance of *samā-
dhi*, along the lines formulated in the PYŚ, but charges the term

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ A relatively late transmission of the prototypical source of v. 19.5 of the *Jñānasiddhānta* to the Indonesian Archipelago is suggested by the fact that the second line of the verse found in the *Kiraṇa* is only preserved in South Indian manuscripts but not in Nepalese ones, and it is also absent from Rāmakanṭha’s commentary (Goodall 1998: 221, n. 188).</footnote>
with a theistic connotation.<fnref n="78" /> The goal of absorption, the *summum bonum* (*paramārtha*), is indeed explained in v. 1 and its Old Javanese exegesis as the supreme aspect of the Lord Śiva (194.19–196.7). In the Yoga section, the text makes an attempt to reinterpret the *kaivalya* state of the Self (as per the Pātañjala Yoga definition) as the Śaiva *summum bonum*, intended as the manifestation of the divine powers of the Lord in the practitioner, who thereby becomes identical to Śiva. Whereas *sūtras* 1.2 and 1.3 of the PYŚ define *samādhi* and *kaivalya*, respectively, the *Dharma Pātañjala* (298.2–4) echoes *sūtras* 1.3 and 4.34 in reply to a question about what is the absorption of the yogin like in order to become one with the Lord, where the free-standing *śloka*-quarter *ātmani cetanaḥ sthitah* defines the state of *samādhi*.<fnref n="79" /> Having been conflated with *kaivalya*, it is glossed as the state where the mind is left behind by the Self and the *yogin* obtains the state of supernatural prowess, united with the Lord:

> Consciousness rests in the soul — The mind disappears. The mind is left behind in the Holy Soul. That is what closely adheres to the Lord. This kind of absorption will be met by the yogin endlessly. That is the reason why the state of supernatural prowess is met by him.<fnref n="80" />

The expression *kavəkas tekaṇ citta ri saṇ hyaṇ ātmā* renders the concept of *kaivalya*. Even if the Śaivas did not regard isolation as the final goal of yoga, the text seeks to attune it to the Śaiva idea of liberation.

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ Dharma Pātañjala (194.11–13): ‘Right knowledge is not within reach if there is no absorption. The absorption not coming into being, the *summum bonum* is not known, for the obtainment of the *summum bonum* is the result of performing absorption’ (*tātan vənaṇ samyajñāna, yatan hana samādhi, ikaṇ samādhi tan dadi ikā tan kīnavruhan saṇ hyaṇ paramārtha, apan kapaṅguhan saṇ hyaṇ paramārtha doniṇ samādhi ginavayakəṇ*).</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ See also *pāda 2d* in v. 2 (290): *cittavṛttinirodhākhyah | yogah paramadurlabhah | tasmin yoge samārabdhe | svayam ātmā prakāśate ||*, ‘What is called the cessation of the functions of the mind is yoga, extremely difficult to achieve. Having undertaken that yoga, the Soul itself [alone] shines forth’; compare YS 1.2 (*yogaś cittavṛttinirodhah*) and PYŚ 4.34 (*tadā svarūpapratiṣṭhah puruṣah*).</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ *ātmani cetanaḥ sthitah* — *hilaṇ* [em.; *hiliṇ* ms.] *ikaṇ citta*, *kavəkas tekaṇ citta ri saṇ hyaṇ ātmā*, *ya tekā rumakət ri bhaṭāra*, *lana pvekaṇ samādhi maṅkana kapaṅguhānya de saṇ yogi*, *ya mataṅnyan kapaṅguh ikaṇ kasiddhyan denira*.</footnote>
Another attempt to define *samādhi* according to a theistic agen-
da is found in 196.8–14:

Your representation of the *summum bonum*, that is what you
[should] imagine during day and night. 'Paramount' is the name
of insight, its characteristics are of one level with the *summum bonum*. This is the reason why 'absorption' is what is constantly
practiced by him who desires the supreme pleasure, for that is
what is designated as 'release.' There is the absorption toward the
*summum bonum*: that leaves behind the latent impressions in the
mind. That is called 'right knowledge,' as distinct from the 'wrong
knowledge.'<fnref n="81" />

Here *samādhi* is equated with a salvific kind of knowledge (*sa-
myajñāna*) and regarded as essential for attaining supreme plea-
sure (*sukha viśeṣa*), i.e. release. The statement that the characteri-
stics of insight (*prajñā*), seemingly attributed to the yogin, are of
one level (*samapada*)<sup>82</sup> with the *summum bonum* (*paramārtha*), an
expression that is used in the text as a synonym of the Supreme
Śiva, may refer to the Lord’s qualities of omniscience and omnipo-
tence, which constitutes a departure from the Pātañjala view.

