AMARAUGHAPRABODHA: NEW EVIDENCE IN THE TRANSMISSION HISTORY OF AN EARLY MANUSCRIPT ON HAṬHA AND RĀJA YOGA
AMARAUGHAPRABODHA: NEW EVIDENCE IN THE TRANSMISSION HISTORY OF AN EARLY MANUSCRIPT ON HAṬHA AND RĀJA YOGA
Author: Jason Birch
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London
Full article available here тут
“There are different kinds of Yantra Yoga; the one we practice is called Nyi-da Kha-jor (nyi-zla kha-sbyor), which means the union of the solar and lunar energies.
The method of practicing this form of Yantra is contained in an authentic text written in the eighth century by Vairocana, one of Padmasambhava’s most eminent disciples and a great Dzogchen master. After traveling to Uḍḍiyāna, Vairocana translated the Dzogchen teachings from the language of Uḍḍiyāna into Tibetan. He was a great expert in both Dzogchen and Tantra. His principal teacher was Padmasambhava, one of the most important figures in Tibetan Buddhism. All schools recognize him as the master who introduced Vajrayāna teachings into Tibet and regard him as one of the first teachers of Dzogchen. It was from him that Vairocana received the teachings of Tantra, the path of transformation, as well as certain Dzogchen teachings.
The main goal is not merely to make the body more flexible, because these are not simply physical exercises. The foundation of Yantra Yoga, or any authentic teaching, is to attain understanding of one’s own condition, one’s own state of being. In yogic teachings it is generally said that every person exists as three aspects. These three aspects belong to all of us, regardless of whether we believe in a religion, believe in something else, or believe in nothing at all.
The first aspect is the physical body. Every day we eat and drink, and every night we sleep. If we go without sleep for a couple of nights, we become irritable; if we do not eat or drink, other problems arise. This means that we depend on our condition. Usually we are aware of our physical existence—we talk about it and must take it into account.
Another aspect, even more important, is the aspect of energy, or what in yoga is called prāṇa, the vital force. If a person’s life-force is unbalanced or disturbed, more serious problems arise than merely physical ones. Human beings possess body, speech (or energy), and mind. Together these three aspects constitute the living individual. This is true for everyone, whether they believe in anything or not.
If we know the condition of our own being, then even when problems arise, we can overcome them. In yoga in general, and in Yantra Yoga in particular, we work with all three aspects of our existence, not only with the physical body. It is very important to know that the aspect of mind exists. If a person understands this, the only way to attain a calm and peaceful state of mind is to know how to relax.
This is exactly what we do in yoga: the way we use the body and various movements serves to coordinate energy and, in particular, to influence the mind. By coordinating energy, we ultimately achieve a calm state of mind. If the mind is calm, everything becomes easier, because the mind is the principal aspect.
It is said that the mind is like a lame rider who cannot walk on foot—meaning that he depends on his horse. The horse is our energy. When energy conditions the mind, many disturbances can arise. In yoga, for example, it is said that the horse is blind. Just as a blind horse cannot find the road without a rider, our vital energy is helpless if it is not coordinated with the activity of the mind. The mind depends on energy, but energy also depends on the mind. Thus, by governing our energy, we can govern the mind.
A lame rider can ride a blind horse and make it turn right or left. But if someone stops the horse, the rider also stops. Nevertheless, it is clear that the principal aspect is the mind—the rider.
Yoga, and especially Yantra Yoga, concerns not only the physical aspect but above all the mind. Many people say, “I like to meditate.” Yet they may not know what meditation actually means, or they may think that meditation is simply relaxation, a brief rest. In reality, meditation means discovering a state beyond conflicts and problems. The principle of yoga and of all yogic practices is primarily to attain that state.
Both the Hindu tradition and Buddhist Tantra contain many forms of yoga, but the principle of yoga is always the same: to understand one’s own being and work with it in order to attain a state beyond all problems.
As for the Yantra Yoga that we practice, many people ask what kind of yoga it is and whether it resembles the Haṭha Yoga of the Indian tradition or prāṇāyāma (the practice of prāṇa, or life-energy). In fact, Yantra Yoga is used for contemplation. Contemplation means realizing one’s own perfection.
We do not live in the state of the nature of mind. Although the nature of mind exists, we always live within our limitations, within dualistic vision. If we ask someone how they are doing, we may hear “good” or “bad.” Yet the very fact that we ask how someone is doing already implies dualistic vision. It assumes that the person is either doing well or not. My question has already conditioned the answer, which must be either “good” or “bad.”
We always live in this dualistic state. Living in duality is not a mistake—it is our only possibility, because we know no alternative. In fact, if we hear about something that is neither good nor bad, we have no idea what is being referred to. To have some third concept is very difficult; at most we can imagine something neutral, but we do not even know what that truly means.
Such is the level of our mind, characterized by dualistic judgments and temporal limitations. In reality, if we are limited by time, we are also limited by judgments. What, then, does it mean to be beyond judgments?
In the Yantra Yoga that we practice, there are five principal types of breathing exercises. Essentially, these five methods work toward realizing the state of the nature of mind and making it stable—that is, introducing karmic breath into the central channel, which symbolizes the state of contemplation.
A practitioner who abides in the state of contemplation does not suffer from disturbances such as unbalanced energy. This is precisely why, in order to harmonize the aspect of energy, we engage in breathing practices in Yantra Yoga.
What does the word “yantra” mean? It means “movement,” or in Tibetan, trul khor (’phrul ’khor). In this system, movements are in fact more important than postures. When we perform different movements, even the condition of the breath changes. Breath is connected with the functioning of prāṇa. Therefore, if we wish to regulate prāṇa, we must do so through movement.
The principle of Yantra is the principle of movements used to balance prāṇa and also to influence the mind. In reality, there is no such thing as controlling the mind; there is only the state of contemplation, where no control exists. Control of the mind is merely a temporary means.
One should understand that there is a state beyond control that must be realized, but this depends on our circumstances—from the existence of body, speech, and mind all the way to the nature of mind itself. “Nature of mind” sounds like a beautiful phrase, but for us it means almost nothing so far, because we are unfamiliar with its true meaning. For example, if we know what the mind is, then when the nature of mind is mentioned we simply think, “Yes, the nature of mind.”
Many people think, “I am not a spiritual person at all; meditation does not interest me.” It does not matter whether you are religious, whether you consider yourself spiritual, or not. Anyone who is interested in life, anyone who recognizes themselves as a living being, a human being, will understand what meditation is as soon as they discover it through their own experience.
The point is not whether you are spiritual or not, and it is not necessary to practice meditation or become a follower of any school or tradition. On the contrary, I think it is very important to understand your life clearly and to go beyond fascination with this or that teacher. Whatever the teaching may be, it is important to think less about the teaching itself and more about yourself.”
Amaraughaprabodha is a yoga text of the Śaiva tradition written in Sanskrit and attributed, according to the manuscript evidence, to Gorakṣanātha. The work was first published by Kalyani Devi Mallik in 1954, and it is this publication that has been discussed in various scholarly sources. In particular, Christian Bouy (1994, pp. 18–19) regards this work as the source text for Svātmārāma’s Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā (which dates to the mid-fifteenth century).
This article examines newly discovered manuscript evidence relating to a version of the Amaraughaprabodha that is shorter than the one published by Mallik. A comparison of variant readings in the short and long recensions shows that the shorter recension possesses a more coherent structure and appears closer to the original conception of the work. The close relationship between the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha and the eleventh-century Vajrayāna yoga text Amṛtasiddhi provides a unique opportunity to understand how the earliest teachings on Haṭhayoga were formulated. Although the practical techniques (physical practices) described in both texts differ very little, the author of the Amaraughaprabodha removed or concealed Vajrayāna terminology, introduced Śaiva metaphysical concepts, and placed Haṭhayoga in a subordinate position relative to the Śaiva form of yoga more commonly known as Rājayoga.
On the basis of its close relationship with the Amṛtasiddhi, the imperfect state of this recension, and the likelihood that Svātmārāma used the shorter rather than the longer recension when composing the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā, this article proposes that the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha is probably the earliest known work in which Haṭhayoga is discussed alongside Rājayoga.
INTRODUCTION
The yoga teachings set forth in the Sanskrit work Amaraughaprabodha (literally, “Awakening to the Stream of Nectar”) are traditionally attributed to Gorakṣanātha, the presumed founder of the Nātha tradition and of the physical discipline of yoga known as Haṭhayoga. A transcript of one manuscript containing this text was first published by Kalyani Devi Mallik in 1954. The manuscript contains seventy-five verses and has been dated to the mid-fifteenth century (according to Bouy (1994, pp. 18–19) and others), on the basis that Svātmārāma, the author of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā, borrowed material from it (Bouy, 1994, p. 19).
The aim of the present article is to reassess these conclusions in light of recently discovered manuscript evidence indicating the existence of two recensions of the Amaraughaprabodha: a longer recension, published by Mallik, and a shorter recension preserved in two unpublished manuscripts. Analysis of the manuscript transmission and of the differences between the two recensions shows that the shorter recension is older and was probably the version used by Svātmārāma.
The imperfect structure of the text and its close relationship to the Amṛtasiddhi, an eleventh-century Vajrayāna work, suggest that the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha is very likely one of the earliest known works to teach a fourfold system of yoga that combines Haṭhayoga and Rājayoga. The conclusion of this article discusses the significance of these findings for the broader history of yoga.
PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO DATE THE TEXT
According to Bouy’s earlier study of the Amaraughaprabodha based on Mallik’s edition (Bouy, 1994, p. 19), twenty-two and a half verses of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā were borrowed from the Amaraughaprabodha. Since Svātmārāma does not cite any sources for his work, Bouy demonstrated that the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā is an anthology and suggested that Svātmārāma borrowed a number of verses from the Amaraughaprabodha (Bouy, 1994, pp. 80–86). The logic of this borrowing implies that the Amaraughaprabodha must have been composed before the middle of the fifteenth century.
Bouy (1994, p. 19) also notes that the title Amaraughaprabodha is mentioned in the Upāsanāsārasaṃgraha, which he dates to the sixteenth or seventeenth century (Bouy, 1994, p. 91). This provides a more secure, though later, terminus for dating the text.
Mallinson (2016) identified at least five verses from the Amaraughaprabodha in the eleventh-century Amṛtasiddhi. In addition, in the recension of the Amaraughaprabodha published by Mallik, we have identified a borrowed verse from the second chapter of the Amanaska (Birch, 2011, p. 528), a text that can be dated to the eleventh or early twelfth century (Birch, 2014, p. 406, n. 21), as well as a verse from the Dattātreyayogaśāstra, which dates from approximately the thirteenth century.
There is also a verse attributed to the Śrīsampuṭa and a short passage from the Amaraughasaṃsiddhi. These borrowings suggest that the Amaraughaprabodha in Mallik’s edition is a compilation whose source material included the Dattātreyayogaśāstra, while the Śrīsampuṭa and Amaraughasaṃsiddhi remain relatively little-known works.
These observations led to the hypothesis advanced in an earlier publication (Birch, 2011, p. 528) that the Amaraughaprabodha was probably compiled in the fourteenth century, since it must have been composed after the earliest texts on Haṭha and Rājayoga and before the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā. The discovery of new manuscript evidence now requires these conclusions to be reconsidered.
AUTHORSHIP
Among the earliest modern publications to discuss the Amaraughaprabodha in detail are the first volume of the University of Madras’s New Catalogus Catalogorum (1949) and Mallik’s edition (1954). Both attribute the work to Gorakṣanātha. Prior to these publications, the Amaraughaprabodha was not included among the lists of works attributed to Gorakṣanātha by modern scholars (see, for example, Briggs, 1938, pp. 251–257; Dvivedī, 1950, pp. 98–100), nor was it mentioned in studies of the Nāth tradition (e.g., Dasgupta, 1946, pp. 219–294).
Nevertheless, the Amaraughaprabodha appears in later bibliographies (e.g., Banerjea, 1962, pp. 26–28; Gonda, 1977, p. 222, n. 28, etc.) and scholarly studies (e.g., Bouy, 1994, pp. 18–19; White, 1996, p. 141, etc.). Gorakṣanātha is regarded as the author of the work on the basis of a statement found on the final page of the manuscript used by Mallik for her edition, which reads: “The Amaraughaprabodha, composed by the noble Gorakṣanātha, is completed.” Similar colophons accompany all available manuscripts.
The text was probably attributed to Gorakṣanātha because he is mentioned in three verses (2, 65, and 74). In two verses at the beginning and end of the text (2 and 74), it is stated that Gorakṣanātha taught four kinds of yoga, which constitute the principal subject matter of the work:
“Gorakṣanātha taught this awakening, which is self-validating, to those engaged in Laya Yoga and the other [forms of yoga], and who possess a penetrating intellect. […] The venerable Gorakṣanātha, constantly abiding in samādhi, taught Laya Yoga, Mantra Yoga, and Haṭha Yoga solely for the attainment of Rāja Yoga.”
It is likely that the scribe who added the attribution to Gorakṣanātha interpreted these statements as evidence that Gorakṣanātha was speaking about himself in the third person. However, these verses may also be understood as statements made by an author belonging to the Gorakṣanātha tradition who, being within that lineage, believed that the teachings of the Amaraughaprabodha were first revealed by Gorakṣanātha. Therefore, these verses do not constitute conclusive proof that Gorakṣanātha was the actual author.
Nevertheless, the text was composed within a religious milieu associated with the Śaiva Siddhānta tradition. This is evident from the opening verse, which pays homage to Ādinātha, Mīnanātha (i.e., Matsyendranātha), Cauraṅginātha, and Siddhabuddha, and also from other passages throughout the work in which Śiva is explicitly mentioned.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BETA-HYPARCHETYPE OF THE AMARAUGHAPRABODHA FOR THE HISTORY OF YOGA
The close relationship between the beta-hyparchetype of the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi (or perhaps an earlier recension of the Amṛtasiddhi) provides a unique opportunity to understand the period in which the earliest teachings of Haṭhayoga were formulated.
Unlike the early texts on Haṭha and Rāja Yoga, the Amṛtasiddhi contains detailed and substantial theoretical explanations of the principles underlying practice. These teachings appear to have been intended for esoteric Buddhists who had abandoned deity-yoga practices. As will be shown below, the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha borrowed and modified only selected portions of the Amṛtasiddhi, omitting much of its theory in the process and introducing new ideas in order to create a system of Haṭhayoga that would appeal to Śaivas.
Furthermore, perhaps because of this sparse use of doctrinal and metaphysical material, the yoga presented in the Amaraughaprabodha became more accessible to followers of other religious traditions.
The Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha is a concise presentation of the practice of the three mudrās and the four stages of yoga, closely resembling the corresponding material in the Amṛtasiddhi. The contents of the Amaraughaprabodha are largely based on nine of the thirty-six chapters of the Amṛtasiddhi.
Despite these shared chapters, a major difference between the two works is that in the Amṛtasiddhi the descriptions of the mudrās and the stages of yoga are preceded by extensive chapters on the theory and metaphysics that underpin the practice.
In the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha, metaphysical concepts such as the sun, moon, and fire are mentioned only in passing. There is no theory of matter (prakṛti), mind, or the five bodily winds. In the chapters of the Amṛtasiddhi that follow the discussion of the three mudrās, numerous supernatural powers and effects generated by these practices are enumerated, yet almost all of this material was omitted by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha.
Consequently, it may be observed that if the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha indeed used the Amṛtasiddhi as a source, he radically simplified the Haṭhayoga section during the editing process, focusing almost entirely on physical practice and the attainment of its corresponding results. This tendency is characteristic of other early Haṭhayoga works as well.
Because the bodily techniques that came to define Haṭhayoga were transmitted across different traditions, the theoretical framework underlying them remained minimal and open to syncretism. The compiler had to reconcile systems that were not originally compatible.
The compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha did not eliminate all Buddhist terminology and theory. Terms that Śaivas could readily understand in a yogic context—such as mahāmudrā, ānanda, and śūnya—were retained, largely because they had already appeared in earlier Śaiva works. Other terms that could be understood in a more general sense, such as vimarda (“trembling”) and vicitra (“variegated” or “manifold”), were likewise preserved.
However, when these terms appear in the Amṛtasiddhi, they function within the specifically esoteric Buddhist framework of the four blisses, moments, and emptinesses.
Moreover, certain terms that entered the Amṛtasiddhi probably through Rasaśāstra—such as vedha, māraṇa, and puṭa—were retained by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha, perhaps because their meanings were already known outside the sphere of esoteric Buddhism.
The basis for classifying the Amaraughaprabodha as a Śaiva text lies not only in its attribution to Gorakṣanātha, but also in the presence of verses throughout the introduction and the sections devoted to Mantra Yoga, Laya Yoga, Haṭha Yoga, and Rāja Yoga that explicitly mention Śiva, Śakti, or the liṅga.
Although the compiler combines terminology and metaphysical concepts derived from the Amṛtasiddhi, the explicit references to Śiva, Śakti, and the liṅga clearly establish the Śaiva orientation of the work.
A particularly striking example is the penultimate verse of the introduction, in which the central Amṛtasiddhi concepts of the sun and moon are reinterpreted so as to become part of the goal of uniting Śiva and Śakti in the region above the brahmarandhra (the aperture at the crown of the skull):
“When the lord of thoughts becomes motionless, and the sun fully enters the path of Meru (that is, the Suṣumṇā); when its fiery condition increases, the moon gradually dissolves, swiftly filling the body; when the flood of bliss grows ever stronger and the darkness of delusion—such notions as ‘yours’ and ‘mine’—recedes; and when the aperture of the skull opens, there arises the extraordinary and unprecedented union of Śiva and Śakti.”
The verse cited above combines the metaphysics of the Amṛtasiddhi with that of the early Śaiva traditions. The movement of the sun into the central channel (Meru) is mentioned in a passage of the Amṛtasiddhi (4.5–10), where the process of uniting the sun and moon is described.
According to the Amṛtasiddhi, the goal of yoga is to prevent the sun from consuming the nectar of the moon. However, instead of preserving the nectar within the lunar region, the verse quoted above presents a different idea: that the moon melts and fills the body, presumably with nectar.
The concept of filling the body with nectar for the purposes of purification and rejuvenation is found in early Siddhānta works, including the Kiraṇa and the Mṛgendratantra (Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, 2000, vol. 1, p. 138).
