Haṭhapradīpikā Online

In his commentary {Jyotsnā} on Haṭhapradīpikā 1.1 Brahmānanda first states that the author Svātmārāma starts appropriately with a maṅgala, a verse of adoration addressing Ādinātha, i.e. Śiva, but in accordance with his non-sectarian approach leaves room for a second interpretation of the word as Viṣṇu. A sentence later this is contradicted by his explanantion that Ādinātha, who first taught Yoga, taught it to Pārvatī, which limits the scope to Śiva. The reading °rājasaudham in the third verse quarter is well attested by the manuscripts, including α1. However, the most common reading in manuscripts on the lower branches of the stemma is °rājayogam, which was accepted by Brahmānanda in Jyotsnā 1.1 (see below). It apears that some scribes have made a concerted effort to replace words like saudha, vidyā and mārga with yoga in the opening verses of the text (see also 1.1d and 1.3b), even at the expense of the poetic imagery. In light of the variants, which have lead to our critical edition, Brahmānanda’s choices and interpretation of the second half cannot be upheld. This is Brahmānanda’s version and the relevant portion of his commentary:

Most witnesses (including α2) have rājayogam ajānatām (`for those ignorant of Rājayoga’) in 1.3b. The reading rājamārgam ajānatām (α1and α3), “for those unable to find the royal highway”, is more appropriate to the metaphor of being lost in darkness. As Brahmānanda notes, the compound kṛpākaraḥ can be understood as one who is compassionate (kṛpā + kara) or one who is a mine (i.e., a rich source) of compassion (kṛpā + ākara). In the Devanagari transmission, the kṣa of kṣamākaraḥ probably arose as a mistake for kṛ.

The word athavā (‘or’) is well attested but difficult to construe here. Brahmānanda understands it as conjunction (athavāśabdaḥ samuccaye), and this is how we have interpreted it. The variant mahāyogī in ε1and other manuscripts (G₅, J₄, J₁₁ and K_o) is probably an attempt to remove the difficulty of understanding athavā. One could emend to tathā in light of the attested reading yathā (C₇) but this would be a bold intervention given the weight of evidence supporting ’thavā.

In Śaiva texts which predate the Haṭha corpus, Mīnanātha and Matsyendra are one and the same, but they are differentiated in later Tibetan and Indian lists of siddhas (Mallinson 2019: 273 n.35). Two manuscripts of the α and δ groups have the variant reading °virūpākṣaḥ savālikaḥ (J₅ and V₁₉) for °virūpākṣabileśayāḥ. In another α manuscript, N₃, savālikaḥ was corrected to savālmikaḥ, perhaps in an effort to restore a name similar to Vālmīki, the celebrated author of the Rāmāyaṇa.

The α manuscripts have goraṇṭaka, and several other manuscript groups have pauraṇṭaka. We are yet to find the name goraṇṭaka in other Sanskrit texts but it may be a Sanskrit rendering of Goraṇṭakuḍu, which is the name of a disciple of Gorakṣanātha in the Navanāthacaritramu (Jones 2017: 194 n.3). The spelling koraṇṭaka is attested in the Haṭhābhyāsapaddhati, and it is reasonably well attested by manuscripts of the Haṭhapradīpikā, as well as those of the Haṭharatnāvalī (which also has gonandaka). The compound siddhapāda could be a respectful affix. However, it seems unlikely here because the name would cross the pāda break.

It is possible that pūjyapāda could be a respectful affix to the name Kāṇerī. The variant dhvaninātha may have resulted from a transposition of the first two syllables of nityanātha. The α group supports kākacaṇḍīśvaro gayaḥ but we have not been able to find evidence for a Siddha called Gaya.

