A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy

Philipp A Maas

Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja Iyengar (1918 - 2014) is arguably the most influential teacher in all of yoga history. The myth of his life was shaped by an intimate tie to an equally legendary figure, his brother-in-law and guru, Sri Tirumalai Krishnamacharya (1888 - 1989). Iyengar has been given some attention in scholarly circles, most notably by Elizabeth De Michelis in her History of Modern Yoga (2004) and, tangentially, in Mark Singleton's Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice (2010). This essay uses De Michelis and Singleton's investigations as jumping off points, thoroughly examining Iyengar's biography to reveal the difficult range of experiences he had with his guru. It offers a psychological assessment of the consequences of those episodes and follows their expression in Iyengar's pedagogy, persona, and in the culture of his students. For researchers curious about Iyengar's praxis and its growth, this essay further explores the adoption of the Yoga Sutras as the fallback descriptor of his method. It situates Iyengar's work within hermeneutic patterns found elsewhere in the Modern Yoga project, even as it diverges from the operative conclusion of De Michelis, i.e. that Iyengar utilized memes offered by occult philosophies to take his teaching into modern alt-culture forums.

214 Swamiji’s Distinctive Perspective on Yoga mong Swamiji’s many contributions to global spirituality, some of the most important, and also the least understood, are his contributions to the discourse of yoga: that is, to the understanding of what, precisely, yoga is, its aim and purpose, and the methods that it involves. There are, of course, many interpretations of yoga, as well as many types of yoga. Indeed, the same thing can be said of yoga that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi once said of religion: ‘In reality, there are as many religions as there are individuals.’1 Similarly, there are as many yogas as there are individuals. The intent of this essay is not to claim that Swamiji’s approach to the nature of yoga is the only correct approach; nor, in claiming that his approach is distinctive; the intent is to state that this approach is entirely unique, and that important aspects of it are not also shared by other major thinkers on yoga. Many Paths to One Goal: Swami Vivekananda’s C...

In the context of global enthusiasm towards various practices claiming to follow the Indian tradition of Yoga, the Yoga Sutras of Patañjali are becoming an increasingly popular and important text worldwide, both for the understanding of ancient Indian culture and to inform our outlook on a modern popular spiritual movement at the center of a multi-billion dollars’ industry. Coming from a distant land, from a bygone era, the language of the Yoga Sutras requires careful analysis. Its content is not as easily accessible as many have assumed. Invited Professor V. N. Jha, Former Director of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, University of Pune, and his wife Ujwala Jha, herself a renown Mimāṃsakā, will be leading the lectures on the text, assisted by Laura von Ostrowski, invited PhD candidate from FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, conducting her doctoral studies on the modern reception of the Yoga Sutras, and by Karl-Stéphan Bouthillette, PhD candidate and lecturer in Indian philosophy at LMU.

PHILIPP A. MAAS A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy* Pre-print version of the article published in: Eli Franco (ed.), Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy. Vienna: Sammlung de Nobili, Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde der Universität Wien, 2013. (Publications of the De Nobili Research Library, 37), p. 53-90. For references, please refer to the final print version. 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION The literary production of works on yoga is vast, and it increases constantly. This large output reflects on the one hand the quest of modern (or, according to one’s own stand point, post-modern) globalized societies for supplements and alternatives to their own religious and/or secular traditions. The thriving yoga literature is a symptom for the growing acculturation of modern yoga into globalized societies, for which the existence of yoga studios at almost every second corner of the streets in cities of many parts of the world provides additional evidence. The global yoga boom was neither initiated nor appropriately accompanied in its development by academic research. Its historical roots lie not in European scholarship but rather in the encounter of modern western cultures with the post-traditional societies in SouthAsia, for which the British colonization of the Indian sub-continent provided the stage. As Singleton has shown recently (2010), modern āsana-oriented yoga developed from a blend of the views of European bodybuilding and gymnastic movements with Indian nationalism and political Hinduism as well as obscure indigenous yoga traditions. These political conceptions oscillated between a fascination for modern western ideas and a self-affirming appraisal * Many thanks to Dr. Dominik Wujastyk for his valuable comments and to Noémie Verdon for her assistance in transliterating Arabic titles. 54 P H I L I P P A. M A A S of the Hindu religious and philosophical traditions, among which the philosophical ideas of Advaita Vedānta played a prominent role. Vivekānanda, the early and influential spokesman of NeoHinduism, developed his own Yoga philosophy on the basis of the root text of a classical philosophical school of Yoga, the Yoga Sūtra of Patañjali. For that matter, he furnished his “Rāja Yoga” (1896) with an edition of the Yoga Sūtra in devanāgarī script together with a translation (or rather: a free paraphrase) of the Sanskrit original. He provided his rendering with his own commentary, in which he separated the meaning of the Yoga Sūtra completely from its original cultural and historical context (see De Michelis 2004: 149-178). This approach set a precedent, which was followed in many general and semi-academic publications that appeared during the next approximately 115 years.1 Paul Deussen, for example, applied a similarly ahistorical approach to his study of Yoga in his “Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophy (General history of philosophy)” (Deussen 1908). He chose the Yoga Sūtra, which he regarded as a compilation of four or five originally independent works, as the only source for his exposition of Yoga philosophy (Deussen 1908: 509) and favoured a textimmanent interpretation over the interpretations of the commentaries.2 Deussen turned for help to the Indian commentaries only when he could not understand the texts themselves by his own standards (see Deussen 1908: 510). Deussen did not – and in fact did not have to – bother with the question of how he could find sufficient information for a text-immanent approach in four or five originally independent works, which consist of only a few (between sixteen and eighty-three) brief phrases, apparently because he knew the original meaning of the Yoga Sūtra in advance. 1 In academic writing, this approach is usually designed as research in the “original” or “essential” meaning of yoga to which the authors claim to have private access. Two typical examples for this method are Chapple 1994 and Whitcher 1998. 2 Hauer (1958: 224-239) developed a similar and equally unsatisfactory method, in which he of divided the Yoga Sūtra into a number of independent sūtracompositions on the basis of text-immanent considerations. Hauer’s translation (or rather: paraphrase) of the text combines his interpretation with his personal experience (p. 465); on this approach see also the review of Hauer’s work by Hacker (1960). A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 55 More than seventy years before Vivekānanda published his “Rāja Yoga”, Henry Thomas Colebrooke had applied a different approach to Yoga philosophy.3 Instead of using classical Yoga as a canvas for the projection of new philosophical and religious ideas, he set out to investigate what Indian philosophy could accomplish in its own right. His now famous essay “On the philosophy of the Hindus. Part 1: Sánkhya” (Colebrooke 1827) was not only one of the “first results of modern Indological research,” (Halbfass 1990: 84) but arguably the first academic publication on Yoga philosophy based on primary Sanskrit sources – in this case on manuscripts – at all. Professor David Gordon White was kind enough to draw my attention to the earlier work of the missionary William Ward. In his publication with the title “A View of the History, Literature and Religion of the Hindoos,” Ward provides a brief account of yoga practice that he claims to be based on the “Patŭnjŭlŭ Dŭrshana and the Gorŭkshŭ Sŭnghita” (i.e. the Pātañjala Darśana and Gorakṣa Saṃhitā; Ward 1815: vi), but his exposition does not indicate an intimate knowledge of philosophical Yoga. In the first edition of his work (Ward 1811), which appeared und the title “Account of the Writings, Religion and Manners of the Hindoos,” and which is more comprehensive than the second one, Ward provides a brief account of aṣṭāṅga-yoga based on information by Indian paṇḍits. The two main yoga-sources, according to Ward’s unnamed informants, are the “Patŭnjŭlŭ-sootrŭ and the Bhōzŭ-dāvŭ-dhṛttŭ-bhashyŭ” (i.e. the Pātañjala Sūtra and Bhoja’s Rājamārtaṇḍa; Ward 1811: 345). Colebrooke was, however, not very favourably disposed towards Yoga philosophy.4 On the contrary; his verdict is that Yoga and Sāṅkhya, its sister philosophy differ, not upon points of doctrine, but in the degree in which exterior exercises, or abstruse reasoning and study, are weighted upon, as requisite preparations of absorbed contemplation. PATANJALI’S Yóga-sástra is occupied with devotional exercise and mental abstraction, subduing body and mind: CAPILA is more engaged with investigation of principles and reasoning upon them. One is more mystic and fanatical. The other makes a 3 For the life and work of H.T. Colebrooke, see, for example, Windisch 1917-1920, vol. 1: 26-36, which is based on Colebrooke 1873. A new monograph on Colebrooke by Ludo and Rosane Rocher appeared while the present paper was in the press (Rocher – Rocher 2012). 4 Cf. also for the following part of section one of the present paper, White (forthcoming). 56 P H I L I P P A. M A A S nearer approach to philosophical disquisition, however mistaken in its conclusion (Colebrooke 1827: 38). According to Colebrooke, Sāṅkhya and Yoga share a common concern for “absorbed contemplation,” but they differ with regard to the degree in which they can be judged as philosophical thinking. Whereas Yoga is more concerned with exterior and devotional exercises, i.e. with practice, and therefore is hardly philosophy at all, Sāṅkhya is closer to Colebrooke’s standard of philosophical reasoning, i.e. it is more theoretical. The latter system is therefore preferable to Colebrooke, even though he takes its philosophical results to be “mistaken.” This verdict apparently was the first articulation of a general attitude towards Yoga philosophy in Indology that remained influential to the present day. According to this preconception, everything philosophically important in Yoga is Sāṅkhya philosophy, and everything in Yoga that is different from Sāṅkhya is philosophically unimportant.5 As we have seen above, research in Yoga philosophy started under difficult conditions. On the one hand, early Indological research was at best not particularly interested in Yoga. This attitude was clearly in line with the negative presentation of yogis in early European travel accounts of India, as well as with the negative view of European scholarship towards the practice of haṭha yoga.6 On the other hand, theosophical and esoteric circles appreciated yoga enthusiastically, but did not care for its philosophy in its cultural and historical setting. How did Indological research develop under these difficult starting conditions? What is the present state of research, and what are the most urgent future tasks? The following part of this essay sketches major developments from the beginning of historical re5 Cf. Torella (2010: 91): “I have been strongly tempted to omit any treatment of Yoga in a work such as this, devoted essentially to the ‘philosophy’ of India. I should have also been in good company, considering that Indian tradition itself tends to treat Yoga mainly as a practice grafted onto conceptual assumptions provided by Sāṃkhya.” The passages of the Mahābhārata which Torella quotes in support of his assessment cannot refer to Sāṅkhya and Yoga as philosophical systems, since these systems did not even exist at the time of the composition of the Great Epic. 6 See Singleton 2010: 35-53. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 57 search in Yoga philosophy to the present date. Its main aim is to describe the major steps of Indological research by highlighting the more important works in European languages and to define the direction in which a fruitful future development is to be expected.7 Before I address this topic, I shall, however, re-address the question of the authorship of the foundational work of Yoga philosophy, the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra. I shall summarize previous research on this topic and contribute a few new arguments by drawing upon two sources of information: (a) external evidence in the form of references to this work in comparatively early Sanskrit and Arabic literature, and (b) text immanent evidence. 2. PATAÑJALI AND THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PĀTAÑJALA YOGAŚĀSTRA Many handbooks of Sanskrit literature and modern histories of Indian philosophy published in the last approximately 110 years contain an overview of the available primary sources of classical Yoga philosophy. What we read there is that Patañjali was the author of a work called Yoga Sūtra, and that this was glossed by an author named Vyāsa or Vedavyāsa in a commentary called Yoga Bhāṣya.8 As was noticed by Jacobi (1929: 584), Venkatarama Raghavan (1938-1939: 84), Bronkhorst (1985: 203f.) and Maas (2006: xivf.), however, there are a number of comparatively early primary Sanskrit sources, dating from the tenth century onwards, which contradict this common view. Śrīdhara, Abhinavagupta, Hemacandra, Viṣṇubhaṭṭa, Śivopādhyāya and Devapāla all refer to bhāṣya passages as having been composed by Patañjali.9 All these authors indicate that the 7 The selection of works presented here was, of course, guided by subjective criteria. Moreover, due to limitations of space and time, the survey remains necessarily incomplete. A much broader bibliographical overview of yoga research is presented in Schreiner 1979. A comprehensive online bibliography of Indian philosophy including Yoga is offered by Karl H. Potter at http://faculty.washington.edu/kpotter/ (accessed in October 2012). 8 See for example Dasgupta 1922-1955, vol. 1: 212, Frauwallner 1953: 288, Garbe 1896: 40f., Hiriyanna 1932: 270, Renou – Filliozat 1953: 45f., Strauss 1925:178 and 191, Tucci 1957: 99, and Winternitz 1922: 460 f.; cf. – also for the following paragraphs – Maas 2006: xii-xix. 9 In all cases, we find citations of bhāṣya-passages ending with the statement iti patañjaliḥ. 58 P H I L I P P A. M A A S Pātañjala Yogaśāstra (i.e. the sūtra passages together with the bhāṣya part of the work) is a unified whole that was possibly composed by one single author. The earliest reference to the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra (PYŚ) as a standard work on Yoga occurs in the commentary of Vṛṣabhadeva (ca. 650 CE.) on Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya.10 Acquaintance with the PYŚ seems to have been widespread not only among the philosophers of that time but also among the educated general public. This can be concluded from the description of yogic meditation in stanza 4.55 of Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha (datable to ca. 750 CE at the latest, but possibly one or two centuries earlier, see Kane 1914: 9195), which betrays intimate knowledge of the work on the side of the author as well as on the side of the audience being addressed (Hultzsch 1927). The assessment that the PYŚ is a single work with a single author is corroborated by the wording of the critically edited version of all four chapter colophons of the PYŚ in the twenty-five manuscripts that I used for my critical edition of the first chapter of the PYŚ. These colophons indicate that the oldest reconstructable title of the work was pātañjalayogaśāstra sāṅkhyapravacana “the authoritative exposition of yoga that originates from Patañjali, the mandatory Sāṅkhya teaching (pravacana).” The PYŚ neither contains separate chapter colophons nor a final colophon for its sūtra part. References to the title yogabhāṣya and to the author’s name Vyāsa or Vedavyāsa are only transmitted in a few manuscripts of limited stemmatic relevance. Originally the work had neither the title yogabhāṣya nor did it contain the personal name Vyāsa (see Maas 2006: xvf. and xxf.). The Yoga Sūtra appears to have no manuscript transmission independent of that of the PYŚ, because the manuscripts of the Yoga Sūtra I have seen so far consist of extracts from the PYŚ only. Variants exist only with regard to the inclusion or omission of single, introductory words of the sūtras, like tatra, kiṃca etc. Some scribes of the Yoga Sūtra took these to be part of the text, whereas others regarded these adverbs as part of the bhāṣya and did not include them 10 Vṛṣabhadeva glosses the word adhyātmaśāstrāṇi “authoritative teachings on the inner self” of his basic text with pātañjalādīni “[authoritative teachings] like that of Patañjali” (see Maas 2006: xvii). A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 59 in their version of the sūtra. The same is true for the text of the printed editions listed by Meisig (1988: 53). All variant readings Meisig records for the first chapter of the Yoga Sūtra result from different approaches of the scribes/editors in separating sūtras from their surrounding bhāṣya. Substantial variants in the sūtra text do not exist. A final verdict could, of course, be only made on the basis of a critical edition of the Yoga Sūtra, but the brevity of the text makes reliable text-critical research virtually impossible. The author of the oldest commentary on the PYŚ, the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (cf. below, p. 75), also did not take Vyāsa to be the author of the bhāṣya passages. Whenever he makes a distinction between the two textual levels of sūtra and bhāṣya, he uses the terms sūtrakāra and bhāṣyakāra respectively, without mentioning a personal name; his only reference to the name Vyāsa introduces a citation from the Mahābhārata (see Maas 2006: xv). Since the author of the Vivaraṇa distinguishes sūtrakāra and bhāṣyakāra, it seems that he took the PYŚ to be the work of two different authors. It is, however, also possible that he referred to the same person with different designations. The famous Persian scholar and polymath al-Bīrūnī composed an exposition of Hindu theology as part of his comprehensive survey of South Asian culture and sciences entitled Fī taḥqīq mā li-l-Hind min maqūla maqbūla fī l-ʿaql aw marḏūla (commonly referred to as India; see Lawrence 1990: 285) in 1030 CE. This exposition is based on the “Kitāb Bātanjal”, al-Bīrūnī’s Arabic revised translation of the PYŚ, which was completed some time before al-Bīrūnī’s India. The title “Kitāb Bātanjal” does not only refer to Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtra, but also the bhāṣya passages of the PYŚ, as can be concluded inter alia from the beginning of the second chapter of the India. There we read: In the book of Patañjali the pupil asks: ‘Who is the worshipped one, by the worship of whom blessing is obtained?’ (Sachau 1888: 83). This passages corresponds roughly to the introduction (avataraṇikā) of the bhāṣya to Yoga Sūtra I.24. atha pradhānapuruṣavyatiriktaḥ ko ’yam īśvara iti. Who is this God being distinct from matter and self? (PYŚ I.24,1 in Maas 2006: 35). Admittedly, al-Bīrūnī’s translation differs from the wording of the PYŚ, but this inconsistency does not necessarily indicate that he knew a different work. As was already noticed by Pines and 60 P H I L I P P A. M A A S Gelblum,11 al-Bīrūnī’s translation was not a detached philologicalhistorical enterprise. Its intention was mainly to communicate to a Muslim readership religious ideas that were intelligible and valuable according to his own criteria. Moreover, al-Bīrūnī apparently used a variety of different sources for his Kitāb Bātanjal. Nevertheless, the fact that al-Bīrūnī identifies a bhāṣya passage of the PYŚ to be the work of Patañjali strongly suggests that he regarded the PYŚ as a unified whole.12 This view is supported by the fact that al-Bīrūnī never refers to Vyāsa as a commentator of the “Book of Patañjali” (see Pines/Gelblum 1966: 304); neither in his India nor in his translation of the PYŚ. Pines and Gelblum, however, judged al-Bīrūnī’s own testimony regarding the Sanskrit original of his translation to be contradictory. On the one hand, in his introduction to his translation he appears to indicate that the incorporation of the commentary with the sūtras as well as the form of a dialogue are of his own making. But, on the other hand, in his conclusion he speaks of the book originally ‘consisting of one thousand and a hundred questions in the form of verse’” (Pines/Gelblum 1966: 303). Al-Bīrūnī’s reference to 1100 stanzas at the end of his work does not, however, necessarily have anything to do with a real metrical work. It is much more likely that his statement is based on a scribal note in the Sanskrit manuscript he used for his translation that refers to the amount of copied text. Such notes were a standard scribal practice in Indian manuscripts. The amount is usually counted in units of thirty-two syllables called śloka (“a stanza or verse”) or grantha in order to calculate the price for copying. The amount of text in 1100 ślokas correspond roughly to the amount of text of the PYŚ as it is transmitted, for example, in manuscript no. 622 of in the Oriental Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram (see Maas 2006: lx). If one is willing to accept this interpretation, the seeming contradiction in al-Bīrūnī’s own testimony is solved. All that remains is al-Bīrūnī’s clear statement that opens his translation. This is the beginning of the book of Patañjali, text interwoven with commentary (Pines/Gelblum 1966: 307). 11 “The Arabic translation betrays a constant effort to bring the work as near as possible to the Muslim reader.” Pines/Gelblum 1966: 307. 12 Stareček (2003: 12-75) discusses this and many more agreements between alBīrūnī’s “Book of Patañjali” and bhāṣya passages from the PYŚ, without, however, drawing conclusions regarding the authorship of the bhāṣya-passages. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 61 Accordingly, there is no reason to doubt that al-Bīrūnī created an Arabic version of the PYŚ, which he took correctly to consist of text (sūtra) and commentary passages (bhāṣya), both making up the book (-yogaśāstra) of Patañjali (pātañjala-). It may seem, however, that King Bhoja of Mālava, who composed a commentary exclusively on the Yoga Sūtra called Rājamārtaṇḍa around 1040 CE,13 had a different opinion on the authorship question of sūtra and bhāṣya. In one of his benedictory stanzas Bhoja, who ruled in Dhar, a city located in what is nowadays the western part of Madhyapradesh, compares himself with “the lord of serpents” and thereby apparently refers to the traditional mythological identification of Patañjali and the divine serpent Śeṣa (which is also frequently called Ananta; cf. below, p. 67).14 Accordingly, Bhoja likens himself to Patañjali, to whom he ascribes the authorship of one work on medicine, grammar and Yoga, respectively. The information provided in the stanza is not comprehensive enough to conclude whether Bhoja thought Patañjali had composed exclusively a sūtra work on Yoga, or whether he thought that Patañjali had also provided explanations in a bhāṣya. The fact that a Patañjali did compose a work on Kātyāyana’s vārttikas on Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī and that a Patañjali is reported by some sources to have composed a commentary on a medical work (or to have revised the Carakasaṃhitā, see HIML vol. 1a: 141-144.), could at least be taken to indicate that even Bhoja regarded Patañjali as the author of a commentary also on a Yoga work. The assessment that Bhoja did not regard the sūtra passages of the PYŚ as a separate work but took them to be part of a more comprehensive whole gets support from the wording of the chapter colophons of chapters no. 2 (Sanskrit text, p. 59), 3 (Sanskrit text, p. 89), and 4 (Sanskrit text, p. 118), in which Bhoja calls his 13 For Bhoja’s date of see Pingree 1981: 337. śabdānām anuśāsanaṃ vidadhatā pātañjale kurvatā vṛttiṃ rājamṛgāṅkasaṃjñam api ca vyātanvatā vaidyake / vākcetovapuṣāṃ malaḥ phaṇabhṛtāṃ bhartreva yenoddhṛtas tasya śrīraṇaraṅgamallanṛpater vāco jayanty ujjvalāḥ // 5 // (Rājendralāl Mitra 1883, Sanskrit text, p. 1). “Supreme are the splendid words of the glorious king Raṇaraṅgamalla, who like the lord of serpents extirpated the impurity of speech, mind and body when he created an authoritative work on [the use of] words, composed a commentary on the Patañjalian [work] and, moreover, produced [a work] entitled Rājamṛgāṅka on the science of medicine.” 