A polemic on the role of *citta* in yoga may be hinted at in
290.10–13, where the Lord, having declared that the true nature of
the Soul is met only when yoga is performed (*yan apa yan kapaṅguh
jāti saṅ hyaṅ ātmā, yan ginavayakāṇ ikaṅ yogātah*), dispels an objec-
tion related by his son Kumāra as to the experiencing of the Soul
even without performing yoga:

Kumāra:

Whether yoga be performed or not, the Soul is still experienced
by us.

[The Lord]

That which you call [Soul] is by no means the Soul: that is the

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ Ikaṅ hidōpta ri saṅ hyaṅ paramārtha, ya ta inaṅōnaṅōnta ri rahineṅ vōṅi, lōvih pva ṅaraniṅ prājñā, samapada lakṣaṇanya lāvan saṅ hyaṅ paramārtha, ya ta mataṅnyan samādhi ṅaranikaṅ inabhyāsa saṅ mahyun ri sukha viśeṣa, apan yekā sinaṅguh kalōpasan ṅaranya, hana pvekaṅ samādhi ri saṅ hyaṅ paramārtha, ya ta mamōkasakōn sañaskāra riṅ citta, ya ta sinaṅguh samyajñāna ṅaranya.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² This expression could actually be a corruption for *sapaḍa*, ‘being the same,’ or the separate words *sama paḍa*, if this were the case, the meaning would remain unchanged.</footnote>
‘mind’. The reason why it is designated as ‘mind’ is because it has the same object (*ekaviṣayanya*) [of perception as the Soul]. That is the reason why only the mind is experienced by him.<fnref n="83" />

The Lord observes that since both have the same object of perception, what is experienced or perceived (*kahidəp*) by the opponent (in the state of *kaivalya*) is just the mind, not the Soul. The implications of the passage seem to be that the mind should not be confused with the Soul,<fnref n="84" /> and that stillness or dispassion of the mind alone, belonging to the realm of cognitive absorption, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the attainment of the final goal of yoga.<fnref n="85" /> Indeed, in 294.15–22 the text critiques those who deem the stillness of the mind to be yoga and absorption, for those beings who obtain it are not liberated, but become the categories of lords of yogins known as ‘disembodied’ (*videha*) and ‘dissolved in prakṛti’ (*prakṛtilīna*).<fnref n="86" /> Stillness or clarity of mind is, therefore, a means, and should not be confused with its end, as the opponent seems to do. This point is remindful of the perspective upheld by Rāmakaṇṭha when commenting on *Mataṅga* YP 1.1 and 1.3, and by Aghoraśiva when commenting on *Sarvajñānottara* Yogaprakaraṇa 1, to defend the preeminence of Śaiva Yoga (the yoga of the Soul) over Pātañjala Yoga (the yoga of *buddhi*, probably intended as a synonym of *citta*).

<footnote n="83">⁸³ Tan kagavaya ikaṇ yoga kahidəp tah saṅ hyaṅ ātmā de mami, tamatan ātmā ikā liṅta, yekiṅ citta ṇaranya, mataṅnyan sinaṅguh citta, apan ekaviṣayanya, ya mataṅnyan citta juga kahidəp denya. Here I have arranged this passage slightly differently from the printed edition, taking the Lord’s reply to start from tamatan.</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ That the issue was regarded in Java as one worthy of being problematized is suggested by the presence of a similar theme in the Sanskrit-Old Javanese Śaiva text Vṛhaspatitattva (35.18–19), where Vṛhaspati asks the Lord about the characteristic of the Soul in the body, ‘for it is difficult to understand the difference between the mind and the Soul’ (*apan ivəh ikaṇ citta lavan ātmā bhedanya*).</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ This view is in harmony with that of Rāmakaṇṭha, according to whom the yoga of Patañjali constitutes a mere cleansing of the mind, which is propaedeutic to the higher Śaiva yoga: see *Mataṅgavṛtti* on YP 1.2–4, 3.5–6.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ Dharma Pātañjala 294.14–17: ‘It is not right to designate the stillness of the mind as yoga, for there are the lords of yogins “disembodied” and those “dissolved into unevolved matter”’ (sumahur saṅ para, vruh ta kami ikaṇ sinaṅguh yoga ṇaranya, apan sabarinyān hənañ ikaṇ citta, ya ta samādhi ṇaranya, yan kva liṅa saṅ para, tan yogya ikaṇ hənañni citta, saṅguhən yoga, apan hana sira yogiṣvara videha lāvan prakṛtilīna).</footnote>
Andrea Acri

Overall, the *Dharma Pātañjala* is not overtly polemical towards Pātañjala Yoga — in fact, it does not even mention Pātañjala Yoga as a (separate) system, let alone Patañjali<sup>87</sup> —, but rather expounds Pātañjala Yoga within a Śaiva framework.<sup>88</sup> As I have mentioned above, this attempt to (silently) attune Śaiva yoga to Pātañjala yoga appears to be especially significant in Śaiva scrip- tures composed or (re)compiled in the Indian subcontinent at a relatively late date (i.e. after the 9<sup>th</sup> or 10<sup>th</sup> c.). Thus, the attitude documented in Old Javanese sources may reflect, besides the eclectic attitude of Javanese authors, the rising status of Patañjali’s yoga in the medieval Indic world.