The name Allamaprabhudeva (sometimes Allama Prabhu Deva or Allama Prabhudeva in secondary literature) is frequently transmitted as allamaḥ prabhu-devaḥ (cf. α2), as though it were two names. However, manuscripts α1, α3 and others (e.g., V₃, V₈, V₁₃, V₁₆, V₂₂, N₂₄, N₂₆ and J_yo) do not have the visarga and write it as one name (i.e., allamaprabhudevaś ca). This is also the case in some manuscripts of the Haṭharatnāvalī (P,T,t1 in Gharote 2009: 35 n. 8). The names Nāgabodha, Nāgabodhi, Naradeva, Nāgadeva all seem possible in 1.8c. The reading nāgabodhaś ca is attested across several primary groups of manuscripts. The α1 and α2 reading of siddhaḥ kāpālikas is an exception among the manuscripts and seems too vague to be referring to someone within a lineage. However, Khaṇḍa-kāpālika is well attested by the manuscripts (including α3) and this name appears in other literature. Examples include Kathāsaritsāgara 121.5 ff. (check??), Bṛhatkathāmañjarī 10.45 (check??) and Vajrapāṇi’s Laghutantraṭīkā, p.45 (vīrāḥ khaṇḍakāpālikādayaś caturviṃśatiḥ). It may be a derogatory name for a Kāpālika, coined perhaps by an outsider and connoting something like a defective Kāpālika in the sense of a ‘part-time’ Kāpālika. Alternatively, it could simply refer to one who uses a broken skull as a bowl.

The reference to brahmāṇḍa (‘the world’) implies liberation-in-life (jīvanmukti) and physical immortality.

The α group omits the second hemistich of this verse, but this was probably the result of eyeskip (i.e., °maṭho haṭhaḥ is repeated). Both °jagatām and °yuktānām are well attested by the collated manuscripts. We have adopted °jagatāṃ because it makes good sense with ādhārakamaṭhah in light of the cosmological notion that the tortoise supports all the worlds. This reading may not have been understood by some and was changed in other witnesses to °yuktānām, which was adopted by Brahmānanda in Jyotsnā 1.10.

Either the singular or plural of yogin could be read here. The singular is well attested among the testimonia, but the manuscript transmission favours the plural.

The term maṭhikā occurs in narrative literature and yoga texts in the sense of a small hut. For example, in the Kathāsaritsāgara (12.9.14, 29–30), maṭhikā refers to the small hut built in a cremation ground by a young Brahmin who makes as his bed the ashes of the dead girl he had hoped to marry. In several other stories (Kathāsaritsāgara 6.6.132, 10.5.89, 12.25.35), maṭhikā is the term used for the hut of an ascetic. In an elaborate description of the huts (maṭhikā) used for Haṭhayoga, the author of the Haṭhābhyāsapaddhati states that the dimensions of the hut are four fore-arm lengths (hasta) high and wide, and it can be made of various materials, such as red earth, ashes, plaster and so on (Birch and Singleton 2019: 17–18). In the Jyotsnā and printed editions of the Haṭhapradīpikā, including one by Digambara and Kokaje (1970: 6), this verse has the additional hemistich, dhanuḥpramāṇaparyantaṃ śilāgnijalavarjite. This hemistich derives from the Gorakṣaśataka (32cd), which has °paryante instead of °paryantaṃ. It stipulates that the hut should be built in a place measuring up to a bow length and free from rocks, fire and water. None of the early manuscripts has this hemistich, which suggests that it was added at a later time. Nonetheless, it appears in over a dozen manuscripts that were consulted for this edition. These manuscripts are not close to an early hyp-archetype of the text.

The syntax of this verse is problematic. One would expect the features of the hut, which are listed in the first three quarters of the verse, to be in the nominative case. Then, the words idaṃ lakṣaṇaṃ in the fourth quarter would refer back to them. However, the compounds in the first three verse-quarters appear to qualify lakṣaṇa as though they were adjectives, and this seems to have been the way the verse was composed. The manuscripts preserve many different readings at the end of the compound beginning with arandhragarta°. We have adopted piṭaka, which usually means ``a basket’’ but can also mean ``a boil or blister," because it is well attested and might here refer to bumps on the floors or walls that would make them uneven. Another possibility is °piṭharaṃ, which can have the sense of potsherds and would here mean that the hut should be free of rubbish on the floor. One would expect a word for a defect in a hut that is similar to, but not the same as, cracks (randhra) and holes (garta). For this reason, the reading °vivaraṃ looks like a patch, as its meaning does not add anything to °randhragarta°. The reading °viṭapaṃ (`the young branch of a tree or creeper’) attested in some manuscripts of the Haṭhapradīpikā is difficult to construe in this context unless it was intended to refer to creepers or branches that might invade or encroach upon the hut. Manuscripts of several groups, namely β, ε and η, have °bādhojjitaṃ, whereas δ and the Yogacintāmaṇi have the more easily understood reading of °jantūjjhitaṃ (‘free from creatures’). The α group is split on this, with G₄ (bodhojhitaṃ) closer to °bādhojjitaṃ and N₃ (jyaṃtyūpsitaṃ and J₅ (jaṃtūṣṇitaṃ) closer to °jantūjjhitaṃ. We have adopted the more unusual reading of °bādhojjitaṃ with the support of a similar description of a hut in Suśrutasaṃhitā 6.17.67 (gṛhe nirābādhe).