14 62 P H I L I P P A. M A A S Rājamārtaṇḍa a commentary (vṛtti) on the sūtras of the PYŚ (pātañjalayogaśāstrasūtravṛtti). Arguments in favour of the hypothesis that the PYŚ was composed as a unified work do not depend only on the comparatively early literary references discussed above, but can also be derived from an analysis of the wording of the work itself. Bronkhorst (1985) noticed differences between an unforced interpretation of Yoga Sūtras 1.21-1.23 (as well as 1.24-25 and 1.3040) and their interpretation in the bhāṣya. This discrepancies indicate, according to Bronkhorst, that a single person collected the sūtras from older sources and provided them with his own explanations and comments in the bhāṣya (Bronkhorst 1985: 194). For Bronkhorst, this person could either have been Patañjali or the Saṅkhya teacher Vindhyavāsin. For Bronkhorst (1991: 212), the integration of sūtras and bhāṣya passages results from the endeavour of the author of the bhāṣya to make his work appear as a unified whole. However, without external evidence, it is difficult to decide whether the separation of a sūtra from its bhāṣya could not be the result of the inverse process, i.e. of the extraction of the sūtras from a unified work. With regard to this, it may be worth noticing that the numeration of sūtras in combination with a punctuation with double daṇḍas that we find in modern printed editions it a quite recent invention. It originates from early modern paper manuscripts.15 Older palm leaf manuscripts do not have a numeration of sūtras at all, they do not mark sūtras consistently, and they do not agree entirely with regard to the question of which parts of the work are actually sūtras.16 The author of the bhāṣya was apparently aware of the fact that some sūtras are older than others. In general, he introduces sūtras with verbs in the third person singular present passive,17 which is the 15 See Apparatus no. 3 in the critical edition of the Samādhipāda of the PYŚ in Maas 2006: 1-87, which records the punctuation and numeration of sūtra and bhāṣya passage for all collated manuscripts. 16 For example, the sentence tasya śāstraṃ nimittam “The cause for it (i.e. the perfection of God) is the authoritative work” in PYŚ 1.24,11 is marked in manuscript Mg (serial no. 24 in Cat. Adyar) as a sūtra, whereas in all other manuscripts and in the printed editions it is a bhāṣya passage. 17 At four instances (PYŚ 2.1, 2.19, 2.20 and 2.28) the author introduces sūtras with the verb ā-rabh “to create, to compose” in its third person singular present passive A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 63 usual way for a commentator to refer to his basic text, irrespective of whether he writes a commentary on his own work or on that of a different author.18 In contrast to this procedure, the author of the bhāṣya part of the PYŚ introduces three sūtras (1.2, 1.41 and 2.23) with the verb pravavṛte (“was composed”), a third person singular medium in the perfect tense of the root pra-vṛt. Since the perfect tense is generally used to refer to events that happened in a remoter past (usually before the lifetime of a speaker)19, the sūtras with this peculiar introduction may be older than the sūtras to which the author of the bhāṣya refers with verbs in the present tense. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that the author of the bhāṣya regarded the PYŚ as a unified whole. At five instances he uses verb forms in the first person plural of the future in the active voice20 to postpone a more detailed discussion of relevant topics to latter parts of the work. He refers in this way both to sūtras and also to the respective bhāṣya parts.21 Moreover, quite frequently sūtras appear together with bhāṣya passages as syntactical units. For example, the beginning of PYŚ 1.5 reads tāḥ punar niroddhavyā bahutve ’pi cittasya vṛttayaḥ pañcatayyaḥ kliṣṭākliṣṭāḥ (YS 1.5). “These, however, which have to be stopped although they are numerous, are the activities of the mind, which are fivefold and either afflicted or unafflicted (YS 1.5). The hypothesis that sūtra and bhāṣya passages of the PYŚ were composed as a unified whole receives support from the results of a close reading of the wording of YS 2.27 and its explanation in the bhāṣya. The passage runs as follows. tasya saptadhā prāntabhūmiḥ prajñā (YS 2.27). tasyeti pratyuditakhyāteḥ pratyāmnāyaḥ. For him, the sevenfold insight is in its final stage (YS 2.27). “For him” is a reference to the expression “a yogi, for whom cognition has risen.” According to the explanation of the bhāṣya, the pronoun tasya of the sūtra refers to the expression “a yogi, for whom cognition has risen“ (pratyuditakhyāti). This term refers the reader back to a (ārabhyate), in PYŚ 2.17 he uses the verb pratinirdiśyate “is explained,” whereas in PYŚ 2.29 he employs the present passive form avadhāryante “are taught.” 18 See Tubb – Boose 2007: § 2.39.4, p. 227 and § 2.39.7, p. 229. 19 See Speijer 1886: § 330, p. 247f. 20 nivedayiṣyāmaḥ in PYŚ 1.1, darśayiṣyāmaḥ in 1.7, and vakṣyāmaḥ in 2.29, 2.40 and 2.46. 21 See Maas 2006: xvi and Bronkhorst 1991: 212. 64 P H I L I P P A. M A A S passage in the bhāṣya on Yoga Sūtra 1.16, which is the only other instance of the word pratyuditakhyāti in the PYŚ. There, the highest form of freedom from craving is described in the following way. This freedom from craving is nothing but clearness of knowledge. When it rises, a yogi, for whom cognition has risen, thinks: “I have reached what is reachable. I have destroyed all causes of distress that had to be destroyed. I have cut the succession of existences with its tight connections, which caused, as long as they were not cut, that I died after I had been born and that I was born after I had died.”22 This passage depicts a yogi who has reached liberation in his present life, which is the same state to which Yoga Sūtra 2.27 alludes by mentioning “insight in its final stage” of development on the yogic path to liberation. From a theoretical point of view, the reference from Yoga Sūtra 2.27 to a bhāṣya passage in PYŚ 1.16 is therefore fully justified. The reference is also appropriate and even necessary with regard to the structure of the work, because no sūtra preceding Yoga Sūtra 2.27 contains a suitable referent of the pronoun tasya. By interpreting a pronoun of a sūtra to refer to a passage of the bhāṣya in a preceding chapter, the author of the bhāṣya clearly reveals that in his view the Yoga Sūtra is no literary work in its own right. For him, sūtra and bhāṣya are a single unit.23 But does this assessment match historical facts, or does the author of the bhāṣya try to deceive his readers in order to make his own explanations more credible? The fact that there is indeed no suitable referent for the pronoun tasya of Yoga Sūtra 2.27 in any of the previous sūtras and that there is strong contextual connection 22 taj jñānaprasādamātraṃ yasyodaye pratyuditakhyātir evaṃ manyate: “prāptaṃ prāpaṇīyaṃ, kṣīṇāḥ kṣetavyāḥ kleśāḥ, chinnaḥ śliṣṭaparvā bhavasaṃkramaḥ, yasyāvicchedāj janitvā mriyate, mṛtvā ca jāyate,” iti (PYŚ 1.16,5 f. in Maas: 2007, 26). 23 Śaṅkara, the author of the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (Vivaraṇa 205,21 f.), and Vācaspatimiśra (Āgāśe 1904: 97,17) both share this view and interpret the word pratyuditakhyāteḥ as a bahuvrihi referring to a yogi, whereas Vijñānabhikṣu takes this word to refer to the “means of getting rid of suffering” (hānopāya), which is mentioned in the previous sūtra 2.26. Vijñānabhikṣu’s interpretation is, however, highly problematic, because it does not take into consideration that the author of the bhāṣya himself explains the word pratyuditakhyāti as “a discerning yogi” (vivekin) in the immediately following passage: “saptaprakāraiva prajñā vivekino bhavati.” (PYŚ 2.27 Āgāśe 1904: 10). A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 65 between the bhāṣya in PYŚ 1.16 and Yoga Sūtra 2.27 supports the first alternative. In view of the above discussion, Bronkhorst’s hypothesis that a single person arranged the sūtras (some of which may originate from older sources, while others were his own composition), and furnished these sūtras with his own explanations and comments upon them with a bhāṣya, appears quite credible. If this is granted, the traditional name of the author of the bhāṣya, i.e. Vyāsa (“arranger” or “editor”), could be taken as a reflection of knowledge of the genesis of the PYŚ as, in part, a compilatory work. A different tradition concerning the authorship of the PYŚ, which was brought to the attention of a broader Indological audience by Professor Dr. Ashok Aklujkar, is found in Vādirāja Sūri’s commentary on Akalaṅka’s Nyāyaviniścaya. Vādirāja Sūri, who composed his work around 1025 CE., holds that the bhāṣya passages were composed by the Sāṅkhya teacher Vindhyavāsin, whereas the sūtras go back to Patañjali. This assessment can be harmonized with information provided by the anonymous author of the Yuktidīpikā (ca. 7th century CE?), who refers to a number of philosophical positions that agree with positions articulated in a number of bhāṣya passages of the PYŚ as being those of Vindhyavāsin.24 Moreover, in commenting on Sāṅkhyakārika 43 (Wezler – Motegi 1998: 233,2023) the author of the Yuktidīpikā even cites a bhāṣya passage from PYŚ 4.12 in order to prove that Vindhyavāsin denies the existence of innate, non-acquired forms of knowledge. Since this citation is introduced by the words “thus he says” (ity āha), it is easily conceivable that the author of the Yuktidīpikā assumed that Vindhyavāsin was the author of this passage of the PYŚ or even the author of all bhāṣya passages of the PYŚ. Although the Yuktidīpikā would then be the oldest source that provides information on the authorship of a (or: the) bhāṣya passage(s) of the PYŚ, its testimonial value appears to be weaker than that of the numerous other sources discussed above that support 24 Personal communication with Prof. Ashok Aklujkar in Hamburg, autumn 2000, and Matsumoto, August 2012; cf. also Bronkhorst 1985: 206. Cf. Maas 2006: xiii. For example, the Yuktidīpikā on Sāṅkhyakārika 22 (Wezler – Motegi 1998: 187,6 f.) reports a view of Vindhavāsin on the Sāṅkhya emanation theory that agrees with the philosophical position articulated in PYŚ 2.19. 66 P H I L I P P A. M A A S the hypothesis that a single person called Patañjali collected some sūtras, probably from different, now lost sources, composed most of the sūtras himself and provided the whole set with his own explanations in a work with the title “Pātañjala Yogaśāstra.” In judging the credibility of this hypothesis, it may be worth remembering that in the early classical period of Indian philosophy the terms sūtra and bhāṣya did not designate different literary genres but compositional elements of scholarly works (śāstra). For example, the Carakasaṃhitā, an early classical work on Āyurveda that can be dated with some confidence to first century CE, explicitly sates that “having a well designed sequence of sūtra-, bhāṣya-, and summary passages” (supraṇītasūtrabhāṣyasaṃgrahakrama) is one of the qualities of a scholarly work that a prudent medical student should consider when choosing a certain śāstra as the basis of his education (CS Vimānasthāna 8.1, p. 261b,14). If one accepts the PYŚ to be a unified whole, the work can be dated with some confidence to the period between 325 and 425 CE. This dating is based on the consideration that the PYŚ was widely accepted to be the authoritative exposition of Yoga at the beginning of the seventh century. Since some time has to elapse before a work achieves the status of being normative, the PYŚ may have been composed (at the latest) in the first quarter of the fifth century. The earliest limit for the date at which the work may have been composed is established by the fact that the PYŚ refers to idealist philosophical positions corresponding to those of the Vijñānavāda of Vasubandhu, who probably lived between 320 and 400 CE.25 It is possible that the central philosophical theorem of Vijñānavāda is even older than Vasubandhu (Maas 2006: xviiif.). At Bhoja’s time, i.e. in the 11th century, the tradition of a threefold authorship of one Patañjali for works on medicine, grammar and Yoga was apparently widely spread in large parts of the Indian subcontinent, since not only Bhoja, but also the Bengali commentator Cakrapāṇidatta refers to the threefold authorship in the fourth benedictory stanza of his gloss on the Carakasaṃhitā, the Āyurvedadīpikā (CS 1,14f., see HIML vol. 1a: loc. cit). Franco – Preisendanz (2010: XVI) arrived at this conclusions on the basis of a new interpretation of information that was first presented in Schmithausen 1992. 