PROSPECTUS


For a Dissertation Entitled:

A LAMP ON ŚIVA’S YOGA: THE UNIFICATION OF YOGA, RITUAL, AND DEVOTION 


IN THE FIFTEENTH-CENTURY ŚIVAYOGAPRADĪPIKĀ

to be presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in


The Study of Religion


South Asian Religions


Harvard University 


By 


Seth David Powell

Advisor: Professor Anne Monius


Committee: Professor Francis X. Clooney, S.J. and Professor James Mallinson (SOAS)

October 2018


"1
na bhedaḥ śivayogasya rājayogasya tattvataḥ / 

śivārcināṃ tathāpy evam ukto buddheḥ pravṛddhaye //

In reality, there is no difference between Śiva’s Yoga and the Royal Yoga. For those who
worship Śiva, however, [a difference] is thus declared, in order to increase wisdom.

—Śivayogapradīpikā 1.13

"2
1. TOPIC AND THESIS

This dissertation centers on an early fifteenth-century1 Sanskrit yoga treatise from south

India known as the Śivayogapradīpikā, or the “Lamp on Śiva’s Yoga,” attributed to one

Cennasadāśivayogi.2 My research affirms that he was affiliated with the late medieval3

Śaiva devotional traditions centered in the Deccan region of southern India known as

the Vīraśavas (“Heroic Devotees of Śiva”).4 Little scholarly attention has yet been

brought to bear on the Śivayogapradīpikā, 5 although its prominence within south Indian

yoga traditions is attested by its reception and citations in numerous early modern texts

on yoga.6 Read closely against the broader Sanskrit textual record of yoga and Śaiva

literature, my research aims to offer the first critical study of the Śivayogapradīpikā

through an investigation of its history, doctrine, praxis, intertextual relations, and

strategies of production. This dissertation argues that in codifying the Śivayogapradīpikā,

Cennasadāśivayogi sought to reconcile disparate systems of yoga on the horizon in

fifteenth-century south India, together within a unified framework of Śaiva ritual

worship (pūjā) and devotion (bhakti). While yoga has long-permeated Śaiva ritual and

devotional praxis, 7 I argue that Cennasadāśivayogi’s particular synthesis of the

psychophysical methods of yoga framed as ritual worship represent a unique

expression and orientation of Śivayoga.8

This project is animated by the follow set of questions: What is the nature of the

Śivayogapradīpikā’s yoga? How does it relate to and build upon earlier Śaiva and yoga

"3
texts and traditions? In what ways does its synthesis represent novelty or innovation?

What are its authorial strategies for reconciling various systems of yoga and ritual

praxis, for navigating tradition and innovation? What might the effort at yogic

reconciliation reveal about the author’s religious and philosophical commitments,

intended audience, purpose, and scope of his textual project? On what grounds can we

speak of the author as a Vīraśaiva, or of the text as expressing a Vīraśaiva view of yoga?

What might the study of the Śivayogapradīpikā reveal about the ways in which religious

thought, ritual, and yogic practice were conceived and performed in late medieval

south India? And finally, how does a close text-critical study of the Śivayogapradīpikā

inform our broader understanding of the history and development of yogic traditions?

Background

The Śivayogapradīpikā is comprised of approximately 290 Sanskrit verses, 9 spread across

five chapters (paṭala). It is part of a corpus of Sanskrit Yogaśāstras10 which were

composed from roughly the eleventh through eighteenth centuries of the Common Era,

many of which appear to have been codified in south India, and most of which to-date

remain in the early stages of critical study.11 Like most medieval yoga treatises, there is

limited biographical information available about the text’s author, Cennasadāśivayogi.

However, based on the extant manuscripts, reception history, and intratextual makeup,

we can be certain of the Deccan provenance of the text’s composition, and the Vīraśaiva

affiliation of our author. Though, what the nature of Vīraśaiva religious identity looked

"4
like at this time, how it relates to other forms of Śaivism, and what Cennasadāśivayogi

means when he employs the term vīraśaiva remain open research questions.12 


As a prescriptive yoga treatise,13 the Śivayogapradīpikā provides a progressive

curriculum of yogic instruction to aspiring yogis in both theory and praxis, including: a

Śaiva cosmology and cosmogony of the universe, recommendations for the proper

locale and dwelling for yogic praxis, the physical methods of Haṭhayoga (“the yoga of

force”14), the mental techniques of Rājayoga (“the royal yoga”), an ontology and map of

the body and its psychic centers (cakra, ādhāra), and especially, a devotional yogic

framework for ritually worshipping Śiva as consciousness (cicchivapūjā).

My research indicates that there are several features of the Śivayogapradīpikā’s

curriculum which make the text unique in relation to both other medieval Yogaśāstras

and earlier Śaiva works on yoga.15 As far as I am aware, the Śivayogapradīpikā is the only

text to integrate the standard tetrad of medieval yoga systems together explicitly with

the praxis of Śaiva ritual worship and devotion.16 The four medieval yogas consist of:

Mantrayoga, the “yoga of mantras,” or efficacious utterances; Layayoga, the “yoga of

dissolution,” or visualization techniques for dissolving mental activity; Haṭhayoga, the

“yoga of force,” comprised of psychophysical bodily techniques; and Rājayoga, the

“royal yoga,” a contemplative path and a term synonymous with the state of Samādhi

(“absorption”)—the soteriological goal of yoga itself.17 However, the rhetorical manner

in which the various systems are positioned and defended by authors also reveals

"5
anxiety, yogic rivalry, and disputes regarding their soteriological status. 18 This project

argues that in response to this problem, throughout the Śivayogapradīpikā, these four

yogas are creatively envisioned together in complementarity, as a hierarchy of stages

leading towards Rājayoga (i.e., Samādhi).19 To these common four, however, a fifth

approach is introduced for devotees of Śiva, namely Śivayoga, which is understood to

be the apotheosis of the previous four.

