j :- 7lume6ue2 ] july-december28 · 2019. 1. 7. · catalogus catalogorum,[1] there are many...

er l J ur ll y yc l y r yc l y

Official Publication ofSwami Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana University

J - lume 6 ue 2 July-December 2 8

2 - 6

Inte

rnatio

nal J

ou

rnal o

f Yo

ga-P

hilo

so

ph

y, Psych

olo

gy a

nd

Para

psych

olo

gy • V

olu

me 6

• Issu

e 2

• Ju

ly-D

ecem

ber 2

018

• Page ***-***

66 © 2018 International Journal of Yoga ‑ Philosophy, Psychology and Parapsychology | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow

Yogatārāvalī or Rājayogatārāvalī is a work on Yoga ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya. Itcomprises of 29 Sanskrit verses. The importance of the work is evidenced by therepeatedpublicationoftheworksince1898till2003fromdifferentpartsofthecountry.There aremanymanuscripts of this work across variousmanuscript repositories inIndia.Amongthese,therearetwomanuscripts(fromAdyarandMysore)thathaveaSanskrit commentaryRājayogataralabyRāmasvāmīpaṇḍita aliasParānandanātha toYogatārāvalī. It is the only available commentary to the text.Themanuscriptswereacquiredbyphotocopyinganddigital imagingfromtherespectiverepositoriesbasedon thedescriptions in the respectiveDescriptivecatalogues.Although thereareonly29versesinthetextYogatārāvalī(byŚaṅkarācārya)Rājayogatarala,thecommentaryis very detailed (47 folios and 165 folios in Adyar and Mysore manuscripts,respectively).EachoftheversesofYogatārāvalīhavebeenaccordedanywherebetweentwo to seven interpretations. The commentator quotes from Uttaragītā, Gurugītā,Nānārtharatnamālā, Mahārājatarala, Muktisopāna, Vijṛmbhita‑yogaśāstra‑bhāṣya,Śivayoga‑pradīpikā, etc., besides Upaniṣads and Āgamas. Further, works on Yogaenlisted above such as Mahārājatarala, Vijṛmbhitayogaśāstrabhāṣya are yet tobe published. Multiple interpretations, detailed descriptions of Yoga concepts andcopiouscross‑referencesmakethisauniqueandimportantinthefieldofYogatobestudiedfordeeperinsights.

Keywords: Commentary, rājayoga, śaṅkarācārya, yogatārāvalī

Unique Insights from Rājayogatarala of Rāmasvāmipaṇḍita: An Unpublished Commentary on Yogatārāvalī Ascribed to ŚaṅkarācāryaJayaraman Mahadevan

Access this article onlineQuick Response Code:

Website: www.ijoyppp.org

DOI: 10.4103/ijny.ijoyppp_9_18

According to the details documented in the newcatalogus catalogorum,[1] there are many manuscriptsof thiswork, stored in variousmanuscript repositoriesacross the country, fromAdyar toUjjain andVaranasi.Thisworkhasbeenrepeatedlyprintedfromasearlyas1898,toasrecentlyas2003.Therearetwocommentariesto this text – one by Gorakṣanātha, and the otherby Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita, alias Parānandanātha. Thecommentary by Gorakṣanātha, now housed in PunjabUniversity, Lahore, is a short text that spans only one

Review Article

Introduction

T his article attempts to throw light on anunpublished text calledRājayogatarala,which is a

commentary on awork onYoga, calledYogatārāvalī orRājayogatārāvalī, ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya. Before weexamine the commentary, let us gain an understandingofthismaintext,Yogatārāvalī.

There are 29 Sanskrit verses in this text. The yogictopicsthataredealtinthisworkinclude:a. Nādānusandhāna(Verses2–9)b. Kevalakumbhaka(Verses10–13)c. Rājayoga(Verses14–16)d. Manonmanī/Unmanī(Verses17–19)e. Amanaskamudrā(Verse21,22)f. Yoganidrā(Verse25,26)g. Nirvikalpa‑samādhi(Verse29).

DepartmentofResearch,KrishnamacharyaYogaMandiram,Chennai,TamilNadu,India

Abs

trac

t

Address for correspondence: Dr. Jayaraman Mahadevan, Department of Research, Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram, 31, 4th Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai ‑ 600 028,

Tamil Nadu, India. E‑mail: [email protected]

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

For reprints contact: [email protected]

How to cite this article: Mahadevan J. Unique insights from Rājayogatarala of Rāmasvāmipaṇḍita: An unpublished commentary on Yogatārāvalī ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya. Int J Yoga - Philosop Psychol Parapsychol 2018;6:66-73.