25 A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 67 Nevertheless, as has been stressed by different Indologists before, this tradition cannot reflect historical truth. An ancient medical work of Patañjali is not known, although there exist a number of references to Patañjali that suggest he was regarded to be the author of a commentary on the Carakasaṃhitā or even to be Caraka himself. Moreover, the author of the grammatical Mahābhāṣya, who lived ca. 150 BCE, cannot be identical with the author of the PYŚ, since the latter Patañjali argues against the Buddhist Vijñānavāda theory that simply did not yet exist at that time.26 As equally widespread as the anachronistic belief that Patañjali authored works on grammar, medicine and Yoga was apparently the idea that Patañjali was an incarnation (avatāra) of the divine serpent Ananta (cf. above, p. 61). This conviction manifests itself in a maṅgala stanza stemming from the beginning of the commentary of a certain Śaṅkara on Puruṣottamadeva’s Prāṇapaṇita, which is a commentary on Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya. This stanza was transferred to the beginning of a version of the PYŚ in Bengal after the beginning of the twelfth century (Maas 2008: 113). The identification of Patañjali with the divine serpent Ananta originated, according to Deshpande (1994: 113), in South India, whereas Aklujkar (2008: 73-75) argues for Kashmir as the home of this myth. A search for records supporting a separate authorship of Patañjali and Vyāsa led me to Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya’s Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha as providing the oldest unambiguous evidence. Mādhava’s doxography from the fourteenth century was composed ca. 1.000 years after the PYŚ, and it is about 300 years younger than the above mentioned sources that indicate Patañjali’s single authorship in the tenth century (cf. Maas 2006: xiif.). This finding led me to question whether Mādhava’s work could not have influenced the exposition of Yoga philosophy in secondary 26 Dasgupta’s (1930: 52f.) attempt to prove that the whole fourth chapter of the Yoga Sūtra is a late addition to the first three pādas seems to result from his wish to date the Yoga Sūtra back to a remote antiquity; and the same can be said about Prasad (1930: 371ff.), who takes upaniṣadic – and not Buddhist – theories to be the target of Patañjali’s polemics; cf. also Jacobi 1930b: 82 and 86, and Maas 2006: xviii. On linguistic differences reflecting a historical distance between the Mahābhāṣya and the Yoga Sūtra, see Renou 1940. 68 P H I L I P P A. M A A S literature even beyond the treatment of the authorship question. When I started to pursue this subject, however, it soon turned out that I was on the wrong track. As far as I can see now, the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha had no effect worth mentioning on the exposition of Yoga in modern secondary literature. Indian doxographical literature may, however, be responsible for the very fact that Yoga in modern histories of Indian philosophy was treated as a separate school of thought, since the division of orthodox classical Indian philosophies into Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, Sāṅkhya-Yoga, and MīmāṃsāVedānta, which is generally accepted today, may first have been developed by doxographic authors. According to Halbfass, this division probably occurred for the first time in the Sarvadarśanakaumudī by Mādhava Sarasvatī (Halbfass 1990: 353),27 who “in all probability flourished in the first half of the sixteenth century” (Dasgupta 1922-1955, vol. 2: 250). Other doxographies and works with doxographic information that do not deal with the Yoga school of thought separately may refer to Yoga as a sub-school of Sāṅkhya. Mādhava-Vidyāraṇya refers to Yoga as seśvara-sāṅkhya, i.e. “sāṅkhya-with-a-lord”, because the system integrates a high god into its metaphysical inventory, which is otherwise identical to that of classical Sāṅkhya (SDS 333,6-334,2); but according to earlier sources the advocates of seśvara-sāṅkhya and nirīśvara-sāṅkhya differ with regard to the question as to whether or not a high god is involved in the periodical creation and dissolution of the world (cf. Bronkhorst 1983 and Hattori 1999). Even the fact that modern histories of Indian philosophy frequently mention Vyāsa or Vedavyāsa as the author of the bhāṣya-part of the PYŚ cannot be attributed to a direct influence of the Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha. The information of Vyāsa’s alleged authorship presumably stems from the chapter colophons of printed editions and also from the second introductory stanzas of Vācaspatimiśra’s Tattvavaiśāradī, which can be dated to around 950 CE (Acharya 2006: xxviii; cf. also Maas 2006: xii). As I have argued in the introduction of my critical edition (Maas 2006: xiv-xvii), Vācaspati’s oeuvre, as far as it is presently available in printed editions, contains contradictory information on the authorship question, and any hints contained in the colophons of printed editions stem from compa27 Halbfass’ work has been partly superseded by Gerschheimer 2007. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 69 ratively recent paper manuscripts of the PYŚ. The original source of information for Vyāsa’s alleged authorship is unknown to me. It could be a reflection of the memory that a single person called Patañjali collected some sūtras from older sources, composed some sūtras himself, arranged (vi + √as) the sūtra part of the śāstra and provided it with his own philosophical explanations which later came to be known as the Yoga Bhāṣya. Irrespective of the question of whether the PYŚ has a single author – and irrespective of how to define “authorship” for a literary work consisting of different textual layers – it is advisable from a philological and historical point of view to accept, at least hypothetically, that this work is the result of single, roughly datable philosophical authorial intention. The sūtra part taken for itself consists of 195 (or, in other versions, of 196) brief statements that in some cases are not even full sentences. Because of the brevity of these statements and because of the shortness of the sūtra part as a whole, the Yoga Sūtra cannot be interpreted convincingly without taking recourse to its historical and cultural contexts. As we shall see below, the text-immanent approach to the Yoga Sūtras was indeed used frequently to project anachronistic ideas upon this text. 3. THE HISTORY OF INDOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON THE PĀTAÑJALA YOGAŚĀSTRA As we have seen above, the first Indological publication on classical Yoga philosophy was Henry Thomas Colebrooke’s essay “On the philosophy of the Hindus” (Colebrooke 1827). Colebrooke introduced his readers not only to the Yoga Sūtra but also to the Yoga Bhāṣya, which he attributed to an author named Vyāsa. Moreover, he referred to two (sub-)commentaries of the PYŚ, Vācaspatimiśra’s Tattvavaiśāradī (ca. 950-1000 CE, see Acharya 2006: xxviii) and to the Yogavārttika of Vijñānabhikṣu from the latter half of the sixteenth century CE (see Larson/Bhattacharya 1984: 376). The first printed translation of a part of the Yoga Sūtra was, however, based on neither of these commentaries. Ballantyne edited the first two chapters of this work together with extracts from Bhoja’s Rājamārtaṇḍa (ca. 1040 CE, see Pingree 1981: 337) and published it in 1852 and 1853, along with the English translation that 70 P H I L I P P A. M A A S he had prepared jointly with paṇḍits from Benares (Ballantyne 1852). Ballantyne was aware of the fact that his work was rather provisional and in need of revision. He explicitly stated that he was unable to secure the support of any paṇḍita with expert knowledge on yoga (Ballantyne 1852: ii). After Ballantyne’s death, his translation was continued by Govinda Deva Shastrin (also called Govind Shastri Deva) who rendered chapters three and four into English and published them in the periodical The Pandit [O.S.], Vol. 3-6, fasc. 28-67 (1868-1871). Ballantyne’s and Shastrin’s translations were revised by Tookaram Tātya and reprinted in a single volume for the Theosophical Society in 1885 (Tatya 1885), just two years after Rājendralāl Mitra had published a complete edition and translation of the Yoga Sūtra together with Bhoja’s commentary in 1883. Mitra, however, apparently misjudged the philosophical importance and the date of the bhāṣya passages of the PYŚ, since he took the “tone of the Bhaṣya … [to be] that of a third class mediæval scholium” that would have to be dated to “the latest ancient times, or, more probably, the early middle ages” (Mitra 1883: lxxx). In the meantime, Jibananda Vidyasagara had edited and published the PYŚ in print together with Vācaspatimiśra’s commentary (Vidyasagara 1874). A few year later, in 1883-1884, Rāmakṛṣṇa Śāstrī and Keśava Sāstrī published the editio princeps of Vijnānabhikṣu’s Yogavārttika in Varanasi (Śāstrī – Sāstrī 1883) in The Pandit [N.S.].28 In the following years, several editions of the PYŚ together with the Tattvavaiśāradī appeared. Among these, the Ānadāśrama edition by K.Ś. Agāśe of 1904, which also included the Rājamārtaṇḍa (Agāśe 1904), and Rajaram Shastri Bodas’ edition in the revised version by Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar of 1917 (Bodas 1917) deserve particular mention, because both editions report selected variant readings from several paper manuscripts and printed editions in their footnotes.29 The knowledge of Yoga philosophy increased considerably towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. 28 As far as I know, Rukmani (1981-1989) prepared the only complete translation of this work into English. 29 For details on thirty-seven editions of the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra, cf. Maas 2006: xxii-xxxvi. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 71 Especially noteworthy are some landmark studies, like, Garbe’s Sāṃkhya und Yoga (Garbe 1896), Müller’s The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy (Müller 1899), the first complete English translation of the PYŚ by Ganganatha Jha (Jha 1907), the monumental translation of the same work together with the Tattvavaiśāradī by Woods (1914), and Strauss’ Indische Philosophie (Strauss 1925). Jacobi and Dasgupta, too, published widely on classical Yoga in the 1920s and 1930s.30 The histories of Indian philosophy of this period are, however, still similar to Sanskrit doxographies in that they present different schools of thought separately and without giving much attention to their mutual influences throughout South Asian intellectual history. A remarkable exception from the doxographical approach to Yoga philosophy appears in the two works of Émil Senart (1900) and Louis de la Vallée Poussin (1937), who instigated an ongoing discussion about the historical relationship of Yoga and Buddhism in general and on the structure of their respective meditations. In this connection also the work of Lindquist on the miraculous powers of yoga (Lindquist 1935), which also compares the PYŚ with Pāli Buddhist sources, deserves to be mentioned.31 The topic of Yoga powers received just recently fresh attention in a volume of collected papers edited by Jacobsen (2012). Systematic in-depth studies of the relationship between classical Yoga and Buddhism on the one hand, as well as on the relationship between Yoga and Jainism on the other, remain, however, desiderata. As mentioned above (p. 61), the PYŚ was the most important source for al-Bīrūnī’s description of Hindu theology in his India (dating from 1030), which became accessible to a larger academic public through the English translation by Sachau (Sachau 1888). AlBīrūnī also prepared a quite liberal translation of the PYŚ entitled “Book of Patañjali” into Arabic some time before he completed his 30 31 Cf., for example, Jacobi 1929, 1930a, 1930b and Dasgupta 1920, 1922-1955, 1930. Lindquist had published a detailed study on yoga methods in 1932, which suffers, however, from his unconvincing equation of yogic states of meditation with hypnosis. 