Since many scribes do not use an avagraha we cannot be sure whether to understand niyamagrahaḥ in pāda b as having a negative prefix. Although yama and niyama are not included in the Haṭhapradīpikā as auxiliaries of Haṭhayoga, verse 2.14 implies that niyama is necessary at least in the early stages of establishing a practice. Furthermore, verse 3.82 suggests that a yogi who does not practice niyama might obtain success in yoga through the practice of vajrolī. Ambiguity over the role of yama and niyama in Haṭhayoga may explain why two verses on ten yamas and ten niyamas were inserted in some manuscripts after the next verse (1.16). The additional verses derive from either the Śāradātilakatantra (25.7–8) or the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā (1.38, 1.53). In the Jyotsnā, Brahmānanda reads niyamāgraha and takes it as though āgraha was implied, which yields the meaning of ‘over-insistence on rules’, and he relates it to extreme ascetic practice.

α and several other groups of manuscripts have tattvajñānāc ca darśanāt or something very similar in the second pāda of the verse, but darśana by itself is problematic: a vision of what? The early sources of this verse, in particular the Śivadharmottara, indicate that the second verse quarter read as santoṣāt tattvadarśanāt, which makes much better sense of the word darśana (i.e., ‘seeing the truth’). However it seems likely that before the time of Svātmārāma other versions of this verse were circulating in which santoṣāt was not found, niścayāt had moved from the first to second verse quarter, tattvadarśanāt had become tattvajñānāt and sāhasāt was introduced. It should also be noted that the word tattva could have a more specific meaning in the Haṭhapradīpikā (4.45–46) as Svātmārāma states that it is a synonym of samādhi. In other yoga texts, it can sometimes refer to the practices of yoga (e.g. tritattva in Amṛtasiddhi 13.12, 14.2--3) or, more generally, to the highest reality or truth (e.g. Amanaska 1.2, 1.20–21, 2.17, etc.).

The reading of aṅgapāṭavam is attested among many of the early manuscripts, including the main one of the α group. Although this compound rarely appears in other yoga texts, a similar term śarīrapāṭava occurs in the Śivasaṃhitā (2.35) as one of the benefits bestowed by digestive fire (vaiśvānarāgni), which indicates that the word pāṭava was used in relation to the body and the benefits of yoga. The compound aṅgapāṭava seems to imply the optimal functioning of the body. The variant reading, aṅgalāghava (‘lightness of the limbs’ or ‘dexterity’) is more common in yoga texts and similar formulations occur even in works known to Svātmārāma, such as the Dattātreyayogaśāstra (śarīralaghutā) and the Amanaska ([...] laghutvaṃ ca śarīrasyopajāyate). It is likely that the less common term aṅgapāṭavam was changed to the more widely used notion of aṅgalāghava, perhaps early on in the transmission, as the latter is attested by manuscripts in several early groups (i.e., β, γ and δ).

On the historical implications of these two traditions of postural practice in early Haṭhayoga, see Mallinson 2016 (119–122) and Birch 2018 (45–46).

One might wonder how the soles of the feet could be placed between the knees and thighs. Brahmānanda explains that the region of the shank near the knee should be understood by the word ‘knee’ in this verse (atra jānuśabdena jānusaṃnihito jaṅghāpradeśo grāhyaḥ jānusaṃnihito jaṅghāpradeśaḥ). This is consistent with the earliest known description of svastikāsana in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (2.46), which states that the big toe of one foot is tucked in between the shank and thigh of the other so it is not seen (dakṣiṇaṃ pādāṅguṣṭhaṃ savyenorujaṅghena parigṛhyādṛśyaṃ kṛtvā tathā savyaṃ pādāṅguṣṭhaṃ dakṣiṇenorujaṅghenādṛśyaṃ parigṛhya yathā ca pārṣṇibhyāṃ vṛṣaṇayor apīḍaṇaṃ tathā yenāste tat svastikam āsanam). For a discussion of svastikāsana in the Pātañjalayoga tradition, see Maas 2018: 68–69. The descriptions of svastikāsana in early Śaiva Tantras do not mention the inserting of the toes between the knees and thighs (see Goodall 2004: 348–350, fn. 371).