Mahadevan: Unique Insights from Rājayogatarala of Rāmasvāmipaṇḍita

67International Journal of Yoga ‑ Philosophy, Psychology and Parapsychology ¦ Volume 6 ¦ Issue 2 ¦ July‑December 2018

leaf. It is inscribed in Tamil script on a palm leaf.That leaves us with the commentary of RāmasvāmīPaṇḍita, thesubjectmatterofthispaper.

Twomanuscriptsofthis(yet‑to‑be‑published)commentaryare enlisted in the New Catalogus Catalogorum. Onemanuscript is in Adyar Library and Research Centre,Chennai, and other is in Mysore Oriental ResearchInstitute,Mysore.

Table 1 presents details of the manuscripts as per therespectivedescriptivecatalogs.[2,3]

About the CommentatorLineage and teachersThe end colophon of the manuscript provides detailsaboutthelineageoftheauthor:

…śaunakagotrāvataṃsa‑hiṅguvaṃśa‑prābhātikaprabhākarāyamāṇa‑nāgāmbikāramaṇa‑koneśvara‑putreṇa…parānanda‑nāthāparābhidheyarāmasvāmīpaṇḍitena viracitā rājataralasamākhyā rājayogatārāvalīvyākhyā samāptā|

Details gleaned from the quote above are ‑ The name ofthe author is Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita alias Parānandanātha.He belongs to Śaunaka‑gotra and Hiṅgu‑vaṃśa (Iṅguvathe Telugu word for Hiṅgu is a Surname of TeluguBrahmaṇas). His father and mother are Koneśvara andNāgāmbika.

Detailed subject‑wise list of teachers of the commentatoris presented as part of the invocatory verses of thecommentary:

yatayeśrīnṛsiṃhāyabodhānandaghanāyaca|

śrīveṅkaṭāyarāmāyaśivāyabrahmaṇenamaḥ||

śrīmadveṅkaṭarāmaṃ taṃ śrīguruṃ chātrakāmadaṃ. sāṅgayogaprayogadam|| lakṣmīnṛsiṃhaguravepāṇinīyapradāyine|

nānāvedāntacaryādhvakelīkramaṇakesarī|

rājahaṃsāyatāmannasūrirmamasumānasi||

vikāsayatumecittakamalaṃsāṅgavedavit|

śrīperabhaṭṭasavitāsaccidānandacidghanaḥ||

Among the list of teachers presented above, it isnoteworthy that the commentator mentions SriNṛsimhayati and Śivarāma‑brahma‑bodhānanda‑ghanendra first. Later, Veṅkaṭarāma is mentioned as theteacher of yoga. The term used to describe him meritsattention ‑ sāṅgayogaprayogada ‑ the one who gave theknowledgeoftheapplicationoftheYogawithallitslimbs.

Lakṣmīnṛsiṃha is mentioned as his teacher in PāṇiniGrammar. The name of Anna sūri as a scholar invarious types of Vedāntas is also found among the listof teachers of the commentator. Perabhaṭṭa is salutedby Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita as Sāṅgavedavit ‑ the one wellversed in the Vedas and its auxiliaries. Although somany names and details about the teachers and parentsaregiven,nodirectmentionofthedateandplaceoftheauthorisfoundinthecommentary.

Date and place of the commentatorB. Bhaṭṭacharya[4] places Parānanda‑sūtra,ascribed to Parānandanātha to the 9th centuryCE. However, Nānārtharatnamālā that has beenreferred to in this commentary (for four times)belongs to the 14th century.[5] Multiple references toYogayājñavalkya (13th or 14th century)[6] is also afurther indicator that pushes the author to a later date.Further, at many places, the author quotes verses fromŚivayogapradīpikā ascribed to Sadāśivabrahmendrawhose is placed in the 18th century.[7] Hence, by theseindications, it can be concluded that the author of thiscommentary is a different Parānandanātha and possiblybelongstoaperiodafterthe18thcentury.

There is no explicit mention of the geographiclocation of the author. However, there are certain clearevidences that show that he might have belonged toAndhra Pradesh. He mentions one of his Gurus asPera Bhaṭṭa. It is to be noted that Perama Bhaṭṭa orPeru Bhaṭṭa is the name of the father of the illustriousSanskrit poet Jagannātha paṇḍita (16th century), whoseprovenance has been fixed asAndhra Pradesh.[8] Goingby thepreviousdiscussionon thepossibleperiodof thecomposition of the text, this Pera Bhaṭṭa ismost likelya different one. However, this shows the prevalence ofsuchanameintheAndhraregion.

Table 1: Details of the manuscriptsName of the Manuscript repository/manuscript number

Script Material Size in cm

Number of Folios

Number lines per folio

Number letters per line

Extant Condition

AdyarLibraryandResearchInstituteNo.72330

Telugu Palm‑leaf 39×4 47 7 60 Complete Good

MysoreOrientalResearchInstituteMs.No.378

Devanagari Paper 16×20 1‑164 14 14 ‑ Damagedwormeaten


68 International Journal of Yoga ‑ Philosophy, Psychology and Parapsychology ¦ Volume 6 ¦ Issue 2 ¦ July‑December 2018

Further, in the beginning and also at the end, thecommentatormentionsLordDakṣiṇāmūrti of the regionofKadalī(near)Śrīśaila:

brahmapiṇḍāṇḍakadalīśrīśailapuravāsine…/śrībhūbhṛdkadalīvihāra‑rasikaśrīdakṣḥiṇāmūrti‑satpādāmbhoja‑yuge…

This seems to be a clear reference to the KadalīvanathatislocatedinthewesternbanksoftheriverKrishna,12 km across the river, from the modern‑day town ofŚrīśaila inAndhraPradesh.Alongside, in the invocatoryverses, he also salutes Nṛsiṃhayatī (invocatory verse12) and Dattātreya (vidhiviṣṇurudravinutam… the onewho is saluted by the Brahmā,Viṣṇu and Rudra, verse5). It is to be noted that Kadalīvana has both a templeof Dattātreya and a statue of Nṛsiṃhayatī. Moreover,it is a holy place of worship for the devotees of LordShiva.[9] Thus, all of these evidence point to the factthat the commentator might well have belonged to thisregionofAndhraPradesh.

Four Aspects from the CommentaryThe commentary is quite elaborate, as is evinced by thenumber of folios (47 in palm leaves and 164 in papermanuscript). The critical edition of the work is currentlyunderway. Therefore, without venturing into a detailedanalysis (which would be more appropriate after thecompletionof the critical edition), this articleproposes todiscuss a few salient features (which are not necessarilymutually connected) of the commentary, based on aninitialanalysis.

Four unique features/contributions stand out in thiscommentary:• ClassificationofYogathroughmultipleinterpretations• AvoidanceofNāthasampradāyatextsanditsprobable

implications• UniqueclassificationofAṣṭāṅgayoga• Hands‑freealternativenostrilbreathing.

Classification of Yoga and multiple interpretationsAstudyoftheinitialportionsofthiscommentarygivesanimpressionthatheisintentonstandardizingaspecifickindofgradedclassificationofYoga.Itisevidencedbythefactthat (i) he states the classification right in the introductorypassagethatcomesaftertheinvocatoryverses,(ii)hearguesfor, and (iii) adopts themethod ofmultiple interpretationsof a couple of verses and a few terms ofYogatārāvalī torepresentalltheconstituentsofhisclassification.

i. Classificationasstatedintheintroductorypassage:

sapunaryogaścaturvidhaḥ|

mantralayahaṭharājayogabhedāt|

tatrāṅgīrājayogomukhyaḥ|

so’pitrividhaḥ|

sāṅkhyatārakāmanaskabhedāt|

tatrāmanaskaṃpradhānaṃbhavati|

Yoga is of four types, namely Mantrayoga,Layayoga, Haṭhayoga, and Rājayoga. Of these,the first three are the limbs and the fourth isprincipalyoga.EvenRājayogaisofthreetypesVizSāṅkhyayoga, Tārakāyoga and Amanaskayoga.Amongthethree,Amanaskaisthemain(Yoga).

This classification is not a unique contributionof Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita as he quotes verses fromŚivayogapradīpikāwhichdiscussthisclassification.

ii. The second instance that brings out the focus ofthe commentator to establish the aforementionedclassification of yoga is indirect but interesting.He presents two arguments that aid his objective.Let us look at them briefly. The first verse ofYogatārāvalī beginswith thewords “vandegurūṇāṃcaraṇāravinde…” (salutations to the lotus like (two)feet of theGuru). In the course of the commentary,Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita interprets the term aravinda infour different ways. The fourth interpretation whichisquiteuncommonisasfollows:

raṃ prakāśaṃ vindete iti ravinde, ebhyaḥbrahmaviṣṇurudrebhyaḥ

ravindeprakāśaprade|

akāro brahmaviṣṇvīśakamaṭheṣvitinānārtharatnamālāyām|

govindanāmavyākhyāne vindateḥdānārthakatvamācāryairevaprakaṭitam|

caraṇaṃcacaraṇaṃcacaraṇe|

...aravindecatecaraṇecaraṇāravinde|.

Fromtheabovequotationofthecommentary,itisevidentthat the termaravinda hasbeen split intoa andravinda.Unusualmeaningtothetwowordshasbeenpresentedandsoon.After suchanattempt, thecommentatorgives tworeasons toexplainmultipleandunusual interpretations tothetermsofYogatārāvalī.Thefirstreasonis:

ācāryavacasaḥ chandastulyatvāt|

na ca. eka evārthaḥ vācyaḥ na bahuśaḥ iti vācyam|

tvaduktanyāyasya prākṛtaviṣayatvāt|

‑The words of the Ācārya (Śaṅkara) are equal tothe Vedas. Hence, it cannot be stated that one word(ofŚaṅkara)hastohaveonlymeaningandnotmany.



Thesecondreasonis:

etasyagranthasya sampūrṇayogapratipādakatvābhāvātnyūnatāpatteḥ

(If oneword is given only one interpretation then) duetotheinabilitytorepresenttheentireyoga,therewillbelacuna.

Through the first point, the commentator uses his regardfor Ācārya Śaṅkara to gain license to carry out multipleinterpretations. Had he stopped at that, one could haveassumed that to be the genuine reason for multipleinterpretations. However, since he makes the secondstatement mentioned above, it becomes evident that thecommentator is bent upon interpreting the text in such awaythatitrepresentstheentirebodyofyoga(basedontheclassificationthatheproposedintheintroductorypassage).

It is to be noted here that nowhere in the sourcetext (Yogatārāvalī) does Śaṅkara give any indicationthathewantstodoSampūrṇa‑yoga‑pratipādana.Hence,this clearly seems to be one of themajor objectives ofRāmasvāmī Paṇḍita in attempting this commentary.Tables 2 and 3 bring out the effort of the commentatorinmultipleinterpretationtorealizethesaidobjective.

Letusconsiderthesecondverse,listedfirstinTable2:

sadāśivoktāni sapādalakṣalayāvadhānāni vasanti loke|

nādānusandhānasamādhimekaṃ manyāmahe mānyatamaṃ layānām||

This verse has seven interpretations, which is a classicexample of the commentator’s objective. The first sixinterpretationspresentsixtypesofyoga,namelyMantra,

Laya, Haṭha, Sāṅkhya, Tāraka, andAmanaska. That is,he first interprets the verse in such a manner that onefinds Mantra yoga being conveyed by the verse. Thesecond interpretation points to Laya yoga, the third, toHaṭhayoga and so on. The sixth interpretation presentsAmanaska yoga, and the seventh interpretation againspeaksaboutaslightvariationofAmanaskayoga.

Wemustnoteherethatinattemptingtoprovidemultipleinterpretations to the yogic words that are listed inTable3,thecommentatorcarefullystickstogrammaticaland conventional frameworks. He refers to lexiconssuch as Nānārtharatnamālā, Śabdārthakalpataru, andAmarakośa. Indeed, in 26 instances, the commentatorrefers to the works related to Pāṇini grammar. Wherehis interpretations do not find lexical or grammaticalsupport, the commentator quotes portions from otherworksofŚaṅkaratoshowprecedence.

As is evident, it is indeed rare to find a yogatext/commentary that is written with an objective ofpresentingentireclassificationyogawithinaspanofjust28verses,thattoowithauniquemethodofmultipleanduncommoninterpretations,allthewhileoperatingwithingrammaticalandconventionalframeworks.

Avoidance of Nāthasampradāya Texts and Probable ImplicationsToexplainthisaspect,textscitedbyRāmasvāmīPaṇḍitain the course of the commentary should be taken intoconsideration.Table4presents theclassificationof textsquotedbythecommentator.

As the table reveals,RāmasvāmīPaṇḍitacitesprofuselyfrom the Vedas, Vedāntic texts, lexicons, Tantra texts,andSmṛitis.He also quotes fromotherYoga texts suchas Yogasūtras, Yogayājñavalkya, Śivayogapradīpikā(inseveninstances),andSvaracintāmaṇi.However,inthelist of texts above, it is noteworthy thatworks onYogafrom the Nāthasampradāya such as Gorakṣaśataka andHaṭhayogapradīpikā are conspicuous in their absence.Although Yogatārāvalī holds discussions on conceptsthat are mentioned in Nāthasampradāya texts‑conceptssuch asNādānusandhāna, the threemudrās (Jālandhara,Uḍḍiyāṇa, and Mūlabandha), Manonmanī‑Unmanī,and Kumbhaka Prāṇāyāmas – Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍitaconsciously avoids quoting Nātha texts whileexplaining these concepts. Instead, he prefers quotingŚivayogapradīpikā, Yogayājñavalkya, andYogopaniṣadsinthesesituations.ItisalsotobenotedthatRāmasvāmīPaṇḍita does not discuss yogic practices such asthe six Kriyās, Amarolī, and Vajrolī (introduced byNātha texts). Can this be thought of as mere aversionof the commentator to some elements of yoga ascribedtoNāthatexts,ordoesthishaveanyotherimplication?

Table 2: Multiple interpretation of versesVerse number Interpretations2 73 45 211 212 2

Table 3: Multiple interpretation of termsWord InterpretationsRājayoga 7Guru 5Nādānusandhāna 13Aravinda 4Kumbhaka 3Sadāśiva 2Sapādalakṣa‑layāvadhānāni 7Bhūmi 6



Alongside, we must also consider another stancethat Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita adopts in his commentary.He stresses the importance of the practice ofSandhyāvandana, even while practicing Yoga.Commenting on the fifth verse, he poses a mockingquestion,meanttoshowthemindsetofsomepeople:

mṛtā mohamayī mātā jāto bodhamayaḥ sutaḥ|

sūtakadvayasamprāptaukathaṃsandhyāmupāsmahe||

‑Mothercalleddelusionisdead.Soncalledenlightenmentis born. When there are two Sūtakas (impurity thatdisqualifiesonefromperformingVedicrituals),howcanIpracticeSandhyā?

Further, he names those who advise yogapractitioners to desist from practices like Sandhyā, asyogaveṣadhāriṇaḥ (masquerading in the formofYogis).In the same portion of the commentary, he furtherdescribesthemas:

sāmānyasvakulāśramācārān vihāya mahāyoginaḥ iti santuṣṭyā yathecchaṃ viṣayānupabhuñjānāḥ tiṣṭhanti| te andhaṃ tamaḥ praviśanti||

Shunning basic practices that are obligatory and whichare in accordance to one’s own community and stationof life and considering themselves to be Mahāyogissome people enjoy sensual pleasure according to theirdesire.Theyenterdensedarkness.

These hints presumably imply that Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍitamight have felt thatYoga had taken a turn toward theesotericduetosomepracticesadvocatedbyNāthatexts,andheattemptstorepositionyogaintotheVedicfold.

One can see similar views in yoga texts often quotedby the commentator (such as Yogayājñavalkyasaṃhitāand Śivayogapradīpikā). In Yogayājñavalkyasaṃhitā,there arenoKriyās, nopractices likeAmarolī, etc., andthere is emphasis on practice ofVedic rituals (on sevenoccasionsinthetextYogayājñavalkyasaṃhitāwefindthe

wordsnityakarmasamācara–performobligatory(Vedic)rituals).Similarly,ŚivayogapradīpikāalsoavoidsKriyās,practices likeAmarolī, etc., and stresses the importanceofVedicpractices(4thPaṭala17thverse).

Inmodern times, a study of life and teachings of SriTKrishnamacharya provide the same indications. Sri TKrishnamacharyaalsodidnotpromoteuncommonyogicpractices. He states “…practices like Vajrolī, SahajolīamdAmarolī.Can these lead to the health of people…thequestionhereisnotthepossibilityorimpossibilityofdoingsuchpractices,canthisbeusedforthebettermentof people around?.”[10] It is also to be noted that heprescribedandtaughttextslikeYogayājñavalkyasaṃhitā,Yogatārāvalīthatechosimilarsentiments.

RāmasvāmīPaṇḍita’snoteworthycontributionliesinthefact that in theprocessofsubtly,yetclearly,delineatinghisstandonthenatureofyogathatistobepracticed,healso tries touncoveraminorityofyogic texts includingYogatārāvalīwhichheldanalogousthinkingonYoga.

Unique Classification of AṢṬĀṄgayogaThefirst twoviewpointspresentedabovehaveanalyzedthe probable larger goals that the commentator couldhave had in composing his detailed commentary ofYogatārāvalī. Through the current viewpoint andthe next, a couple of unique contributions of thecommentator on specific aspects ofYoga are put forth.Letusconsiderthefirstpoint.

Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita classifies Aṣṭāṅgas presented byPatañjali into four stages vizĀrambha,Ghaṭa, Paricayaand Niṣpatti. One finds references to these four stagesin Haṭhayogapradīpikā, Śivasaṃhitā, Yogopaniṣads,and such other texts. In Śivasaṃhitā (chapter 3verse 31, 32) and Yogattatvopaniṣad (Verse 20) thefour stages are discussed in relation to Prāṇāyāma.Haṭhayogapradīpikā (Chapter 4 verse 69) discusses theprogressinNādānusandhānaunderthesefourstages.

Table 4: Texts cited by the commentatorVedas/upaniṣads Vedānta Lexicons Tantra/purāṇa Yoga Smṛti and other worksŚrīrāma‑tāpinīya Bādarāyaṇa‑sūtrabhāṣya

(śāṅkara)Laghu‑nānārtha‑ratnamālā

Skānda Yogasūtra‑bhāṣya(vyāsa)

Gurugītā

Taittirīya‑upaniṣad Bhagavad‑gītā Nānārtha‑ratnamālā Kādima‑tantra Mahārājatarala Ānanda‑laharīBrahma‑vidyopaniṣad ‑ Amarakoṣa Kujñā‑tantra Śivayoga‑pradīpikā uttaragītāChāndogya ‑ Śabdārtha‑kalpataru ‑ Svaracintāmaṇi Vāmadeva‑saṃhitāMaṇḍala‑brāhmaṇa‑upaniṣad

‑ ‑ Sūta‑saṃhitā Yoga‑yājñavalkya Viśvesvara‑smṛti

Kaivalya‑upaniṣad ‑ ‑ ‑ Vijṛmbhita‑yogaśāstra‑bhāṣya

sūtagītā

Yogatattva‑upaniṣad ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Mukti‑sopanaYoga‑cūḍāmaṇi‑upaniṣad

‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ Viṣṇu‑sahasranāma‑bhāṣya



Even though this is the case, it is for thefirst time thatAṣṭāṅga yoga is discussed under these four stages byRāmasvāmīPaṇḍitainRājayogatarala.Thecommentatorincludes the first four limbsYama, Niyama, Āsana andPrāṇāyāmaunderĀramabhaorthepreparatorystage.Hedescribesthesecondstage‑Ghaṭaas:

prāṇāpānayormanobuddhyorjīvātmaparamātmanoḥ yatraikyaṃ bhavati sā ghaṭāvasthā.

• The stage of Ghaṭa is the one where Prāṇa andApāna, Mind and intellect, the individual soul andsupremeshouldgetunited.

ThecommentatorbringsPratyāhāra,5thlimbofAṣṭāṅga,under this stage.He seems to imply that, for the Prāṇato joinwithApāna, for themind to unitewith intellectetc.,Pratyāhāraisessential.Itistruethatuntilthesensesturnawayfromoutwardlyactions/objectsandfollowthemind in its spiritual pursuits, higher states cannot beachieved.

The commentator defines the third state (Paricaya) asfollows:

vāyuḥ yadā kevalakumbhakābhyāsaviṣaye paricitaḥ syāt tadā paricayāvasthā|

• Paricaya is state where the breath is introduced toKevalakumbhakacondition.

It is to be noted that Dhāraṇā and Dhyāna have beeninsightfully brought under this state by RāmasvāmīPaṇḍita. He seems to suggest that only whenthe control of breath reaches such a high state,i.e.,Kevala‑kumbhaka, can the practice ofDhāraṇā andDhyāna might really bear the intended results. Whensuch Dhāraṇā and Dhyāna are practiced, Niṣpatti, thefourth stage, is achieved in reaching Samādhi, whichaccordingtohimisasfollows:

jīvātmaparamātmanoḥ aikyabhāvanā eva samādhiriti niṣpattiḥ|

• Unification of the individual soul and the Supremebeing

No text that has discussed the four stages of yoga hasdiscussed the utility of these stages. Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍitaalsodoesnotdiscuss theutilityofclassifyingAṣṭāṅga infourstages.Nevertheless,itcanbestatedthatRāmasvāmīPaṇḍita has attempted a new way of looking atAṣṭāṅgayoga.Itisworthexploringwhethertheparametersfor defining progress in the practice ofAṣṭāṅgayoga canbeevolvedbasedonthisuniqueattempt.

Hands‑free Alternate Nostril Breathing!ThefourthandfinaluniqueaspectfromRājayogataralaisthedescriptionofbreathingpatterntobefollowedduring

the practice ofMahāmudrā.As part of the commentaryof the 10th verse of Yogatārāvalī, Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍitadescribes Mahāmudrā. In this practice, both the handsareengagedinholdingthebigtoeofthefeet.

Here comes the unique/puzzling observation ofRāmasvāmī Paṇḍita. In the process of describingMahāmudrā,thecommentatorsays:

vāmapārṣṇiṃ yonisthāne saṃsthāpya dakṣiṇaṃ prasārya hastābhyāṃ dṛḍhaṃ gṛhītvā cubukaṃ hṛdi vinyaset iḍayā vāyumāpūrya yathāśakti kumbhayitvā punardakṣiṇayā virecayet…

• (Having placed the left heel close to the perineum,stretching the right one, placing the chin on thechest)When both the hands are engaged in holdingthe right big toe of the feet, one should inhalethrough the left nostril, Iḍā, and hold the breath asmuch as possible and exhale through the rightNāḍī,Piṅgalā(Afterthis,hestatestheconversealso)

Is such a thing possible? Can one regulate the flow ofbreaththroughalternativenostrilswithoutusingfingers?Isthisafallacy?Toanswersuchquestions,aftermakingthiscomment,heimmediatelyquotesaverseasauthoritytothisfromatextcalledMuktisopānawhichstates:

“candrāṃśena samabhyasya sūryāṃśenatato’bhyaset”

• Practice this (Mahāmudrā/breathing pattern) throughtheCandraaspectandthenthroughSūryaaspect.

Interestingly, this question has also been dealt byBrahmānanda who wrote a commentary, Jyotsnā, onHaṭhayogapradīpikā.Haṭhayogapradīpikā(3.10)alsohasdescriptions of Mahāmudrā, and in the context, it alsohasthefollowingverse:

“candrāṃśena samabhyasya sūryāṃśenatato’bhyaset”(3.15)

This verse was quoted by Rāmasvāmī Paṇḍita as anauthorityforhands‑freealternativenostrilbreathing.Thereading in Haṭhayogapradīpikā (of the above verse) isa bit different. In the place of thewordAṃśa (aspect),the term Aṅga (limb) has been used. Explaining thisBrahmānandastates:

candranāḍyā upalakṣitamaṅgaṃ candrāṅgaṃ vāmāṅgaṃ…

(Note: Candrāṅga refers to left limb (of the body) andnotiḍāasRāmasvāmīPaṇḍitamighthavethought).

In essence, according to Brahmānanda, Mahāmudrāhas to be practiced first in the left side of the body bybringingtheleftlegclosetothebody,etc.,andafterthis,throughtherightside.Accordingtosuchanexplanation,



the question of hands‑free alternate nostril breathingappears to be ruled out. However, even Brahmānanda,a couple of lines later in the commentary to the sameverse,makesacommentregardingthebreathduringthispractice, which is worth noting. With reference to theVāmāṅgapractice(practiceontheleftside)hestates:

asminnabhyāsepūritovāyuḥvāmāṅgetiṣṭhati

• Theairinhaledstaysintheleftlimb(Nāḍī?)

AndwithreferencetoDakṣiṇāṅgābhyāsahestates:–

asminnabhyāsepūritovāyuḥdakṣāṅgetiṣṭhati|

• The air inhaled in this practice stays in the rightlimb(Nāḍī?)

It is to be noted that the word aṅga has not beenclearly defined by Brahmānanda. In the firstoccasion, it seems to refer to the left limb of thebody(candranāḍyāupalakṣitamaṅgaṃ…).Inthesecondinstance(asminnabhyāsepūritovāyuḥ.) itmayeitherbethe left side of the body or even the leftNāḍī. Even ifit is taken tomean that the air inhaled stays in the leftsideofthebody,itisawell‑knownyogicfactthatPrāṇatraversesand stays in thebodyonly throughandwithintheNāḍīs.Hence even termsVāmāṅga andDakṣiṇāṅgashould mean left and right Nāḍīs respectively in thesecondinstance.

Thisfurtherimpliesthat,iftheinhaledVāyuhastostayinCandraṅgaduringMahāmudrā it shouldhaveenteredthrough Candranāḍī, and the air that stays in Sūryāṅgashould have entered through Sūryanāḍī. Therefore,should one conclude that during the left side practice,the right Nāḍī is automatically blocked to allow airpassageonlythroughtheleftnostril?ShouldRāmasvāmīPaṇḍita’s comment regarding alternate nostril breathingbe adjusted and interpreted to the seemingly logicalconclusionofBrahmānanda?

Although it can be argued in this way, a convincingexplanation of Rājayogatarala’s important and subtleproposition of hands‑free alternative nostril breathingduringMahāmudrā can be given only based on furtherliterary evidence. After all, when Yogis like Sri TKrishnamacharya controlled even the heartbeat,[11] canthe flow breath not be regulated without the help offingers?

However, in the process of discussing the possibilityor impossibility of such a practice, even Sri TKrishnamacharya[10] would advise to ensure the utilityof such an investigation. At this juncture, it can bestated that, if themethod of such practice is unraveled,then it would be an important contribution towardsunderstanding and gaining better/conscious control

over Prāṇa which is a key factor to health. In this eraof scientific of evaluation of Yogic practices, scientificequipmentcanalsoplayan important role infindingananswer to thispropositionofhands‑freealternatenostrilbreathing.

ConclusionThrough this cursory examination of the commentaryon Yogatārāvalī, some unique propositions andideas have come to light. It is not surprising that thisdetailed commentary has some unique observations onYogic practices such as Aṣṭāṅgayoga and Mahāmudrā(as revealed through the third and fourth points).However, the first and second points require widerdebate, both by scholars and practitioners of Yoga.The commentator painstakingly focuses on the gradedclassification of yoga. In the wake of widespreadglobal patronage of yoga and the associated evils ofcommercializationanddilution,itwouldbeaworthwhileexercise to discuss the utility of classification, grading,and systematization of yogic teachings as attempted byRāmasvāmīPaṇḍita.Sustained,focuseddiscussionaboutthisaspectinitiatedbythecommentatormightprovideadefinitedirectiontoyogastudiesandresearch.

Further, the secondaspect (avoidingcertainelementsofNāthasampradāyaYoga)discussedfromthecommentaryhighlights an important piece of yoga history whichwas thus far overlooked. Yoga, which was earlierseen as an ascetic, esoteric practice, has now becomea widely accepted practice for health and wellbeingin its birthplace, India, and abroad. Can one creditthe current mainstream acceptance of Yoga, to theconcerted efforts (in the shunning of esoteric practicesof Nāthasampradāya Yoga) by the authors of workssuch as Yogayājñavalkyasaṃhitā, Śivasaṃhitā, andRājayogataralaandinthemoderntimes,totheworkandteachings of Sri T Krishnamacharya who also adoptedthesameapproach?

It is hoped that in the course of (or on completion of)thecriticaleditionof thecommentaryofRājayogataralaofRāmsvāmīPaṇḍita,manymoreissuesoffundamentalsignificance to thefieldofYogawouldcometo theforeforfurtherdiscussion.

Financial support and sponsorshipNil.

Conflicts of interestTherearenoconflictsofinterest.

References1. Dash S. New Catalogus Catalogorum. Vol. 22. Chennai:

UniversityofMadras;2012.p.74‑5.



2. Aital P. Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts.Sankhya‑Yoga‑Vaiseshika‑Nyaya. Vol. 8. Chennai: The AdyarLibraryandResearchInstitute;1978.p.18.

3. Malledevaru HP, editor. Descriptive Catalogue of SanskritManuscripts General. Vol. 10. Mysore: Oriental ResearchInstitute,UniversityofMysore;1988.p.248.

4. Tirtha ST, Bhaṭṭacharya B. Parānanda‑sūtra, Critically Editedwith an Introduction and Index. Gaekwad Oriental Series.Vol.56.Baroda:OrientalInstitute1931.p.12.

5. VogelCl.AHistoryofIndianLiterature:ScientificandTechnicalLiterature, Indian Lexicography. Vol. 5. Wiesbaden, Germany:OttoHarrassowitz;1979.p.353.

6. LarsonGJ,PotterKH.TheEncyclopediaofIndianPhilosophies:Yoga: India’s Philosophy of Meditation. New Delhi: Motilal

BanarsidassPublisher;1970.p.476.7. KrishnaD.Developments in IndianPhilosophy fromEighteenth

Century Onwards: Classical and Western. New Delhi: MotilalBanarsidas;2002.p.349.

8. Sarma NN. Paṇḍitarājajagannātha – The Renowned SanskritPoet of Medieval India. New Delhi: Mittal Publications;1994.p.4.

9. Joshi MC, editor. Indian Archaeology 1987‑88 – A Review.NewDelhi:ASI;1993.p.4.

10. Saṃhitā YY. Yogayājñavalkyasaṃhitā (Appendix, Essay ofYogācārya Sri T Krishnamacharya on Yoga‑aṅga‑sādhanam).Chennai:KrishnamacharyaYogaMandiram;2015.p.219.

11. MohanAG.Krishnamacharya. Boston: Shambhala Publications;2010.p.56.

j :- 7lume6ue2 ] july-december28 · 2019. 1. 7. · catalogus catalogorum,[1] there are many...

Documents