72 P H I L I P P A. M A A S encyclopaedic work. This Arabic version was translated and richly annotated by Pines and Gelblum between 1966 and 1989.32 One of the most widely read works on yoga ever published is without doubt Mircea Eliade’s “Yoga: Imortality and Freedom” (1958; the original French version was published in 1954). The long history of Eliade’s writing of his book began when the twenty-three-year old Romanian scholar studied Sanskrit with Dasgupta in Calcutta for twenty-one months in 1929 and 1930. Eliade fell into the disgrace of his teacher because of his liason with Dasgupta’s sixteen-year old daughter Maitreyi (Guggenbühl 2008: 15). After leaving Dasgupta’s house, Eliade got himself trained in practical yoga for six months in Rishikesh, before he resumed his academic studies with a special emphasis on Tantric forms of yoga (Guggenbühl 2008: 24). Eliade was not particularily interested in Yoga philosophy, about which – he thought – everything relevant had already be said by Dasgupta. Mircea Eliade’s Yoga was well received and it appears to be one of the most frequently cited works on yoga to the present date (Guggenbühl 2008: 6). As was noted by Hacker in his review of the German translation of Yoga, the work presents a lot of formerly unknown material from the Hindu Tantras, and it is often thought-provocing and original. On the other hand, Eliade’s religious phenemenology remains frequently superficial and unaware of specific contexts.33 The doxographical approach to Indian philosophy, which characterized the early phase of Indological research in Yoga philosophy, was later also partly given up in the first volume of Frauwallner’s “Geschichte der indischen Philosophie” (Frauwallner 1953). This work is without doubt a climax in the historiography of Yoga philosophy. Frauwallner draws a coherent picture of the historical development of Yoga from the time of pre-systematic philosophy up 32 Pines/Gelblum 1966, 1977, 1983 and 1989. For details on the earlier history of research in al-Bīrūnī’s “Book of Patañjali” see Pines/Gelblum 1966: 302f. 33 Hacker 1962: 318: “Eine Methode, die die Worte und Dinge so läßt, wie sie in ihrem Kontext vorgefunden werden, ist doch als Grundlage unerläßlich, wenn die Wissenschaft nicht zur geistreichen Willkür werden soll.” “A method that leaves words and things as they are found in their context is indispensable as a basis if academic studies shall not turn into clever arbitrariness.” A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 73 to its classical period by showing different philosophical schools in their mutual intellectual relationship. Moreover, Frauwallner’s very clear presentation of classical Yoga philosophy – as well as that of other philosophical schools – is based on his generally admirable knowledge of primary sources. Unfortunately, however, Frauwallner does not refer his reader as closely to the primary sources of Yoga as one might wish. Moreover, the narrative structure of Frauwallner’s exposition suffers from his rather simplistic explanations of philosophical developments whenever he was apparently unable to derive satisfactory explanations from his sources.34 In addition, Frauwallner was not very sensitive to the psychological aspects of Yoga philosophy, especially with regard to the structure of different forms of meditation (cf. Maas 2009: 264f.). This lack of sensitivity or interest may be the result of his approach towards Yoga, which is characterized by favouring aspects of the PYŚ that can be labelled as “theoretical yoga philosophy” over those belonging to yoga practice. A new chapter of research in Yoga philosophy was opened with the publication of the first complete edition of the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa,35 a commentary of the Yoga Sūtra together with the bhāṣya by Polakam Sri Rama Sastri and S.R. Krishnamurthi Sastri in Madras 1952. This was one year before Frauwallner’s “Geschichte” appeared, but still too late to be utilized in it. The textual quality of the editio princeps of the Vivaraṇa was not very high, because the work was edited on the basis of a single, quite corrupt Malayālam palm leaf manuscript. To improve the text, the editors provided the edition with their own emendations and conjectures, which they did not, however, indicate consistently (see Wezler 1983: 18f.). In spite of all the philological shortcomings of this edition, the philosophical and historical relevance of this newly-available work for studies in yoga philosophy was soon recognized by Hacker in 34 See for example Frauwallner’s explanation of the fact that classical Yoga accepts only one mental capacity (citta), instead of three in classical Sāṅkhya. “Vindhyavāsī hatte die altertümliche Lehre von den drei psychischen Organen ... aufgegeben” (Frauwallner 1953: 411). We simply do not know whether Yoga accepts a single mental capacity because the triple differentiation was taken to be outdated. 35 S.K. Rāmanātha Śāstri had edited a part of the work before, which he published as early as 1931 as an appendix to his edition of Maṇḍanamiśra’s Sphoṭasiddhi; see Halbfass 1991: 206. 74 P H I L I P P A. M A A S 1960 (col. 526f.; more pronouncedly in Hacker 1968), and afterwards by scholars like Mayeda (1968-1969: 239, and 1979: 4 and 65 note 63), Schmithausen (1968-1969: 331), Oberhammer (1977: 135), Vetter (1979: 21), Nakamura (1980-1981 and 2004), Halbfass (1983 and 1991), Wezler (1982, 1983, 1984a, 1984b, 1986, 1987 and 2001), and Bronkhorst (1985: 195).36 To put it briefly, the Vivaraṇa has been used as an important source of information by leading Indologists for more than fifty years. The discovery of this work was not only important for the study of Indian philosophy in the more narrow scope of Yoga, but also in a wider context. The chapter colophons of the Vivaraṇa state the author of the work to be a certain ŚrīGovindaBhagatpūjayapādaśiṣya Paramahaṃsaparivrājaka ŚrīŚaṅkarabhagavat (or -bhagavatpāda). This indicates that the Vivaraṇa might be the work of the famous Advaita Vedāntin Śaṅkara, author of the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya, whose formal title this is. The editors of the first edition of the Vivaraṇa made a rather premature commitment in favour of this guess. Paul Hacker published a brief study in 1947 on the authorship problem of the many works allegedly authored by Śaṅkara. He found out that any work naming its author Śaṅkarabhagavat in a colophon is more likely to be authentic than a work that calls its author Śaṅkarācārya. Hacker’s study was, however, not based on the evidence of manuscript colophons directly, but on the information provided by just seven catalogues, only two of which contained more comprehensive information (Hacker 1947: 7). In an article published in the Festschrift dedicated to Frauwallner, Hacker showed that a number of peculiarities in Śaṅkara’s Advaita Vedānta led him to the conclusion that the famous Advaitin was influenced by Yoga philosophy. From this judgement, Hacker developed the hypothesis that Śaṅkara was a yogi in his youth before he converted to Advaita Vedānta (Hacker 1968). Hacker’s conversion hypothesis was not, however, intended to prove that the Vivaraṇa is an authentic work of the famous Advaitin Śaṅkara (cf. Halbfass 1991: 207); “it rather pre-supposed the identity of the two authors” (Wezler 1983: 36). 36 Cf. Halbfass 1991: 205f. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 75 Halbfass (1991: 215ff.) highlighted a number of striking similarities between philosophical arguments in Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and in the Vivaraṇa. On the other hand, he showed convincingly (1991: 224-228) that Śaṅkara’s attitude towards Sāṅkhya metaphysics and Yoga soteriology, as it is evident in his major works, is basically irreconcilable with the teachings of the PYŚ. Śaṅkara’s hypothetical turn from Yoga philosophy to Advaita Vedānta therefore presupposes a far-reaching new orientation of personal beliefs of this philosopher. Even if one concedes that such a radical change of philosophical allegiance is possible in a person’s early life, the discrepancy of world views in Yoga and Advaita Vedānta make Śaṅkara’s authorship of the Vivaraṇa appear quite improbable. A final solution of the authorship question, in contrast to Rukmani’s unfounded claim to have solved the problem (1998), can only be reached by a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the respective styles of writing in the works under consideration, for which critical editions of Śaṅkara’s main works as well as of the Vivaraṇa would be necessary preconditions. Irrespective of the authorship problem, the Vivaraṇa is an important source of knowledge for Yoga philosophy. This has been established by the numerous studies mentioned above (p. 73). It explains difficult passages of the PYŚ on which Vācaspati’s Tattvavaiśāradī remains silent and reflects important philosophical debates between Sāṅkhya-Yoga on the one hand, and Buddhist and orthodox Hindu schools of thought on the other. The role of the Vivaraṇa for the interpretation of the PYŚ may be compared to that of the Yuktidīpikā (Wezler – Motegi 1998) for understanding the philosophy of the Sāṅkhya Kārikās. The Vivaraṇa has not yet been dated with certainty, but Halbfass showed that the most recent author to whom this work clearly refers is Kumārila, who lived in the seventh century (Halbfass 1983: 120). Moreover, the version of the PYŚ commented on in the Vivaraṇa preserves ancient readings which are nowadays lost in many, if not in all available manuscripts (see Maas 2006: lxix). Nothing, therefore, hinders the assumption that the Vivaraṇa is much closer to the PYŚ, not only in content but also historically, than the Tattvavaiśāradī from the middle of the tenth century. 76 P H I L I P P A. M A A S This assessment has met the opposition of Rukmani, who proposes a rather late date of the Vivaraṇa and claims that this work contains “some explicit reference to Vācaspati Miśra’s statements” in the Tattvavaiśāradī (Rukmani 1998: 267). This view has to be rejected, because the Vivaraṇa passages discussed by Rukmani do not sufficiently support her claim. In my view, an “explicit reference” would constitute one of three things: (1) A reference to Vācaspati by name or by the title of his work, or (2) a literal citation from the Tattvavaiśāradī, or (3) a citation giving the gist of a statement which can be identified as Vācaspati’s own genuine and innovative interpretation of a passage from the base text, or a reference to an altogether new philosophical position of Vācaspati. In other words, an “explicit reference” should be genuinely unambiguous. None of the Vivaraṇa passages discussed by Rukmani matches any of these criteria. Nevertheless, her dating of the Vivaraṇa between the eleventh and the fourteenth century was adopted in the “Yoga” volume of the Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies without much reservation (Larson – Bhattacharya 2008: 239), although Harimoto (2004: 179f.) had shown seven years earlier (in his review of Rukmani 2001) that Rukmani’s arguments for the alleged familiarity of the author of the Vivaraṇa with Vācaspatimiśra’s work are flawed. The publication of the first complete edition of the Vivaraṇa in print paved the way for another major achievement in the history of research in philosophical Yoga, i.e. Oberhammer’s Strukturen yogischer Meditation (Oberhammer 1977). Oberhammer convincingly explains, for the first time, the psychology of yogic meditations by almost exclusively drawing upon information from the PYŚ together with the Vivaraṇa. He shows that the PYŚ teaches four kinds of yogic meditations which differ from each other with regard to their respective objects of meditation as well as with regard to their structure, i.e. in the treatment (or development) of content of consciousness within meditation. The first kind of meditation has the subject (puruṣa) as its object. It is characterized by a systematic reduction of consciousness content that leads from an intensive encounter with Yoga teachings about the true nature of the subject to an unrestricted self-awareness (Oberhammer 1977: 135-161; see also Maas: 2009: 264-276). The second kind of meditation is a theistic variant of the first. Its object of meditation is a personal high god, whose identity with the individual A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 77 self is realized in the course of an interplay between meditation and mantra-repetition (Oberhammer 1977: 162-177; see also Maas: 2009: 276-280). The third kind of meditation, the so-called samāpatti, is a variety of a direct perception, in which the content of a memory substitutes the visible object. In the course of meditation, the consciousness content consisting of the remembered object is reduced to ever finer levels of existence – according to the inversed scheme of the Sāṅkhya-emanation doctrine – until the object of meditation is finally reduced to primordial (or rather proto-)matter (prakṛti), which is thought to be beyond being and non-being. This reduction of content weakens the wrong identification of the self with the ontological realm of matter and leads to final liberation after the physical death of the yogi (Oberhammer 1977: 177-209). The fourth kind of meditation treated in the PYŚ was inherited by classical Yoga from earlier ascetic movements, which aimed at accumulating of magical powers rather than at liberation from rebirth. (Oberhammer 1977: 209-230). Although Oberhammer’s work was very favourably reviewed by Alper (1980) and Olivelle (1980) – who, by the way, both wrote in English – the Strukturen has never received the attention it still deserves. A