Thus, this project contends, that while other Sanskrit yoga texts of the first half of

the second millennium, which teach the methods of Haṭhayoga, largely eschew specific

sectarian markers, ritual, or religious affiliation 20 in favor of a certain type of yogic

universalism,21 the Śivayogapradīpikā represents an unabashedly Śaiva, devotional, and

ritualized approach to the theory and praxis of yoga.22 And yet, I argue, within the

competitive religious marketplace of fifteenth-century south India,23 Cennasadāśivayogi

still attempts to maintain an ecumenical ethos and spirit of yogic inclusivity by

envisioning a broad and transsectarian Śaiva (and perhaps even non-Śaiva) audience. 24

That is, he does not exactly wear his sectarian identity on his sleeve, or his iṣṭaliṅga 25

around his neck, as it were. And while the text is clearly aimed primarily at ascetic

yogis, who are expected to retreat from society and move into a remote yoga hut

(yogamaṭha), there are also moments where the text indicates techniques specific to

householders (gṛhin), or other stations in life.26

"6
 Alongside the corpus of Yogaśāstras, to which the text relies for its teachings on

yogic method, the Śivayogapradīpikā also draws heavily upon a large scriptural canon of

Śaiva Āgamas and Tantras. Its yoga is situated within a cosmology and theology of

tantric (i.e., Āgamic) Śaivism, and I argue, Advaita Vedānta.27 As a text which reveals a

Vīraśaiva imprint, philosophically, I suggest that the Śivayogapradīpikā is thus best

conceived as part of a growing trend of non-dual Vīrasaiva Vedānta (sometimes termed

“Śivādvaita”) Sanskrit texts which emerged in south India during the fifteenth through

eighteenth centuries.28 This project argues that the inner-outer rhetoric of yogic worship

expounded in the Śivayogapradīpikā echoes the Vīraśaiva critique of institutionalized

temple worship29 in favor of a more personal and unmediated devotion to Śiva. Rather

than worshipping a fixed (sthāvara) Śiva liṅga in the temple, the Vīraśaivas are

renowned for wearing the moveable (jaṅgama) personal, or iṣṭaliṅga, around their

necks.30 In this way, the human body becomes the temple of worship, which houses the

deity—and in Śivayoga, the inner deity is worshipped through the ritualization of yogic

praxis. The Śivayogapradīpikā rhetorically questions the purpose of external ritual

worship,31 and declares that through the inner worship of Śiva “by means of the eight

auxiliaries of yoga (aṣṭāṅgayoga), a person can become a Vīraśaiva!”32 While most Śaiva

systems of yoga are structured around a schema of six auxiliaries (ṣaḍaṅga) of praxis,33 I

argue that the author Cennasadāśivayogi, uses the “classical” framework of

"7
Aṣṭāṅgayoga as a “yogic blueprint” to structure and emplot the various elements of

yoga and ritual therein.34

While the history of Śaivism is long-permeated by yogic praxis, within the vast

scriptural world of mainstream south Indian tantric Śaivism (also known as

Śaivasiddhānta35), it has been argued by Davis (1991) and Brunner (1994) that in most

Śaiva Āgamas and Tantras, the methods of yoga are typically understood as a means of

self-purification (ātmaśuddhi) and considered preliminary to the more soteriologically

powerful and primary acts of ritual (kriyā, pūjā), or the attainment of true knowledge of

reality (jñāna).36 Indeed, in tantric Śaivism, it is characteristically ritual (especially high-

level initiation, or dīkṣā) that is the key soteriological and liberatory act.37 This project

contends that the Śivayogapradīpikā, however, as a treatise on yoga (i.e., Yogaśāstra), re-

envisions the discipline of yoga itself as the central ritual act, which bestows liberation

to the adept. Here the external and internal auxiliaries (aṅga) of yogic praxis become the

very means of ritually worshipping the deity,38 who resides not externally as an image

(mūrti) or stone emblem (liṅga) residing in a temple, but who is envisioned internally

within the living body of the yogi.39 In the Śivayoga of the Pradīpikā, the traditional

ritual offerings (dravya) such as flowers, incense, water, etc., which are typically offered

externally (bahirdravya) to the deity, are interiorized and homologized with their

“superior” yogic equivalents.40 The psychophysical methods of yoga are thus ritualized

"8
into the ultimate soteriological act of embodied devotion. I suggest we might conceive

of this as both the “ritualization of yoga,” and the “yogification of ritual worship.”

Finally, the Śivayogapradīpikā demonstrates many interesting parallels with a

well-known later text from northern India, the Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati (c. 16-18th

centuries),41 one of the key scriptures of the Nātha yoga tradition of Gorakṣanātha.42

Both texts share a unique esoteric system of envisioning the yogic body, comprised of:

nine bodily “centers” (cakra), sixteen “mental focuses” (ādhāra), five “spaces” (vyoman),

and three gazing “points” (lakṣya);43 as well as a distinctive twelve-year sequence of the

fruition of yogic powers (siddhi), which culminates with the yogi becoming equal to the

god Śiva himself (śivatulya).44 Most curiously, in one of its final verses, Śivayogapradīpikā

5.58 refers to itself as the, or a, “Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati,” that is, the/a “Compendium of

the Doctrines of the Adepts.”45 One of the goals of this dissertation will be to establish

the possible connections and directions of borrowing between these two yoga texts, one

from southern, and the other from northern, India.

This project is important not only because it offers a study and translation of a

lesser-known Sanskrit yoga text,46 or because it seeks to understand the role of yoga

within the Vīraśaiva devotional movements of the Deccan—but the Śivayogapradīpikā

also offers the historian of religion an illuminating case study for better understanding

the discursive ways in which diverse systems of religious theory and praxis—especially

yoga, ritual, and devotion—were synthesized in late medieval south India.

"9
2. SOURCES, METHOD, AND THEORY

My reading of the text will draw upon three printed Sanskrit editions of the

Śivayogapradīpikā, as well as fifteen Sanskrit manuscripts I have retrieved from archives

in south India.47 I will also investigate a unique Sanskrit précis rendition, the

Śivayogapradīpikāsāra, or the “Essence of the Lamp on Śiva’s Yoga.”48 Unlike the root

text, which is written in the first person of its author Cennasadāśivayogi and addressed

to an unnamed audience, the Śivayogapradīpikāsāra takes the form of a dialogue between

the guru, Śrī Sadāśivayogi, and his disciple, Sahajānandayogi. As this project develops, I

hope to say more about the significance of this unique précis manuscript and its relation

to the root text.

This dissertation will draw upon a text-critical philological method that seeks to

understand the Śivayogapradīpikā by reading it closely within a larger textual network49

of Sanskrit Yogaśāstras and Śaiva scriptures that encircle it.50 These other texts will

allow me to better understand the discursive ways in which Cennasadāśivayogi

articulates his Śivayoga vis-à-vis the broader fields of Śaivism and yoga. In terms of

locating its yoga, I will read the Śivayogapradīpikā within the corpus of late medieval

Yogaśāstras, especially the texts which appear to predate or are coeval with the

Śivayogapradīpikā.51 To understand how the text is positioned within the doctrinal world

of south Indian Śaivism,52 I will read yoga sections (pāda) of select Śaiva Āgamas and

Tantras,53 and especially Sanskrit texts from the fourteenth-sixteenth centuries which

"10
demonstrate an emergent theology of Vīraśaivism.54 To better establish the

Śivayogapradīpikā’s framework of south Indian ritual, I will draw on a selection of Śaiva

ritual compendiums (paddhati).55 For assistance in locating the Śivayogapradīpikā within

the vast scriptural world of south Indian Śaivism, I am planning to conduct a brief

period of research and study in south India this December, 2018. I have been invited to

the École française d’Extrême-Orient (EFEO) in Pondicherry, Tamil Nadu by the head of

the EFEO, Dr. Dominic Goodall, who has kindly offered to read the Śivayogapradīpikā

with me and allow me access to the EFEO research library.

How might we better understand the textual operations employed in the

Śivayogapradīpikā’s synthesis of numerous religio-yogic doctrines, texts, and systems of

praxis? Rather than the fraught term “syncretism,” which often suggests a naive

synthesis of two or more unchanging essences, or incompatible doctrine,56 this project

will draw on Jason Josephson’s model of “hierarchical inclusion”57 as a more productive

way in to thinking about the Śivayogapradīpikā’s strategy of yogic reconciliation.58

Josephson describes this as “an asymmetrical technique for reconciling difference… by

which I mean an operation for dealing with alterity that works by subordinating marks

of difference into a totalizing ideology, while still preserving their external signs” (2012,

26).59 This is especially fruitful for thinking about the deliberate ways in which

Cennasadāśivayogi draws together the various competitive systems of yoga, Śaiva and

non-Śaiva terminology (e.g., Advaita Vedānta), together with Śaiva devotional and

"11
ritual worship traditions. In this way, Śivayoga becomes a “totalizing ideology” that

incorporates all other yogas. By subsuming, rather than rejecting, the other systems of

yogic and religious praxis, the author preserves “their external signs,” infused with

Śaiva ritual and devotional meaning.

To better understand the manner in which yoga and ritual worship are

integrated, this project also draws upon advances in ritual studies which seek to

understand ritual as a dynamic process and distinct orientation to action, rather than a

hypostasized sign, symbol, or static entity. This shift was inaugurated by Catherine Bell

who highlights the ritual frameworks that strategically “differentiates some acts from

others” (Bell 1992, xv). Bell proposed a theory of “ritualization” to describe a process of

strategic acting which “privileges” some activities over others. 60 While Bell sought to

move ritual beyond the limited sphere of “religion,” into an engagement with human

praxis more broadly, I propose that ritualization is a useful way of thinking about a

ritually oriented approach to yogic praxis, where the methods of yoga are privileged in

an intentionally devotional framework. Read in this way, Śivayoga is not simply a

“new” system of yoga, but rather the most efficacious way of ritually engaging in all

other systems of yoga.

Two further questions emerge that shape the historical methodology of this

project. First, with little biographical information about its author, how might we read a

prescriptive yoga treatise with an eye towards learning about its religious and historical

"12
context? Second, adopting the position that a Sanskrit text is not produced in a social

and textual vacuum, how might we better think about the Śivayogapradīpikā’s various

networks of literary, social, and even institutional production? In response to the first

question, I will draw on the work of Dominick LaCapra, who calls for the

historiographical practice of reading what he terms the “documentary” and “worklike”

qualities of a work or a text, and argues that indeed, any given text has both (1983, 30).

Here, the “documentary” aspect emphasizes the factual or literary dimensions of

history, conveying information about empirical reality, while the “worklike” aspect is

creative and rhetorical, constructively adding to or subtracting from the documentary.61

By reading the Śivayogapradīpikā with LaCapra, I can look for the “documentary”

features that the author Cennasadāśivayogi takes for granted as given conveying

information about his empirical reality (e.g., the four yogas), and the “worklike”

qualities in which the author’s moves require rationalization and are detectable in their

novelty or innovation (e.g., the reframing of the four yogas as ritual worship).62

In response to the second question regarding networks of textual production, I

will draw upon Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the “field of production” which seeks to

“relate texts not only to other texts” but also “in relation to the structure of the field and

to the specific agents involved” (1993, 17). Though limited in constructing any sort of

social history through the reading of prescriptive Sanskrit yoga and ritual texts, to better

establish these relational fields within which the Śivayogapradīpikā and its author operate

"13
this project will benefit by drawing upon a growing number of scholarly projects which

have sought to map out the literary, social, religious, and institutional fields of medieval

and early modern south India. 63 Thinking with Josephson and Bell illuminate the

author’s hermeneutical strategies for dealing with alterity and framing of yoga as ritual,

respectively, while thinking with LaCapra and Bourdieu highlights dynamic text-

context relations and the ways in which authors of Yogaśāstras produced Sanskrit

treatises in relational positions that were not devoid of social, literary, and even

institutional contexts.64

3. CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOLARSHIP

This project aims to make scholarly contributions within at least three fields: yoga

studies, south Asian studies, and religious studies. First, this project most immediately

contributes to a burgeoning field of text-critical premodern yoga studies, best

represented by the currently underway five-year Haṭha Yoga Project (HYP), based at

SOAS, University of London.65 As an overlooked medieval Sanskrit yoga treatise, this

critical study of the Śivayogapradīpikā seeks to contribute to ongoing investigations into

the historical development of yoga traditions prior to the colonial period.

This dissertation also contributes to a broader field of south Asian studies in a

number of important ways. It will mark the first study which seeks to assess the role of

yoga within emergent Vīraśaiva traditions. To-date most of the available secondary

scholarship on Vīraśaivism has focused on its devotional poetry and hagiographical

"14
literature in Kannada and other vernacular languages. This project thus hopes to

contribute toward a small, but growing investigation of Sanskrit Vīraśaiva materials,66

and to increase our knowledge of Śaiva traditions after what Alexis Sanderson (2009)

has termed, the “Śaiva Age.”67 This project further draws upon and seeks to contribute

to the broader study of south Asian intellectual history, in particular the “Knowledge

Systems on the Eve of Colonialism” project initiated by Sheldon Pollock, where the

investigation of Yogaśāstras is notably absent.68

Beyond yoga and south Asian studies, this dissertation aims to contribute to

broader concerns in the contemporary study of religion in several regards. The

Śivayogapradīpikā’s synthesis of ritual, devotion, and yogic praxis may provide a

valuable south Indian case study for ongoing conversations in ritual studies concerning

notions of the body, textuality, and frameworks of ritualization.69 To invoke Foucault,

we might say that Śivayoga, as a ritual technique, is championed in the text as the

ultimate “technology of the self.”70 This project also aims to contribute to discourses

surrounding the expression of religious identity, sectarianism, and so-called religious

syncretism. Employing Josephson’s model of hierarchical inclusion, this approach to the

Śivayogapradīpikā may model strategies for thinking about how premodern religious

thinkers in south India sought to skillfully navigate alterity and difference within a

competitive religious landscape. While such a study is inevitably focused on the

particular textual, religious, philosophical, and social milieu of one lesser-known text

"15
and author from fifteenth-century south India, it is my hope that this dissertation might

offer a valuable model for thinking about the creative and dynamic ways in which

religious doctrine and praxis, tradition and innovation, are constructed and performed

in a text.

4. CHAPTER OUTLINE

PART 1: INTRODUCTION, METHODOLOGY, AND HISTORY

1. Introduction: Yoga, Śaivism, and Śivayoga in Precolonial India

2. Methodology: Approaching Medieval Sanskrit Yogaśāstras

3. Yoga and Vīraśaivism: Śivayogis as Heroic Devotees of the Lord

PART 2: ANALYSIS OF THE ŚIVAYOGAPRADĪPIKĀ

4. “A Lamp on Śiva’s Yoga”: Authorship, Dating, and Overview of the

Śivayogapradīpikā

5. The Hierarchical Inclusivity of Śivayoga: The Four Yogas as Aṣṭāṅgayoga as

Internal Ritual Worship

6. Visualizing the Yogic Body: The Śivayogapradīpikā’s System of Nine Cakras,

Sixteen Ādhāras, Five Vyomans, and Three Lakṣyas

7. The Soteriology of Śivayoga: Yogic Powers and the Polyvalence of Samādhi

PART 3: CONCLUSION

8. Yoga and Religion: Yogic Inclusivity, Śaiva Identity, and Transsectarianism in

Fifteenth-Century South India


"16
5. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Śivayogapradīpikā Manuscripts & Editions

Oriental Research Institute, Mysore

ORI P.2736. Śivayogapradīpikāṭikā of Basavārādhya (Telugu script).
ORI P.8903. Śivayogapradīpikāṭikā of Basavārādhya (Kannada script).
ORI P.7619. Śivayogapradīpikā (Kannada script).
ORI P.10093. Śivayogapradīpikā (Nandināgarī script).

ORI C.821. Śivayogapradīpikāsāra (Devanāgarī script).

Madras Government Oriental Library, University of Madras

MGOL D.4385. Śivayogapradīpikā (Grantha script) [= IFP T.0871 (Devanāgarī)].
MGOL D.18876. Śivayogapradīpikā (Telugu script).
MGOL R.8570. Śivayogapradīpikā (Grantha script).


Adyar Theosophical Library, Chennai

Adyar PL.66027. Śivayogapradīpikā (Grantha script).
Adyar PL.66029. Śivayogapradīpikā (Telugu script). 

Adyar PL.70323. Śivayogapradīpikā (Kannada script).
Adyar PM.1430. Śivayogapradīpikā (Telugu script).
Adyar VB.350. Śivayogapradīpikā (Grantha script).

Institut Français de Pondichéry, Pondicherry

IFP T.0872. Śivayogapradīpikā with [incomplete] comm.? (Devanāgarī script).
IFP T.1019. Śivayogapradīpikā (Devanāgarī script).
IFP T.1027. Śivayogapradīpikā (Devanāgarī script).


Śivayogadīpikā. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar of Pudukota, ed. 1884+ [?]. Kumbakonam: Sri

Vidya Press.

Śivayogadīpikā. 1978 [1907]. Dvitīyāvṛttiḥ. Ānandaśramasaṃskṛtagranthāvaliḥ;

granthāṅkaḥ 139. Puṇyākhyapattanam: Ānandāśramaḥ.

Śivayōgapradīpikā: Basavārādhyaṭīkāsamētā. 1976. Kalaburgi, Nāgabhūṣana Śāstri, ed. Śrī

Basavēśvarapīṭha taraṅga; 4. Dhāravāḍa: Kannaḍa Adhyayanapīṭha, Karnāṭaka
Viśvavidyālaya.

"17
“Siva Yoga Dipika by Paramsiva Yogindra.” 1903-4. Unknown, tr., Alasingaperumal,
M.C [?], ed. The Brahmavâdin. Madras, Tamil Nadu. Vol. 8, 439–50, 501–27, 617– 91.
Vol. 9, 1–13, 70–84, 126–38, 179–92, 235–45, 395–404.

Primary Sources

Dattatreyayogaśāstra. Mallinson, James, ed. Unpublished. Working critical edition.

Gorakṣaśataka. Nowotny, Fausta, ed. 1976. Das Gorakṣaśataka. Dokumente der

Geistesgeschichte 3. Köln: K. A. Nowotny.

Pāramārtha Prakāśike of Nijaguṇa Śivayogi. 1974. Prof. G.M. Umāpathisthāstri, ed. Publ.
Sharada Bhavan, Bagalkot.

Haṭhapradīpikā. Digambarji, Swami, ed. and trans. 1998. 2nd edition. Lonavla, Pune:
Kaivalyadhama.

Haṭhapradīpikā. Ayangar, Srinivasa, ed. 1972. Haṭhayogapradīpikā of Svātmārāma with the

Commentary Jyotsnā of Brahmānanda. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre.

Haṭharatnāvalī. Reddy, M. Venkata, ed. 1982. Arthamuru, Andhra Pradesh: Vemana Yoga
Research Institute.

Jñāneśvarī (= Bhāvārthadīpikā). Kripananda, Swami, trans. 1989. Jnāneshwar’s Gītā: A

Rendering of the Jñāneśvarī. New York: State University of New York Press.

Pampāmāhātmya. Śāstri, K.V., ed. 1933. Skāndapurāṇantargata Hēmakūṭakhaṇḍātmaka

Saptarṣi Yātra Prakāśaka Pampā Māhātmyamu.

Pārameśvarāgama, Dwivedi, Vrajavallabha, ed. 1995. Varanasi: Shaiva Bharati Shodha

Pratishthanam.

Pāśupatasūtra with the Pāñcārthabhāṣya of Kauṇḍinya. Śāstri, Anantakṛṣṇa, ed. 1940. The
Oriental Manuscript Library of the University of Travancore, Trivandrum.

Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati. M.L. Gharote, ed. 2005. Siddha-Siddhānta-Paddhati of

Gorakṣanātha: A Treatise on Nātha Philosophy. Lonavla Yoga Institute.

Siddhāntaśikhāmaṇi. Swamy, Sivakumara M., ed. 2014. Varanasi: Shaiva Bharati Shodha
Pratishthanam.

Śivasaṃhitā. Mallinson, James, ed. and trans. 2007. Woodstock, New York: YogaVidya.

Śūnyasaṃpādane. Sunkapur, M.S. and Armando Menezes, eds. 1972. Śūnyasaṃpādane

Volume 5. Edited with Introduction, Text, Transliteration, Translation, Notes and
Comments. Dharwar: Karnatak University.

"18
Tirumantiram of Tirumūlar. T. N. Ganapathy, ed. 2010. 5 vols. Yoga Siddha Research
Center Publication Series. Quebec: Babaji’s Kriya Yoga and Publications.

Vasiṣṭasaṃhitā. Digambarji, Swami, Pitambar Jha, and Shri Gyan Shankar Sahay, eds.
1984. Lonavla, Pune: Kaivalyadhama.

Yogabīja. Śrīvāstav, Rāmlāl, ed. 1982. Gorakhpur: Gorakhnāth Mandir.

Yogacintāmaṇi of Śivānandasarasvatī. ms. MAI-312. Königlichen Universitätsbibliothek

zu Tübingen.

Yogasūtra with the Bhāṣya (i.e., Pātañjalayogaśāstra). Āgāśe, Kāśinātha Śāstrī, ed. 1904.
Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series 47. Pune: Ānandāśrama.

Yogayājñavalkya. Mohan, A.G., trans. 2013. 2nd edition. Singapore: Svastha Yoga.

Secondary Sources

Bell, Catherine. 2009 [1992]. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Ben-Herut, Gil. 2015. “Figuring the South-Indian Śivabhakti Movement: The Broad
Narrative Gaze of Early Kannada Hagiographic Literature.” The Journal of Hindu
Studies 8 (3): 274–95.

———. 2016. “Things Standing Shall Move: Temple Worship in Early Kannada
Śivabhakti Hagiographies.” International Journal of Hindu Studies, February, 1–30.

———. 2018. Siva’s Saints: The Origins of Devotion in Kannada According to Harihara’s
Ragalegalu. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Birch, Jason. 2011. “Meaning of Haṭha in Early Haṭhayoga.” Journal of the American
Oriental Society 131.4: 527–54.

———. 2014. “Rājayoga: The Reincarnations of the King of All Yogas.” International
Journal of Hindu Studies 17 (3): 401–44.

———. 2015. “The Yogatārāvalī and the Hidden History of Yoga.” Nāmarūpa 20: 4–13.

———. Forthcoming 2018. “The Proliferation of Āsana in Late Mediaeval Yoga

Traditions.” In Yoga in Transformation: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives,
edited by Karl Baier, Philipp A. Maas, and Karin Preisendanz, 97-171. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Unipress.

———. Forthcoming. The Amanaska. King of All Yogas. A Critical Edition and Annotated
Translation with a Monographic Introduction. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University
of Oxford.

"19
Bisschop, Peter and Yuko Yokochi. 2016.“The Pāśupata-yogavidhi of the Skandapurāṇa.”
Handout and Talk. Sanskrit Texts on Yoga: A Manuscript Workshop. London
12-15. SOAS, University of London.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature.
Edited and Introduced by Randal Johnson. Columbia University Press.

Bouy, Christian. 1994. Les Nātha-Yogin et les Upaniṣads. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.

Bronner, Yigal. “A Renaissance Man in Memory: Appayya Dīkṣita Through the Ages.”
Journal of Indian Philosophy 44, no. 1 (March 1, 2016): 11–39.

———. “South Meets North: Banaras from the Perspective of Appayya Dīkṣita.” South
Asian History and Culture 6, no. 1 (January 2, 2015): 10–31.

Brunner, Hélène. 1992. “The Four Pādas of the Śaivāgamas.” In Dr. S. S. Janaki
Felicitation Volume. Madras: Kuppuswamy Research Institute.

———. 1994. “The Place of Yoga in the Śaivāgamas.” In Pandit N. R. Bhatt Felicitation
Volume, edited by Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat, S. P. Narang and C. P. Bhatta. Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 425-461.

Burchett, Patton. 2012. “Bhakti Religion and Tantric Magic in Mughal India:
Kacchvahas, Ramanandis, and Naths, circa 1500–1750.” Ph.D. dissertation—New
York: Columbia University.

———. 2013. “Bitten by the Snake: Early Modern Devotional Critiques of Tantra-
Mantra.” The Journal of Hindu Studies 6 (1): 1–20.

Bühnemann, Gudrun. 1988. Pūjā: A Study in Smarta Ritual. Vienna : Institut für Indologie
der Universität Wien.

Bühnemann, Gudrun. 2011. “The Śāradātilakatantra on Yoga: A New Edition and

Translation of Chapter 25.” Bulletin of SOAS 74: 205–35.

Chandra Shobhi, Prithvi Datta. 2005. “Pre-Modern Communities and Modern Histories:
Narrating Vīraśaiva and Lingayat Selves.” Ph.D., The University of Chicago.

Coakley, Sarah, ed. 1997. Religion and the Body. Cambridge Studies in Religious
Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clooney, Francis X. 2003. “Hindu Views of Religious Others: Implications for Christian
Theology.” Theological Studies 64, no. 2: 306–333.

———. 2018. “Rāmānuja’s Manual of Daily Worship (Nitya Grantham).” Unpublished.

Davis, Richard. 1991. Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshiping Śiva in Medieval India.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

"20
De Simini, Florinda. 2016. Of Gods and Books, Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the
Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Devadevan, Manu. 2016. A Prehistory of Hinduism. Boston: De Gruyter

Devi, Yashoda. 1995. The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D. Part 2.
Administration, Literature and Society. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.

Duquette, Jonathan. “Is Śivādvaita Vedānta a Saiddhāntika School? Pariṇāmavāda in

the Brahmamīmāṃsābhāṣya.” Journal of Hindu Studies 8, no. 1 (May 2015): 16–43.

———. “Reading Non-Dualism in Śivādvaita Vedānta: An Argument from the

Śivādvaitanirṇaya in Light of the Śivārkamaṇidīpikā.” Journal of Indian Philosophy
44, no. 1 (March 2016): 67–79.

———. “The Vedānta of Vīraśaivas.” Sanskrit Reading Room (blog), May 23, 2018.
https://sanskritreadingroom.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/vedanta-in-
virasaivism-sanskrit-reading-room-session-with-dr-jonathan-duquette/.
Accessed on August 9, 2018.

Eliade, Mircea. 2009 [1958]. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Translated by Willard Ropes
Trask. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Ernst, Carl W. 2005. “Situating Sufism and Yoga.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,
Third Series, 15 (1): 15–43.

Fisher, Elaine. 2017. Hindu Pluralism: Religion and the Public Sphere in Early Modern South
India. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

———. 2017. “Remaking South Indian Śaivism: Greater Śaiva Advaita and the Legacy
of the Śaktiviśiṣṭādvaita Vīraśaiva Tradition.” International Journal of Hindu
Studies 21 (3): 319–44.

———. Forthcoming. “Translating Vīraśaivism: The Early Modern Monastery as

Transregional Religious Network.”

Flood, Gavin. 2005. The Tantric Body: The Secret Tradition of Hindu Religion. I. B. Tauris,

Foucault, Michel. 1999 [1980]. “The Hermeneutics of the Self.” In Religion and Culture,
158–81. New York: Routledge.

Galewicz, Cezary. 2009. A commentator in service of the empire: Sāyaṇa and the royal project
of commenting on the whole of the Veda. Wien: Sammlung de Nobili, Institut für
Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde der Universität Wien.

Glasbrenner, Eva-Maria. 2015. “Cakra System and Tantric Ritual in Vīraśaivism.” The
Journal of Hindu Studies 8 (2): 180–201.

"21
Goodall, Dominic. 2011. “The Throne of Worship: An ‘Archaeological Tell’ of Religious
Rivalries.” Studies in History 27 (2): 221–250.

———. 2015. “How the Tattvas of Tantric Śaivism Came to Be 36: The Evidence of the
Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā.” Tantric Studies: 77-1.1

Hara, Minoru. 1999. “Pāśupata and Yoga: Pāśupata-Sūtra 2.12 and Yoga-Sūtra 3.37.”
Asiatische Studien 53, no. 3: 593–608.

Hiranmaya. 2003 [1967]. “Basava and Gorakhnāth.” In Śrī Basavēśvara. A Commemoration

Volume. Eighth Centenary Commemoration Volume, Edited by Wodeyar S. S. et al.
Bangalore: Directorate of Kannada & Culture, pp. 309–23.

Holdrege, Barbara A. 2015. Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies and
Devotional Bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti. RoutledgeCurzon Hindu Studies Series. New
York: Routledge.

Inden, Ronald, Jonathan Walters, and Daud Ali. 2000. Querying the Medieval: Texts and
the History of Practices in South Asia. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Isaacson, Harunaga. 1998. “Tantric Buddhism in India (from c. A.D. 800 to c. A.D.
1200).” Buddhismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart 2: 23–49.

Jones, Jamal Andre. 2018. “A Poetics of Power in Andhra, 1323-1450 CE.” Ph.D.
dissertation—University of Chicago.

Josephson, Jason Ānanda. 2012. The Invention of Religion in Japan. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Kiss, Csaba. 2009. Matsyendranātha’s Compendium (Matsyendrasaṃhitā). A critical

edition and annotated translation of Matsyendrasaṃhitā 1-13 and 55 with
analysis. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.

Koppal, N.V. 1988. “Śivayoga According to Śivayogapradīpikā.” Pathway to God 22: 46–
56.

LaCapra, Dominick. 1983. Rethinking Intellectual History : Texts, Contexts, Language.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Lankesh, Gauri. 2017. “Making Sense of the Lingayat vs Veerashaiva Debate.” The Wire.
Accessed on August 8, 2017. https://thewire.in/history/karnataka-lingayat-
veerashaive-debate.

Mallik, Kalyani. 1954. Siddha-Siddhānta-Paddhati and Other Works of the Nātha Yogīs.
Oriental Book House.

"22
Mallinson, James. 2007. The Khecarīvidyā of Ādinātha: a Critical Edition and Annotated
Translation. London: Routledge Curzon.

———. 2011a. “Haṭha Yoga.” Brill Encyclopedia of Hinduism 3: 770–81.

———. 2011b. “Nāth Saṃpradāya.” Brill Encyclopedia of Religions 3: 407–428.

———. 2013. “Yogis in Mughal India.” In Yoga: The Art of Transformation, edited by
Debra Diamond, 69–83. Washington, D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery,
Smithsonian Institution.

———. 2014. “Haṭhayoga’s Philosophy: A Fortuitous Union of Non-Dualities.” Journal

of Indian Philosophy 42 (1): 225–47.

———. 2016. “Śāktism and Haṭhayoga.” In Goddess Traditions in Tantric Hinduism:

History, Practice and Doctrine, edited by Bjarne Wernicke Olesen. Routledge
Studies in Tantric Traditions. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

———. Forthcoming. “Early Haṭhayoga.” Oxford University Press.

Mallinson, James, and Mark Singleton. 2017. Roots of Yoga. Penguin Classics.

Michael, Blake. 1992. The Origins of Vīraśaiva Sects: A Typological Analysis of Ritual and
Associational Patterns in the Śūnyasaṃpādane. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Michaels, Axel. 2016. Homo Ritualis: Hindu Ritual and Its Significance for Ritual Theory.
Oxford Ritual Studies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Michaels, Axel, and Christoph Wulf. 2012. Images of the Body in India: South Asian and
European Perspectives on Rituals and Performativity. London: Taylor and Francis.

Minkowski, Christopher. 2011. “Advaita Vedānta in Early Modern History.” South Asian
History and Culture 2 (2): 205–31.

Monius, Anne. 2015. “Linguistic Anxiety and Geographical Aspiration in the Tamiḻ
Śaiva Literary World.” The Journal of Hindu Studies 8 (3): 265–73.

Nandimath, S. C. 1979. A Handbook of Vīraśaivism. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Nemec, John. “Translation and the Study of Indian Religions.” Journal of the American
Academy of Religion 77, no. 4 (December 1, 2009): 757–80.

Nicholson, Andrew J. 2013. “Is Yoga Hindu? On the Fuzziness of Religious Boundaries.”
Common Knowledge 19 (3): 490–505.

———. 2014. Lord Śiva’s Song: The Īśvara Gītā. Albany: State University of New York
Press.

"23
Ondračka, Lubomír. 2015. “Perfected Body, Divine Body and Other Bodies in the Nātha-
Siddha Sanskrit Texts.” The Journal of Hindu Studies 8 (2): 210–32.

Pauwels, Heidi. 2010. “Who Are the Enemies of the Bhaktas? Testimony about ‘Śāktas’
and ‘Others’ from Kabīr, the Rāmānandīs, Tulsīdās, and Harirām Vyās.” Journal of
the American Oriental Society 130 (4): 509–39.

Pollock, Sheldon. 2011. “The Languages of Science in Early Modern India.” In Forms of
Knowledge in Early Modern Asia: Explorations in the Intellectual History of India and
Tibet, 1500-1800. Durham NC: Duke University Press, 19–48.

Ramanujan, A. K. 1973. Speaking of Śiva. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Rao, Velcheru Narayana, and Gene H. Roghair. 2014. Śiva’s Warriors: The Basava Purāṇa
of Pālkuriki Somanātha. Princeton University Press.

Rastelli, Marion. 2018. “Yoga in the Daily Routine of the Pāñcarātrins.” In Yoga in
Transformation: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Karl Baier,
Philipp A. Maas, Karin Preisendanz. Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 225-257.

Rice, Edward P. 1982 [1921]. A History of Kannada Literature: Second Edition Revised and
Enlarged. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.

Saletore, B.A. 1937. “Kānaphāṭa Jogis in Southern History.” The Poona Orientalist 1 (4):
16–22.

Samuel, Geoffrey. 2008. The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth
Century. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sanderson, Alexis. 1995. “Meaning in Tantric Ritual.” In Essais sur le Rituel III. Colloque
du centenaire de la selection des sciences religieuses de l’Ecole Practique des Hautes
Etudes, edited by Anne-Marie Blondeau and Kristofer Schippers, 15–95. Louvain:
Peeters.

———. 1999. “Yoga in Śaivism: The Yoga Section of the Mṛgendratantra. An Annotated
Translation of the Text With Commentary of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha.”

———. 2009. “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early
Medieval Period.” In Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo.
Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo.