This posture first appears in some Vaiṣṇava Saṃhitās that predate the Haṭhapradīpikā, including the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā and the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā, which is likely to have been the source of this verse. The position of the ankles is the same in all the source texts. The Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā adds that the hands are crossed behind the back and hold the big toes. For illustrations of six possible positions of the arms and hands, see Gharote, Jha, Devnath, Sakhalkar 2006: 111–113.

Although most witnesses have tathā in 1.21a, the word atha has been accepted because it is attested by G₄ (α group) and V₁ (η group), the sources and the testimonia. It appears to be verse filler here rather than indicating a temporal sequence of actions. Svātmārāma borrowed the verse on vīrāsana from the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā, the redactor of which appears to have adapted its first hemistich from a description of this posture in the Śāradātilakatantra. This would explain the rather strange syntax of the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā’s version, in which adhaḥ kṛtvā was changed to athaikasmin, and tathetaram became ca saṃsthitam. It seems that saṃsthitaṃ must be understood with ūruṃ in the third pāda in the sense of saṃsthāpya (i.e., ‘having placed’). Different versions of vīrāsana are found in earlier Tantras, such as the Kiraṇatantra (58.9), Hemacandra’s Yogaśāstra and commentaries on the Pātañjalayogaśāstra. For a discussion of some of these sources, see Maas 2018: 66–68.

In the first quarter of the verse, the witnesses are split between nirudhya (‘having blocked’), nibadhya (‘having bound’), niyamya (‘having restrained’) and niṣpīḍya (‘having pressed’). The source, the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā, and two manuscripts of the β and γ groups support nirudhya whereas one α manuscript (J₅) and the testimonia support niyamya and another α manuscript (G₄) has niṣpīḍya. In terms of blocking or closing the anus by sitting on the ankles, nirudhya makes good sense, and niṣpīḍya (`having pressed the anus with both ankles’) is also possible. ??The word vyutkrameṇa appears to describe the position of the ankles. Its basic meaning is ‘against the normal direction,’ which would suggest that the ankles are turned out or crossed rather than placed together naturally. If the yogi is in a kneeling-type position, turning the feet out would bring the ankles together, blocking the perineal area. See Yoga Mīmāṃsā, vol 8, no. 2, pp. 29–30 for a discussion of vyutkrameṇa and the position of the ankles in kūrmāsana, and vol 8, no. 2, Figures 3–6 for photographs of a practitioner performing this āsana.

The names kurkuṭa and kurkkuṭa in some manuscripts are variant spellings of kukkuṭa attested in the Pañcatantra (M-W).

The oldest dated manuscript, η1, has kukkuṭāsanavat kṛtvā, which is a simpler alternative to the widely attested reading kukkuṭāsanabandhasthaḥ (including α2 and α3), which we have accepted. Since there is no known source for this verse other than the Haṭhapradīpikā, it appears that the reading of η1 was an isolated attempt to simplify the syntax.

Since the word ākarṣaṇa in one form or other is so well attested in the third verse quarter, the reading dhanurākarṣaṇaṃ kṛtvā, which is in ε2, as well as the principal testimonia (i.e., the Yogacintāmaṇi and Haṭharatnāvalī), fits the overall syntax of the verse. However, it is curious that kṛṣṭaṃ (for kṛtvā) is well attested in some groups of manuscripts because it seems redundant with ākarṣaṇaṃ. However, the following reading in Godāvaramiśra’s Yogacintāmaṇi (f. 40r) makes sense of kṛṣṭaṃ and might indeed be the original version of the verse: dhanurākarṣavat kṛṣṭaṃ dhanurāsanam ucyate. A different version of dhanurāsana is described in the Haṭhayogasaṃhitā. On the two versions of dhanurāsana, see Hargreaves and Birch 2017. One manuscript of the Haṭhapradīpikā (ms. no. 30051, f. 2v), which was consulted but not collated for this edition, has a scribal comment stating that dhanurāsana should be done continuously (anavarata) on the left and right sides (tatra ekam dhanurākarṣaṇāsanam āsanaṃ savyāpasavyapādahastābhyām [abhy]ased anavaratam). This would make dhanurāsana a dynamic practice as shown in this video.