case in point is the volume on Yoga in the Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, which refers to Oberhammer’s work so superficially that one wonders whether the authors read it carefully enough. Larson – Bhattacharya (2008) refer to Oberhammer’s Strukturen only in one unnumbered footnote on p. 52, which wrongly states that Oberhammer follows Frauwallner (1953) in accepting basically two types of meditation, i.e. “the ‘eight-limbed Yoga (of YS II and III) (der Weg des achtgliedrigen Yoga) and the Yoga of the cessation of cognitive functioning (der Weg der Unterdrückung der Geistestätigkeit) (YS I).” This wrong representation of Oberhammer’s work is all the more regrettable since Oberhammer not only deals with formerly unexplored aspects of Yoga psychology, but also contributes to solving the riddle of the PYŚ’s difficult composition. The structure of the PYŚ appears to be roughly in accordance with the four kinds of meditation discussed by Oberhammer. The publication of the first complete printed edition of the Vivaraṇa not only stimulated research into Yoga philosophy, but also into the textual history of the PYŚ. Already the editors of the Vivaraṇa 78 P H I L I P P A. M A A S had noticed that this work comments upon a text that differs from the version presented in modern printed editions, but they did not pursue the matter consistently. Instead, their edition of the PYŚ is basically a copy of the Ānandāśrama edition (Āgāśe 1904, or one of its reprints) into which the editors inserted selected readings from the Vivaraṇa’s basic text. As early as in 1983, Wezler drew attention to the fact that many more ancient readings of the PYŚ can be reconstructed from the Vivaraṇa than were detected by the editors (Wezler 1983). The philological and philosophical importance of the Vivaraṇa justifies a new critical edition of this work, especially since Wezler discovered a second Malayālam manuscript in the Woolner Collection and Punjab University Library, Lahore (serial no. 428, Ma in vol. 2 of Ram 1932-1941). Kengo Harimoto began this work and submitted a new critical edition of the first chapter of the Vivaraṇa as his PhD thesis in 1999 (Harimoto 1999). Unfortunately, he has not yet published his work in print. This new achievement was therefore overlooked by Rukmani, who prepared a complete English translation of the Vivaraṇa on the basis of her own edition, which is nothing more than a copy of the Madras edition from 1952 (Rukmani 2001: ix) to which Rukmani added her own scribal mistakes. Rukmani was also not aware of Leggett’s earlier translation of the Vivaraṇa (Leggett 1990, which supersedes his own previous partial translation in Leggett 19811983). Neither Leggett’s nor Rukmani’s translation are entirely satisfactory from a scholarly perspective.37 Wezler’s preliminary assessment of the textual quality of the basic text of the Vivaraṇa was supported by the results of my investigation into the written transmission of the PYŚ, which was published in 2006 together with a critical edition of the PYŚ’s Samādhipāda and a reconstruction of the Vivaraṇa’s base text, the latter being prepared partly in collaboration with Kengo Harimoto (Maas 2006). The result of my text-genealogical research (cf. Maas 2010) can be summed up as follows. The PYŚ has come down to us in two main branches of transmission which transmit the southern and the northern version. The split of the transmission must have happened 37 See the reviews of Leggetts work by de Jong (1994: 63) and Gelblum (1992: 7984) and Harimoto’s review of Rukmani’s translation (Harimoto 2001). A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 79 before ca. 950 CE, when Vācaspati Miśra composed his Tattvavaiśāradī.38 The northern version is transmitted in all printed editions, in all available paper manuscripts and in a palm leaf manuscript in Old Bengali script. The southern version is transmitted in the basic text of the Vivaraṇa, in palm leaf manuscripts in Telugu, Grantha and Malayālam script as well as in two ancient palm leaf manuscripts from Gujarat and Rajasthan, photographs of which became available to me just recently thanks to the good office of my colleague Dr. Yasutaka Muroya.39 On the basis of textual witnesses from both main branches of the transmission, it is possible to reconstruct a quite early version of the PYŚ, the textual quality of which is much higher than that of the individual manuscripts and previous printed editions. Taking into consideration the present state of research, it is easy to define the future tasks of Yoga studies. A first step would be the completion of the critical edition of the PYŚ as well as the preparation of reliable critical editions of the Vivaraṇa, the Tattvavaiśāradī and Vijñānabhikṣu’s Yogavārttika, which will provide the basis for scholarly annotated English translations.40 Once achieved, these editions could be used to fine-tune our knowledge of classical Yoga, as well as that of the intellectual influences between classical Yoga and other philosophical and religious schools of thought. Future studies in Yoga philosophy will be particularly promising when they give up the doxographical approach completely. This will help to develop into a commonplace the hermeneutical insight that 38 This can be concluded from the fact that Vācaspati comments upon the secondary reading svarūpadarśana in PYŚ I.29, where the southern version preserves the more original svapuruṣadarśana. Vācaspati glosses the compound svarūpa with svam ātmā tasya rūpam (Agāśe 1904: 33,23); cf. Maas 2006: 45 and Maas 2010: 166. 39 These are manuscript no. 395/2 (Jinabhadrasūri tāḍapatrīya graṃth bhaṃḍārajaisalmer durg) in Jambuvijaya 2000, which is dated to 1143/44 CE, according to the catalogue, and the uncatalogued manuscript no. 344A in the Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya-Samskriti-Vidya-Mandir, Ahmedabad. The very discovery of these two manuscripts containing the southern version in north India calls for the invention of a new designation for the so-called southern version. 40 Filliozat’s translation of the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra (2005), although a useful work of scholarship, does not fulfil all scholarly requirements. It is based on the vulgate version of the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra, its annotations are mainly intended for a more general readership, and it does not use the explanations of the Vivaraṇa. 80 P H I L I P P A. M A A S Yoga philosophy is much more than Sāṅkhya theory combined with soteriological practice. From a synchronic perspective, the PYŚ is well integrated in classical Indian philosophical discourse. The work reflects debates between the proponents of Sāṅkhya-Yoga on the one hand and the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda schools of Śrāvakayāna Buddhism on the other. Moreover, the work contains polemics against the early Yogācāra school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which are elaborated in the Vivaraṇa. Moreover, since the PYŚ was influenced in its own philosophical positions by Buddhist philosophies, a systematic evaluation of these influences would “finally contribute, of course, to a better understanding of the complex interrelation between Hinduism and Buddhism in India.”41 Within the realm of the so-called orthodox brahmanical philosophy, the PYŚ enters into polemic discussions with the philosophical school of the grammarians, with Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika. These discussions are also comprehensively reflected in the Vivaraṇa (see Gelblum 1992: 77). Further studies of the PYŚ will also be fruitful for our knowledge of the general history of Indian philosophy, because the work cites the ancient Sāṅkhya works of Jaigīṣavya and Vārṣagaṇya that, besides these citations (and citations or references in other works), are entirely lost.42 Moreover, in a quite cursory search, I could find citations of the Samādhipāda, i.e. first chapter of the PYŚ, in more than thirty Sanskrit works, most of them belonging to the school of Kashmir Śaivism. Apparently, the PYŚ remained an important reference work for South Asian philosophers even when SāṅkhyaYoga had ceased to be a creative factor in Indian philosophy. 4. CONCLUSION Even after two-hundred years of scholarship, Indological research in classical Yoga is still in its infancy. As we have seen above, basic philological work, like the publication of historically reliable editions 41 Wezler 1987: 377 (my translation). The wording of the German original is: “würde letzlich natürlich auch zu einem besseren Verständnis der komplexen Wechelbeziehung zwischen Hinduismus und Buddhismus in Indien beitragen.” 42 See, for example, Garbe 1893 and Takagi 1963. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA 81 and the preparation of scholarly annotated translations, needs still to be done. The reasons for this unsatisfactory state of research are by and large the same as those for similar situations in other fields of Indian philosophy: the long standing exclusion of Indian philosophy from the history of philosophy (on which see Halbfass 1990: 145159), the decline of interest in text based studies from the 60s of the last century onwards (see Pollock 2009), and insufficient funding of Indological studies in the academic world as a whole.43 Nevertheless, due to the large public attention that yoga receives in globalized societies, the consequences of this unsatisfactory state of research in yoga studies may be not only of academic but also of social and political relevance. At the time being, the public interest in yoga is, at least in part, channelled and satisfied by amateurs and self-designated representatives of “the yoga tradition,” who propagate religious and partly right-wing Hindu fundamentalist ideas disguised as knowledge (for an example of propaganda masked as scholarship, see Sinha 1992). This situation clearly calls for comprehensive and well sustained multidisciplinary academic research, for which philological and historical studies can provide a solid foundation. ABBREVIATIONS AND LITERATURE Acharya 2006 Āgāśe 1904 Aklujkar 2008 Alper 1980 Ballantyne 43 Diwakar Acharya, Vācaspatimiśra’s Tattvasamīkṣā, the Earliest Commentary on Maṇḍanamiśra’s Brahmasiddhi, Critically Edited with an Introduction and Critical Notes, Stuttgart: Steiner, 2006 (Nepal Research Centre Publications 25). K.Ś. Āgāśe (ed.), Vācaspatimiśraviracitaṭīkāsaṃvalita Vyāsabhāṣyasametāni Pātañjalayogasūtrāṇi, tathā Bhojadevaviracita Rājamārtaṇḍābhidhavṛttisametāni Pātañjalayogasūtrāṇi <Sūtrapāṭhasūtravarṇānukramasūcībhyāṃ ca sanāthīkṛtāni,> … tac ca H. N. Āpaṭe ity anena … prakāśitam, Puṇyākhyapattana [= Pune]: Ānandāśramamudraṇālaya, 1904 (Ānandāśramasaṃskṛtagranthāvaliḥ 47). Ashok Aklujkar, “Patañjali’s Mahābhāṣya as a Key to Happy Kashmir,” Mirnal Kaul and Ashok Aklujkar (eds.), Linguistic Traditions of Kashmir. Essays in Memory of Paṇḍit Dinanath Yaksha. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2008, 41-87. Harvey Paul Alper, “Review of Oberhammer 1977,” Philosophy East and West 30,2 (1980), 273-277. James Robert Ballantyne, The Aphorisms of the Yoga Philosophy On the reduction of funding for South Asian studies in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Germany, see Wagner 2001: 59-66. 82 1852 Bhaskaran 1984 Bodas 1917 Bronkhorst 1983 Bronkhorst 1985 Bronkhorst 1991 Cat. Adyar Chapple 1994 Colebrooke 1827 Colebrooke 1873 CS Dasgupta 1920 Dasgupta 1922-1955 Dasgupta 1930 De Michelis 2004 Deussen 1908 P H I L I P P A. M A A S of Patañjali, with illustrative extracts from the commentary of Bhoja Rájá, vol. 1-2, Allahabad: Presbyterian Mission Press, 1852-1853. T. Bhaskaran, Alphabetical Index of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Oriental Research Institute and Manuscript Library, Trivandrum, vol. 3: ya to ṣa, Trivandrum: Oriental Research Inst. and Manuscripts Library, Univ. of Kerala, 1984 (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series 254). The Yogasûtras of Patañjali with the Scholium of Vyâsa and the Commentary of Vâchaspatimis´ra, ed. by Rajaram Shastri Bodas … revised and enlarged by the Addition of the Commentary of Nâgojî Bhaṭṭa by Vasudev Shastri Abhyankar …, 2. ed. Bārāṇasī: Caukambā Vidyābhavān, 1917 (Bombay Sanskrit Series 46). Johannes Bronkhorst, “God in Sāṃkhya,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 27 (1983), 149-164. Id., “Patañjali and the Yoga Sūtras,” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 10 (1985), 191-212. Id., “Two Literary Conventions of Classical India,” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 45,2 (1991), 210-227. Kota Parameswara Aithal, Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts [in the Adyar Library]. Vol. 8. Sāṃkhya, Yoga Vaiśeṣika and Nyāya. Adyar: Adyar Library, 1972 (The Adyar Library Series 100). Cristopher Key Chapple, “Reading Patañjali without Vyāsa: A Critique of Four Yoga Sūtra Passages,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 62,1 (1994), 85-105. Henry Thomas Colebrooke, “On the Philosophy of the Hindus, Part 1: Sánkhya,” Transactions of The Royal Asiatic Society 1 (1827), 19-43. Id., Misicellaneous Essays, with Life of the Author by his Son, Sir T.E. Colebrooke. Vol. 1. London: Trübner, 1873. Carakasaṃhitā: Caraka Saṃhitā by Agniveśa, Revised by Caraka and Dṛḍhabala, With the Āyurveda-Dīpikā Commentary of Cakrapāṇidatta, ed. by Jādavji Trikamjī Ācārya, Varanasi: Krishnadas Academy, 2000 [repr. of the ed. Bombay 1941] (Krishnadas Ayurveda Series 66). Surendranath Dasgupta, The Study of Patañjali, Calcutta: Calcutta University, 1920. Id., A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1-5, Cambridge 19221955. Vol. 1: 1922. Vol. 2: 1932. Vol. 3: 1940. Vol. 4: Indian Pluralism, 1949. Vol. 5: Southern Schools of Śaivism, 1955. Id., Yoga Philosophy in Relation to Other Systems of Indian Thought, Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1930. Elizabeth De Michelis, A History of Modern Yoga. Patañjali and Western Esotericism. London, New York: Continuum, 2004. Paul Deussen, Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Religionen, 1. Band, 3. Abteilung: Die nachvedische Philosophie der Inder, nebst einem Anhang über die Philosophie der Chinesen und Japaner, Leipzig: F.A. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA Deshpande 1994 Eliade 1954 Filliozat 2005 Franco/ Preisendanz 2010 Frauwallner 1953 Garbe 1893 Garbe 1896 Gelblum 1992 Gerschheimer 2007 Guggenbühl 2008 Hacker 1947 83 Brockhaus, 1908. Madhav M. Deshpande, “The Changing Notion of Śiṣṭa from Patañjali to Bhartṛhari,“ Saroja Bhate and Johannes Bronkhorst (eds.), Bhartṛhari. Philosopher and Grammarian. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Bhartṛhari (University of Poona, January 6 - 8, 1992). Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 1994, 95-116. Mircea Eliade, Le Yoga: Immortalité et Liberté, Paris: Payot, 1954. English translation: Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, London: Routledge, 1958. German translation: Yoga: Unsterblichkeit und Freiheit, Zürich etc.: Rascher, 1960. Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, Le Yogabhāṣya de Vyāsa sur le Yogasūtra de Patañjali, Paris: Éd. Āgamāt, 2005. Eli Franco – Karin Preisendanz, “Vorwort,” Erich Frauwallner, Die Philosophie des Buddhismus. 5. Aufl. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2010, XI-XXX. Erich Frauwallner, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Bd. 1: Die Philosophie des Veda und des Epos. Der Buddha und der Jina. Das Samkhya und das klassische Yoga-System, Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1953 (Wort und Antwort 6). Richard Garbe, “Pañcaçikha und seine Fragmente,“ Ernst Kuhn (ed.), Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth, zum Doktorjubiläum, 24. August 1893, von seinen Freunden und Schülern, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1893, 75-80. Id., Sāṃkhya und Yoga, Strassburg: Trübner, 1896 (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 3,4). Tuvia Gelblum, “Notes on an English Translation of the ‘Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa’,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 55,1 (1992), 76-89. Gerdi Gerschheimer, “Les ‘Six doctrines de spéculation’ (ṣaṭṭarkī). Sur la cetégorisation variable des systèmes philosophiques das l’Inde classique,” Karin Preisendanz (ed.), Expanding and Merging Horizons. Contributions to South Asian and Cross-cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2007 (Österreichiche Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften 351) (Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 53) 239-258. Claudia Guggenbühl, Mircea Eliade and Surendranath Dasgupta. The History of their Encounter. Dasgupta’s Life, his Philosophy and his Works on Yoga. A Comparative Analysis of Eliade’s Chapter on Patañjali’s Yogasūtra and Dasgupta’s Yoga as Philosophy and Religion. Zürich 2008. http://archiv.ub.uniheidelberg.de/savifadok/volltexte/2008/149/. Accessed on 20 September 2011. Paul Hacker, “Śaṅkarācārya and Śaṅkarabhagavatpāda, Preliminary remarks concerning the authorship problem,” New Indian Antiquary 9 (1947), 175-186. Corrected new version in Hacker 1978, 41-58. 84 Hacker 1960 Hacker 1962 Hacker 1968 Hacker 1978 Halbfass 1983 Halbfass 1990 Halbfass 1991 Harimoto 1999 Harimoto 2004 Hauer 1958 Hattori 1999 HIML Hiriyanna 1932 Hultzsch 1927 Jacobi 1929 Jacobi 1930a P H I L I P P A. M A A S Id., “Review of Hauer 1958,” Orientalische Literaturzeitung 55 (1960), Sp. 521-528. Reprint in Hacker 1978: 746-749. Id. “Review of Eliade 1960,” Zeitung für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 46 (1962) 317-319. Rep. in Hacker 1978: 757-759. Id., “Śaṅkara der Yogin und Śaṅkara der Advaitin, einige Beobachtungen,” Gerhard Oberhammer (ed.), Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens, Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages herausgegeben, Wien 1968 (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 12-13, 1968-69), 119148. Reprinted in: Hacker 1978, 213-242. Id., Kleine Schriften, herausgegeben von Lambert Schmithausen, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1978 (Glasenapp-Stiftung 15). Wilhelm Halbfass, Studies in Kumārila and Śaṅkara, Reinbek: Inge Wezler, 1983 (Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, Monographie 9). Id., India and Europe, An Essay in Philosophical Understanding, Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 1990. Id., Tradition and Reflection, Explorations in Indian Thought, New York: State University of New York Press, 1991. Kengo Harimoto, A Critical Edition of the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa. First Part: Samādhipāda with an Introduction, Ph.D. Thesis in Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 1999. Id., “Review of Rukmani 2001,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124,1 (2004), 176-180. Jakob Wilhelm Hauer, Der Yoga, Ein indischer Weg zum Selbst, Kritisch-positive Darstellung nach den maßgeblichen Quellen mit einer Übersetzung der maßgeblichen Quellen. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1958. Masaaki Hattori, “On Seśvara-Sāṃkhya,” Asiatische Studien / Études asiatiques 53.3 (1999), 609-617. Gerit Jan Meulenbeld, A History of Indian Medical Literature, 3 vols (in 5 parts), Groningen: Forsten, 1999-2002 (Groningen Oriental Studies 15). Mysore Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy, London: Allen and Unwin, 1932. Eugen Hultzsch, “Sāṃkhya und Yoga im Śiśupālavadha,” Julius von Negelein (et al.), Aus Indiens Kultur, Festgabe für Richard von Garbe …, Erlangen: Palm und Enke, 1927 (Veröffentlichungen des Indogermanischen Seminars der Universität Erlangen 3), 74-83. Hermann Jacobi, “Über das ursprüngliche Yogasystem,” Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl. (1929), 581-624. Rep. in Jacobi 1970, Teil 2, 682-725. Id., “Über das ursprüngliche Yogasystem: Nachträge und Indices,” Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl. (1930), 322-332. Rep. in Jacobi 1970, Teil 2, 726-736. A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA Jacobi 1930b Jacobi 1970 Jacobsen 2012 Jambuvijaya 2000 Jha 1907 de Jong 1994 Kane 1914 Klostermaier 1986 Larson/Bhattacharya 1984 Larson/Bhattacharya 2008 Lawrence 1990 La Vallée Poussin 1937 Leggett 1981-1983 Leggett 1990 Lindquist 1932 Lindquist 1935 Maas 2006 85 Id., “Über das Alter des Yogaśāstra,” Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 8 (1930), 80-88. Rep. in Jacobi 1970, Teil 2, 737-745. Id., Kleine Schriften. Hrsg. von Bernhard Kölver, Teil 1 und 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970 (Glasenapp-Stiftung 4,1 und 4,2). Knut A. Jacobsen (ed.), Yoga Powers. Extraordinary Capacities Attained Through Meditation and Concentration. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2012 (Brill’s Indological Library 37). Muni Jambuvijaya (ed.), A Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Jaisalmer Jain Bhandaras / jaisalmer ke prācin jain graṃthbhaṃḍāroṃ kī sūcī. Delhi, Jaisalmer: Motilāla Banārasīdāsa Pablīśarsa [et al.], 2000. Ganganatha Jha, The Yoga-Darśana, The Sūtras of Patañjali with the Bhāṣya of Vyāsa, Transl. into English with Notes from Vâchaspati Miśrás [sic.] Tattvavaiśâradī, Vijnána Bhiksu’s Yogavârtika and Bhoja’s Râjamârtaṇda [sic.], Bombay: Theosophical Publication Fund, 1907. Jan Wilhelm de Jong, “Review of Leggett 1992,” Indo-IranianJournal 37 (1994), 60-63. Pandurang Vaman Kane, “Bhāmaha, the Nyāsa and Māgha,” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 23 (1914), 91-95. Klaus Klostermaier, “Dharmamegha samādhi. Comments on Yogasūtra IV,29,” Philosophy East and West, 36,3 (1986), 253262. Gerald James Larson – Ram Shankar Bhattacharya, Sāṃkhya, A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy, Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987 (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies 4). Id., Yoga, India’s Philosophy of Meditation, Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 2008 (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies 12). Bruce B. Lawrence, “Bīrūnī, Abū Rayḥān, 8. Indology,” Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Encylopædia Iranica. Vol. 4, Bāyjū – Carpets, London, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1990, 285-287. Louis de la Vallée Poussin, “Le bouddhisme et le yoga de Patañjali,” Mélanges chinois et bouddhiques 5 (1936-1937), 223242. Trevor Leggett, Śaṅkara on the Yoga-Sūtra-s, The Vivaraṇa subcommentary to Vyāsabhāṣya on the Yoga-sūtra-s of Pantañjali, Vol. 1-2, Vol. 1: Samādhipāda, Vol. 2: Sādhanapāda, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981-1983. Id., The Complete Commentary by Śaṅkara on the Yoga Sūtra-s, A Full Translation of a Newly Discovered Text, London et al.: Kegan Paul, 1990. Sigurd Lindquist, Die Methoden des Yoga. Inauguraldissertation. Lund: Håkan Ohlsson Buchdruckerei, 1932. Id., Siddhi und Abhiññā. Eine Studie über die klassischen Wunder des Yoga. Uppsala: A.-B- Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1935 (Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1935:2). Philipp André Maas, Samādhipāda. Das erste Kapitel des Pātañjalayogaśāstra zum ersten Mal kritisch ediert, = The First Chapter 86 Maas 2008 Maas 2009 Maas 2010 Mayeda 1968-1969 Mayeda 1979 Meisig 1988 Mitra 1883 Müller 1899 Nakamura 1980-1981 Nakamura 2004 Oberhammer 1977 Olivelle 1980 The Pandit N.S. P H I L I P P A. M A A S of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra for the First Time Critically Edited, Aachen: Shaker, 2006 (Studia Indologica Universitatis Halensis) (Geisteskultur Indiens. Texte und Studien 9). Id., “‘Descent with Modification’: The Opening of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra,” Walter Slaje (ed.), with a Preface by Edwin Gerow, Śāstrārambha, Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62), 97-119. Id., “The So-called ‘Yoga of Suppression’ in the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra,” Eli Franco in collaboration with Dagmar Eigner (eds.), Yogic Perception, Meditation, and Altered States of Consciousness. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009 (Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens 64, Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klasse 794), 263-282. Id., “On the Written Transmission of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra,” Johannes Bronkhorst and Karin Preisendanz (eds.), From Vasubandhu to Caitanya, Studies in Indian Philosophy and its Textual History, Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass, 2010 (Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference 10.1), 157-172. Sengaku Mayeda, “The Advaita Theory of Perception,” Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens, Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages herausgegeben von Gerhard Oberhammer, Wien 1968 (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südund Ostasiens 12-13, 1968-69), 221-239. Id., A Thousand Teachings, The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1979. Reprint: Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Konrad Meisig, Yogasūtra-Konkordanz, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988 (Freiburger Beiträge zur Indologie 22). Rājendralāl Mitra, The Yoga Aphorisms of Pataṉjali, With the commentary of Bhoja and an English Translation, Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1883 (Bibliotheca Indica 93). Friedrich Max Müller, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, London etc.: Longmans, 1899. Hajime Nakamura, “Śaṅkara’s Vivaraṇa on the Yogasūtra-Bhāṣya,” The Adyar Library Bulletin 44-45 (1980-81), 475-485. Id., A History of Early Vedānta Philosophy, Pt. 2, Transl. into English by Hajime Nakamura, Trevor Leggett et al. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2004. [English translation of Vols. 3-4 of Shoki No Vedanta Tetsugaku]. Gerhard Oberhammer, Strukturen yogischer Meditation, Untersuchungen zur Spiritualität des Yoga, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 322, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Sprachen und Kulturen Südasiens 132). Patrick Olivelle, “Review of Oberhammer 1977,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 100,1 (1980), 48. The Pandit, A monthly publication of the Benares College, devot- A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA The Pandit O.S. Pines/Gelblum 1966 Pines/Gelblum 1977 Pines/Gelblum 1983 Pines/Gelblum 1989 Pingree 1981 Pollock 2009 Prasad 1930 PYŚ Raghavan 1938-1939 Rājamartaṇḍa Ram 19321941 Renou 1940 Renou/Filliozat 1953 Rocher/Rocher 2012 Rukmani 1981-1989 Rukmani 1998 87 ed to Sanskrit literature, New Series, Vol. 5-6, Benares: Lazarus, 1883-1884. The Pandit [Old Series], A monthly journal of the Benares College devoted to Sanskrit Literature, Vol. 3-6. Benares: Lazarus, 1868-1872. Shlomo Pines, Tuvia Gelblum, “Al-Bīrūnī’s Arabic Version of Patañjali’s ‘Yogasūtra’,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 29,2 (1966), 302-325. Id., “Al-Bīrūni’s Arabic Version of Patañjali’s ‘Yogasūtra’, A Translation of the Second Chapter and a Comparison with Related Texts,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 40,3 (1977), 522-549. Id., “Al-Bīrūni’s Arabic Version of Patañjali’s ‘Yogasūtra’, A Translation of the Third Chapter and a Comparison with Related Texts,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 46,2 (1983), 258-304. Id., “Al-Bīrūni’s Arabic Version of Patañjali’s ‘Yogasūtra’, A Translation of the Fourth Chapter and a Comparison with Related Texts,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 52,2 (1989), 265-305. David Edwin Pingree, Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit, Series A, vol. 4. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1981 (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 146). Sheldon Pollock, “Future Philology? The Fate of a Soft Science in a Hard World,” Critical Inquiry 35 (2009), 931-961. Jwala Prasad, “The Date of the Yoga-Sūtras,” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1930, 365-375. Pātañjala Yogaśāstra V[enkatarama] Raghavan, “Abhinavagupta and the Bhāṣya on the Yogasūtras,” Annals of Oriental Research (Madras) 3 (1938-1939), 1-6. [Revised version (?)] reprinted in: Abhinavagupta and his Works, Varanasi etc.: Chaukhambe Orientalia, 1980, 78-87 (Chaukhambha Oriental Research Studies 20). see Rājendralāl Mitra 1883. Labhu Ram, Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Panjab University Library, vol. 1-2, Lahore: Universtiy of the Panjab, 1932-1941. Louis Renou, “On the Identity of the two Patañjalis,” Indian Historical Quarterly 16 (1940), 586-591. Louis Renou et Jean Filliozat, L’Inde classique, manuel des études indiennes, tome 2. Paris: Payot, 1953 (Bibliothèque de l’Ecole française d’Extrême Orient 3). Ludo Rocher & Rosane Rocher, The Making of Western Indology, Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the East India Company. London etc.: Routledge, 2012. Trichur Subramaniam Rukmani (ed. and transl.), Yogavārttika of Vijñānabhikṣu, Text with English Translation of the Pātañjala Yogasūtra and Vyāsabhāṣya, Vol. 1-4, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1981-1989. Id., “The Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa is not a Work of Śaṅkarā- 88 Rukmani 2001 Sachau 1888 Śāstrī/Sāstrī 1883 Schmithausen 1968-1969 Schmithausen 1992 Schreiner 1979 SDS Senart 1900 Singleton 2010 Sinha 1992 Speijer 1886 Stareček 2003 Strauss 1925 Takagi 1963 Tatya 1885 P H I L I P P A. M A A S cārya the Author of the Brahmasūtrabhāṣya,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 26,3 (June 1998), 263-274. Id. (ed. and transl.), Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa of Śaṅkara, Vivaraṇa Text with English Translation and Critical Notes Along with Text and English Translation of Patañjali’s Yogasūtras and Vyāsabhaṣya, Vols. 1 and 2. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2001. Edward. C. Sachau, Alberuni’s India, An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India about 1030, An English edition with notes and indices, Vol. 1, London: Trübner & Co., 1888. Rāmakṛṣṇa Śāstrī and Keśava Śāstrī (ed.), [Vijñānabhikṣu, Yogavārttika] Yogavārtikam: See The Pandit N.S. Lambert Schmithausen, “Zur advaitischen Theorie der Objekterkenntnis,” Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens, Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages herausgegeben von Gerhard Oberhammer, Wien 1968 (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 12-13, 1968-69), 329-360. Id., “A Note on Vasubandhu and the Laṅkāvatārasūtra,” Asiatische Studien 46.1 (1992) (Études bouddhiques offertes à Jaques May), 392-397. Peter Schreiner, Yoga: Grundlagen, Methoden, Ziele, Ein bibliographischer Überblick, Als Manuskript veröffentlicht, Köln, etc.: Brill (in Kommission), 1979. Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha by Mādhava. Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha of Sāyaṇa-Mādhava, Ed by. V.S. Abhyankar. 2. ed. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1951. Émil Senart, “Bouddhisme et Yoga,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 42,3 (1900), 345-364. Mark Singleton, Yoga Body, The Origins of Modern Posture Practice, Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press, 2010. Phulgenda Sinha, The original Yoga sutra of Patanjali. With a history of its textual distortion, Varanasi: Ratna Print. Works, 1992. Jacob S. Speijer, Sanskrit Syntax. Leyden: Brill, 1886. Judith Stareček, Die Rezeption des Yogasūtra und der Bhagavadgītā in al-Bīrūnīs ’al-Hind, Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades der Philosophie aus der Studienrichtung Indologie an der Geistes- und Kulturwisschenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien, Wien 2003. Unpublished. Otto Stauss, Indische Philosophie, München, Basel: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag, 1925 (Geschichte der Philosophie in Einzeldarstellungen 2.1: Das Weltbild der Primitiven und die Philosophie des Morgenlandes). Shingen Takagi, “Sāṃkhyan View in the Yoga-bhāṣya,” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies / Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 11,2 (1963), 48-52. Tookaram Tatya, The Yoga Philosophy, Being the Text of Patañ- A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA Torella 2010 Tubb – Boose 2007 Tucci 1957 Vetter 1979 Vidyasagara 1874 Vivaraṇa Vivekānanda 1896 Wagner 2001 Ward 1811 Ward 1815 Wezler 1982 Wezler 1983 89 jali, with Bhoja Raja’s commentary, With their translations in English by Dr. Ballantyne and Govind Shastri Deva, an introduction by Col. Olcott and an appendix, Rev., ed. and rep. ... Bombay: Subodha-Prakash Press, 1885 (The Theosophical Society’s Publications). Raffaele Torella, The Philosophical Traditions of India. An appraisal. Translated from the Italian by Kenneth Fredrick Hurry, Varanasi: Indica Books, 2010. Originally published as Il pensiero dell ’India, Un’indroduzione, Roma: Carocci Editore, 2008. Gary A. Tubb – Emery R. Bose, Scholastic Sanskrit. A Handbook for Students. New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University [et al.], 2007 (Treasures of the Indic Science series). Giuseppe Tucci, Storia della filosofia Indiana, Bari: Laterza, 1957 (Biblioteca di Cultura Moderna 523). Tilmann Vetter, Studien zur Lehre und Entwicklung Śaṅkaras, Wien etc.: Institut für Indologie der Universität Wien, 1979 (Publications of the De Nobili Research Library 6). Patanjala Darshana of the Aphorisms of Theistic Philosophy, With the Commentary of Maharshi Veda Vyasa. And the Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra. Ed. … by … Jibananda Vidyasagara … Calcutta: Satya Press, 1874. Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa: Pātañjala-Yogasūtra-Bhāṣya-Vivaraṇam of Śaṅkara-Bhagavatpāda, Critically ed. with Introduction by … Polakam Sri Rama Sastri … and S.R. Krishnamurthi Sastri …, Madras: Government Oriental Manuscript Library, 1952 (Madras Government Oriental Series 94). See also Harimoto 1999. Swami Vivekananda, Rāja Yoga, Conquering the Internal Nature, London 1: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896. Christian Wagner, Die Bedeutung Südasiens in der Forschungsund Universitätslandschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Hamburg: Institut für Asienkunde, 2001 (Mitteilungen des Instituts für Asienkunde Hamburg 335). William Ward, Account of the Writings, Religion and Manners of the Hindoos, Including translations from their principle works, Vol. 1-4, Serampore: Mission Press, 1811. Id., A View of the History, Literature and Religion of the Hindoos, Including a minute description of their manners and customs, and translations from their principal works, 2nd ed. carefully abriged and greatly improved, vol. 1-2, Sermapore: Mission Press, 1815. Albrecht Wezler, “Remarks on the Definition of ‘yoga’ in the Vaiśeṣikasūtra” Luise Anna Hercus et al., Indological and Buddhist studies, volume in honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his 60th birthday. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, 1982, 643686. Id., “Philological Observations on the So-Called Pātañjalayogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa (Studies in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa 1),” Indo-Iranian Journal 25,1 (1983), 17-40. 90 Wezler 1984a Wezler 1984b Wezler 1986 Wezler 1987 Wezler 2001 Wezler/Motegi 1998 Whicher 1998 White forthc. Windisch 1917-1920 Winternitz 1922 Woods 1914 P H I L I P P A. M A A S Id., “On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaśāstra, the Caturvyūhatva of the Cikitsāśāstra and the ‘Four Noble Truths’ of the Buddha (Studies in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa 2),” Indologica Taurinensia 12 (1984), 289-337. Id., “Further References to the Vaiśeṣikasūtra in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (Studies in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa 3),” Shivram Dattatray Joshi (ed.), Amṛtadhārā, Professor R.N. Dandekar felicitation volume, Delhi: Ajanta Publ., 1984, 457472. Id., “On the Varṇa System as Conceived of by the Author of the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa (Studies in the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa 4),” R.K. Sharma et al. (eds.), Dr. B. R. Sharma Felicitation Volume. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1986 (Tirupati Series. Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha 46), 172-188. Id., “Zu der ‘Lehre von den 9 Ursachen’ im Yogabhāṣya,” Harry Falk (ed.), Hinduismus und Buddhismus. Festschrift für Ulrich Schneider. Freiburg: Falk, 1987, 340-379. Id., “Letting a Text Speak. Some remarks on the Sādhanapāda of the Yogasūtra and the Yogabhāṣya, 1, The wording of Yogasūtra 2.22,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 29 (2001), 293-304. Albrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi, Yuktidīpikā, The Most Significant Commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā Critically Edited, Vol. 1, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998 (Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 44). Ian Whitcher, The Integrety of the Yoga Darśana, A reconsideration of classical Yoga, Albany, New York: State University of New York Press: 1998 (SUNY series in religious studies). David Gordon White, “The Yoga Sutra Lost and Found: Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the Western (Re)discovery of Yoga.” Ernst Windisch, Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie und indischen Altertumskunde, 2 vols, Berlin: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verlage, 1917-1920 (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde I/1). Moriz Winternitz, Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, Bd. 3: Die Kunstdichtung, Die wissenschaftliche Litteratur, Neuindische Litteratur, Nachträge zu allen drei Bänden, Leipzig: Amelang, 1922 (Die Litteraturen des Ostens in Einzeldarstellungen 9). James Haughton Woods, The Yoga-System of Patañjali, Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of Mind, Embracing the Mnemonic Rules, Called Yoga-Sūtras, of Patañjali and the Comment, Called Yoga-Bhāshya, Attributed to Veda-Vyāsa, and the Explanation, Called Tattva-Vaiçāradī, of Vāchaspati-Miçra, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1914 [repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992] (Harvard Oriental Series 17).

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy

A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS