Yogabῑja:

a Critical Transcription of a Text on a Haṭhayoga

Yogabīja: Transcripción crítica de un texto de haṭhayoga

Adrián Muñoz
Centro de Estudios de Asia y África, El Colegio de México
[email protected]

Abstract: The present paper offers an edited, critical transcription of an

early, relevant text on haṭhayoga. The transcription is based on three dif-
ferent recenssions fom North and South India. One purpose is to overcome
difficulties in the reading of the text, due to the discrepancies among differ-
ent editions. It also seeks to foster further academic work (both philological
and exegetical) from different scholars on this text as well as on the broader
textual tradition of haṭhayoga.

Resumen: Este trabajo brinda una transcripción crítica de un texto temprano e

importante en materia de haṭhayoga. La transcripción se basa en tres recensio-
nes procedentes tanto del norte como del sur de India. Uno de los propósitos
es tratar de solventar algunos problemas de interpretación causados por las
discrepancias existentes entre diferentes ediciones del texto. Además, busca
fomentar la labor académica, exegética y filológica, entre los estudiosos tanto
en torno de este texto, como de la tradición textual del haṭhayoga.
Keywords: Haṭhayoga; Nāth Yogīs; Yogabīja Editions; Sanskrit Literature; Indian Religions.
Palabras clave: Haṭhayoga; Nāth yoguis; ediciones del Yogabīja; literatura sánscrita; religión
en India.
Recibido: 30 de julio de 2015 • Aceptado: 29 de febrero de 2016.
DOI: 10.19130/iifl.nt.2016.33.2.712

This edited transcription of the Yogabīja was prompted by a recently

published translation into Spanish (Muñoz 2014), as well as by the rather
limited access to the text from within the Spanish-speaking world. The
present article seeks to provide wider access to the text through a trans-
literated, edited version of the Yogabīja. It also seeks to foster further
academic work (both philological and exegetical) from other scholars in
Western languages (and not just in Spanish), on this text as well as on
the broader textual tradition of Haṭhayoga. The transcript also belongs
to an ongoing wider research project on the historiography, hagiography,
and literature of the Nāth Yogis. Hence, the present work should not be
deemed final, but only a humble contribution to the field.

nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 123

124 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

Text in context

Judging by the large amount of both direct and indirect references to

the followers of Haṭhayoga, we can safely state that this form of yoga
became a widespread practice on the Indian subcontinent, especially
between the 13th and the 15th centuries, and probably well onto the 17th.
No doubt, it became a significant ascetic school with a strong influence
in South Asian religious and cultural spheres. Gorakhnāth, the prover-
bial representative of this form of yoga, continues to play a crucial role
in these spheres and his rather shadowy historicity is tantamount to the
Nāth tradition’s own fuzzy historicity. A good number of works have
been attributed to Gorakh and allusions to him are available in a wide
range of sources. Regardless of whether others cited Gorakh as an au-
thorial figure, or instead attempted to ignore him (see e.g. Lorenzen and
Thukral 2005), what remains clear is that Gorakhnāth —or a Gorakh-
related sect— was a key player in the game of religious groups and
identities in pre-modern India.
As concerns the Yogabīja, one of the particularities of the text is the
fact that its contents do not correspond completely to the topics dealt
with by other reputed and later texts on Haṭha (e.g. the Haṭhapradīpikā
and the Gheraṇḍasaṃhitā). This is despite the fact that the Yogabīja is
purportedly an important Haṭha treatise. The Sanskrit bīja means “seed,
semen, grain, or germ” and can imply an “origin” or “kernel”. Thus
“yoga-bīja” can be translated as “the seed of yoga”. Accordingly the
text claims to delve into the essence and core of yoga, and so it explains
some practices for breath control, such as mudrās (“seals”) and bandhas
(“bonds, ligatures”) such as jālandhara, mūlabandha, or uḍḍiyāna. It
also describes different types of knowledge (passim), of ascetics (§34
ff.), of siddhis or powers (passim), or of yogas (§145-152), among other
yogic items. It is also possible that the text belongs to a relatively early
phase of Haṭha literature (circa 12th-15th cent.), a matter that is gaining
increasing attention from specialists.
Both the Gorakṣaśataka and the Yogabīja (YB) are attributed to
Gorakhnāth, the legendary founder of the Nāth Panth who, according
to a colophon of the YB in one of the printed editions is also known
as Maheśvara (vide infra). The exact location of the text’s composition
is uncertain, but Dasgupta (1995: 373) suggested Bengal as the prob-
able place of origin for the YB and for kindred, Gorakh-related texts.
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 125
The yogic corpus including these texts, as well as the Amanaskayoga,
the Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati, and others, probably belongs to the pe-
riod 12th to 15th century in pre-modern India, more or less coinciding
with the Delhi Sultanate. During this period there was a documented
exchange between Sufis, fakirs, and yogis, a topic beyond the scope
of the present article, yet of noteworthy attention. Some Haṭha-related
texts have been focused upon by scholars, notably the Ṣaṭcakranirūpaṇa
(Avalon 1959), the Amanaskayoga (Birch 2005), and the Khecarīvidyā
(Mallinson 2007). There is also a group of some twenty so-called Yoga
Upaniṣads which were likely composed and collected well into the 18th
century which have been edited, translated, and discussed (see bibli-
ography and Bouy 1994). Although some scholarly attention has been
drawn toward the relationship between these Upaniṣads and other texts
on Haṭha, there still remains a great deal of work to be done in order to
fully comprehend the relationship between them.
The YB and the Yogaśikhā Upaniṣad (sometimes only Śikhā Upaniṣad)
were discovered to share some verses by scholars such as Bouy (1994, p.
112) and Feuerstein (2001, p. 421) but no researcher has as yet attempted
to establish the history and actual relationship between the two texts. The
early Amanaskayoga was probably composed around the 12th-13th cen-
tury but most certainly not after the 16th (White 2009, p. 46; Birch 2005,
p. 4). On the other hand, the Haṭhapradīpikā, the Gherāṇḍasaṃhitā, and
the Śivasaṃhitā date collectively to the period between the 15th and 17th
centuries. In my translation of the YB, I stated that the probable dates
of its composition were 1450-1500 CE (Muñoz 2014, p. 476). However,
and bearing in mind that the Haṭhapradīpikā belongs to the 15th century
and is very likely posterior to the YB (cf. Bouy 1994, pp. 81-86), we
may place the YB slightly earlier chronologically, but still after the circa
1400 CE Gorakṣaśataka (Mallinson 2012, p. 263). If it is accepted that
the Gorakṣaśataka does indeed belong to the very early 15th century
and that the YB was composed soon thereafter, it appears possible that
the YB was written between 1400 and 1450, some decades before the
Haṭhapradīpikā, which seems to be a much more systematic and de-
veloped account of Haṭha practices. This latter text, therefore, seems to
follow a (long?) line of previous texts upon which it draws.
126 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

Arrangement and printed versions

As far as I have been able to surmise, there are three versions of the YB
which have been edited and published to date, all of which have been
incorporated in my transcription. Gorakhpur’s YB was edited by Rāmlāl
Śrīvāstav and is composed of 190 verses, which amount to around 360
lines due to verse variations. I shall refer to it as either the Gorakhpur
recension or Śrīvāstav’s edition. As a whole, the YB presents recurrent
grammatical irregularities and ambiguous lexicography, as in the other
two recensions. Besides a Hindi introduction, this edition provides a
commentary (tīkā) also in Hindi. The printing is not of a good quali-
ty and hence there are many instances in which vocalic matras have
apparently faded out: notably, what many times looks like a long ā was
presumably a prior, original o. Some confusion arises with the long ī too.
Anusvāras as well as some avagrahas also tend to be either erased or not
printed correctly and are therefore provided in the critical transcription
according to the rules of Standard Sanskrit.
There are at least two publications of this version, one which was in-
cluded in a periodical issued by the Gorakhnāth Temple, comprising also
the Gorakṣaśataka, the Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati, the Vivekamārtaṇḍa
and the Amaraughaprabodha, and an independent imprint, also pub-
lished by the Gorakhnāth Temple (see bibliography). There are some
orthographic and grammatical disagreements among them, which is in-
triguing since both editions were published under the supervision of
Śrīvāstav. No remark on this has been made by the editors. Also, the
Hindi tīkā differs between editions.
Unfortunately, Śrīvāstav does not mention which, and how many,
manuscripts were utilized for his version. Judging from the obvious
grammatical imperfections, it seems likely the he relied on hand-written
manuscripts rather than on a printed edition, but this remains as yet
to be confirmed. As noted above, though not extremely common, this
recension does not commit wholly to regular ślokas (two-line verses),
but has one-line verses (around eighteen) and three-line verses (two),
whose distribution and/or numbering in most cases do not correspond
with those found in the other two recensions. The title is indicated by a
non-declined compound: “yogabīja”.
Although not more than a mere conjecture, I am inclined to believe
that this edition may coincide with a potential “earlier” version than
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 127
the other two printed recensions at my disposal. In these two, there
is an ostensible attempt to correct apparent mistakes in a conceivable
“Gorakhpur recension” (yet, sometimes the amendment does not seem
entirely correct).
A second edition was published in Delhi under the supervision of
Brahmamitra Awasthi, heretofore labelled as either the Delhi recension
or Awasthi’s edition. This version is correctly labelled as “yogabījam”.
It apparently has two verses less than the Gorakhpur edition. However,
apart from order changes and lexical discrepancies, it should be noted
that Awasthi’s edition presents a serious issue with verse numbering:
after verse §16 (pp. 55-57), the numbering re-begins at §111, so that to
what seems to be a whole of 182 verses we have to add six more; thus
giving us a total of 188 verses approximately. A second issue then comes
to light after we resume the numbering, at §120, where there is a long
sequence of one-line verses (adding up to almost thirty). Moreover, af-
ter §132 the numbering inexplicably changes to §154 (later on, at least
twice there seems to be some error when giving numbers for §170) and
the again after §179 the numbering goes back to §140-41. All of this
confusion gives one the feeling that this Delhi recension, with all its
shifting and jumping of verse-numbers, tries to catch up with the Go-­
rakh­pur recension after having failed to go on a par since the early
stages of the text.
All in all, the verses follow almost faithfully the order in Śrīvāstav’s
edition, but sometimes the numbering and organization of individual lines
do not match. For example: verses §5 and §6 are inverted in Awasthi’s
edition and Awasthi’s verse §144 is not in Śrīvāstav’s. Finally, in spite
of being a bit shorter, Awasthi’s edition manages to “include” almost
all of the Gorakhpur recension. Another difference between them is that
Awasthi’s edition tends to bear recurrent sandhi blunders: e.g. yogāt
candra instead of yogāc candra. Besides a free English translation, this
edition is also accompanied by a Hindi paraphrase. Like Śrīvāstav, Awas-
thi gives no hint of his sources, but they seem to be altogether different
from those in the Gorakhpur edition. The only thing Awasthi does in the
footnotes is indicate similarities between the Yogaśikhā Upaniṣad and
the YB (“tulanīya yogaṣikhopaniṣad…”).
Lastly, there is the Yogaśikhā Upaniṣad (YŚU), included in the Yoga
Upaniṣads. The edition I have used was prepared by Mahadeva Sastri in
Madras. Consequently, it will be designated either the Madras recension
128 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

or Sastri’s edition. The text is divided in two parts, or adhyāyas; around

80% of the first adhyāya (178 verses in total) is basically comprised of
the Yogabījā.
Unlike the other two recensions, the YŚU is very consistent in terms
of its verse-structure, i.e. all of the verses are composed of two lines re-
gardless of the metre. It is very probable that this upaniṣad is a late work,
even later than the Haṭhapradīpikā and the Gherāṇḍasaṃhitā. It is also
likely that the people behind the composition of the YŚU were not mem-
bers or adherents of the Nāth order. This can be surmised from the fact
that in some instances the text eliminates references to the nāthas (cf.
YB §7, §136, §145, §189). In general terms, Sastri’s edition of the Yoga
Upaniṣads appears more carefully realized than the other two YB edi-
tions; this may well be in consonance with the nature of most recensions
from south India of various texts. These tend to offer rather “purified”
versions (Törzsök 1999, p. xxvii). Yet the apparent lack of mistakes in
the YŚU does not necessarily imply a more “original” or “pure” reading
of a hypothetical YB original text; these readings, on the contrary, can
rather convey “corrections” stemming from ideological considerations,
as is evident from the change of speakers in the dialogue.
Sastri’s edition was based on five manuscripts located in the Adyar
Library and a Bombay printed edition of the 108 upaniṣads, which was
itself based on a South Indian ms. Sastri’s edition has a Sanskrit com-
mentary by Śrī Upaniṣad-brahmayogin, but no paraphrase or translation
(an English translation of the Yoga Upaniṣads was later published inde-
pendently). The recension’s rendering of the text tends to coincide with
some readings of the Delhi recension, though this is not always the case.
At times Sastri gives variant readings from his sources, which may coin-
cide with one reading in either D or G, but which for some reason were
discarded. It needs to be stressed that nearly without exception the vers-
es from the YB not repeated in the YŚU are, significantly, either Devī’s
speeches or Ῑśvara’s replies to her. It also happens that a discourse by
Devī becomes merged in the main body of the text (e.g. §24-25), and is,
therefore, not singled out from the principal voice.
We know for sure that the sources for the YŚU were located in South
India, but cannot be so certain about the sources for the Gorakhpur and
the Delhi printed versions. It may be the case that both the Gorakhpur
and the Delhi recensions were based on mss stored in locations such as
Jodhpur, in Rajasthan, and Kathmandu, Nepal, where we know that there
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 129
is a vast array of yoga-related texts to be found. Allegedly, the Madras
recension relied at least on one northern recension (arguably close to the
Delhi recension). One could of course argue that it may very well be that
the line of derivation moves in reverse; that is to say, one of the northern
recensions was based on a southern one, but in this case I feel confident
that it is not so because a) the Madras recension does seem to betray a
clear intention of purging non-orthodox elements from the text while re-
taining most of the content and original order, and b) as Otto Shrader has
proved the current, southern versions of the Yoga Upaniṣads are greatly
indebted ­—and have expanded on— earlier northern, and sometimes
shorter, recensions (Bouy 1994, p. 30). Moreover, I feel that what looks
like grammatical correctness in the Madras version is an indication of a
later, more polished recension.
There are at least two other editions: an 1899 edition from Kaunpur and a
1956 one from Mangalore, the second of which seems particularly close to
the YŚU’s first chapter (Bouy 1994, p. 105). Unfortunately I have not been
able to consult either edition. Unlike the Gorakhpur edition, these appear
to have 180 verses, which more or less coincide with Awasthi’s edition.
Hereafter recensions are identified by place of publication as follows:
Śrīvāstav’s YB edition (G); Awasthi’s YB edition (D); M. Sastri’s YŚU
edition (M).

Meter and style

The YB’s prosodic structure is that of vṛttapadyas, i.e. stanzas organized

by the number of syllables in each pāda or hemistich. For the most part
the text is composed in anuṣṭubh stanzas (eight syllables per pāda) shi­
fting between forms. This is usually restricted, however, to the pathyā
form (with a tendency for ya-gaṇa, or bacchius trochaic: ̮--; and ra-gaṇa:
-̮-); also, the syllabic pattern at the end of the second and forth pāda of
each stanza tends to be a regular iambic (̮-̮-). There are four verses in
a different meter in the YB: §66, which is triṣṭubh (11 syllables in each
pāda) in indravajrā meter; §101, a śakvarī (14 syllables) in vasantatilaka;
§137 a jagatī (12 syllables) in a more or less vaṃśastha meter; and §138,
again a triṣṭubh oscillating between indravajrā and upajāti.
The stylistic quality of the Sanskrit is allegedly poor in aesthetic terms,
yet it is quite consistent with other kindred texts. In general terms, the
130 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

grammatical and lexical irregularities are of the usual sort in this type of
literature, which has been given various names. Some scholars have ten-
ded to call it Tantric Sanskrit, for its primary manifestation is found in
Tantric and/or āgamic literature; others speak of Aiśa language because
it is said to derive from God Śiva (i.e. Ῑśa), an idea first expounded by
the 11th century philosopher Kṣemarāja. There are a number of specia-
lists dealing with this linguistic phenomenon as well as with the prosody
of said literature (see for example Goudriaan & Schoterman 1988, pp.
44-109; Törzsök 1999, pp. xxvi-lxix; Mallinson 2007, pp. 15-16). They
have attempted to schematize a functional grammar of Aiśa language
and have emphatically suggested that grammatical incongruities derive
basically from prosodic concerns.
In terms of stanza division, we can also identify inconsistencies bet-
ween the available versions. As noted before, for the most part the YB
is in anuṣṭubh versification, but there are some departures. Besides the
other verse forms, two recensions (G and D) have both one-line and
three-line verses, which accounts in large part for the incongruence in
numbering the verses. It is doubtful that three-line verses are meant to
function as a form of the gāyatrī meter, but not impossible. Some exam-
ples of one-liner units in the transcription are §43, §59, §72, §109, §133;
three-line verses are §152 and §163. M is definitely more consistent: it
presents us with a constant series of couplets throughout the text; M also
provides headings to indicate changes of topic, usually at the expense of
the sequence of couplets. For example, more often than not a śloka is
split in order to allow for a heading and change of topic.

Transcription and collation

My transcription is presented in the Roman alphabet, supported by dia-

critical marks as specified by the international transliteration system for
Sanskrit (IAST). When two or more words in the original become blend-
ed due to graphic rules in the devanāgarῑ script, I have decided to write
these words separately (e.g. devairapi  devair api). When a union is
due to nominal compounds (samāsa) or phonetic rules (sandhi), the coa­
lition of words has been preserved (e.g. yogamārge, sarvadoṣavivarjitaḥ,
tatrāsau).
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 131
The work undertaken for this partial critical transcription was based on
the three “recensions” mentioned above, i.e. four printed versions. The
significant variant readings between recensions have been indicated in
the notes to the text. At some points, I have only indicated the alternative
readings; at others, I have provided readings from all recensions. Sandhi
deviations have not been indicated in the notes; neither have visarga or
anusvāra omissions. Needless to say the “corrected” reading provided
by this transcription may imply a rethinking of both the Spanish and
English translations. Given the fact that habitually apparent inaccuracies
in all existent transcriptions are due to metrical concerns, I have opted
here to provide a semantically and grammatically accurate reading when
possible. A particularly difficult passage is §79cd: the two key words
there (rajjau>rajjuḥ>rajjvā / rajvī), in whatever form, seem to contra-
dict the grammar or semantics of the rest of the pāda.1 Other passages
in haṭha literature that deal with a rope (rajju) are Śivasaṃhitā 1.38 and
1.43 but are completely different from YB´s passage; Śivasaṃhitā deals
with the standard analogy between rope and snake to explain the lack of
true knowledge instead of the interweaving of mind and breath that the
YB aims to.
Thus I somehow decided to artificially reconstruct the passage. That is
to say that I have shown more concern for a “possible” correction rather
than complying with phonetic constraints. In this sense, my transcription
is closer to Birch’s critical edition of the Amanaskayoga than, for exam-
ple, Törzsök’s edition of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. I have also retained
G’s numbering of stanzas, even to the point of accepting the one- and
three-line verse forms.
Although I have devoted a great deal of effort to comparing the diffe-
rent editions and, as far as possible, have attempted to amend incorrect
readings and errata, the task is far from completed. It has to be stressed
that this transcription is based solely on printed materials: a full critical
edition will have to resort to extant manuscripts, as well as other possi-
ble printed editions as they become available. Access to these archives
from Latin America is rather difficult because of time and financial

1
For a similar, difficult case concerning rajvī, see Kubjikāmatatantra 18.116, where
the word is construed as ṛjvī (Goudriaan & Schoterman 1988, p. 368). Although this
option doesn’t seem relevant for YB §79cd, it is worth mentioning. I thank Óscar Fi­
gueroa for pointing it to me.
132 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

issues, as well as for bureaucratic reasons (cf. Birch 2005, pp. 23-24).
Even though a closer look at manuscripts will have to be made, we can
accept that the printed versions consulted here were prepared from sur-
viving manuscripts. Any later critical work will have to determine what
actual sources were drawn upon in each of the printed recensions and
suggest a more definite “standard” archetype.
Nevertheless, despite the possibility of misreadings from the editors, I
deemed it viable to provide a more or less homogenous and reliable uni-
fied transcription from the four printed editions due to the high frequency
of verses with which the same verses appear in the different recensions.
As for lexical discrepancies, some of these stem from both obvious erra-
ta from scribes as well as compliance with metrical requirements, while
some others demonstrate ideological dissent.2 Notably all references to
a dialogue between Īśvara and Devī (YB) have been modified so as to
present a conversation between Śaṅkara and Padmasaṃbhava (YŚU),
apparently a more orthodox scheme for a religious colloquium. We musk
ask ourselves, however, is this a teaching from Śiva (or the Advaitin phi-
losopher) expounded to the reputed Buddhist teacher? If so, there may
still be some underlying tantric undertones.
Inconsistencies among G and D suggest that they were based on diffe-
rent manuscripts, but these differences also reinforce the thesis that va-
rious early versions of the text did in fact offer a dialogue between Īśvara
and Devī, not Śaṅkara and Padmasaṃbhava, which points toward a later
“sanitization” of allegedly śākta elements in the text. It is also sensible
to conclude that some YB recensions were earlier than a YŚU recension.
G presents a total of 364 pādas, whereas D gives 379 or 373, depend-
ing on how we count verses in dispute (vide supra). Finally, M (included
in the YŚU) contains 356 pādas, almost equal to G, although in principle
M is shorter than either G or D due to its rejection of Devī´s speeches
as I have indicated above. Among the recensions, there are 303 pādas
shared by all three—which is also the number of half-verses shared by G
and M. The number increases if we compare only G and D: 357 shared
half-verses. This quantity decreases if we compare D with M: 312 half-

2
It should be noted that “it is often difficult to distinguish inaccuracies, mistakes,
scribal errors or by whatever term one may wish to call them, from what should be
admitted into the grammar of Tantric Sanskrit as real sandhi features” (Goudriaan &
Schoterman 1988, p. 52).
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 133
verses, three of which are unique to these texts and absent in G. (These
I have included in the appendix to the transcription.) The correspon-
dence of M with G is roughly YŚU 1.1ab-1.69ab, and 1.79cd-1.164cd.
The rest of the first adhyāya goes from 1.165ab through 1.178cd. The
opening of M coincides with G 4ab. I have only rarely made mention
of omitted passages from the recensions. In order to provide a more de-
tailed account, a correspondence chart is under preparation.
I have adopted Śrīvāstav’s two editions from Gorakhpur (G) as my
starting point, on the assumption that they may very well represent an
early stage of the YB. When needed, I have referred to these publica-
tions as either G1 (1982 edition) or G2 (1991 edition); if no distinction is
made, it is because the two editions agree on the point under scrutiny. I
have then compared this with both Awasthi’s edition from Delhi (D) and
the YŚU recension (M), which seems to be a more carefully executed
version in editorial terms. When two sources agree, I have sometimes
opted for the reading presented in these two works, unless the single
independent reading comes from G and can be logically read and/or
construed. When discrepancies prove difficult to reconcile, I have tried
to look for recurrence in other texts, particularly the Haṭhapradīpikā.
This is despite the fact that there aren’t many shared verses among them;
perhaps eighteen or less. Amendments not supported by either source
are marked with the symbol º after the word in question. An asterisk (*)
indicates the faulty numbered stanzas in D, which I have not attempted
to correct. I hope to carry out a more thorough and comparative survey
as soon as time permits.

References

Primary sources

Haṭhayogapradīpikā of Svātmārāma, With the commentary Jyotsnā of Brahmā-

nanda and English translation, Adyar, The Adyar Library and Research Centre,
1975 [1972].
Yoga-bīja.(a), Ed. Rāmlāl Śrīvāstav, Gorakhpur, Gorakhnāth Mandir, 1982 (V.S.
2039).
—, (b), Ed. Rāmlāl Śrīvāstav.In Yogavāṇī varṣa 16, aṅk 1-3 (janvarī-mārc, 1991),
pp. 33-62.
134 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

Yoga Bija, edited and translated by M. M. Dr. Brahmamitra Awasthi, Delhi, Swami
Keshananda Yoga Institute, 1985 (V.S. 2042).
The Yoga Upaniṣad-s, With the commentary of Śrī Upaniṣad Brahmayogin, Ed.
Pandit A. Mahadeva Sastri, Madras, The Adyar Library and Research Centre,
1983 [1968].
—, Translated into English by T. R. Śrīnivāsa Ayyaṅgār and Edited by Paṇḍit S.
Subrahmaṇya Śāstrī, Madras, The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1938.

Secondary sources

Avalon, Arthur (John Woodroffe), The Serpent Power, Being the Shat-chakra-
nirūpana and Pādukā-panchakā. Two Works on Laya Yoga, Madras, Ganesh
& Co., 1950.
Birch, Jason, “The Amanaska Yoga. A Critical Edition, Translation and Study”,
The University of Sydney, Honours Thesis, 2005.
Bouy, Christian, Les Nātha-yogin et les Upaniṣads. Étude d’histoire de la littéra-
ture hindoue, Paris, Editions de Boccard, 1994.
Briggs, G. W., Gorakhnāth and the Kānphaṭa Yogīs, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass,
2001 [1938].
Dasgupta, Shashibusan, Obscure Religious Cults, Calcutta, Firma KLM Pivate Lt.,
1995 [1969].
Feuerstein, Georg, The Yoga Tradition. Its History, Literature, Philosophy and
Practice, Prescott, Hohm Press, 2001.
Goudriaan, T., & J. A. Schoterman (eds.), The Kubjikāmatatantra. Kulālikāmnāya
version. Critical edition, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1988.
Lorenzen, David N., y Uma Thukral, “Los diálogos religiosos entre Kabir y Go-
rakh.”, Estudios de Asia y África, 126, 40, 1, enero-abril, 2005, pp. 161-177.
Mallinson, James (ed.), The Khecarīvidyā of Adinātha. A Critical Edition and
Annotated Translation of an Early Text of Hathayoga, London, Routledge Cur-
zon, 2007.
—, “The Original Gorakṣaśataka”, Yoga In Practice, Ed. David Gordon White,
Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2012, pp. 257-272.
Muñoz, Adrián, “El Yoga-bīja, o El Germen del Yoga” (traducción del sánscrito,
introducción y notas), Estudios de Asia y África, 154, XLIX, 2, mayo-agosto,
2014, pp. 475-495.
Törzsök, Judit, The Doctrine of Female Magic Spirits: a critical edition of selected
chapters of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (tantra) with annotated translation and
analysis, PhD thesis, Merton College, 1999.
White, David Gordon, The Alchemical Body. Siddha Traditions in Medieval India,
New Delhi, Munshiram Manoharlal, 2004 [1996].
—, Sinister Yogis, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 2009.
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 135
YOGABĪJA

śrī devy uvāca:

namas te ādināthāya viśvanāthāya te namaḥ |
namas te viśvarūpāya viśvātītāya te namaḥ | 1 |
utpattisthitisaṃhārakāriṇe kleṣahāriṇe |
namas te devadeveśa namas te paramātmane | 2 |
yogamārgakṛte tubhyaṃ mahāyogeśvarāya te |3
namas te paripūrṇāya jagadānandahetave | 3 |4
sarve5 jīvāḥ sukhair duḥkhair māyājālena veṣṭitāḥ |6
teṣāṃ muktiḥ kathaṃ deva kṛpayā vada śaṅkara | 4 |
nānāmārgās tvayā deva kathitās tu maheśvara |
adhunā mokṣadaṃ mārgaṃ brūhi yogavidāṃvaram | 5 |

īśvara uvāca:
sarvasiddhikaro mārgo māyājālanikṛntakaḥ |7
janmamṛtyujarāvyādhināśakaḥ sukhado bhavet | 6 |8
baddhā yena vimucyante nāthamārgamataḥ param |9
tam ahaṃ kathayiṣyāmi tava prītyā10 sureśvari | 7 |
nānāmārgais tu duṣprāpyaṃ kaivalyaṃ paramaṃ11 padam |
siddhamārgeṇa labhyeta nānyathā śivabhāṣitam | 8 |12
anekaśatasaṃkhyābhis tarkavyākaraṇādibhiḥ |
patitāḥ śāstrajāleṣu prajñayā te vimohitāḥ | 9 |13
anirvācyapadaṃ vaktuṃ na śakyate surair api |
svātmaprakāśarūpaṃ tat kiṃ śāstreṇa prakāśyate | 10 |14