## 7. Conclusion

In contrast to the understanding upheld by such non-theistic (or marginally theistic) systems as Pātañjala Yoga and Vaiśeśika, which regard yoga and its ultimate goal as, respectively, isolation and the establishment of the Soul in itself and as a special connection bet- ween the *manas* and the Soul, Śaiva sources emphasize the theistic element by framing yoga and liberation in the sense of union be- tween the Soul and the Lord. This sense is formulated in slightly different ways by distinct Śaiva traditions, depending on the exact nature of the relationship that they envisage between the indivi- dual Soul and the Lord.

The Śaiva definitions constitute a departure from Pātañjala Yoga insofar as they emphasize the theistic element; and yet, de- spite the critical stance upheld by Śaiva authors towards Pātañjala Yoga, one may note a dialectic relationship between those tradi- tions, as well as a significant intertextuality. While the commonali- ty of themes detected in the sources presented in this article highlights a ‘shared register’ in the domain of soteriology and

<footnote n="87"><sup>87</sup> The title of the text possibly documents a conflation between the figure of Pātañjala, intended as an incarnation of Śiva (probably a synonym of Agastya), which is widespread in Old Javanese literature, and the Patañjali of the PYS, who is never mentioned as such in Old Javanese literature.</footnote>

<footnote n="88"><sup>88</sup> This framework does not conform to the ‘orthodox’ Siddhānta, for an important doctrinal feature of the *Dharma Pātañjala*, which is also reflected in the majority of Old Javanese Śaiva texts, is the view that liberation can be obtained through yoga and not initiation (*dīkṣā*).</footnote>
yoga that could be the outcome of a gradual evolution and diffe-
rentiation of a core of ‘pre-classical’ ideas found in both non-theis-
tic and theistic systems, the gradual rise of status of the PYŚ during
the medieval period and its influence on the authors of both
revealed scriptures and commentaries can hardly be denied.
Elaborating on the parallels between the yoga-influenced sūtras of
the VS, Wezler (1982: 666) remarked that ‘the theory and practice
of yoga had in the meantime become so important and widely
accepted that it was deemed a serious defect of any school of
thought not to include it in its own tradition.’ Adapting these com-
ments to the present case study, I should like to suggest that the
mainstream Śaiva attitude towards Pātañjala Yoga was shaped by,
and responded to, the rise in importance of this system during the
medieval period, so much so that it was deemed a serious flaw not
to engage with it — and sometimes even not to include it in one’s
own tradition.

The instances of intertextuality and reuse identified above, as
well as the references — whether polemical or not — to Pātañjala
Yoga found in the works of medieval Śaiva exegetes, show that the
Pātañjala system assumed a paradigmatic role in the medieval
Indian religio-philosophical discourse as the most authoritative
system of Yoga not long after its composition. The important sta-
tus of Pātañjala Yoga across the wider Indic world may also be e-
vinced from the progressive influence of this system on post-10th-
c. South Indian Śaiva Siddhāntika sources, which substitute the
six auxiliaries of Śaḍaṅga yoga with the eight auxiliaries of
Aṣṭaṅga yoga, as well as on possibly coeval Sanskrit-Old Javanese
Śaiva sources.

Bibliography

Primary sources

Ajitāgama (Kriyāpāda)

Ajitāgama, ed. N.R. Bhatt. Pondichéry: Institut Français d'Indologie, 1964.

Aṣṭaprakaraṇa

Aṣṭaprakaraṇam, ed. V. Dvivedī. Varanasi: Sampurnananda Sanskrit University, 1988.
Andrea Acri

Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati by Īśānaśiva (YP)

Īśānaśivagurudeva Paddhati of Īśānaśiva Gurudeva, Vol. 4, ed. T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1990 [Trivandrum 1925].

Kālottaratantra

IFP paper transcript (Devanāgarī) T0059, copied from ms. GOML No. R14343 (Madras).

Kiraṇatantra (VP 1–6)

See Goodall 1998.

Gaṇakārikā

GK Gaṇakārikā of Ācārya Bhāsarvajñā with the Ratnaṭīkā and four appendices, ed. C. D. Dalal. Baroda: Oriental Institute of Baroda, 1966 [1920].

Jñānasiddhānta

Ed and tr. by Haryati Soebadio. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971.

Jñānasiddhyāgama

IFP paper transcript (Devanāgarī) T0178, copied from ms. GOML No. R16810 (Madras).

Tattvajñāna

Tattwajñāna and Mahājñāna, ed. and Hindi tr. Sudarshana Devi-Singhal. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1962.

Tattvavaisśāradī by Vācaspatimiśra

Pātañjalayogadarśanam: Vācaspatimiśraviracita-tattvavaisśāradī-vijñāna-bhikṣukṛta-yogavārtikavibhūṣita-vyāsabhāṣyasametam, sṛīnārāyaṇamiśre-na ṭippaṇīpariśiṣṭādibhiḥ saha sampaditam. Varanasi: Bhāratiya Vidyā Prakāśan, 1982 [1963].

Tantrāloka by Abhinavagupta

The Tantrāloka of Abhinava Gupta; With Commentary by Rājānaka Jaya-ratha, ed. Madhusudān Kaul Śāstrī. 12 Vols. Allahabad/Bombay/Srinagar, 1918–1938.

Tātparyadīpikā by Kumāradeva on the Tattvaprakāśa by Bhojadeva

See Aṣṭaprakaraṇa.

Tirumantiram by Tirumular

Tirumantiram. A Tamil Scriptural Classic by Tirumular. Tamil Text with English Translation and Notes by Dr. B. Natarajan. Mylapore, Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math, no date (1991?).

Dharma Pātañjala

See Acri 2017.

Netratantra

Netratantra with the commentary (Nadroddyota) of Rājānaka Kṣemarāja, Vols. 1 and 2, ed. Madhusūdan Kaul Śāstrī. Bombay, 1926, 1939.
From Isolation to Union

Pañcārthabhāṣya by Kaundinya

PBh See Pāśupatasūtra.

Paramokṣanirāsakārikās by Sadyojyotis

See Watson, Goodall, and Anjaneya Sarma 2013.

Pātañjalayogaśāstra

PYŚ See Yogasūtra.

Pāśupatasūtra

PS Pasupata Sutras with Pancarthabhashya of Kaundinya, ed. R. Ananta-krishna Sastri. Trivandrum: The Oriental Manuscript Library of the University of Travancore, 1940.

Makuṭāgama

IFP paper transcript (Devanāgarī) T0274, copied from a manuscript belonging to Srisvāminathaśivacarya, Tiruvāvatuturai.

Mataṅgapārameśvaratantra: Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (Kriyāpāda, Yogapāda et Caryāpāda), avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, ed. N.R. Bhatt.

Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry, 1982.

Mataṅgapārameśvaravṛtti (YP) by Rāmakaṇṭha

See Creisméas 2015.

Mālinīvijayottaratantra

See Vasudeva 2004.

Mṛgendratantra (YP)

Śrī Mṛgendra Tantram (Vidyāpāda and Yogapāda) with the Commentary of Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shāstrī. Srinagar, 1930.

Yogasūtras by Patañjali

YS Yogasūtram by Maharṣipatañjali; With Six Commentaries. Edited with Notes by Nyāyāchārya Kāvyatīrtha Paṇḍit Dhundhirāj Śāstrī. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1930.

Yogasūtrabhāṣya

See Yogasūtra.

Ratnaṭikā by Bhāsarvajña

RṬ See Gaṇakārikā.

Rājamārtaṇḍa of Bhoja

See Yogasūtra.

Vṛhaspatiatttva

Wṛhaspati-tattwa; An Old Javanese philosophical text, ed. and tr. Sudarshana Devi. Nagpur: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1957.
### Vaiséşikasūtra

VS Vaisesikasūtra of Kaṇāda with the Commentary of Candrānanda, ed. by Muni Sri Jambuvijayaji. Baroda, 1961.

### Sarvajñānottara (Yogaprakaraṇa)

[1] 'Sarvajñānottarāgamaḥ vidyāpāda and yogapāda, ed. by K. Ramachandra Sarma and revised by R. Thangaswami Sarma.' Adyar Library Bulletin 62 (1998): 181–232.

[2] cf. Sarvajñānottaravṛtti.

### Sarvajñānottaravṛtti by Aghoraśiva (Yogaprakaraṇa)

Sarvajñānottaravṛtti (Yogaprakaraṇam), IFP paper transcript (Devanāgarī) T0985, copied from a paper ms. belonging to the Sarasvati Mahal Library, Tanjore, Vol. No. 500.

### Śāradātilakatantra (YP)

Ed. and tr. by Gudrun Bühnemann in 'The Śāradātilakatantra on Yoga: A New Edition and Translation of Chapter 25.' Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 74, 2: 205–235.

### Suprabhedāgama

Published by the Devīkoṭaparipālanasaṃgha. Devakottai, 1931.

### Skandapurāṇa (early)

Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍa, ed. by Kṛṣṇaprasād Bhaṭṭarāi. Kathmandu: Mahendrasaṃskṛtaviśvavidyālayaḥ, 1988.

### Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṅgraha (Vidyāpāda 1–4.7)

Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṅgrahaḥ: Vidyāpādaḥ Sadyojyotiṣkṛtaṭīkāsahitaḥ / The Tantra of Svayambhū: Vidyāpāda with the Commentary of Sadyojyoti, ed. and tr. P.-S. Filliozat. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts/Motilal Banarsidass, 1994.

### Secondary sources

#### Acri, Andrea

2011 'Re-configuration of Divinity in Old Javanese Śaiva texts from the Indonesian Archipelago (with special reference to Jñānasiddhānta, Chapter 19).' In Travaux du Symposium International « Le livre. La Roumanie. L'Europe ». Troisième édition, Tome III, pp. 546–565. Bucarest: Bibliothèque de Bucarest.

2017 Dharma Pātañjala: A Śaiva Scripture from Ancient Java Studied in the Light of Related Old Javanese and Sanskrit Texts. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. [1st ed. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 2011]

2021 'Yoga and Meditation Traditions in Insular Southeast Asia.' In Suzanne Newcombe and Karen O'Brien-Kop (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Yoga and Meditation Studies, pp. 273–290. Abingdon/ New York: Routledge.
Barois, Christèle

2020 'The Dharmaputrikā Samhitā: Preliminary Notes on an Early Text on Yoga.' *Journal of Yoga Studies* 3: 5–76.

Bhandarkar, R.G.

1913 *Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and Minor Religious Systems*. Strassburg: Trübner.

Birch, Jason and Jacqueline Hargreaves

2016 'The Yamas and Niyamas: Medieval and Modern Views.' *Yoga Scotland* 50 (May): 36–39.

Bisschop, Peter

2006 'The Sūtrapāṭha of the Pāśupatasūtra.' *Indo-Iranian Journal* 49: 1–21.

Bronkhorst, Johannes

1985 'Patañjali and the Yoga Sūtras.' *Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik* 10: 191–209.

Brunner, Hélène

1994 'The Place of Yoga in the Śaivāgamas.' In Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, C. P. Bhatta, and S. P. Narang (eds.), *Pandit N. R. Bhatt Felicitation Volume*, pp. 425–461. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Creisméas, Jean-Michel

2015 'Le yoga du *Mataṅgapārameśvaratantra* à la lumière du commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakanṭha.' Unpublished PhD Thesis, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris 3.

Freschi, Elisa and Philipp A. Maas

2017 'Introduction: Conceptual Reflections on Adaptive Reuse.' In E. Freschi and Ph. A. Maas (eds.), *Adaptive Reuse: Aspects of Creativity in South Asian Cultural History*, pp. 11–24. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Gonda, Jan

1963 *Die Religionen Indiens, II, Der jüngere Hinduismus*. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.

Goodall, Dominic

1998 *Bhaṭṭa Rāmakanṭha's Commentary on the Kiraṇatantra, Vol. 1*. Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry.

2004 *The Parākhyatantra. A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta. A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation*. Pondichéry: IFP/EFEO.

Grönbold, Günter

1996 *The Yoga of Six Limbs: An Introduction to the History of Śaṅgaṅgayoga*. (Tr. from German by R.L. Hutwohl). Santa Fe: Spirit of the Sun Publications.

Hara Minoru

2002 *Pāśupata Studies* (ed. by Jun Takashima). Vienna: Sammlung de Nobili, Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde.
Harimoto, Kengo

2014 *God, Reason and Yoga: A Critical Edition and Translation of the Commentary Ascribed to Śāṅkara on Pātañjalayogaśastra* 1.23–28. Hamburg: Department of Indian and Tibetan Studies, Universität Hamburg.

2021 ‘How Yoga became Yoga: Yoga and Meditation up to the Classical Period.’ In Suzanne Newcombe and Karen O’Brien-Kop (eds.), *Routledge Handbook of Yoga and Meditation Studies*, pp. 65–79. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

Larson, Gerard James

1999 ‘Classical Yoga as Neo-Sāmkhya: A Chapter in the History of Indian Philosophy.’ *Asiatische Studien/Étudesasiatiques* 53: 723–732.

2008 ‘Introduction to the Philosophy of Yoga.’ In G. J. Larson and R. S. Bhattacharya (eds.), *Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Volume XII. Yoga: India’s Philosophy of Meditation*, pp. 21–159. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

2009 ‘Differentiating the Concepts of “yoga” and “tantra” in Sanskrit Literary History.’ *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 129: 487–498.

Lorenzen, David N.

1991 *The Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas. Two Lost Śaivite Sects.* New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [1st Edition 1972]

Maas, Philipp A.

2013 ‘A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy.’ In Eli Franco (ed.), *Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy: Twelve Lectures Held at the Fourteenth World Sanskrit Conference (Kyoto, September 1–5, 2009)*, pp. 53–90. Wien: Verein Sammlung de Nobili, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Indologie und Religionsforschung, Institut für Sūdasien–Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde.

2020 ‘Pātañjalayogaśastra.’ In Knut A. Jacobsen et al. (eds.), *Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online*.

Mallinson, James

2011 ‘Hātha Yoga.’ In *Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism*, Vol. 3, pp. 770–781.

2014 ‘Hāṭhayoga’s Philosophy: A Fortuitous Union of Non-Dualities.’ *Journal of Indian Philosophy* 42: 225–247.

Mallinson, James and Singleton, M.

2017 *Roots of Yoga: A Sourcebook from the Indian Traditions*. London and New York: Penguin Classics.

Matilal, Bimal K.

1977 *Nyāya-Vaiséṣika: A History of Indian Literature*, vol. 6, fasc. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Monier-Williams, Monier

1899 *Sanskrit-English Dictionary*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Preisendanz, Karin

2011 ‘Vaišeśika.’ In Knut A. Jacobsen et al. (eds.), *Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism*, Vol. 3, pp. 699–718. Leiden: Brill.

Oberhammer, Gerhard

1964 ‘Pakṣilasvāmin’s Introduction to His Nyāyabhāṣyam.’ *Asian Studies* 2: 302–322.

Sanderson, Alexis

*1999 ‘Yoga in Śaivism: The Yoga Section of the Mṛgendratantra. An Annotated Translation with the Commentary of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyanakaṇṭha.’ Downloaded from www.academia.edu.

*2004 ‘The Yoga of Dying. The Śaiva Atimārga. Week 5 Handout, 9 November 2004.’ Downloaded from www.academia.edu.

2014 ‘The Śaiva Literature.’ *Journal of Indological Studies* 24–25 (2012–13): 1–113.

Sferra, Francesco

2000 *The Ṣaḍaṅgayoga by Anupamarakṣita with Raviśrijñāna’s Guṇabharaṇī-nāmaṣaḍaṅgayogaṭippanī. Text and Annotated Translation.* Roma: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente.

Torella, Raffaele

2000 ‘The Svabodhodayamañjarī, or how to suppress the mind with no effort.’ In Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler (eds.), *Harānandalaharī. Studies in Honour of Prof. Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday*, pp. 387–410. Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag für Orientalistische Fachpublikationen.

2019 ‘Abhinavagupta’s Attitude towards Yoga.’ *Journal of the American Oriental Society* 139, 3: 647–660.

2020 ‘Abhinavagupta as an Aristocrat.’ In Vincent Eltschinger, Vincent Tournier, and Marta Sernesi (eds.), *Archaeologies of the Written. Indian, Tibetan, and Buddhist Studies in Honour of Cristina Scherrer-Schaub*, pp. 845–857. Naples: Università di Napoli ‘L’Orientale.’

Vasudeva, Somadeva

2004 *The Yoga of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra. Chapters 1–4, 7, 11–17.* Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry / École française d’Extrême-Orient.

2017 ‘The Śaiva Yogas and Their Relation to Other Systems of Yoga.’ *RIN-DAS Series of Working Papers: Traditional Indian Thought* 26 (March).

Wallis, Christopher

2016 ‘The Śaiva Religion and its Philosophy in Context, Part Two: Shaivism’s Sources And Influences.’ *Sutra Journal* (online).

Watson, Alex, Dominic Goodall and S.L.P. Anjaneya Sarma

2013 *An Enquiry into the Nature of Liberation: Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇtha’s Paramo- kṣanirāsakārikāvṛtti, A Commentary on Sādyojyotih’s Refutation of Twenty Conceptions of the Liberated State (mokṣa), for the First Time Critically*
*Edited, Translated into English and Annotated.* Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry/École française d'Extrême-Orient.

Wezler, Albrecht

1982 'Remarks on the Definition of “yoga” in the Vaiśeṣikasūtra.' In Luise Anna Hercus *et al.* (eds.), *Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on His 60th Birthday*, pp. 643–686. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies.

1984 'On the Quadruple Division of the *Yogaśāstra*, the *Caturvyūhatva* of the *Cikitsāśāstra* and the “Four Noble Truths” of the Buddha (Studies in the *Pātañjalayogaśāstravīvaraṇa 2*).' *Indologica Taurinensia* 12: 289–337.

Zigmund-Cerbu, Anton

1963 'The Ṣaḍaṅgayoga.' *History of Religions* 3: 128–134.
# ‘Verità e bellezza’
## Essays in Honour of Raffaele Torella
Series Minor

XCVII.1-2

Direttore

Francesco Sferra

Comitato di redazione

Riccardo Contini, Martin Orwin, Junichi Oue,
Roberto Tottoli, Giovanni Vitiello

Comitato scientifico

Anne Bayard-Sakai (INALCO), Stanisław Bazyliński (Facoltà teologica S. Bonaventura, Roma), Henrietta Harrison (University of Oxford), Harunaga Isaacson (Universität Hamburg), Barbara Pizziconi (SOAS, University of London), Lucas van Rompay (Duke University), Raffaele Torella (Sapienza, Università di Roma), Judith T. Zeitlin (The University of Chicago)

Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo
Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”

UniorPress
Napoli
2022
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI NAPOLI “L’ORIENTALE”
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

Series Minor

XCVII.1

# ‘Verità e bellezza’
## Essays in Honour of Raffaele Torella

Edited by
Francesco Sferra and Vincenzo Vergiani

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

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

UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE

SIVADHARMA
PROJECT

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

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

UniorPress
Napoli 2022
Volume pubblicato con contributi

- del Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo (Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”),

- della Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies (University of Cambridge),

- e del Progetto ERC n. 803624: «Translocal Identities. The Śiva-dharma and the Making of Regional Religious Traditions in Premodern South Asia».

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

UniorPress

UniorPress - Via Nuova Marina 59, 80133 Napoli

ISBN 978-88-6719-209-0

Tutti i diritti riservati

Stampato in Italia

Finito di stampare nel mese di settembre 2022

Officine Grafiche Francesco Giannini & Figli S.p.A.

Via Cisterna dell'Olio 6B, 80134 Napoli

Tutti gli articoli pubblicati in questo volume sono stati sottoposti al vaglio di due revisori anonimi.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Raffaele Torella</figcaption></figure>
# Table of Contents

## Volume I

Preface.................................................................................. 13

Foreword.................................................................................. 19

Main Publications of Raffaele Torella.................................. 25

**Andrea Acri**
*From Isolation to Union: Pātañjala vis-à-vis Śaiva Understandings of the Meaning and Goal of Yoga.................................................. 35*

**Lyne Bansat-Boudon**
*The Surprise of Spanda: An Aesthetic Approach to a Phenomenology of Transcendence (Rāmakaṇḍha ad Spandakārikā 2.6 [1.22/22])........................................................................ 73*

**Bettina Sharada Bäumer**
*Kṣemarāja’s Poetic Non-Dualism: Examples from his Netratantroddyota.................................................. 103*

**Giuliano Boccali**
*Lectio difficilior e creazione poetica: esempi dal Kumārasambhava.. 115*
Johannes Bronkhorst

<table><tr><td><i>The Sarvadarśanasamgraha: One Text or Two?</i><br/><i>One Author or Two?</i></td><td>129</td></tr></table>

Maria Piera Candotti and Tiziana Pontillo

<table><tr><td><i>The dīkṣita's Language. Vedic Homologies and rūpakas in Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa 2.60–64</i></td><td>153</td></tr></table>

Daniele Cuneo and Elisa Ganser

<table><tr><td><i>The Emotional and Aesthetic Experience of the Actor. Diderot's Paradoxe sur le comédien in Sanskrit Dramaturgy</i></td><td>193</td></tr></table>

Marzenna Czerniak-Drożdżowicz

<table><tr><td><i>Viṣṇu in his Three Abodes. Some Observations about Three-storey and Triple-shrined Viṣṇu Temples in South India</i></td><td>273</td></tr></table>

Florinda De Simini

<table><tr><td><i>Rules of Conduct for the Śaivas. The Intersection of Dharmaśāstra and Śaiva Devotion in the Śivadharmottara</i></td><td>291</td></tr></table>

Vincent Eltschinger

<table><tr><td><i>Politics and/in the End of Times. On the Buddhist Reception of the Arthaśāstra</i></td><td>337</td></tr></table>

Marco Ferrante

<table><tr><td><i>The Pratyabhijñā on Consciousness and Self-consciousness: A Comparative Perspective</i></td><td>375</td></tr></table>

Giuseppe Ferraro

<table><tr><td><i>'Own-nature' (svabhāva) in the Abhidharma Tradition and in Nāgārjuna's Interpretation</i></td><td>391</td></tr></table>

Marco Franceschini

<table><tr><td><i>The Printing History of Sargas 9 to 17 of the Kumārasambhava</i></td><td>411</td></tr></table>

Eli Franco

<table><tr><td><i>Prajñākaragupta on Pramāṇavārttika 2.1 in the Light of Yamāri's Interpretation</i></td><td>433</td></tr></table>
Table of Contents

Elisa Freschi
*Reconstructing an Episode in the History of Sanskrit Philosophy: Arthāpatti in Kumārila's Commentators*.................................................... 457

Paolo Giunta
*Il rapporto di Śāntarakṣita con Bhartṛhari. Edizione critica della Śabdabrahmaparīkṣā e dello Sphoṭavādakhaṇḍana*................................. 487

Dominic Goodall
*A Glimpse of Classical Saiddhāntika Theology in a Cambodian Epigraph: A Fresh Edition and Translation of the Sanskrit Śaiva Hymn K. 570 of Banteay Srei*.................................................................... 543

Alessandro Graheli
*Predestination of Freedom in Rūpa Gosvāmin's Theology of Devotion*.................................................................................... 577

Kengo Harimoto
*A Few Notes on a Newly Discovered Manuscript of the Śivadharma Corpus 1*.................................................................................... 595

Harunaga Isaacson
*Vasiṣṭha's Ashram: A Translation of Sarga 1 of Kālidāsa's Raghuvamśa into English Verse*.................................................... 627

Volume II

Mrinal Kaul
*A Preliminary Note on the Manuscripts of the Tantrālokaviveka*.................................................... 679

Yohei Kawajiri
*A Report on the Newly Found Manuscript of the Īśvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti*.................................................... 751

Chiara Neri
*A Phenomenology of Dreams in Theravāda Buddhism: An Annotated Translation of the Tenth Chapter of the Sārasaṅgaha by Siddhattha Thera*.................................................... 773
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Cristina Pecchia<br>With the Eye of a Scholar and the Insight of a Physician:<br>Gangadhar Ray Kaviraj and the Carakasaṁhitā</td>
      <td>797</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Gianni Pellegrini<br>On prahasann iva. Bhagavadgītā 2.10 in the Light of Traditional Commentaries</td>
      <td>841</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Stefano Piano<br>Qualche riflessione sui diversi tipi di ṣadaṅgayoga</td>
      <td>901</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Cinzia Pieruccini<br>Transition and Transformation: On the Roles of Parks and Gardens in Early India</td>
      <td>913</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Isabelle Ratié<br>Some Hitherto Unknown Fragments of Utpaladeva's Vivṛti (IV): On Non-being and Imperceptible Demons</td>
      <td>929</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Antonio Rigopoulos<br>Prahasann iva. On Kṛṣṇa's Hint of Laughter in Bhagavadgītā 2.10</td>
      <td>965</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Margherita Serena Saccone and Péter-Dániel Szántó<br>A Fragment of Pramāṇa from Gilgit</td>
      <td>1011</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Małgorzata Sacha<br>Imagine the world... Abhinavagupta vis-à-vis the Psychoanalytic Mystic</td>
      <td>1025</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Alexis Sanderson<br>The Meaning of the Term Trairūpyam in the Buddhist Pramāṇa Literature</td>
      <td>1049</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Cristina Scherrer-Schaub<br>D'impronte e ombre tra India e Grecia. Questioni e visioni di storia del pensiero politico e filosofico tra il V e il II secolo a.C.</td>
      <td>1063</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Table of Contents

<table><tr><td>Francesco Sferra<br><i>The Second Chapter of the Abhidharmasamuccayakārikā<br>by Saṅghatrāta</i></td><td>1145</td></tr><tr><td>Federico Squarcini<br><i>Ecce yoga. Il miraggio del nome, il fantasma della salute<br>e la concomitanza delle ‘cose’ qualsiasi</i></td><td>1167</td></tr><tr><td>Ernst Steinkellner<br><i>Śāntarakṣita on the Induction Problem. A Translation<br>of Vādanyāyaṭīkā 14,12–16,29</i></td><td>1223</td></tr><tr><td>Lidia Sudyka<br><i>Imagined Landscapes or Through the Year: The Descriptions of All<br>Seasons and All Seasons’ Gardens in Indian Literature</i></td><td>1237</td></tr><tr><td>Vincenzo Vergiani<br><i>Vivakṣā and the Formation of Meaning According to Bhartṛhari</i></td><td>1253</td></tr><tr><td>Alex Watson<br><i>Pratyabhijñā: Recognition’s Nature, Cause and Object.<br>Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of a Portion<br>of the Nyāyamañjarī</i></td><td>1325</td></tr></table>