In the second verse quarter, most of the manuscript groups have a compound with °doṣṇā at the end, as seen also in the Yogacintāmaṇi, Haṭharatnāvalī and Yuktabhavadeva. The instrumental ending (`with the hand’) works well with the gerund (pragṛhya) in the third verse quarter and the object (°dakṣpādaṃ) in the first quarter. This reading indicates that the right foot is held by the hand of the arm that is wrapped around the outside of the left leg, which would be the right hand (°dakṣadoṣṇā) rather than the left (°vāmadoṣṇā), as shown in Figure 1. One manuscript of α (G₄) and most manuscripts of the Haṭharatnāvalī have °dakṣapādo in the first pāda. This reading yields the same meaning as the adopted one if read with °vāmapādaṃ in the second. However, G₄ and manuscripts of the Haṭharatnāvalī read °vāmadoṣṇā, which is not good because it leaves the gerund without an object. The version of this verse in Jyotsnā (1.26), which is supported by some manuscripts in two important groups, β and η, has two objects of the gerund, namely the left and right feet, without an instrumental or conjuctive particle. In his commentarial remarks, Brahmānanda proposes that the left foot is grasped by the right hand and the right foot by the left foot, as seen in Figure 2.

The manuscript readings for the compound beginning with jaṭhara diverge significantly and include jaṭharapravṛddha°, jaṭharaprabuddha°, jaṭharapradīpta° and jaṭharapracaṇḍa°. As descriptive compounds, none of these makes good sense in regard to Matsyendra’s seat. Since the stomach or abdomen (jaṭhara) is the first member of this compound, it seems more likely that it qualifies the terrible diseases (pracaṇḍarug) that are mentioned in the next verse quarter, as suggested by the reading jaṭharapravṛddha°, which is attested by η2 and the Yogacintāmaṇi and suggested by γ1and δ1(jaṭharapravuddh°). In 1.27d, the compound daṇḍasthiratvaṃ (`steadiness of the spine’) is attested by all the important manuscript groups and testimonia, so it was likely original. However, the Jyotsnā (1.27d) has candrasthiratvaṃ (`steadiness of the moon’), and this reading is well-attested in many manuscripts that are lower on the stemma. Brahmānanda understands steadiness here as `the absence of flow’ (sthiratvaṃ kṣaraṇābhāvaṃ), a reference to the moon retaining its nectar.

The reading dorbhyāṃ padāgradvitayaṃ is well attested but is somewhat strange because dos usually means `the arm’ rather than the hands. The variant dvābhyāṃ karābhyāṃ dvitayaṃ, “with both hands”, appears to be an attempt to remove dorbhyāṃ, but it introduces the problem of the toes not being mentioned.

The use of the word paścima to mean the central channel is found at Yogabīja 95 (paścimamārgataḥ), 108 (paścime pathi), 117 (paścimadvāramārgeṇa) and 121 (paścimaṃ). Cf.~the usages of paścima-mārga in Dattātreyayogaśāstra 140 and Śivasaṃhitā 3.110 (from which this verse is likely to be derived). Brahmānanda understands paścima as referring to the Suṣumṇā (Jyotsnā 1.29): paścimavāhinaṃ paścimena paścimamārgeṇa suṣumṇāmārgeṇa vahatīti paścimavāhī.

The source of this verse is unknown, but it has the same elements as the two verses in the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā (1.76–77), which are themselves derived from earlier Vaiṣṇava sources. The compound uccāsanaḥ in the third verse quarter seems to approximate in a somewhat vague way the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā’s reading samunnataśiraḥpādaḥ. In the second verse quarter, the pronoun in tatkūrpare refers to the two hands (karadvaya). This is stated more explicitly (i.e., hastayoḥ kūrparau) in Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā 1.76c and Yogayājñavalkya 3.15c.

The word tu is often used to introduce a new posture, but in this case seems to be a verse filler. In the first and third verse quarters, Svātmārāma appears to have rewritten Śivasaṃhitā 3.96 to include the information that it was Śiva (śivena) who taught the eighty-four āsanas, whereas in the source Śiva is himself speaking. Svātmārāma also changes the meaning of the second half of the verse, as the Śivasaṃhitā states that Śiva picked out the four best postures and taught them, whereas in the Haṭhapradīpikā it reads as though Svātmārāma himself is responsible for picking out the four best postures and teaching them. There are other instances in the Haṭhapradīpikā where Svātmārāma borrows a verse with a first person verb (e.g., 3.43, 4.2). However, in this instance, he may have intended to indicate that he chose the four postures coming after this verse (i.e., siddha, padma, siṃha and bhadra) because the Śivasaṃhitā follows 3.96 with teachings on the postures called siddha, padma, paścimottāna and svastika. Another possibility is that Svātmārāma borrowed 1.33–1.34 from an unknown source that contained a dialogue that was different to that of Śivasaṃhitā, as indicated by sakhe in 1.34.

It is likely that the original version of this verse contained the vocative with the imperative form of the verb (sakhe tiṣṭha). There are other instances where Svātmārāma included a verse with the vocative (e.g., 4.10, 4.12, 4.20, 4.72, 4.86, 4.88) as though the text were a dialogue. Other versions of this verse are transmitted by some manuscripts of the Haṭhapradīpikā, in which the vocative and imperative verb have been removed. In these cases, the sukhe and sukham is difficult to construe because the context suggests that the intended meaning was that one should always sit in siddhāsana (as opposed to the other three āsanas), rather than the prescription to always sit in a comfortable siddhāsana.

The adopted reading ekahṛdayo is supported by two manuscripts of the Haṭhapradīpikā (J₂ and M₁) and is close to the α reading ekahṛdaye, which is also attested by the six-chapter Viveka-mārtaṇḍa and the Yoga-cintāmaṇi, .. which attributes this verse to an unkown work called the Pavanayogasaṅgraha. In this case, ekahṛdayaḥ would perhaps qualify the yogi as having a mind focused on one thing. The second verse quarter has many variations in the Haṭhapradīpikā manuscripts, as well as in the manuscripts of the sources and testimonia. α1 has athaikam ekahṛdaye dhṛtvā and most of the collated witnesses have athaikam eva hṛdaye dhṛtvā. The repetition of eka appears to be a dittographical error and hṛdaye does not make sense without an object of dhṛtvā (i.e., having held what on the chest?). In the adopted reading athaikam āsyahṛdaye dhṛtvā, which is attested by η1, the oldest dated manuscript, the compound āsyahṛdaye can be understood with the gerund dhṛtvā and ekam in the sense of `having held the face and chest together.’ This alludes to the practice of the Jālandhara lock, in which the chin is placed on the chest. This meaning is more clearly seen in the Jyotsnā’s version of the second verse quarter, hṛdaye kṛtvā hanuṃ susthiram (`having put the jaw firmly on the chest’). The compound āsyahṛdaye is supported by other manuscripts, such as N₁₀, P₁, P₆ and J₁₆ and the variants asyahṛdaye and asyahṛdayaṃ also occur (e.g., J₇, J₁₂, A₁, V₄, V₁₈, V₁₆, P₈ and P₉). The other well-attested reading, athaikaṃ eva niyataṃ, was an attempt to fix the problem of hṛdaye by replacing it with niyatam, which must be read with meḍhre pādam athaikaṃ (`having fixed one foot on the penis’). But niyatam is redundant here because of vinyaset in the first pāda.

Svātmārāma’s introductory and following remarks to verse 1.36 indicate that he preferred the siddhāsana of the Vivekamārtaṇḍa over the version taught as muktāsana in the Vasiṣṭhasaṃhitā and Yogayājñavalkya.

It is odd to have suṣumṇām as the object of the verb abhyaset. This reading is well attested by manuscripts of the Haṭhapradīpikā and is also found in the Yogacintāmaṇi, which attributes it to the Yogasāramañjarī. Perhaps, the second hemistich was added somewhat haphazardly by Svātmārāma, and then others have tried to make sense of it by changing suṣumnām iva nāḍiṣu to nāḍīnāṃ malaśodhanam, which occurs in the Jyotsnā (1.39). The reading nāḍīnāṃ malaśodhanam/e is probably a patch as no other texts say that siddhāsana clears the channels. However, the idea of purifying the channels can be found in other contexts (e.g., Kumbhakapaddhati 120) and may hark back to an earlier notion of flushing (cālana) the channels (e.g., Amṛtasiddhi 11.6).

The notion of āsanas causing fatigue (śrama) was mentioned earlier in the verse on the corpse pose (1.32).

It seems likely that dṛḍhaṃ (rather than dṛḍhe) was originally intended in 1.42a because dṛḍhataraṃ, which is not ambiguous, is used in 1.48a to qualify how padmāsana should be adopted, and dṛḍhaṃ complements sāvadhānaṃ in 1.41a.

The reading na kumbhasadṛśo ’nilaḥ (`no breath like a retention’) is the lectio difficilior and attested by two early witnesses (η1 and η2) and is possibly original. However, the α manuscripts and several other important witness groups have the adopted reading kumbhaḥ kevalopamaḥ, as well as the Yogacintāmaṇi and some manuscripts of the Haṭharatnāvalī, suggesting that this reading, which makes much better sense, was in the transmission at an early stage.

The syntax of this verse as we have presented it is incomplete: at its end pavanaṃ śanaiḥ, `the breath gradually’, is left hanging. In the source text, the Dattātreyayogaśāstra, the following verse completes the syntax with pūrayed, “one should inhale”. Either Svātmārāma chose to leave the verse hanging (the following verse in the Dattātreyayogaśāstra adds nothing about the form of the posture, which is the topic here) or the verse that completes the syntax fell out, perhaps because of a scribal error that happened early in the transmission. In the Dattātreyayogaśāstra verses 36 and 37 both end with pavanaṃ śanaiḥ, the repetition of which may have caused an eyeskip. The manuscript readings with vakṣa sthāpayet (J<sub>7</sub>, V<sub>3</sub>, J<sub>8</sub>, J<sub>10</sub>, J<sub>17</sub> and N<sub>17</sub>) or something similar (V<sub>1</sub> and W<sub>4</sub>) do not offer a solution to the incomplete syntax so do not indicate that Svātmārāma rewrote Dattātreyayogaśāstra 36 so that he could omit Dattātreyayogaśāstra 37. In the absence of evidence that Svātmārāma included Dattātreyayogaśāstra 37 or wrote a coherent version of Haṭhapradīpikā 1.46, we have made sense of pavanaṃ śanaiḥ by adding “[draw in]” in our translation. Brahmānanda’s comment on the statement, `having raised the root of the uvula with the tongue’ (rājadantamūlaṃ ca jihvayā uttabhya) in 1.46 is worth noting. In the context of Haṭhayoga, one would assume this statement to be referring to a type of khecarīmudrā, in which the tongue lifts the root of the uvula, here called the `royal tooth’ (rājadanta, on the meaning of which see Mallinson 2007: 209 n. 258). However, Brahmānanda understands it differently (synonyms omitted for clarity): Pushing against both roots of the front teeth on the left and right with the tongue [ldots ] — this fixation of the tongue has to be understood from the mouth of the teacher. rājadantānāṃ daṃṣṭrāṇāṃ savyadakṣiṇabhāge sthitānāṃ mūle ubhe mūlasthāne jihvayā uttambhya ūrdhvaṃ stambhayitvā | gurumukhād avagantavyo ’yaṃ jihvābandhaḥ | Brahmānanda appears to have had in mind a probably older rule for meditation postures, according to which the tongue rests near the front teeth. One example of this is in Svacchandatantra (4.365f.), which teaches a meditation pose called divyaṃ karaṇam , in which the tongue is to rest at the tip of the teeth (dantāgre jihvām ādāya). Other Tantric texts have this or similar rules, in which the tongue is supposed to rest either on the teeth or the palate, early examples being the Mṛgendrāgama, yogapāda 19 (dantāgre jihvām ādāya) and Mataṅgapārameśvaratantra, yogapāda 2.27 (tālumadhyagatenaiva jihvāgreṇa). Placing the tongue where it does not disturb the meditation seems quite appropriate for a `normal’ meditative practice. * When the context is haṭhayogic physiology, placing the tongue at the uvula, which is the source of `nectar’, is more appropriate. Confusingly, yogic terminology includes many names for the uvula, and among these especially the term rājadanta may give rise to confusion, since, as we have seen, the tongue might also in some yoga systems be placed at the front teeth. Furthermore, the haṭhayogic khecarīmudrā has been described in manifold ways. Usually the tongue is said to be inserted into the cavity above the palate but in some cases it is placed at the uvula. Thus the tenth-century Mokṣopāya (V.55.14c) says that the tongue rests at the `source of the palate’ (tālumūlatalālagnajihvā) and the commentary, the Saṃsārataraṇi, on the parallel passage in Laghuyogavāsiṣṭha V.6.155, which reads tālumūlāntarālagnajihvā°, explains that this means that the tongue is to be placed in the middle of the two regions of the palate, and that this is the nabhomudrā, alias `khecarī’ (tālumūlāntarālagnajihvamūlaḥ tālumūlayoḥ kākudamūladeśayoḥ āntare lagnam ālagnam jihvāmūlam yasyety anena nabhomudrā darśitā | yā hi khecarı̄ty ucyate). A little later in the Mokṣopāya (V.78.24ab) it is made clear that one should reach the uvula, `at the root of the palate’ (tālumūlagatāṃ yatnāj jihvayākramya ghaṇṭikām). In view of this background we must conclude that the author of the Jyotsnā was probably not aware of the yogic meaning of rājadanta and has tried his best to make sense of the passage, echoing the idea of the two roots of the palate (although his text is not talking about the palate), but then referring to the instruction of the teacher for practical details, probably noticing that his literal interpretation is somewhat opaque. In addition to his commentary on 1.46 (translated above), Brahmānanda’s comments on rājadantasthajihvāyām at 3.22 indicate that he thought the rājadanta refers to the front teeth (kutaḥ?yato dantānāṃ rājāno rājadantā rājadanteṣu tiṣṭhatīti rājadantasthāḥ, rājadantasthā cāsau jihvā ca tasyāṃ rājadantasthajihvāyāṃ bandhaḥ, taduparibhāgasya sambandhaḥ śastaḥ).

In this context, the word durlabham is somewhat ambiguous as to whether the posture is hard to perform or hard to acquire (the more usual meaning). In commenting on durlabham in Jyotsnā 2.74, Brahmānanda glosses it as duṣprāpam, which means `difficult to attain’ and `inaccessible.’ The comment added to this verse by Svātmārāma indicates that he prefers the following version of padmāsana, which derives from the Vivekamārtaṇḍa, rather than the one he has borrowed from the Dattātreyayogāśāstra.

The text at end of the second verse quarter is uncertain. Later witnesses, including Brahmānanda, have dhyāyaṃś ca but none of the early ones has this reading. We are taking dhyānaṃ with sannidhāya, but this renders tat problematic because it has no clear referent. In the source text, the Vivekamārtaṇḍa, tat appears to refer to the mokṣadvāra broken by kuṇḍalinī, which is mentioned in the previous verse. The two participles proccālayan and muñcan imply that the two things are happening at the same time, which is surprising but perhaps possible.

It is not unusual to read pūrayan with the locative as seen in this verse (cf. pūrayen mukhe in Amaraugha 21d). γ1’s reading of niyatam (instead of dhārayed) in the third verse quarter explains the passive verbs in other witnesses. The passive verbs do not make sense with yas tu. The passive verbs meaning to take in the breath (e.g., pīyate) may have been adopted to remove the reference to holding the breath because a breath retention is not mentioned in the previous verse describing padmāsana (only inhalation and exhalation). In the third verse quarter, α1 reads māruto mriyate yas tu, which does not make sense, but if one accepts pūrayet in the second verse quarter, one could emend α’s reading to māruto mriyate yasya, which makes good sense (i.e., `the yogi whose breath dies is undoubtedly liberated’). In the same vein, α2 also has the plausible reading mārutaṃ mārayet yas tu. The Jyotsnā (1.49) has nāḍīdvāreṇa instead of nāḍīdvāreṣu, and Brahmānanda interprets it as the opening of the central channel (suṣumnāmārgeṇa). This yields the idea of filling up the central channel (as opposed to other channels), which is described in the Yogabīja (94–95).