3
3ab only in G.
4
G 3cd=D 3ab.
5
G1: sarveṃ
6
G: māyājālenaveṣṭhitā; D & M: māyājālena veṣṭhitāḥ
7
M 2a: -karaṃ mārgaṃ / G 6b: -nikṛntanaḥ; D 5b: -nikṛntakaḥ; M 1.2b:
-nikṛntanam
8
D 5d: -nāśakaḥ sukhado vada; M 2d: -nāśanaṃ sukhadaṃ vada
9
G1 7b: nāthamārgaṃgataḥ
10
G1 7d: protyā / G2  7d & D 7d: prītyā
11
G1 8b : param padam / G 8d & D 8b & M 3d: paramaṃ padam
12
M 4b: labhate / D 8d: śivabhāṣiyam; M 4b: padmasaṃbhava
13
G 9a: -saṃkhyākais / G 9d: prajñayā te vimohitāḥ; D 9d: prajñayā ‘to vimohitāḥ;
M 4b: prajñayā tena mohitāḥ
14
G2 10b: śakyataṃ; D 10ab: anirvācyaṃ padaṃ… śakyate na / D 10d: prakāśate
136 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

niśkalaṃ nirmalaṃ śāntaṃ sarvātītaṃ nirāmayam |

tad etaj jīvarūpeṇa puṇyapāpaphalair vṛtam | 11 |15

devy uvāca:
paramātmapadaṃ nityaṃ tat kathaṃ jīvatāṃ gatam |
tattvātītaṃ mahādeva prasādāt kathayasva me | 12 |16

īśvara uvāca:
sarvabhāvapadātītaṃ jñānarūpaṃ nirañjanam |
vārivat sphuritaṃ svasmiṁs tatrāhaṅkṛtir utthitā | 13 |17
pañcātmakam abhūt piṇḍaṃ dhātubaddhaṃ guṇātmakam |
sukhaduḥkhaiḥ sadā yuktaṃ jīvabhāvanayākulam | 14 |18
tena jīvābhidhā bhoktā19 viśuddhe paramātmani |
kāmaḥ krodho bhayaṃ cintā lobho moho mado rujāḥ° | 15 | 20
jarā mṛtyuś ca kārpaṇyaṃ śoko nidrā kṣudhā tṛṣā |21
dveṣo lajjā sukhaṃ duḥkhaṃ viṣādo harṣa eva ca | 16 |22
jāgrat svapnaḥ suṣuptiś ca śaṅkā garvas tathaiva ca |
ebhir doṣair vinirmuktaḥ sa jīvaḥ śiva eva hi | 17 |23
tasmād doṣavināśārtham upāyaṃ kathayāmi te |
jñānaṃ kecid vadanty atra kevalaṃ tan na siddhaye | 18 |24
yogahīnaṃ kathaṃ jñānaṃ mokṣadaṃ bhavatīśvari |25
yogo ‘pi jñānahīnas tu na kṣamo mokṣakarmaṇi | 19 |

devy uvāca:
ajñānād eva saṃsāro jñāṇād eva vimucyate |
yogenaiṣāṃ tu kiṃ kāryaṃ me prasannagirā vada | 20 |

15
D 11a & M 5c: niṣkalaṃ / D 11c & M 11a: tad eva
16
D 12 a: paramātmapadāt / M 7b: kathayeśvara
17
M 8a: vāyuvat sphuritaṃ / G 13b: ahaṅkāra
18
D14c: sadāyuktaṃ; M 9a: samāyuktaṃ / M 14b: -bhāvanayā kuru
19
D 15a & M 9c: proktā
20
G1 15d: bhaya lobhamohamadā rujaḥ; G2 15d: bhayaś cintālobhamohamadaḥ;
D 15d: lobho moho mado rujaḥ; M 10ab: kāmakrodhabhayaṃ cāpi mohalobhamatho
rajaḥ
21
M 10cd: janma…śokas tandrā
22
M 11a: tṛṣṇā lajjā bhayaṃ duḥkhaṃ
23
M 11d: śiva ucyate
24
D 18d: tatra siddhaye
25
M 13b: bhavatīha bho
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 137
īśvara uvāca:
satyam etat tvayoktaṃ te kathayāmi sureśvari |
jñānasvarūpam evādau jñeyaṃ jñānaṃ ca sādhanam | 21 |26
ajñānaṃ kīdṛśaṃ ceti pravicāryaṃ vivekinā |
jñātaṃ yena nijaṃ rūpaṃ kaivalyaṃ paramaṃ śivam | 22 |27
asau doṣair vimuktaḥ kiṃ kāmakrodhabhayādibhiḥ |
sarvadoṣair vṛtto jīvaḥ kathaṃ jñānena mucyate | 23 |28

devy uvāca:
svātmarūpaṃ yadā jñātaṃ pūrṇaṃ tad vyāpakaṃ tadā |29
kāmakrodhādidoṣāṇāṃ svarūpān nāsti bhinnatā | 24 |
paścāt tasya vidhiḥ kaścin niṣedho ‘pi kathaṃ bhavet |30
vivekī sarvadā muktaḥ saṃsārabhramavarjitaḥ | 25 |

īśvara uvāca:
paripūrṇasvarūpaṃ tat satyam etad varānane |
sakalaṃ niṣkalaṃ caiva pūrṇatvāc ca tad eva hi | 26 |31
kalanāsphūrtirūpeṇā saṃsārabhramatāṃ gatam |
etad rūpaṃ samāyātaṃ tat kathaṃ mohasāgare | 27 |32
niṣkalaṃ nirmalaṃ sākṣāt svarūpaṃ33 gaganopamam |
utpattisthitisaṃhārasphūrtijñānavivarjitam | 28 |
nimajjati varārohe34 tyaktvā vidyāṃ35 punaḥ punaḥ |
sukhaduḥkhādimoheṣu yathā saṃsāriṇāṃ sthitiḥ | 29 |
tathā jñānī yadā tiṣṭhed vāsanāvāsitas tadā |
tayor nāsti viśeṣo ‘tra samā saṃsārabhāvanā | 30 |
jñānaṃ ced īdṛśaṃ jñātam ajñānaṃ36 kīdṛśa punaḥ |
jñānaniṣṭho virakto ‘pi dharmajño vijitendriyaḥ | 31 |
vinā yogena devo ‘pi no mokṣaṃ labhate priye | 32 |37

26
M 14d:jñānaikasādhanam
27
G1 22b: pravicārya / M 15b: mumukṣuṇā / M 15d: paramaṃ padam
28
M 16a: vinirmuktaḥ / D 13c: sarvair doṣair
29
G 14ab: yadā…tathā; D 14ab: yadā…tadā; M 17ab: yathā…tathā
30
D 25a: kiñ ca; M 28a: kiṃ na
31
M 19b: satyaṃ kamalasaṃbhava / D 16d: pūrṇatā tu
32
M 20a: kalinā / D 27cd: rūpaḥ samāyataḥ sa; M 21cd: rūpaṃ samāyataḥ sa
33
M 20d: sakalaṃ
34
M 22a: mahābāho
35
D 29b: vidhiṃ
36
G1 31ab: jātam ajñāna; G2 31ab & D 31ab: jātam ajñānaṃ
37
M 25ab: vinā deho ‘pi yogena na mokṣaṃ labhate vidhe
138 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

devy uvāca:
anyat kiñcit parijñeyaṃ jñānināṃ nāsti śaṅkara |
viraktātmakaniṣṭhānāṃ kathaṃ mokṣo bhaven na tu | 33 |

īśvara uvāca:
apakvāḥ paripakvāś ca dvividhāḥ dehinaḥ smṛtāḥ |38
apakvā yogahīnās tu pakvā yogena dehinaḥ | 34 |
pakvo39 yogāgninā40 dehī hy ajaḍaḥ śokavarjitaḥ |
jaḍas tat pārthivo jñeyo hy apakvo duḥkhado bhavet | 35 |41
dhyānastho ‘sau tathāpy evam indriyair vivaśo bhavet |
atigāḍhaṃ niyamyāpi tathāpy anyaiḥ prabodhyate | 36 |42
śītoṣṇasukhaduḥkhādyair vyādhibhir mānavais43 tathā |
anyair nānāvidhair jīvaiḥ śastrāgnijalamārutaiḥ | 37 |
sarīraṁ pīḍyate cāsya44 cittaṃ saṃkṣubhyate tataḥ |
prāṇāpānavipattau tu kṣobham āyāti mārutaḥ | 38 |45
tato duḥkhaśatair vyāptaṃ cittaṃ lubdhaṃ bhaven nṛṇām | 39 |46
dehāvasānasamaye citte yad yad vibhāvayed |
tat tad eva bhavej jīva ity evaṃ janmakāraṇam | 40 |
dehānte kiṃ bhavej janma tan na jānanti mānavāḥ |
tasmaj jñānaṃ na vairāgyaṃ japaḥ syāt kevalaḥ śramaḥ47 | 41 |
pipīlikā yadā lagnā dehe dhyānād vimucyate |
asau kiṃ vṛścikair daṣṭo48 dehānte vā kathaṃ49 sukhī | 42 |
tasmān mūḍhā na jānanti mithyā tarkeṇa veṣṭitāḥ | 43 |
ahaṅkṛtir yadā yasya naṣṭā bhavati tasya vai |
dehaḥ sa tu bhaven naṣṭo vyādhayas tasya kiṃ punaḥ | 44 |50

38
M 26b: dehino dvividhāḥ
39
M 26c: sarvo
40
G 35a: yogāgniā
41
G 35cd: jaḍas tat… jñeyaś ca; D 35cd & M 27ab: jaḍas tu… jñeyo hy
42
D 36cd: nātigāḍaṃ nipatyāpi…pravāpyate; M 28ab: tāni gāḍaṃ niyāmyāpi…
prabādhyate
43
M 28d: mānasais
44
G 29c: tais taiś
45
M 30a: tathā prāṇavipattau
46
D 38d: saṃkṣubhyate nṝṇām; M 30d: kṣubdhaṃ bhaven nṛṇām
47
D 40d: kevalaṃ bhramaḥ; M 32d: kevalaṃ śramaḥ
48
G 42c: daṣṭā; D 41c: daṣṭau
49
D 41d: bhavet
50
D 42cd: dehaḥ svayaṃ…viṣayais teṣāṃ ca…; M 35ab: dehas tv api…vyādhayaś
cāsya..
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 139
jalāgniśastraghātādibādhā51 kasya bhaviṣyati |
yathā yathā parikṣīṇā puṣṭā cāhaṅkṛtir bhavet | 45 |52
abhyāsenāsya naśyanti pravartante śamādayaḥ |53
kāraṇena vinā kāryaṃ na kadācana vidyate | 46 |
ahaṅkāraṃ vinā tadvad dehe duḥkhaṃ kathaṃ bhavet | 47 |

devy uvāca:
yoginaḥ kathyamānās tu kiṃ te vyavaharanti na |
taiḥ kathaṃ vyavahāras tu kriyate vada śaṅkara | 48 |

īśvara uvāca:
śarīreṇa jitāḥ sarve śarīraṃ yogibhir jitam |
tat kathaṃ kurute teṣāṃ sukhaduḥkhādikaṃ phalam | 49 |
indriyāṇi mano buddhiḥ kāmakrodhādikaṃ jitam |
tenaiva vijitaṃ sarvaṃ nāsau kenāpi bādhyate | 50 |
mahābhūtāni tattvāni saṃhṛtāni krameṇa ca |54
saptadhātumayo deho dagdho yogāgninā śanaiḥ | 51 |55
devair api na labhyeta56 yogadeho mahābalaḥ |
chedabandhavimukto57 ‘sau nānāśaktidharaḥ paraḥ | 52 |
yathākāśas tathā deha ākāśād api nirmalaḥ |
sūkṣmāt sūkṣmataro dehaḥ sthūlat sthūlo jaḍāj jaḍaḥ | 53 |58
icchārūpo hi yogīndraḥ svatantras tv ajarāmaraḥ |
krīḍati59 triṣu lokeṣu līlayā yatra kutracit | 54 |
acintyaśaktimān yogī nānārūpāṇi dhārayet60 |
saṃharec ca punas tāni svecchayā vijitendriyaḥ | 55 |
maraṇaṃ tasya kiṃ devi pṛcchasīndusamānane |
nāsau maraṇam āpnoti punar yogabalena tu | 56 |

51
G1 45a: -āgniśāstraghātā-; D 42e: -ādiśastraghātā-; M 35a: -āgniśastrakhātā-
52
G 45a: yathā yathā pariśchinnā; D 43a: yathā yathā parikṣīṇā; M 36a: yadā yadā
parikṣīṇā
53
M 36cd: tam anenāsya…rugādayaḥ
54
G 51b: sambhūtāni krameṇa tu; D 50b: saṃgṛhītāni ca kramāt; M 40b: saṃhṛtāni
krameṇa ca
55
D 50cd: -maye dehe dagdhe
56
M 41 ab: lakṣyeta yogideho
57
D 51c: deha-; M 41c: bhedabandhavinirmukto
58
M 42cd: dṛśyaḥ sthulāsthulo jaḍājaḍaḥ
59
M 43c: krīḍate
60
G 55b: dhārayan
140 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

puraiva61 mṛta evāsau mṛtasya maraṇaṃ kutaḥ |

maraṇaṃ yatra sarveṣāṃ tatrāsau sukhi jīvati | 57 |62
yatra jīvanti mūḍās tu tatrāsau mriyate sadā |63
kartavyaṃ naiva tasyāsti kṛtenāsau na lipyate | 58 |
jīvanmuktaḥ sadā svasthaḥ64 sarvadoṣavivarjitaḥ | 59 |
viraktā jñāninaś cānte65 dehena vijitāḥ sadā |
te kathaṃ yogibhis tulyā māṃsapiṇḍāḥ kudehinaḥ | 60 |

devy uvāca:
jñāninas tu mṛtā ye vai66 teṣāṁ bhavati kīdṛśī |
gatiḥ kathaya deveśa kāruṇyāmṛtavāridhe | 61 |

īśvara uvāca:
dehānte jñānibhiḥ67 puṇyāt pāpāc ca phalam āpyate |
yādṛśaṃ tu bhavet tatra bhuktvā jñānī punar bhavet | 62 |68
puṇyāt69 puṇyena labhate siddhena saha saṅgatim |
tataḥ siddhasya kṛpayā yogī bhavati nānyathā | 63 |
tato naśyati saṃsāro nānyathā śivabhāṣitam | 64 |
mahāviṣṇumaheśānāṃ pralayeṣv api yoginām |
nāsti pāto layasthānāṃ mahātattve vivartinām | 65 |
vedāntatarkoktibhir āgamaiś ca nānāvidhaiḥ śāstrakadambakaiś ca |
dhyānādibhiḥ satkaraṇair na gamyaṃ cintāmaṇiṃ tv ekaguruṃ vihāya | 66 |

devy uvāca:
jñānād eva hi mokṣaṃ tu vadanti jñāninaḥ sadā |
na kathaṃ sidhyati tato yogo ‘sau mokṣado bhavet | 67 |70

īśvara uvāca:
jñānenaiva hi mokṣo hi vākyaṃ teṣāntu nānyathā |

61
M 45c: haṭhena
62
G 57d: sakhi; M 46a: parijīvati
63
D 57b: mriyate tadā; 46b: mṛta eva vai
64
M 47c: svacchaḥ
65
D 58c: cātha; M 48a: cānye
66
D 59a: mṛtā eva
67
G 62a: jñāninaḥ
68
M 49c: īdṛśaṃ tu bhavet tat tad / G 62d: mukto jñānī
69
M 50a: paścāt
70
G 67b: vadati…sadā; D 63b: vadanti…tadā / D 63d: yogaś ca
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 141
sarve vadanti khaḍgena jayo bhavati tarhi kaḥ | 68 |71
vinā yuddhena vīryeṇa kathaṃ jayam avāpnuyāt |
tathā yogena rahitaṃ jñānaṃ mokṣāya no bhavet | 69 |
jñānenaiva vinā yogo na sidhyati kadācana |
tasmād atra varārohe tayor bhedo na vidyate | 70 |
janmāntaraiś ca bahubhir yogo jñānena labhyate |
jñānaṃ tu janmanaikena yogād eva prajāyate | 71
tasmād yogāt parataro nāsti mārgas tu mokṣadaḥ | 72 |

devy uvāca:
bahubhir janmabhir jñānād yogaḥ samprāpyate katham |
yogāt tu janmanaikena kathaṃ jñānam avāpyate | 73 |

īśvara uvāca:
pravicārya ciraṃ jñānān72 mukto ‘ham iti manyate |
kim asau mananād eva mukto bhavati tat kṣaṇāt | 74 |
pumañ73 janmāntaraśatair yogād eva vimucyate |
na tathā bhavato yogāj janmamṛtyū punaḥ punaḥ | 75 |
prāṇāpānasamāyogāc candrasūryaikatā bhavet |
saptadhātumayaṃ deham agninā pradahed budhaḥ | 76 |74
vyādhayas tasya naśyanti chedaghātādikā vyathāḥ |75
tathā ‘sau paramākāśarūpo dehy avatiṣṭhate | 77 |76
kiṃ punar bahunoktena maraṇaṃ nāsti tasya vai |
deho ‘vadṛśyate loke dagdhakarpaṭavat svayam | 78 |77
cittaṃ prāṇena saṃnaddhaṃ sarvajīveṣu saṃsthitam |78
rajjur yadvat parībaddhā rajjvāº tadvad idaṃ manaḥ | 79 |79
nānā vidhair vicārais tu na sādhyaṃ80 jāyate manaḥ |

71
D 64a: mokṣo ‘sti; 64c: khaṅgena
72
M 54a: jñānaṃ; D 67ab jñānād yogaḥ samprāpyate katham
73
M 55a: paścāt
74
D 70d: jārayed; M 56D: rañjayed dhruvam
75
D 71b & M 57d: kā kathā
76
M 57cd: tad asau…avatiṣṭhati
77
D 72c: dehaś ca dṛśyate; M 58cd: dehavid dṛśyate…-karpūravat
78
D 73a: ciraṃ prāṇanasambandhaḥ; M 59a: saṃbaddhaṃ
79
G 79cd: rajjau yadvat parībaddhā rajvī tadvad ime mate; D 73cd: rajjuḥ yadvat
parībaddhā rajvī tadvad idaṃ matam; M 59cd: rajjvā yadvat susaṃbaddhaḥ pakṣī tad-
vad idaṃ manaḥ
For waverings between –ā and –ī, see Goudriaan & Schoterman 1988, p. 68.
80
M 70b: bādhyaṃ
142 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

tasmāt tasya jayopāyaḥ prāṇa eva hi nānyathā | 80 |

tarkair jalpaiḥ śāstrajālair yuktibhir mantrabheṣajaiḥ |
na vaśo jāyate prāṇaḥ siddhopāyaṃ vinā priye81 | 81 |
upāyaṃ tasya vijñāya82 yogamārgo pravartate |
khaṇḍajñānena tenaiva jāyate kleśabhāṅ naraḥ | 82 |83
ye ‘jitvā pavanaṃ mohād yogam icchanti yoginaḥ |84
te ‘pakvaṃ kumbham āruhya tartum icchanti sāgaram | 83 |85
yasya prāṇo vilīno ‘tha sādhake sati jīvite |86
piṇḍo na patitas tasya cittadoṣaiḥ pramucyate | 84 |87
śuddhe cetasi tasyaiva svātmajñānaṃ prakāśate |
tasmāj jñānaṃ88 bhaved yogāj janmanaikena pārvati89 | 85 |
tasmād yogaṃ tam evādau sādhako nityam abhyaset |
mumukṣubhiḥ prāṇajayaḥ kartavyo mokṣahetave | 86 |
yogāt parataraṃ puṇyaṃ yogāt parataraṃ sukham |
yogāt parataraṃ sūkṣmaṃ yogamārgāt paraṃ na hi | 87 |90

devy uvāca:
yogaḥ ka ucyate deva yogābhyāso ‘pi kīdṛśaḥ |
yogena vā bhavet kiñcit91 tat sarvaṃ vada śaṅkara | 88 |

īśvara uvāca:
yo ‘pānaprāṇayor yogaḥ svarajoretasos tathā |92
sūryācandramasor93 yogo jīvātmaparamātmanoḥ | 89 |
evaṃ tu dvandajālasya saṃyogo yoga ucyate |
adhunā saṃpravakṣyāmi yogābhyāsasya lakṣaṇām | 90 |

81
M 61d: vidhe
82
D 76a & M 62a: tam avijñāya
83
M 62cd: sahasā jāyate kleśavat taraḥ
84
D 77ab: yo…icchati yoginaḥ; M 63ab: yo…icchati yoginām
85
D 77cd & M 63cd: so…sāgaraṃ tartum icchati
86
G 84ab: vilīyante…sati jīvati; D 78ab: vilīno ‘tha…jīvite sati; M 64ab: vilīno
‘ntaḥ…jīvite sati
87
G 84d & M64D: cittaṃ; D 78cd: piṇḍaṃ…patitaṃ; M 64cd: piṇḍo…patitas…
cittaṃ doṣaiḥ prabādhate
88
D 79c: hānaṃ
89
M 65d: padmaja
90
D 81b: sthiram; M 67b: śivam / D 81d & M 67d: yogāt parataraṃ na hi
91
D 82b: kiñca
92
M 68ab: aikyaṃ rajaso retasas
93
D 83c: sūryacandra-
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 143
marujjayo yasya siddhaḥ94 sevayet taṃ guruṃ sadā |
guruvaktraprasādena kuryāt prāṇajayaṃ budhaḥ | 91 |
vitastipramitaṃ dairghyaṃ95 vistāre caturaṅgulam |96
mṛdulaṃ dhavalaṃ proktaṃ veṣṭanāmbaralakṣaṇam | 92 |
nirudhya mārutaṃ gāḍhaṃ śakticālanayuktitaḥ |
aṣṭadhā kuṇḍalībhūtām ṛjuṃ kartuṃ tu kuṇḍalīm | 93 |97
bhānor ākuñcanaṃ kuryāt kuṇḍalīṃ cālayet tataḥ | 98
mṛtyuvaktragatasyāpi tasya mṛtyubhayaṃ kutaḥ | 94 |
etad eva paraṃ guhyaṃ kathitaṃ tava pārvati |99
vajrāsanagato nityaṃ māsārdhaṃ tu samabhyaset | 95 |100
vāyunā jvalito vahniḥ kuṇḍalīm aniśaṃ dahet |
saṃtaptā sāgninā nāḍī śaktis trailokyamohinī | 96 |101
praviśed vajradaṇḍe102 tu suṣumṇāvadanāntare |
vayunā vahninā sārdhaṃ brahmagranthiṃ bhinatti sā | 97 |
viṣṇugranthiṃ tato bhittvā rudragranthau ca tiṣṭhati |
tatas tu kumbhakair gāḍḥaṃ pūrayitvā punaḥ punaḥ | 98 |103
tathā104 ‘bhyaset sūryabhedam ujjāyīṃ cāpi śītalīm |
bhastrāṃ ca sahitaṃ nāma syāt kumbhakacatuṣṭayam | 99 |105
bandhatrayeṇa saṃyuktaḥ kevalaḥ prāptikārakaḥ |106
athāsya lakṣaṇaṃ samyak kathayāmi samāsataḥ | 100 |
ekākinā samupagamya viviktadeśaṃ
prāṇādirūpam amṛtaṃ107 paramārthatattvam |
svalpāśinā dhṛtimatā paribhāvanīyaṃ108

94
G 91a: siddhayet; D 85c: siddho
95
M 81a: dairdhyaṃ
96
G 92b: vistare; M 81b: caturaṅgulavistṛtam
97
G 93cd & D 87d: ṛjuṃ kartuṃ tu kuṇḍalīm; M 82d: ṛjvīṃ kuryāt tu kuṇḍalīm
98
M 83 ab: panor…tadā
99
D 89b & M 84b: tu mayā tava
100
M 84d: ūrdhvākuñcanam abhyaset
101
D 91a: saptamāsāgninā jīva-; M 85b: saṃtaptā sāgninā jīvā
102
M 86a: candradaṇḍe
103
G 98c: kumbhake gāḍe; D 93a: gārḍiṃ
104
M 88a: athā
105
D 93ef: bhastrī ca sahito…catuṣṭaya kumbhakam; M 88cd: bhastrāṃ sahito…
catuṣṭayakumbhakaḥ
106
D 94b & M 89b: kevalaprāpti-
107
D 95b: apṛtaṃ
108
D 95c: ladhvāsinā…paribhāvitavyam; M 89c: ladhvāśinā…paribhāvitavyam
144 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

saṃsārarogaharam auṣadham advitīyam | 101 |

sūryanāḍyā samākṛṣya vāyum abhyāsayogataḥ |109
vidhivat kumbhakaṃ kṛtvā recayec chītaraśminā | 102 |
udare vātadoṣaghnaṃ kaṇṭhadoṣaṃ nihanti ca |110
muhur muhur idaṃ kāryaṃ sūryabhedam udāhṛtam111 | 103 |
nāḍībhyāṃ vāyum ākṛṣya kuṇḍalyāḥ pārśvayoḥ sudhīḥ112 |
dhārayed udare yogī recayed iḍayā punaḥ | 104 |113
kaṇṭhe kaphādidoṣaghnaṃ śarīrāgnivivardhanam |
śirojalodarādhātugatarogavināśanam | 105 |114
gacchatā tiṣṭhatā kāryam ujjāyyākhyaṃ tu kumbhakaṃ |115
mukhena vāyuṃ saṅgṛhya ghrāṇarandhreṇa recayet | 106 |
śītalīkaraṇaṃ cedaṃ hanti pittaṃ tathā jvaram | 107 |116
stanayor atha bhastreva117 lohakārasya vegataḥ |
recayet pūrayed vāyum āśramaṃ dehagaṃ dhiyā | 108 |
yadā śramo bhaved dehe tadā sūryeṇa pūrayet | 109 |118
kaṇṭhasaṃkocanaṃ kṛtvā punaś candreṇa recayet |
vātapitttaśleṣmaharaṃ śarīrāgnivivardhanam | 110 |
kuṇḍalībodhakaṃ vakrabhāvaghnaṃ sukhadaṃ śubham |119
brahmanāḍīmukhe saṃsthaṃ kaphādyargalanāśanam | 111 |120
samyag gātrasamudbhūtaṃ121 granthitrayavibhedakam |
viśeṣenaiva kartavyaṃ bhastrākhyaṃ kumbhakaṃ tv idam | 112 |
bandhatrayam athedānīṃ pravakṣyāmi yathārthavat122 |
nityaṃ kṛtena yenā ‘sau vāyor jayam avāpnuyāt | 113 |

109
D 96b & M 91B: abhyāsayoginā
110
M 92ab: udare bahurogāghnaṃ krimidoṣaṃ hihanti ca
111
G 103d: uttamam
112
D 98b: naraḥ; M 93b: kṣipet
113
D 98cd: pūrayed udare so ‘pi recayed iḍayā sudhīḥ; M 93cd: dhārayed udare
paścāt recayed iḍayā sudhīḥ
114
D 99c: śiro jalodarān dhātu-; M 94b: nāḍījalāpahaṃ dhātu-
115
G 106b: ujjāyākhyas tu kumbhakaḥ; D 99ef: gacchataḥ tiṣṭhataḥ…ujjāyyākhyaṃ
tu kumbhakam; M 95ab: gacchatas tiṣṭhataḥ…ujjāyyākhyaṃ tu kumbhakam
116
M 96b: kṣudhāṃ tṛṣam
117
G 108a: bhastreṇa
118
D 102ab & m 97cd: yathā…tathā
119
D 103 cd: cakraṃ bhāvaghnaṃ; M 99ab: vaktradoṣaghnaṃ śubhadaṃ sukham
120
G 111cd: brahmanāḍīmukhesaṃsthakaphādyargalanāśanam; M 99cd: brahmanāḍī
mukhāntaḥsthakaphādyargalanāśanam
121
M 100a: bandhasamudbhūtaṃ
122
D 106b: yathārthataḥ; M 101b: yathākramam
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 145
caturṇām api bhedānāṃ kumbhake samupasthite |
bandhatrayam idaṃ kāryaṃ vakṣyamāṇaṃ mayā sphuṭam123 | 114 |
prathamo mūlabandhas tu dvitīya uḍḍiyānakaḥ |124
jālandharas tṛtīyas tu lakṣaṇaṃ kathayāmy aham | 115 |
gudaṃ pārṣṇyā tu saṃpīḍya vāyum ākuñcayed balāt |
vāraṃ vāraṃ tathā125 cordhaṃ samāyāti samīraṇaḥ | 116 |
prāṇāpānau nādabindū mūlabandhena caikatām |126
gatvā yogasya saṃsiddhiṃ yacchato nātra saṃśayaḥ | 117 |
kumbhakānte recakādau kartavyas tūḍḍiyānakaḥ |127
baddho yena suṣumṇāyāṃ prāṇas tūḍḍīyate yataḥ128 | 118 |
tasmād uḍḍīyāṇākhyo ‘yaṃ yogibhiḥ samudāhṛtaḥ |
uḍḍīyānaṃ tu sahajaṃ guruṇā kathitaṃ sadā | 119 |
abhyaset satataṃ yas tu vṛddho ‘pi taruṇāyate |
nābher urdhvam adhaś cāpi prāṇaṃ kuryāt prayatnataḥ | 120 |
ṣaṇmāsam abhyasen mṛtyuṃ jayaty eva na saṃśayaḥ |
pūrakānte ‘pi kartavyo bandho jālandharābhidhaḥ | 121 |
kaṇṭhasaṃkocarūpo ‘sau vāyur mārganirodhakaḥ |
kaṇṭham ākuñcya hṛdaye sthāpayed dṛḍham icchayā129 | 122 |
bandho jālandharākhyo ‘yaṃ amṛto vyayakārakaḥ130 |
adhastāt kuñcanenāśu kaṇṭhasaṃkocanena ca131 | 123 |
madhyamābhramaṇena132 syāt prāṇo brahmanāḍigaḥ | 124 |
vajrāsanasthito yogi cālayitvā tu kuṇḍalīm |
kuryād anantaraṃ bhastrāṃ133 kuṇḍalīm āśu bodhayet | 125 |
bhidyante granthayo vaṃśe taptalohaśalākayā134 |
tathaiva pṛṣṭhavaṃśe syād granthibhedas tu vāyunā135 | 126 |

123
M 102d: hi tat
124
D 108b: dvitīyas tūḍḍiyāṇakaḥ; M 103b: dvitīyoḍḍīyaṇābhidhaḥ
125
M 104c: yathā
126
G 117a: prāṇāpānaṃ nādavinduḥ
127
G 118a: kumbhakādau recakānte
128
G 118d: tataḥ, D 111d: tathā
129
D 115b: dṛḍhaniścayaḥ
130
G2 123b: amṛtāvyayakārakaḥ; D 115d: amṛtavyayakārakaḥ; M 111b: amṛtāpyā-
yakārakaḥ
131
M 111d: saṃkocane kṛte
132
D115c & M 112a: madhye maścimatāṇena
133
D 118c & M 113a: bhastrīṃ
134
D 119ab: bhidyante granthayaś cāsya tadā loha-
135
D 119d: vā punaḥ
146 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

pipīlikā yathā lagnā kaṇḍūs tatra pravartate |136

suṣumṇāyāṃ tathā ‘bhyāsāt satataṃ vāyunā bhavet | 127 |137
rudragranthiṃ tato bhittvā saivāyāti śivātmakam |138
candrasūryau samau kṛtvā tayor yogaḥ pravartate | 128 |139
guṇatrayād atītaḥ syād granthitrayavibhedakaḥ |140
śivaśaktisamāyogāj141 jāyate paramā sthitiḥ | 129 |
yathā karī kareṇaiva pānīyaṃ prapibet sadā142 |
suṣumṇāvaktranalinaṃ pavamānaṃ graset tathā | 130 |143
vajradaṇḍena144 sambhūtā maṇayaś caikaviṃśatiḥ |
suṣumṇāyāṃ sthitāḥ sarve sūtre maṇigaṇā iva | 131 |
mokṣamārge prasiddhā sā suṣumṇā viśvadhāriṇī |145
yatra vai nirjitaḥ146 kālaś candrasūryanibandhanāt | 132 |
āpūrya kumbhito vāyur bahir no yāti sādhakaiḥ147 | 133 |
punaḥ punas tadvad etat paścimadvāralakṣaṇam |
pūritas tu navadvārair īṣat kumbhakatāṃ gataḥ | 134 |148
praviśet sarvagātreṣu vāyuḥ paścimamārgataḥ |
recake kṣīṇatāṃ yāte pūrakaṃ śoṣayet sadā | 135 |149
sa eva nāthasaṃketaḥ siddhasaṃketalakṣaṇaḥ | 136 |
guruprasādān marud eva sādhitas150
tenaiva cittaṃ pavanena sādhitam |
sa eva yogī sa jitendriyaḥ sukhī |
mūḍhā na jānanti kutar kavādinaḥ | 137 |
cittaṃ hi naṣṭaṃ yadi mārute syāt151

136
D 120b: prajāyate / M 114c: pipīlikāyāṃ lagnāyāṃ
137
D 121a & M 115a: suṣumnāyāṃ / D 121b: vā punar bhavet
138
G1 128b: śivātkam / D 122b: saivāyāti; M 115d: tato yāti
139
D 123ab: samaṃ... tato yogaḥ
140
D 124 a: -atītasya / M 116ab: guṇatrayaṃ atītaṃ syād granthitrayavibhedanāt
141
M 117a: samāyoge
142
G 130b: tathā
143
M 118a: suṣumnāvajranālena / D 127b: yatamānaṃ / G 130d: sadā
144
D 128a: vajradaṇḍe tu; M 118b: vajradaṇḍasaṃbhutā
145
M 119cd: pratiṣṭhānā…viṣvarūpiṇī
146
D 130a: yatraiva / M 120a: yathaiva niścitaḥ
147
D 131b & M 120d: sādhake
148
M 121c: …tu sa tad dvārai / D 154b*: gatam
149
M 122 cd: recitaḥ…yāti … pūritaḥ poṣayet tataḥ / D 155d*: yadā
150
D 158ª*: sādhyate
151
M 124a: …vinaṣṭaṃ yadi bhāsitaṃ…
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 147
tatra pratīto maruto ‘pi nāśaḥ |
na ced idaṃ syān na152 tu tasya śāstraṃ
nātmapratītir153 na gurur na mokṣaḥ | 138 |
tumbikā rodhitā yadvad balād ākarṣati dhruvam |154
brahmanāḍī tathā dhātūn santatābhyāsayogataḥ | 139 |
anenābhyāsayogena nityam āsanabandhataḥ |
cittaṃ vilīnatām eti bindur no yāty adhas tathā | 140 |
recakaṃ pūrakaṃ kṛtvā vāyunā sthīyate ciram |155
nānānādāḥ pravartante saṃsravec candramaṇḍalam | 141 |
naśyanti kṣutpipāsādyāḥ sarvadoṣās tathā sadā |
svarūpe saccidānande sthitim āpnoti kevalam | 142 |
kathitaṃ tu tava prītyā etad abhyāsalakṣaṇam |
mantro haṭho layo rājayogāntarbhūmikāḥ156 kramāt | 143 |
eka eva caturdho ‘yam mahāyogo ‘bhidhīyate | 144 |

śrī devy uvāca:

kathayedaṃ mahādeva yogatattvaṃ caturvidham |
bhūmikāṃ siddhasiddhāntāṃ°157 yathābhūtāṃ kramān mama | 145 |

īśvara uvāca:
hakāreṇa bahir yāti sakāreṇa viśen marut158 |
haṃsa haṃseti mantro ‘yam sarvajīvā japanti tam | 146 |159
guruvākyāt suṣumṇāyāṃ viparīto bhavej japaḥ |
so ‘haṃ so ‘ham iti prāpto160 mantrayogaḥ sa ucyate | 147 |
pratītir vāyuyogāc ca jāyate paścime pathi |
hakāreṇa tu sūryo ‘sau ṭhakāreṇendur ucyate | 148 |161
sūryācandramasor aikyaṃ haṭha ity abhidīyate |162
haṭhena grasyate163 jāḍyaṃ sarvadoṣasamudbhavam | 149 |
152
D 161a*: na ced yadi syād natu / M 124c: na ced yadi
153
D 161b*: nātmānam eti
154
D 162a*: rudhiraṃ / M 125ab: jambhoko rudhiraṃ… ākṛṣyati svayam
155
M 127ab: muktvā…sthiram
156
D 171b*: -yogas tad / M 129b: -yogāntā
157
D 174a*: bhūmikā śāstrasāreṇa; G 145c siddhasiddhāntānāṃ
158
D 175b* & M 130d: punaḥ
159
D 176b*: jīvo japati sarvadā / M 131b: sarvair jīvaiś ca japyate
160
M 132a: yaḥ syān
161
M 133ab: sūryaḥ syāt sakāreṇendur
162
G 149ab: yogād haṭhayogo ‘bhidīyate
163
M 134a: gṛhyate
148 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

kṣetrajñaparamātmānau tayor aikyaṃ yadā bhavet |164

tadaikye sādhite devi165 cittaṃ yāti vilīnatām | 150 |
pavanaḥ sthairyam āyāti layayogodaye sati |
layāt samprāpyate saukhyaṃ svātmānandaṃ paraṃ padam | 151 |
aṇimādipade prāpte rājate rājayogataḥ |166
prāṇāpānasamāyoge jñeyaṃ yogacatuṣṭayam |
saṃkṣepāt kathitaṃ devi167 nānyathā śivabhāṣitam | 152 |

śrī devy uvāca:

kathaya tvaṃ mahādeva kākamarkaṭayor matam |
anyagranthe tvayoktaṃ tu katham168 ekā dvayor gatiḥ | 153 |

īśvara uvāca:
satyam etat tvayoktaṃ te kathayāmi sureśvari |
ādināthamahāmārga eka eva hi nānyathā | 154 |
dvidheva sampratīyeta taj janmāntarabhedataḥ169 | 155 |
krameṇa prāpyate prāpyam abhyāsād170 eva nānyathā | 156 |
ekenaiva śarīreṇa yogābhyāsāc171 chanaiḥ śanaiḥ |
cirāt samprāpyate siddhir°172 markaṭakrama eva saḥ | 157 |
yogasiddhiṃ vinā dehaḥ pramādād yadi naśyati173 |
pūrvavāsanayā yuktaḥ śarīraṃ cānyad āpnuyāt | 158 |
tataḥ puṇyavaśāt siddhir guruṇā saha saṅgatiḥ |174
paścimadvāramārgeṇa jāyate tvaritaṃ phalam | 159 |
pūrvajanmakṛtābhyāsāt satvaraṃ phalam aśnute |
etad eva hi vijñeyaṃ tat kākamatam ucyate | 160 |
tasmāt kākamatān nāsti175 tv abhyāsākhyamataḥ param |
na karmaṇā vinā devi yogasiddhiḥ prajāyate | 161 |

164
M 134cd: kṣetrajñaḥ paramātmā ca…yadā
165
M 135a: brahmaṃś
166
D 145c* & M 138a: aṇimādipadaṃ prāpya
167
M 139a: brahman
168
G 153d: ekam
169
D 149b*: janmāntaravibhedataḥ
170
G 156a: prāṇo so ‘bhyāsād
171
D 150b*: yogābhyāsaiḥ
172
G 157c & D 150c*: siddhiḥ; M 140c: muktir
173
G 158b: pramādādhi vinaśyati
174
D 152ab* & M 142ab: siddho…saṅgataḥ
175
M 144a : nāsti kākamatād anyad
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 149
jñānaṃ vā svargabhogo vā puṇyahīnair na labhyate |
tasmāt kāryaṃ tad evaṃ yad yasya yasya hi sādhanam | 162 |
tenaiva prāpyate siddhir176 nānyathā śivabhāṣitam |
nānāvidhāḥ kramāḥ kāṣṭhāḥ sahajā vā layādikāḥ | 177
na tu tan mokṣamārge syāt prasiddhaṃ paścimaṃ vinā | 163 |178
abhyāsasya phalaṃ devi kathayāmy adhunā sphuṭam |
ādau rogāḥ praṇaśyanti paścāj jāḍyaṃ śarīrajam179 | 164 |
tataḥ samaraso bhūtvā candro varṣaty anāratam |
dhātūṃś ca180 saṃgrased vahniḥ pavanena samantataḥ | 165 |
nānānādāḥ pravartante mārdavaṃ syāt kalevare181 | 166 |
jitvā pṛthvyādikaṃ jāḍyaṃ khecaraḥ prasaret pumān |182
sarvajño183 ‘sau bhavet kāmarūpaḥ pavanavegavān | 167 |
krīḍati184 triṣu lokeṣu jāyante siddhayo ‘khilāḥ |
karpūre līyamāne kiṃ185 kāṭhinyaṃ tatra vidyate | 168 |
ahaṅkāralaye tatra186 dehe kaṭhinatā kutaḥ |
sarvajñaḥ sarvakartā ca svatantro viśvarūpavān | 169 |187
jīvanmukto bhaved yogī svecchayā bhuvane bhramet | 170 |188

śrī devy uvāca:

yat kiñcit kalanājālaṃ189 na tan mokṣāya śaṅkara |
siddhayaḥ kiṃ kariṣyanti nirvikalpe cidātmani | 171 |
evaṃ me saṃśayaṃ nātha190 chettum arhasi pāvana191 | 172 |
176
M 144c: muktir
177
D 156cd*: nānāvidyāḥ…sahajaṃ…layādikam / M 145ab: haṭhayogakramāt kāṣṭhā
saha jīvalayādikam
178
D 156e*: mokṣamārgaṃ / M 145c: nākṛtaṃ mokṣamārgaṃ
179
G 164d: śarīragam
180
G 165c: dhātuṃ sva
181
M 157d: kalebaram
182
D 159d*: khecaran prasaren naraḥ / M 148cd: vṛṣṭyādikaṃ…khecaraḥ saḥ bhaven
naraḥ
183
D 160a: sarvato
184
D 160c* & M 149a: krīḍate
185
D 161a*: hi
186
D 161c*: ahaṃkārajaye tadvad / M 150a: ahaṃkārakṣaye tadvad
187
M 150c: yogīndraḥ svatantro ‘nantarūpavān
188
D 162cd* & M 151ab: mahāyogī jāyate nātra saṃśayaḥ
189
D 163a*: kalpanā jālaṃ
190
G 172a: nāthac
191
D 164d*: bhāvana
150 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

īśvara uvāca:
satyam etat tvayoktaṃ te vadāmi śṛṇu sundari192 |
dvividhāḥ siddhayo loke193 kalpitākalpitāḥ śive194 | 173 |
rasauṣadhikriyākālamantrakṣetrādisādhanāt |195
siddhyanti siddhayo yās tu kalpitās tāḥ prakīrtitāḥ | 174 |
anityā alpavīryās tāḥ siddhayaḥ sādhanodbhavāḥ |
sādhanena vināpyevaṃ jāyante svata eva hi | 175 |
svātmayogaikaniṣṭhe tu svātantryād īśvaras tataḥ |196
prabhūtāḥ siddhayo yās tāḥ kalpanārahitāḥ smṛtāḥ | 176 |
siddhā nityā mahāvīryā icchārūpāś ca yogajāḥ |197
cirakālāt prajāyante vāsanārahiteṣu ca | 177 |
tāḥ śubhā yā198 mahāyogāt paramātmapade ‘vyaye |
vinā kāryaṃ sadā dīptaṃ° yogasiddhasya lakṣaṇam | 178 |199
yathā kāśīṃ200 samudṛśya gacchadbhiḥ pathikaiḥ pathi |
nānātīrthāni dṛśyante tathā mokṣe tu siddhayaḥ | 179 |201
svayam eva prajāyante lābhālābhavivarjite |
yogamārge tathaivedaṃ siddhijālaṃ pravartate | 180 |
parīkṣakaiḥ svarṇakārair hema samprocyate yathā |
siddhibhir lakṣayet siddhaṃ jīvanmuktaṃ tathaiva ca | 181 |
alaukikaguṇas tasya kadācid dṛsyate dhruvam |
ity etat kathitaṃ devi yogasiddhasya lakṣaṇam202 | 182 |
siddhibhiḥ parihīnaṃ tu naraṃ baddhaṃ hi lakṣayet203 |
ajarāmarapiṇḍo yo jīvanmuktaḥ sa eva hi | 183 |
ye śvakukkuṭakīṭādyā204 mṛtiṃ samprāpnuvanti te |

192
D 165b*: surasundari
193
D 165c*: yās tu
194
M 151d: tathā
195
M 152a:-kriyājālamantra-
196
D 168ab* & M 154ab: -niṣṭheṣu… -īśvarapriyāḥ
197
M 155b: icchārūpāḥ svayogajāḥ
198
D 170a*: tāsu cānyā / M 156a: tās tu gopyā
199
G 178cd: dīptā yogasiddhasya/ M 156cd: guptaṃ yogasiddhasya / D 170cd*:
dīptam etat siddhasya
200
M 157a: yathākāśaṃ
201
D 170d*: mokṣo ‘pi / M 157d: nānāmārgās tu siddhayaḥ
202
G 182d: lakṣayet
203
G 183b: lakṣaṇam
204
D 175a* & M161c: paśukukkuṭa- / M 161d: saṃprāpnuvanti vai
nova tellvs, 33/2, Enero-Junio de 2016, pp. 123-152 151
teṣāṃ kiṃ piṇḍapātena muktir bhavati sundari205 | 184 |
na bahiḥ prāṇa āyāti piṇḍasya patanaṃ kutaḥ |
piṇḍapātena yā muktiḥ sā muktis tu na kathyate | 185 |206
deho brahmatvam āyāti207 jalatāṃ saindhavaṃ yathā |
ananyatāṃ yadā yāti tadā muktaḥ sa ucyate | 186 |
cinmayāni śarīrāṇi indriyāṇi tathaiva ca |
ananyatāṃ yadā yāti208 tadā muktaḥ sa ucyate | 187 |
etat te kathitaṃ devi tava prītyā sureśvari |
gopanīyaṃ prayatnena krūre dhūrtte śaṭhe khale | 188 |
dātavyaṃ śivabhakteṣu nāthamārgapareṣu209 ca |
yogabījaṃ mahāguhyaṃ210 yan mayā prakaṭīkṛtam | 189 |

śrī devy uvāca:

gato me saṃśayo nātha kṛpayā tava śaṅkara |
namas te yogarājāya sarvajñāya namo namaḥ | 190 |

iti śrīmaheśvarāparaparyāyabhagavad gorakṣanāthod bhāvitayogabījaṃ pūrṇam ||

APPENDIX

A. Verses only in D

dehāvasānam athavā teṣāṃ bhavati kīdṛśam /46 ab/

ati guhyaṃ ca saṃketaṃ tava prītyā prakāśitam // 157* //
jīvaḥ kṣetra iti khyātaḥ kṣetrajñaḥ parameśvaraḥ /
kṣetrakṣetrajñayor aikyaṃ layayogo ‘bhidhīyate // 142*//
yayā brahmatvam āpannaṃ yathaivājyaghanatvavat / 189cd* //

B. Verses only in D and M

yonimadhye mahākṣetre japābandhūkasannibham / D 144ab* =M 136ab /

rajo vasati jantūnāṃ devītattvaṃ samāvṛitam // D 144cd*=M 137ab /
rajaso retaso yogāt rājayoga iti smṛtaḥ / D 145ab*=M 137cd /

205
M 162b: padmaja
206
D 176d*: sā muktir na tu kathyate / M 163b: sā muktir na tu hanyate
207
D 178c*: brahmadehatvam āyāti/ M 163c: dehe brahmatvam āyāte
208
G 187c: yānti
209
D 191b*: sadācārapareṣu
210
D 191c*: mahāguptaṃ
152 muñoz / yogabῑja: a critical transcription of a text on a haṭhayoga

C. Verses only in M 211

yatraiva jātam sakalebaraṃ manas

tatraiva līnaṃ kurute sa yogāt /
sa eva mukto nirahaṃkṛtiḥ sukhī
mūḍā na jānanti hi piṇḍapātinaḥ // 123 //
brahma dehatvam āpannaṃ vāri buṭbudatām iva /165ab//

211
Of course, this is highly hypothetical, since the YB is embedded in a larger text;
therefore how much of the YŚU’s 1st chapter accounts for a “YB recension” is rather
hard to tell.