The verse concludes with the union of Śiva and Śakti rather than the union of the sun and moon. The association of Śakti—or, more precisely, Kuṇḍalinī—with nectar may not have been new to the Śaivas, since the notion of nectar-like Kuṇḍalinī (kuṇḍalī) appears in the Tantrasadbhāva, a Śākta scripture dating from before the tenth century (Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, 2000, vol. 1, p. 136). Furthermore, Kuṇḍalinī is associated with nectar (amṛta) in the pre-tenth-century Siddhānta work Sārdhatriśatikālottara (12.1–2). There is also the earlier Śaiva text Jayadrathayāmala, which mentions a mudrā practice (karaṇa) that releases nectar and thereby brings about the union of Śiva and Śakti.
Although the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha corresponds most closely to the yoga described in the Amṛtasiddhi, key passages introduce Śaiva terminology and metaphysics in order to create the impression that this is a specifically Śaiva form of yoga. To demonstrate this, and to address other issues concerning the relationship between these two texts and the Śaiva conception of Haṭhayoga, we shall compare the descriptions of Mahāmudrā and its results in both works.
In the Amaraughaprabodha, Mahāmudrā is described as follows:
“Pressing the perineum with the left foot and holding the extended right leg firmly with both hands, [the yogin] should breathe through the mouth. Applying the throat lock, [the yogin] should retain the breath upward. When a snake is struck with a stick, it becomes straight like a stick; in the same way, the coiled Śakti known as Kuṇḍalinī suddenly straightens. Then she abides within the vessel having two halves and remains in a state resembling death. Great sufferings and other afflictions, including obstacles such as death, are eliminated. For this reason the wisest call [this mudrā] the ‘Great Seal’ (Mahāmudrā).”
When this description of Mahāmudrā in the Amaraughaprabodha is compared with that found in the Amṛtasiddhi, it becomes clear that both texts describe the same technique, but some details differ and the stated results are entirely different. The Amṛtasiddhi (11.3–11.10) states:
“Gently pressing the perineum with the heel of the left foot, [the yogin] should firmly grasp with both hands the right foot of the extended leg. Pressing the thighs against the seat, placing the chin upon the chest, closing the nine gates [of the body], filling the abdomen with breath, he should direct his mind, focus upon the crossroads [of the currents (?)] and bring the breath under control. Having interrupted the flow of the moon and the sun, he should arrest the breath. This promotes the digestion of impurities and assimilates the seed and the inner sound vibrations, causes prāṇa to move through all the channels, and kindles the fire [within the body]. The union of body, speech, and mind, and mastery over body, speech, and mind, certainly arise through the practice of [this mudrā] by a yogin advanced upon the path. Through this mudrā all auspicious attainments will surely arise in the yogin. Therefore this great mudrā should be practiced diligently. Among all mudrās, this one is supreme and self-sufficient. For that reason the foremost sages call it the ‘Great Seal.’ Through it death may be restrained. Therefore its practice is always beneficial. This yogic device (yantra) is performed by one whose mind is concentrated.”
When these two passages are placed side by side, the most obvious difference is that the Amaraughaprabodha is more concise and employs different syntax and terminology. In addition, the Amaraughaprabodha contains the extra instruction that the yogin should breathe through the mouth, while omitting several other details, such as the instruction to focus the mind upon the crossroads (catuḥpatha).
These significant textual variations raise the question of whether the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha used the Amṛtasiddhi itself, or some other source (currently unknown), when editing the Haṭhayoga section.
If the source was indeed the Amṛtasiddhi, then the compiler radically abbreviated and altered its description of Mahāmudrā. Some additions and omissions may be regarded as variations or explained as reflecting alternative views of the practice.
However, it is more difficult to explain why the compiler would have reduced the Amṛtasiddhi description to the form found in the Amaraughaprabodha. Indeed, it seems both possible and quite likely that the Amaraughaprabodha preserves an older and less developed description of yoga than the Amṛtasiddhi.
It is also possible that this earlier work served as a source text for the Amṛtasiddhi, since the latter contains verses shared with the Amaraughaprabodha. Even if the teachings on Haṭhayoga in the Amaraughaprabodha derive from a text older than the Amṛtasiddhi, that original source must have been composed within a Vajrayāna milieu, because the Amaraughaprabodha clearly preserves remnants of the distinctive Vajrayāna system of the four blisses, moments, and emptinesses.
Thus, the most significant change introduced by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha into the description of Mahāmudrā was the insertion of Śaiva metaphysics in the form of Kuṇḍalinī.
In the Amaraughaprabodha, Mahāmudrā is effectively compared to a stick used to strike a snake. Mahāmudrā is like the blow of a stick upon the coiled Kuṇḍalinī, forcing her to straighten. Such notions of force, as well as the metaphysics of Kuṇḍalinī itself, are absent from the Amṛtasiddhi.
It therefore appears that, for the Śaivas, the concept of force (haṭha) in Haṭhayoga consisted in the powerful effect of practice upon Kuṇḍalinī. This understanding probably extended to the overall purpose of the three mudrās, namely to compel Kuṇḍalinī and prāṇa to ascend through the central channel and “pierce” the three knots (granthis).
References to similar forceful actions directed at apāna-vāyu, semen, and Kuṇḍalinī can be found in other early Haṭhayoga texts and, in our view, provide the clearest indication of the intended meaning of Haṭhayoga during the formative period of this yogic tradition (Birch, 2011, pp. 544–545).
Results of the Practice
In both the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi, alchemical terms from Rasaśāstra such as jāraṇa (“digestion”) and cāraṇa (“assimilation,” “mastery,” or “absorption”) are used to describe the benefits of Mahāmudrā practice.
According to the description in the Amaraughaprabodha, pressing the perineum and applying the throat lock (bandha) appear to create something resembling an alchemical vessel composed of two halves or lids (dvipuṭa). Presumably, this vessel becomes the central channel after it has been sealed above and below through the application of the locks. These locks then enclose and retain Kuṇḍalinī in a state resembling death (maraṇāvasthā).
Although the precise meaning of maraṇāvasthā remains unclear in the context of raising Kuṇḍalinī to unite with Śiva at or above the brahmarandhra, it seems that the compiler may have had in mind the process of “killing” (māraṇa), which in Rasaśāstra refers to heating a substance in a burning pit (puṭa) until it is reduced to ashes.
The alchemical metaphors found in the Amṛtasiddhi imply that Kuṇḍalinī undergoes an irreversible transformation: ceasing to remain coiled, she assumes an upright position within the central channel.
The description of the second mudrā, Mahābandha, in the Amaraughaprabodha contains two metaphysical terms not found in the Amṛtasiddhi: Triveṇī and Kedāra.
The technical term Triveṇī, which in other Haṭha and Rāja Yoga texts usually refers to the confluence of the three principal channels, was probably familiar within Śaiva circles, judging by its appearance in earlier Śaiva texts such as the Kubjikāmata Tantra, where it is mentioned together with the channels (5.170–5.172) and located in the region of the navel (25.93).
According to the Kuñcitāṅghristava, composed in fourteenth-century Chidambaram, Triveṇī is located in the heart. This confluence, also known as Prayāga, was regarded in early Śaivism as one of the eight sacred places, as attested in works such as the Niśvāsa Guhya (1.29–1.34) and the Tantrasadbhāva (15.62).
Kedāra, a region generally located in the head, appears in the list of forty sacred places (tīrthas) found in the Śivadharma and throughout the authoritative scriptures of the Mantramārga tradition (Sanderson, 2003, p. 405).
It appears that both of these terms were introduced by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha in order to make the practice of Mahābandha more appealing to Śaivas.
Mahāvedha is described in the Amaraughaprabodha without Śaiva terminology and is absent from the Amṛtasiddhi. In fact, the challenge faced by the compiler in composing the remainder of the Haṭhayoga section appears to have been the removal or modification of specifically Buddhist concepts, especially technical terms associated with sexual yoga found in certain Vajrayāna works, including the system of the four blisses, moments, and emptinesses (Sferra, 2000, pp. 31–33).
This terminology—except for viramānanda, vilakṣaṇakṣaṇa, and sarvaśūnya—is present in the Amṛtasiddhi. In the Amaraughaprabodha, the four moments are not mentioned at all, while three forms of bliss and emptiness remain.
Although this particular system of blisses and emptinesses may be unique to Vajrayāna, terms such as ānanda, paramānanda, śūnya, and mahāśūnya occur throughout Śaiva literature. Furthermore, some Śaivas were probably already familiar within their own tradition with advanced meditative states involving inner sounds and experiences resembling emptiness.
Thus, it appears that the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha deliberately excluded terminology specific to Vajrayāna while retaining terms that Śaivas would recognize from other works.
This editorial principle becomes apparent when comparing parallel passages from the Amṛtasiddhi and the Amaraughaprabodha. In the first example, the “Moment of Vicitra” was replaced by the “Sound of Vicitra”:
Passage from the Amṛtasiddhi:
“When the first stage is completed and the Knot of Brahmā has been passed, sensations of tingling arise and a certain bliss is perceived within the central channel. Thus one enters emptiness, and the Moment of Vicitra arises.”
In the Amaraughaprabodha:
“Because the Knot of Brahmā has been pierced, bliss arises in emptiness. Amid continuous sound vibrations within the body, various musical sounds (vicitra-kvaṇaka) are heard.”
It is not entirely clear whether this subtle alteration was made by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha, since vicitra-kvaṇaka is also preserved in South Indian manuscripts of the Amṛtasiddhi. This is one of many cases in which technical Vajrayāna terminology evolved during its transmission in India into forms more readily understandable to yogins outside the Buddhist tradition.
Therefore, it is possible that by the time the Amaraughaprabodha was composed, the South Indian recension of the Amṛtasiddhi had already transformed vicitra-kṣaṇa into vicitra-kvaṇaka.
In another example, the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha removed the reference to the Moment of Vimarda by simply omitting the word “moment” (kṣaṇa). In this case, non-Buddhist readers would have understood vimarda in the more general sense of “trembling”:
Amṛtasiddhi:
“[…] When the second stage is completed, the state beyond emptiness arises. Then the sound of the bherī drum resounds within the middle channel, and the Moment of Vimarda arises.”
Amaraughaprabodha:
“[…] Then, because the Knot of Viṣṇu has been pierced, the trembling sound (vimarda), indicative of Supreme Bliss, arises beyond emptiness. Then the sound of the bherī drum is heard.”
One may ask why the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha retained any of the Vajrayāna-specific technical terminology of the Amṛtasiddhi, given that completely removing it would have required less ingenuity.
For example, one may question the necessity of including in the Amaraughaprabodha the verse that concludes the description of Mahāvedha, which states that the yogin must realize the union of the moon, sun, and fire in order to attain immortality. Such metaphysical concepts are important in the Amṛtasiddhi, yet nowhere else in the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha are they explained.
The fact that both this verse and terms such as vicitra and vimarda were retained suggests that the intended audience of the Amaraughaprabodha was aware of the Buddhist origins of this yoga. Thus, although the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha may have structured the text in such a way that Haṭhayoga came to be regarded as a Śaiva practice, it appears that it was not possible to eliminate completely the system of the four blisses, emptinesses, and sounds. The most likely reason is that, at the time the text was composed, the Vajrayāna form of yoga was still well known.
This likelihood, together with the possibility that the compiler used a less developed recension of the Amṛtasiddhi, points toward an early date—namely the twelfth century—for the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha.
In any case, the short version of the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi appear to be close in time. The short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha was composed at a period when the yoga of the Amṛtasiddhi was still known, especially among communities transitioning from Buddhism to Śaivism.
This supports James Mallinson’s proposal (see Mallinson, 2016b, p. 11, n. 25, as well as forthcoming publications) that the Amaraughaprabodha was composed within such a community at Kadri in Karnataka, as suggested by the text’s invocation of the wise Siddhabuddha, a disciple of Matsyendranātha associated with that region.
The compiler introduced Śaiva terminology and metaphysics while obscuring or deliberately omitting Vajrayāna terminology. The yoga of the Amṛtasiddhi was assimilated into Śaivism by assigning it a subordinate position relative to Rājayoga.
The “king of all yogas” probably had an older association with Śaivism, as evidenced by the Śaiva text Amanaska, which teaches the attainment of the state of no-mind through the practice of Śāmbhavī Mudrā. By the middle of the twelfth century, the Amanaska was known in Gujarat (Birch, 2014, p. 406, n. 21), and therefore likely dates from the eleventh or early twelfth century.
The compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha hints at the Śaiva origin of Rājayoga by mentioning the liṅga in the final verse devoted to Rājayoga and by defining the term amaraugha (literally “stream of nectar” or “host of immortals”) as “Rājayoga.”
The term amaraugha was probably intended to remind Śaivas of the divine transmission stream known as divyaugha in earlier Kaula scriptures, while simultaneously preserving meanings close to those found in the Amṛtasiddhi (“obtaining nectar” or “attaining immortality”).
Moreover, any association that Haṭhayoga may have had with Buddhism at the time the Amaraughaprabodha was composed would undoubtedly not have prevented Śaivas from adopting a yogic system in which Haṭhayoga was merely one of several auxiliary methods leading to Rājayoga.
Furthermore, the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha appears to have distanced Haṭhayoga from the yoga of the Amṛtasiddhi by eliminating all references to semen (bindu) from the Haṭhayoga section.
In accordance with the sexual yogic practices of the Kālacakra tradition (Sferra, 2000, p. 32), the Amṛtasiddhi places enormous emphasis on the preservation of semen. The introductory verse of the Amaraughaprabodha states that there are two forms of Haṭhayoga: one practiced with inner sound vibration (nāda), and the other with semen (bindu).
Although beginning practitioners are advised to avoid frequenting cremation grounds, women, and travel, the emphasis on inner sounds and the absence of references to semen indicate that the text teaches the first form rather than the second.
The two works differ even more significantly in their treatment of nectar.
In the Amaraughaprabodha, nectar (amara) is associated with Rājayoga and is defined as meditative absorption, whereas in the Amṛtasiddhi, nectar (amṛta) is associated with semen within the male body.
Authors of Haṭhayoga texts continued to use certain metaphysical and technical terms derived from the Amṛtasiddhi up to the nineteenth century, partly because Svātmārāma borrowed a substantial number of verses from the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha.
The fourth chapter of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā incorporates the passage describing the four stages of yoga as part of the practice of nādānusandhāna (“merging the mind with the inner sound”). There it is stated that when the knots are pierced, various blisses, sounds, and emptinesses arise.
In other cases, the original meaning of technical terminology was lost and reinterpreted. For example, the alchemical terms dvipuṭa and puṭadvaya were interpreted by commentators as dvināsāpuṭa (“the two nostrils”) and as the channels iḍā and piṅgalā.
In the Yogacintāmaṇi, Śivānanda rewrote the verse concerning Kuṇḍalinī, noting that she destroys the condition of death, while Bhāvadeva interpreted it as meaning that after the practice of Mahāmudrā, Kuṇḍalinī resides within the two nostrils.
Furthermore, it is quite likely that Svātmārāma and later authors understood the verse concerning the union of the moon, sun, and fire as referring to the intersection of the channels iḍā, piṅgalā, and suṣumṇā, because these associations of moon, sun, and fire are already found in early Śaiva works and even in two yoga texts known to Svātmārāma: the Vivekamārtaṇḍa and the Śiva Saṃhitā.
CONCLUSION
The relationship between the Amṛtasiddhi and the beta-hyparchetype of the Amaraughaprabodha provides a valuable window into the early history of Haṭhayoga, which appears to have been shaped largely through the exchange of ideas and techniques between Buddhism and Śaivism in South India during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
It seems that within certain currents associated with these religions, practical yogic methods (physical practices) were developed in order to exert a more powerful effect upon the body, based on the understanding that prāṇa within the body could be deliberately controlled so as to attain samādhi and liberation more reliably than through other methods.
Although advocates of this approach claimed that Haṭhayoga could cure disease, eliminate old age, suffering, death, and similar conditions, this form of yoga nevertheless failed to become a central teaching of either Śaivism or Vajrayāna. This was probably due both to the belief that forcibly controlling prāṇa was dangerous (Birch, 2011, pp. 538–539) and to the broader orientation of these religions toward gnosis and ritual practice.
Nevertheless, Haṭhayoga continued to develop as an auxiliary practice within yogic systems associated with Gorakṣanātha.
A comparison of the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi demonstrates that the concepts and metaphysical frameworks used to teach bodily yoga practice can vary considerably from one tradition to another, while the practical methods themselves remain essentially unchanged.
Moreover, although the practical yogic techniques (physical practices) described in the Amṛtasiddhi are largely the same as those found in the Amaraughaprabodha, only part of the underlying doctrinal framework of the Amaraughaprabodha was borrowed from the Amṛtasiddhi.
Yoga as a physical discipline for the body can be taught with relatively little conceptual explanation, and the transmission of techniques from one religious tradition to another probably contributed to the simplification of early Haṭhayoga theory. This simplified framework drew upon fundamental ideas inherited from both Vajrayāna and Śaivism.
The simplicity of this conceptual framework facilitated its dissemination and adaptation among practitioners from diverse religious backgrounds and social groups, which may help explain why the teachings of Haṭhayoga endured throughout much of the second millennium.
The core group of practical techniques—especially the mudrās and bandhas—came to define Haṭhayoga across sectarian divisions throughout its history. Through these practical methods, Haṭhayoga became a distinctive means of attaining samādhi and liberation.
The short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha is probably the earliest known work in which Haṭhayoga is described alongside Rājayoga. It likely predates the Dattātreyayogaśāstra (thirteenth century), a more syncretic text, by at least a full century.
The number and sophistication of practical methods associated with Haṭhayoga increased gradually over the centuries following the Amaraughaprabodha, yet its doctrine and theory remained relatively simple for a long period—at least until the appearance of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā, and probably for some time afterward, when Haṭhayoga was absorbed into Brahmanical traditions.
As a result, the practical methods (physical practices) were integrated into more elaborate systems of the subtle body and into philosophical frameworks derived from Patañjali’s yoga, Vedānta, and Tantra.
By the eighteenth century, some learned Brahmins were composing extensive compilations on Haṭhayoga, such as the Haṭhasaṅketacandrikā, while others were creating encyclopedic collections on yoga that incorporated selected Haṭhayoga techniques.
During this same period, Upaniṣads based on Haṭhayoga texts were composed, and references to Haṭhayoga began to appear in commentaries on the Pātañjalayogaśāstra, including Vijñānabhikṣu’s Yogavārttika and Nārāyaṇa Tīrtha’s Yoga-siddhānta-candrikā.
This process of assimilation marked the decline of Haṭhayoga as a distinct method, since physical practice and concern for bodily health became integral components of broader conceptions of yoga in the modern period.
Author: Jason Birch
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London
Full article available here тут
“There are different kinds of Yantra Yoga; the one we practice is called Nyi-da Kha-jor (nyi-zla kha-sbyor), which means the union of the solar and lunar energies.
The method of practicing this form of Yantra is contained in an authentic text written in the eighth century by Vairocana, one of Padmasambhava’s most eminent disciples and a great Dzogchen master. After traveling to Uḍḍiyāna, Vairocana translated the Dzogchen teachings from the language of Uḍḍiyāna into Tibetan. He was a great expert in both Dzogchen and Tantra. His principal teacher was Padmasambhava, one of the most important figures in Tibetan Buddhism. All schools recognize him as the master who introduced Vajrayāna teachings into Tibet and regard him as one of the first teachers of Dzogchen. It was from him that Vairocana received the teachings of Tantra, the path of transformation, as well as certain Dzogchen teachings.
The main goal is not merely to make the body more flexible, because these are not simply physical exercises. The foundation of Yantra Yoga, or any authentic teaching, is to attain understanding of one’s own condition, one’s own state of being. In yogic teachings it is generally said that every person exists as three aspects. These three aspects belong to all of us, regardless of whether we believe in a religion, believe in something else, or believe in nothing at all.
The first aspect is the physical body. Every day we eat and drink, and every night we sleep. If we go without sleep for a couple of nights, we become irritable; if we do not eat or drink, other problems arise. This means that we depend on our condition. Usually we are aware of our physical existence—we talk about it and must take it into account.
Another aspect, even more important, is the aspect of energy, or what in yoga is called prāṇa, the vital force. If a person’s life-force is unbalanced or disturbed, more serious problems arise than merely physical ones. Human beings possess body, speech (or energy), and mind. Together these three aspects constitute the living individual. This is true for everyone, whether they believe in anything or not.
If we know the condition of our own being, then even when problems arise, we can overcome them. In yoga in general, and in Yantra Yoga in particular, we work with all three aspects of our existence, not only with the physical body. It is very important to know that the aspect of mind exists. If a person understands this, the only way to attain a calm and peaceful state of mind is to know how to relax.
This is exactly what we do in yoga: the way we use the body and various movements serves to coordinate energy and, in particular, to influence the mind. By coordinating energy, we ultimately achieve a calm state of mind. If the mind is calm, everything becomes easier, because the mind is the principal aspect.
It is said that the mind is like a lame rider who cannot walk on foot—meaning that he depends on his horse. The horse is our energy. When energy conditions the mind, many disturbances can arise. In yoga, for example, it is said that the horse is blind. Just as a blind horse cannot find the road without a rider, our vital energy is helpless if it is not coordinated with the activity of the mind. The mind depends on energy, but energy also depends on the mind. Thus, by governing our energy, we can govern the mind.
A lame rider can ride a blind horse and make it turn right or left. But if someone stops the horse, the rider also stops. Nevertheless, it is clear that the principal aspect is the mind—the rider.
Yoga, and especially Yantra Yoga, concerns not only the physical aspect but above all the mind. Many people say, “I like to meditate.” Yet they may not know what meditation actually means, or they may think that meditation is simply relaxation, a brief rest. In reality, meditation means discovering a state beyond conflicts and problems. The principle of yoga and of all yogic practices is primarily to attain that state.
Both the Hindu tradition and Buddhist Tantra contain many forms of yoga, but the principle of yoga is always the same: to understand one’s own being and work with it in order to attain a state beyond all problems.
As for the Yantra Yoga that we practice, many people ask what kind of yoga it is and whether it resembles the Haṭha Yoga of the Indian tradition or prāṇāyāma (the practice of prāṇa, or life-energy). In fact, Yantra Yoga is used for contemplation. Contemplation means realizing one’s own perfection.
We do not live in the state of the nature of mind. Although the nature of mind exists, we always live within our limitations, within dualistic vision. If we ask someone how they are doing, we may hear “good” or “bad.” Yet the very fact that we ask how someone is doing already implies dualistic vision. It assumes that the person is either doing well or not. My question has already conditioned the answer, which must be either “good” or “bad.”
We always live in this dualistic state. Living in duality is not a mistake—it is our only possibility, because we know no alternative. In fact, if we hear about something that is neither good nor bad, we have no idea what is being referred to. To have some third concept is very difficult; at most we can imagine something neutral, but we do not even know what that truly means.
Such is the level of our mind, characterized by dualistic judgments and temporal limitations. In reality, if we are limited by time, we are also limited by judgments. What, then, does it mean to be beyond judgments?
In the Yantra Yoga that we practice, there are five principal types of breathing exercises. Essentially, these five methods work toward realizing the state of the nature of mind and making it stable—that is, introducing karmic breath into the central channel, which symbolizes the state of contemplation.
A practitioner who abides in the state of contemplation does not suffer from disturbances such as unbalanced energy. This is precisely why, in order to harmonize the aspect of energy, we engage in breathing practices in Yantra Yoga.
What does the word “yantra” mean? It means “movement,” or in Tibetan, trul khor (’phrul ’khor). In this system, movements are in fact more important than postures. When we perform different movements, even the condition of the breath changes. Breath is connected with the functioning of prāṇa. Therefore, if we wish to regulate prāṇa, we must do so through movement.
The principle of Yantra is the principle of movements used to balance prāṇa and also to influence the mind. In reality, there is no such thing as controlling the mind; there is only the state of contemplation, where no control exists. Control of the mind is merely a temporary means.
One should understand that there is a state beyond control that must be realized, but this depends on our circumstances—from the existence of body, speech, and mind all the way to the nature of mind itself. “Nature of mind” sounds like a beautiful phrase, but for us it means almost nothing so far, because we are unfamiliar with its true meaning. For example, if we know what the mind is, then when the nature of mind is mentioned we simply think, “Yes, the nature of mind.”
Many people think, “I am not a spiritual person at all; meditation does not interest me.” It does not matter whether you are religious, whether you consider yourself spiritual, or not. Anyone who is interested in life, anyone who recognizes themselves as a living being, a human being, will understand what meditation is as soon as they discover it through their own experience.
The point is not whether you are spiritual or not, and it is not necessary to practice meditation or become a follower of any school or tradition. On the contrary, I think it is very important to understand your life clearly and to go beyond fascination with this or that teacher. Whatever the teaching may be, it is important to think less about the teaching itself and more about yourself.”
Amaraughaprabodha is a yoga text of the Śaiva tradition written in Sanskrit and attributed, according to the manuscript evidence, to Gorakṣanātha. The work was first published by Kalyani Devi Mallik in 1954, and it is this publication that has been discussed in various scholarly sources. In particular, Christian Bouy (1994, pp. 18–19) regards this work as the source text for Svātmārāma’s Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā (which dates to the mid-fifteenth century).
This article examines newly discovered manuscript evidence relating to a version of the Amaraughaprabodha that is shorter than the one published by Mallik. A comparison of variant readings in the short and long recensions shows that the shorter recension possesses a more coherent structure and appears closer to the original conception of the work. The close relationship between the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha and the eleventh-century Vajrayāna yoga text Amṛtasiddhi provides a unique opportunity to understand how the earliest teachings on Haṭhayoga were formulated. Although the practical techniques (physical practices) described in both texts differ very little, the author of the Amaraughaprabodha removed or concealed Vajrayāna terminology, introduced Śaiva metaphysical concepts, and placed Haṭhayoga in a subordinate position relative to the Śaiva form of yoga more commonly known as Rājayoga.
On the basis of its close relationship with the Amṛtasiddhi, the imperfect state of this recension, and the likelihood that Svātmārāma used the shorter rather than the longer recension when composing the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā, this article proposes that the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha is probably the earliest known work in which Haṭhayoga is discussed alongside Rājayoga.
INTRODUCTION
The yoga teachings set forth in the Sanskrit work Amaraughaprabodha (literally, “Awakening to the Stream of Nectar”) are traditionally attributed to Gorakṣanātha, the presumed founder of the Nātha tradition and of the physical discipline of yoga known as Haṭhayoga. A transcript of one manuscript containing this text was first published by Kalyani Devi Mallik in 1954. The manuscript contains seventy-five verses and has been dated to the mid-fifteenth century (according to Bouy (1994, pp. 18–19) and others), on the basis that Svātmārāma, the author of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā, borrowed material from it (Bouy, 1994, p. 19).
The aim of the present article is to reassess these conclusions in light of recently discovered manuscript evidence indicating the existence of two recensions of the Amaraughaprabodha: a longer recension, published by Mallik, and a shorter recension preserved in two unpublished manuscripts. Analysis of the manuscript transmission and of the differences between the two recensions shows that the shorter recension is older and was probably the version used by Svātmārāma.
The imperfect structure of the text and its close relationship to the Amṛtasiddhi, an eleventh-century Vajrayāna work, suggest that the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha is very likely one of the earliest known works to teach a fourfold system of yoga that combines Haṭhayoga and Rājayoga. The conclusion of this article discusses the significance of these findings for the broader history of yoga.
PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO DATE THE TEXT
According to Bouy’s earlier study of the Amaraughaprabodha based on Mallik’s edition (Bouy, 1994, p. 19), twenty-two and a half verses of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā were borrowed from the Amaraughaprabodha. Since Svātmārāma does not cite any sources for his work, Bouy demonstrated that the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā is an anthology and suggested that Svātmārāma borrowed a number of verses from the Amaraughaprabodha (Bouy, 1994, pp. 80–86). The logic of this borrowing implies that the Amaraughaprabodha must have been composed before the middle of the fifteenth century.
Bouy (1994, p. 19) also notes that the title Amaraughaprabodha is mentioned in the Upāsanāsārasaṃgraha, which he dates to the sixteenth or seventeenth century (Bouy, 1994, p. 91). This provides a more secure, though later, terminus for dating the text.
Mallinson (2016) identified at least five verses from the Amaraughaprabodha in the eleventh-century Amṛtasiddhi. In addition, in the recension of the Amaraughaprabodha published by Mallik, we have identified a borrowed verse from the second chapter of the Amanaska (Birch, 2011, p. 528), a text that can be dated to the eleventh or early twelfth century (Birch, 2014, p. 406, n. 21), as well as a verse from the Dattātreyayogaśāstra, which dates from approximately the thirteenth century.
There is also a verse attributed to the Śrīsampuṭa and a short passage from the Amaraughasaṃsiddhi. These borrowings suggest that the Amaraughaprabodha in Mallik’s edition is a compilation whose source material included the Dattātreyayogaśāstra, while the Śrīsampuṭa and Amaraughasaṃsiddhi remain relatively little-known works.
These observations led to the hypothesis advanced in an earlier publication (Birch, 2011, p. 528) that the Amaraughaprabodha was probably compiled in the fourteenth century, since it must have been composed after the earliest texts on Haṭha and Rājayoga and before the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā. The discovery of new manuscript evidence now requires these conclusions to be reconsidered.
AUTHORSHIP
Among the earliest modern publications to discuss the Amaraughaprabodha in detail are the first volume of the University of Madras’s New Catalogus Catalogorum (1949) and Mallik’s edition (1954). Both attribute the work to Gorakṣanātha. Prior to these publications, the Amaraughaprabodha was not included among the lists of works attributed to Gorakṣanātha by modern scholars (see, for example, Briggs, 1938, pp. 251–257; Dvivedī, 1950, pp. 98–100), nor was it mentioned in studies of the Nāth tradition (e.g., Dasgupta, 1946, pp. 219–294).
Nevertheless, the Amaraughaprabodha appears in later bibliographies (e.g., Banerjea, 1962, pp. 26–28; Gonda, 1977, p. 222, n. 28, etc.) and scholarly studies (e.g., Bouy, 1994, pp. 18–19; White, 1996, p. 141, etc.). Gorakṣanātha is regarded as the author of the work on the basis of a statement found on the final page of the manuscript used by Mallik for her edition, which reads: “The Amaraughaprabodha, composed by the noble Gorakṣanātha, is completed.” Similar colophons accompany all available manuscripts.
The text was probably attributed to Gorakṣanātha because he is mentioned in three verses (2, 65, and 74). In two verses at the beginning and end of the text (2 and 74), it is stated that Gorakṣanātha taught four kinds of yoga, which constitute the principal subject matter of the work:
“Gorakṣanātha taught this awakening, which is self-validating, to those engaged in Laya Yoga and the other [forms of yoga], and who possess a penetrating intellect. […] The venerable Gorakṣanātha, constantly abiding in samādhi, taught Laya Yoga, Mantra Yoga, and Haṭha Yoga solely for the attainment of Rāja Yoga.”
It is likely that the scribe who added the attribution to Gorakṣanātha interpreted these statements as evidence that Gorakṣanātha was speaking about himself in the third person. However, these verses may also be understood as statements made by an author belonging to the Gorakṣanātha tradition who, being within that lineage, believed that the teachings of the Amaraughaprabodha were first revealed by Gorakṣanātha. Therefore, these verses do not constitute conclusive proof that Gorakṣanātha was the actual author.
Nevertheless, the text was composed within a religious milieu associated with the Śaiva Siddhānta tradition. This is evident from the opening verse, which pays homage to Ādinātha, Mīnanātha (i.e., Matsyendranātha), Cauraṅginātha, and Siddhabuddha, and also from other passages throughout the work in which Śiva is explicitly mentioned.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BETA-HYPARCHETYPE OF THE AMARAUGHAPRABODHA FOR THE HISTORY OF YOGA
The close relationship between the beta-hyparchetype of the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi (or perhaps an earlier recension of the Amṛtasiddhi) provides a unique opportunity to understand the period in which the earliest teachings of Haṭhayoga were formulated.
Unlike the early texts on Haṭha and Rāja Yoga, the Amṛtasiddhi contains detailed and substantial theoretical explanations of the principles underlying practice. These teachings appear to have been intended for esoteric Buddhists who had abandoned deity-yoga practices. As will be shown below, the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha borrowed and modified only selected portions of the Amṛtasiddhi, omitting much of its theory in the process and introducing new ideas in order to create a system of Haṭhayoga that would appeal to Śaivas.
Furthermore, perhaps because of this sparse use of doctrinal and metaphysical material, the yoga presented in the Amaraughaprabodha became more accessible to followers of other religious traditions.
The Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha is a concise presentation of the practice of the three mudrās and the four stages of yoga, closely resembling the corresponding material in the Amṛtasiddhi. The contents of the Amaraughaprabodha are largely based on nine of the thirty-six chapters of the Amṛtasiddhi.
Despite these shared chapters, a major difference between the two works is that in the Amṛtasiddhi the descriptions of the mudrās and the stages of yoga are preceded by extensive chapters on the theory and metaphysics that underpin the practice.
In the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha, metaphysical concepts such as the sun, moon, and fire are mentioned only in passing. There is no theory of matter (prakṛti), mind, or the five bodily winds. In the chapters of the Amṛtasiddhi that follow the discussion of the three mudrās, numerous supernatural powers and effects generated by these practices are enumerated, yet almost all of this material was omitted by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha.
Consequently, it may be observed that if the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha indeed used the Amṛtasiddhi as a source, he radically simplified the Haṭhayoga section during the editing process, focusing almost entirely on physical practice and the attainment of its corresponding results. This tendency is characteristic of other early Haṭhayoga works as well.
Because the bodily techniques that came to define Haṭhayoga were transmitted across different traditions, the theoretical framework underlying them remained minimal and open to syncretism. The compiler had to reconcile systems that were not originally compatible.
The compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha did not eliminate all Buddhist terminology and theory. Terms that Śaivas could readily understand in a yogic context—such as mahāmudrā, ānanda, and śūnya—were retained, largely because they had already appeared in earlier Śaiva works. Other terms that could be understood in a more general sense, such as vimarda (“trembling”) and vicitra (“variegated” or “manifold”), were likewise preserved.
However, when these terms appear in the Amṛtasiddhi, they function within the specifically esoteric Buddhist framework of the four blisses, moments, and emptinesses.
Moreover, certain terms that entered the Amṛtasiddhi probably through Rasaśāstra—such as vedha, māraṇa, and puṭa—were retained by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha, perhaps because their meanings were already known outside the sphere of esoteric Buddhism.
The basis for classifying the Amaraughaprabodha as a Śaiva text lies not only in its attribution to Gorakṣanātha, but also in the presence of verses throughout the introduction and the sections devoted to Mantra Yoga, Laya Yoga, Haṭha Yoga, and Rāja Yoga that explicitly mention Śiva, Śakti, or the liṅga.
Although the compiler combines terminology and metaphysical concepts derived from the Amṛtasiddhi, the explicit references to Śiva, Śakti, and the liṅga clearly establish the Śaiva orientation of the work.
A particularly striking example is the penultimate verse of the introduction, in which the central Amṛtasiddhi concepts of the sun and moon are reinterpreted so as to become part of the goal of uniting Śiva and Śakti in the region above the brahmarandhra (the aperture at the crown of the skull):
“When the lord of thoughts becomes motionless, and the sun fully enters the path of Meru (that is, the Suṣumṇā); when its fiery condition increases, the moon gradually dissolves, swiftly filling the body; when the flood of bliss grows ever stronger and the darkness of delusion—such notions as ‘yours’ and ‘mine’—recedes; and when the aperture of the skull opens, there arises the extraordinary and unprecedented union of Śiva and Śakti.”
The verse cited above combines the metaphysics of the Amṛtasiddhi with that of the early Śaiva traditions. The movement of the sun into the central channel (Meru) is mentioned in a passage of the Amṛtasiddhi (4.5–10), where the process of uniting the sun and moon is described.
According to the Amṛtasiddhi, the goal of yoga is to prevent the sun from consuming the nectar of the moon. However, instead of preserving the nectar within the lunar region, the verse quoted above presents a different idea: that the moon melts and fills the body, presumably with nectar.
The concept of filling the body with nectar for the purposes of purification and rejuvenation is found in early Siddhānta works, including the Kiraṇa and the Mṛgendratantra (Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, 2000, vol. 1, p. 138).
The verse concludes with the union of Śiva and Śakti rather than the union of the sun and moon. The association of Śakti—or, more precisely, Kuṇḍalinī—with nectar may not have been new to the Śaivas, since the notion of nectar-like Kuṇḍalinī (kuṇḍalī) appears in the Tantrasadbhāva, a Śākta scripture dating from before the tenth century (Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, 2000, vol. 1, p. 136). Furthermore, Kuṇḍalinī is associated with nectar (amṛta) in the pre-tenth-century Siddhānta work Sārdhatriśatikālottara (12.1–2). There is also the earlier Śaiva text Jayadrathayāmala, which mentions a mudrā practice (karaṇa) that releases nectar and thereby brings about the union of Śiva and Śakti.
Although the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha corresponds most closely to the yoga described in the Amṛtasiddhi, key passages introduce Śaiva terminology and metaphysics in order to create the impression that this is a specifically Śaiva form of yoga. To demonstrate this, and to address other issues concerning the relationship between these two texts and the Śaiva conception of Haṭhayoga, we shall compare the descriptions of Mahāmudrā and its results in both works.
In the Amaraughaprabodha, Mahāmudrā is described as follows:
“Pressing the perineum with the left foot and holding the extended right leg firmly with both hands, [the yogin] should breathe through the mouth. Applying the throat lock, [the yogin] should retain the breath upward. When a snake is struck with a stick, it becomes straight like a stick; in the same way, the coiled Śakti known as Kuṇḍalinī suddenly straightens. Then she abides within the vessel having two halves and remains in a state resembling death. Great sufferings and other afflictions, including obstacles such as death, are eliminated. For this reason the wisest call [this mudrā] the ‘Great Seal’ (Mahāmudrā).”
When this description of Mahāmudrā in the Amaraughaprabodha is compared with that found in the Amṛtasiddhi, it becomes clear that both texts describe the same technique, but some details differ and the stated results are entirely different. The Amṛtasiddhi (11.3–11.10) states:
“Gently pressing the perineum with the heel of the left foot, [the yogin] should firmly grasp with both hands the right foot of the extended leg. Pressing the thighs against the seat, placing the chin upon the chest, closing the nine gates [of the body], filling the abdomen with breath, he should direct his mind, focus upon the crossroads [of the currents (?)] and bring the breath under control. Having interrupted the flow of the moon and the sun, he should arrest the breath. This promotes the digestion of impurities and assimilates the seed and the inner sound vibrations, causes prāṇa to move through all the channels, and kindles the fire [within the body]. The union of body, speech, and mind, and mastery over body, speech, and mind, certainly arise through the practice of [this mudrā] by a yogin advanced upon the path. Through this mudrā all auspicious attainments will surely arise in the yogin. Therefore this great mudrā should be practiced diligently. Among all mudrās, this one is supreme and self-sufficient. For that reason the foremost sages call it the ‘Great Seal.’ Through it death may be restrained. Therefore its practice is always beneficial. This yogic device (yantra) is performed by one whose mind is concentrated.”
When these two passages are placed side by side, the most obvious difference is that the Amaraughaprabodha is more concise and employs different syntax and terminology. In addition, the Amaraughaprabodha contains the extra instruction that the yogin should breathe through the mouth, while omitting several other details, such as the instruction to focus the mind upon the crossroads (catuḥpatha).
These significant textual variations raise the question of whether the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha used the Amṛtasiddhi itself, or some other source (currently unknown), when editing the Haṭhayoga section.
If the source was indeed the Amṛtasiddhi, then the compiler radically abbreviated and altered its description of Mahāmudrā. Some additions and omissions may be regarded as variations or explained as reflecting alternative views of the practice.
However, it is more difficult to explain why the compiler would have reduced the Amṛtasiddhi description to the form found in the Amaraughaprabodha. Indeed, it seems both possible and quite likely that the Amaraughaprabodha preserves an older and less developed description of yoga than the Amṛtasiddhi.
It is also possible that this earlier work served as a source text for the Amṛtasiddhi, since the latter contains verses shared with the Amaraughaprabodha. Even if the teachings on Haṭhayoga in the Amaraughaprabodha derive from a text older than the Amṛtasiddhi, that original source must have been composed within a Vajrayāna milieu, because the Amaraughaprabodha clearly preserves remnants of the distinctive Vajrayāna system of the four blisses, moments, and emptinesses.
Thus, the most significant change introduced by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha into the description of Mahāmudrā was the insertion of Śaiva metaphysics in the form of Kuṇḍalinī.
In the Amaraughaprabodha, Mahāmudrā is effectively compared to a stick used to strike a snake. Mahāmudrā is like the blow of a stick upon the coiled Kuṇḍalinī, forcing her to straighten. Such notions of force, as well as the metaphysics of Kuṇḍalinī itself, are absent from the Amṛtasiddhi.
It therefore appears that, for the Śaivas, the concept of force (haṭha) in Haṭhayoga consisted in the powerful effect of practice upon Kuṇḍalinī. This understanding probably extended to the overall purpose of the three mudrās, namely to compel Kuṇḍalinī and prāṇa to ascend through the central channel and “pierce” the three knots (granthis).
References to similar forceful actions directed at apāna-vāyu, semen, and Kuṇḍalinī can be found in other early Haṭhayoga texts and, in our view, provide the clearest indication of the intended meaning of Haṭhayoga during the formative period of this yogic tradition (Birch, 2011, pp. 544–545).
Results of the Practice
In both the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi, alchemical terms from Rasaśāstra such as jāraṇa (“digestion”) and cāraṇa (“assimilation,” “mastery,” or “absorption”) are used to describe the benefits of Mahāmudrā practice.
According to the description in the Amaraughaprabodha, pressing the perineum and applying the throat lock (bandha) appear to create something resembling an alchemical vessel composed of two halves or lids (dvipuṭa). Presumably, this vessel becomes the central channel after it has been sealed above and below through the application of the locks. These locks then enclose and retain Kuṇḍalinī in a state resembling death (maraṇāvasthā).
Although the precise meaning of maraṇāvasthā remains unclear in the context of raising Kuṇḍalinī to unite with Śiva at or above the brahmarandhra, it seems that the compiler may have had in mind the process of “killing” (māraṇa), which in Rasaśāstra refers to heating a substance in a burning pit (puṭa) until it is reduced to ashes.
The alchemical metaphors found in the Amṛtasiddhi imply that Kuṇḍalinī undergoes an irreversible transformation: ceasing to remain coiled, she assumes an upright position within the central channel.
The description of the second mudrā, Mahābandha, in the Amaraughaprabodha contains two metaphysical terms not found in the Amṛtasiddhi: Triveṇī and Kedāra.
The technical term Triveṇī, which in other Haṭha and Rāja Yoga texts usually refers to the confluence of the three principal channels, was probably familiar within Śaiva circles, judging by its appearance in earlier Śaiva texts such as the Kubjikāmata Tantra, where it is mentioned together with the channels (5.170–5.172) and located in the region of the navel (25.93).
According to the Kuñcitāṅghristava, composed in fourteenth-century Chidambaram, Triveṇī is located in the heart. This confluence, also known as Prayāga, was regarded in early Śaivism as one of the eight sacred places, as attested in works such as the Niśvāsa Guhya (1.29–1.34) and the Tantrasadbhāva (15.62).
Kedāra, a region generally located in the head, appears in the list of forty sacred places (tīrthas) found in the Śivadharma and throughout the authoritative scriptures of the Mantramārga tradition (Sanderson, 2003, p. 405).
It appears that both of these terms were introduced by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha in order to make the practice of Mahābandha more appealing to Śaivas.
Mahāvedha is described in the Amaraughaprabodha without Śaiva terminology and is absent from the Amṛtasiddhi. In fact, the challenge faced by the compiler in composing the remainder of the Haṭhayoga section appears to have been the removal or modification of specifically Buddhist concepts, especially technical terms associated with sexual yoga found in certain Vajrayāna works, including the system of the four blisses, moments, and emptinesses (Sferra, 2000, pp. 31–33).
This terminology—except for viramānanda, vilakṣaṇakṣaṇa, and sarvaśūnya—is present in the Amṛtasiddhi. In the Amaraughaprabodha, the four moments are not mentioned at all, while three forms of bliss and emptiness remain.
Although this particular system of blisses and emptinesses may be unique to Vajrayāna, terms such as ānanda, paramānanda, śūnya, and mahāśūnya occur throughout Śaiva literature. Furthermore, some Śaivas were probably already familiar within their own tradition with advanced meditative states involving inner sounds and experiences resembling emptiness.
Thus, it appears that the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha deliberately excluded terminology specific to Vajrayāna while retaining terms that Śaivas would recognize from other works.
This editorial principle becomes apparent when comparing parallel passages from the Amṛtasiddhi and the Amaraughaprabodha. In the first example, the “Moment of Vicitra” was replaced by the “Sound of Vicitra”:
Passage from the Amṛtasiddhi:
“When the first stage is completed and the Knot of Brahmā has been passed, sensations of tingling arise and a certain bliss is perceived within the central channel. Thus one enters emptiness, and the Moment of Vicitra arises.”
In the Amaraughaprabodha:
“Because the Knot of Brahmā has been pierced, bliss arises in emptiness. Amid continuous sound vibrations within the body, various musical sounds (vicitra-kvaṇaka) are heard.”
It is not entirely clear whether this subtle alteration was made by the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha, since vicitra-kvaṇaka is also preserved in South Indian manuscripts of the Amṛtasiddhi. This is one of many cases in which technical Vajrayāna terminology evolved during its transmission in India into forms more readily understandable to yogins outside the Buddhist tradition.
Therefore, it is possible that by the time the Amaraughaprabodha was composed, the South Indian recension of the Amṛtasiddhi had already transformed vicitra-kṣaṇa into vicitra-kvaṇaka.
In another example, the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha removed the reference to the Moment of Vimarda by simply omitting the word “moment” (kṣaṇa). In this case, non-Buddhist readers would have understood vimarda in the more general sense of “trembling”:
Amṛtasiddhi:
“[…] When the second stage is completed, the state beyond emptiness arises. Then the sound of the bherī drum resounds within the middle channel, and the Moment of Vimarda arises.”
Amaraughaprabodha:
“[…] Then, because the Knot of Viṣṇu has been pierced, the trembling sound (vimarda), indicative of Supreme Bliss, arises beyond emptiness. Then the sound of the bherī drum is heard.”
One may ask why the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha retained any of the Vajrayāna-specific technical terminology of the Amṛtasiddhi, given that completely removing it would have required less ingenuity.
For example, one may question the necessity of including in the Amaraughaprabodha the verse that concludes the description of Mahāvedha, which states that the yogin must realize the union of the moon, sun, and fire in order to attain immortality. Such metaphysical concepts are important in the Amṛtasiddhi, yet nowhere else in the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha are they explained.
The fact that both this verse and terms such as vicitra and vimarda were retained suggests that the intended audience of the Amaraughaprabodha was aware of the Buddhist origins of this yoga. Thus, although the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha may have structured the text in such a way that Haṭhayoga came to be regarded as a Śaiva practice, it appears that it was not possible to eliminate completely the system of the four blisses, emptinesses, and sounds. The most likely reason is that, at the time the text was composed, the Vajrayāna form of yoga was still well known.
This likelihood, together with the possibility that the compiler used a less developed recension of the Amṛtasiddhi, points toward an early date—namely the twelfth century—for the short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha.
In any case, the short version of the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi appear to be close in time. The short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha was composed at a period when the yoga of the Amṛtasiddhi was still known, especially among communities transitioning from Buddhism to Śaivism.
This supports James Mallinson’s proposal (see Mallinson, 2016b, p. 11, n. 25, as well as forthcoming publications) that the Amaraughaprabodha was composed within such a community at Kadri in Karnataka, as suggested by the text’s invocation of the wise Siddhabuddha, a disciple of Matsyendranātha associated with that region.
The compiler introduced Śaiva terminology and metaphysics while obscuring or deliberately omitting Vajrayāna terminology. The yoga of the Amṛtasiddhi was assimilated into Śaivism by assigning it a subordinate position relative to Rājayoga.
The “king of all yogas” probably had an older association with Śaivism, as evidenced by the Śaiva text Amanaska, which teaches the attainment of the state of no-mind through the practice of Śāmbhavī Mudrā. By the middle of the twelfth century, the Amanaska was known in Gujarat (Birch, 2014, p. 406, n. 21), and therefore likely dates from the eleventh or early twelfth century.
The compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha hints at the Śaiva origin of Rājayoga by mentioning the liṅga in the final verse devoted to Rājayoga and by defining the term amaraugha (literally “stream of nectar” or “host of immortals”) as “Rājayoga.”
The term amaraugha was probably intended to remind Śaivas of the divine transmission stream known as divyaugha in earlier Kaula scriptures, while simultaneously preserving meanings close to those found in the Amṛtasiddhi (“obtaining nectar” or “attaining immortality”).
Moreover, any association that Haṭhayoga may have had with Buddhism at the time the Amaraughaprabodha was composed would undoubtedly not have prevented Śaivas from adopting a yogic system in which Haṭhayoga was merely one of several auxiliary methods leading to Rājayoga.
Furthermore, the compiler of the Amaraughaprabodha appears to have distanced Haṭhayoga from the yoga of the Amṛtasiddhi by eliminating all references to semen (bindu) from the Haṭhayoga section.
In accordance with the sexual yogic practices of the Kālacakra tradition (Sferra, 2000, p. 32), the Amṛtasiddhi places enormous emphasis on the preservation of semen. The introductory verse of the Amaraughaprabodha states that there are two forms of Haṭhayoga: one practiced with inner sound vibration (nāda), and the other with semen (bindu).
Although beginning practitioners are advised to avoid frequenting cremation grounds, women, and travel, the emphasis on inner sounds and the absence of references to semen indicate that the text teaches the first form rather than the second.
The two works differ even more significantly in their treatment of nectar.
In the Amaraughaprabodha, nectar (amara) is associated with Rājayoga and is defined as meditative absorption, whereas in the Amṛtasiddhi, nectar (amṛta) is associated with semen within the male body.
Authors of Haṭhayoga texts continued to use certain metaphysical and technical terms derived from the Amṛtasiddhi up to the nineteenth century, partly because Svātmārāma borrowed a substantial number of verses from the Haṭhayoga section of the Amaraughaprabodha.
The fourth chapter of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā incorporates the passage describing the four stages of yoga as part of the practice of nādānusandhāna (“merging the mind with the inner sound”). There it is stated that when the knots are pierced, various blisses, sounds, and emptinesses arise.
In other cases, the original meaning of technical terminology was lost and reinterpreted. For example, the alchemical terms dvipuṭa and puṭadvaya were interpreted by commentators as dvināsāpuṭa (“the two nostrils”) and as the channels iḍā and piṅgalā.
In the Yogacintāmaṇi, Śivānanda rewrote the verse concerning Kuṇḍalinī, noting that she destroys the condition of death, while Bhāvadeva interpreted it as meaning that after the practice of Mahāmudrā, Kuṇḍalinī resides within the two nostrils.
Furthermore, it is quite likely that Svātmārāma and later authors understood the verse concerning the union of the moon, sun, and fire as referring to the intersection of the channels iḍā, piṅgalā, and suṣumṇā, because these associations of moon, sun, and fire are already found in early Śaiva works and even in two yoga texts known to Svātmārāma: the Vivekamārtaṇḍa and the Śiva Saṃhitā.
CONCLUSION
The relationship between the Amṛtasiddhi and the beta-hyparchetype of the Amaraughaprabodha provides a valuable window into the early history of Haṭhayoga, which appears to have been shaped largely through the exchange of ideas and techniques between Buddhism and Śaivism in South India during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
It seems that within certain currents associated with these religions, practical yogic methods (physical practices) were developed in order to exert a more powerful effect upon the body, based on the understanding that prāṇa within the body could be deliberately controlled so as to attain samādhi and liberation more reliably than through other methods.
Although advocates of this approach claimed that Haṭhayoga could cure disease, eliminate old age, suffering, death, and similar conditions, this form of yoga nevertheless failed to become a central teaching of either Śaivism or Vajrayāna. This was probably due both to the belief that forcibly controlling prāṇa was dangerous (Birch, 2011, pp. 538–539) and to the broader orientation of these religions toward gnosis and ritual practice.
Nevertheless, Haṭhayoga continued to develop as an auxiliary practice within yogic systems associated with Gorakṣanātha.
A comparison of the Amaraughaprabodha and the Amṛtasiddhi demonstrates that the concepts and metaphysical frameworks used to teach bodily yoga practice can vary considerably from one tradition to another, while the practical methods themselves remain essentially unchanged.
Moreover, although the practical yogic techniques (physical practices) described in the Amṛtasiddhi are largely the same as those found in the Amaraughaprabodha, only part of the underlying doctrinal framework of the Amaraughaprabodha was borrowed from the Amṛtasiddhi.
Yoga as a physical discipline for the body can be taught with relatively little conceptual explanation, and the transmission of techniques from one religious tradition to another probably contributed to the simplification of early Haṭhayoga theory. This simplified framework drew upon fundamental ideas inherited from both Vajrayāna and Śaivism.
The simplicity of this conceptual framework facilitated its dissemination and adaptation among practitioners from diverse religious backgrounds and social groups, which may help explain why the teachings of Haṭhayoga endured throughout much of the second millennium.
The core group of practical techniques—especially the mudrās and bandhas—came to define Haṭhayoga across sectarian divisions throughout its history. Through these practical methods, Haṭhayoga became a distinctive means of attaining samādhi and liberation.
The short recension of the Amaraughaprabodha is probably the earliest known work in which Haṭhayoga is described alongside Rājayoga. It likely predates the Dattātreyayogaśāstra (thirteenth century), a more syncretic text, by at least a full century.
The number and sophistication of practical methods associated with Haṭhayoga increased gradually over the centuries following the Amaraughaprabodha, yet its doctrine and theory remained relatively simple for a long period—at least until the appearance of the Haṭha Yoga Pradīpikā, and probably for some time afterward, when Haṭhayoga was absorbed into Brahmanical traditions.
As a result, the practical methods (physical practices) were integrated into more elaborate systems of the subtle body and into philosophical frameworks derived from Patañjali’s yoga, Vedānta, and Tantra.
By the eighteenth century, some learned Brahmins were composing extensive compilations on Haṭhayoga, such as the Haṭhasaṅketacandrikā, while others were creating encyclopedic collections on yoga that incorporated selected Haṭhayoga techniques.
During this same period, Upaniṣads based on Haṭhayoga texts were composed, and references to Haṭhayoga began to appear in commentaries on the Pātañjalayogaśāstra, including Vijñānabhikṣu’s Yogavārttika and Nārāyaṇa Tīrtha’s Yoga-siddhānta-candrikā.
This process of assimilation marked the decline of Haṭhayoga as a distinct method, since physical practice and concern for bodily health became integral components of broader conceptions of yoga in the modern period.