———. 2013. “The Impact of Inscriptions on the Interpretation of Early Śaiva

Literature.” Indo-Iranian Journal 56, no. 3–4: 211–44.

———. 2015. “Śaiva Texts.” In Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Leiden; Boston: Brill.

"24
Seligman, Adam B., Robert P. Weller, Michael J. Puett, and Bennett Simon. 2008. Ritual
and Its Consequences: An Essay on the Limits of Sincerity. Oxford ; New York: Oxford
University Press.

Shaw, Rosalind, and Charles Stewart, eds. 1994. Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics
of Religious Synthesis. London: Routledge.

Siddhashrama, Basavaraj P. 1992. The Metaphysics and The Mysticism of Shri Nijaguna
Shivayogi. Tirupati: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.

Stein, Burton. 1989. The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara. Cambridge
University Press.

Steinschneider, Eric. 2016. “Beyond the Warring Sects: Universalism, Dissent, and
Canon in Tamil Śaivism, Ca. 1675-1994.” Ph.D. dissertation—University of
Toronto.

Stewart, Tony K. 2001. “In Search of Equivalence: Conceiving Muslim-Hindu Encounter

through Translation Theory.” History of Religions 40 (3): 260–87.

Stoker, Valerie. 2016. Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory: Vyāsatīrtha, Hindu
Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court. University of California
Press.

Talbot, Cynthia. 2001. Precolonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval
Andhra. Oxford University Press.

Vasudeva, Somadeva. 2004. The Yoga of Mālinīvijayottaratantra: Chapters 1-4, 7-11, 11-17.
Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry: École Française d’Extrême-Orient.

———. 2011. “Hamsamitthu: ‘Pātañjalayoga Is Nonsense.’” Journal of Indian

Philosophy 39, no. 2 (April 1): 123–45.

Verghese, Anila. 1995. Religious Traditions at Vijayanagara, as Revealed through Its

Monuments. Vijayanagara Research Project Monograph Series, v.4. New Delhi:
Manohar.

Wagoner, Phillip B. 1996. “‘Sultan among Hindu Kings’: Dress, Titles, and the
Islamicization of Hindu Culture at Vijayanagara.” The Journal of Asian Studies 55
(4): 851–80.

Wedemeyer, Christian. 2013. Making Sense of Tantric Buddhism: History, Semiology, &
Transgression in the Indian Traditions. New York: Columbia University Press.

White, David Gordon. 1996. The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in Medieval India.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

"25
———. 2009. Sinister Yogis. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

———. 2012. “On the Magnitude of the Yogic Body.” In Yogi Heroes and Poets: Histories
and Legends of the Naths, edited by David Lorenzen and Adrián Muñoz. New
York: State University of New York Press.

White, David Gordon, ed. 2012. Yoga in Practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wujastyk, Dominik. 2009. “Interpreting the Image of the Human Body in Premodern
India.” International Journal of Hindu Studies 13 (2): 189–228. 


"26
NOTES


1 Bouy (1996), Koppal (1988), and Kalaburgi (1976) each date the Śivayogapradīpikā to the
fifteenth-century CE, the latter two based on the text’s relation to contemporaneous Kannada
and Telugu texts. The terminus ante quem for the Śivayogapradīpikā is likely the Telugu
Śivayogasāramu (c. 14-15th century), whose author, Kolani Gaṇapatideva appears to be a disciple
of the Śivayogapradīpikā’s author, Cennasadāśivayogi, to whom the Śivayogasāramu is dedicated,
and who Koppal (1988, 49) notes is also referred to by the name of Nukanārādhya. More can be
said about Gaṇapatideva, an esteemed Telugu poet and heir of the Indulūri chiefs of Andhra
Pradesh. Reddy (1982, 42) dates Gaṇapatideva to circa 1400, however, Devi (1995, 163), who calls
him Kolani Adigaṇapatideva, suggests an earlier provenance of the fourteenth century, and
notes that Nukanārādhya (i.e., Cennasadāśivayogi) “commanded Adiganapati to write
Sivayogasara in Telugu with his work as the model” (1995, 164). A tentative date of composition
of the Śivayogapradīpikā is thus the beginning of the fifteenth century, however, if Devi’s dates
are correct, it could be shown to be earlier. More work remains to establish the dating and
relation between these texts, names, and disciplic succession.
2The manuscript colophons I have surveyed thus far reveal the author’s name alternatively as
Sadāśivayogi, Sadāśivayogīśvara, Sadāśivayoginātha, or most commonly, Cennasadāśivayogi.
The adjective cenna is a Kannada word meaning “lovely, fair, beautiful,” here placed at the
beginning of a Sanskrit name, such as the god Cennamallikārjuna; or it can also serve is a
diminutive, for example in the name of the vacana poet Cennabasavaṇṇa, the nephew of
Basavaṇṇa (see Ramanujan 1973). Rao (2014, 269, n.6) notes that this word is “frequently added
to the names of deities… [and] is also found as a name among men, often of nonbrahmin
castes.” Such a hybrid Kannada-Sanskrit name, Cennasadāśivayogi, or the “Lovely Eternal Śiva
Yogi,” is highly suggestive of the Deccan provenance of the text. No other works (that I am
aware of) are attributed to an author by this name.
3I use the term “medieval” to reference broadly the period between 600–1600 CE, and “late
medieval” to denote its upper terminus between 1200–1600 CE. However, this is largely a
heuristic device. For a historiographical discussion of the limits of the medieval period in India,
see Wedemeyer (2013, 58–66).
4The Vīraśaivas, sometimes called Vīramāheśvaras (“heroic devotees of the great Lord”), or also
known today as Liṅgāyatas (“bearers of the liṅga”), trace their history to the revolutionary Śaiva
vacana (expression) poets—especially Basavaṇṇa, the philosopher, statesman—centered in
Kalyana, Karnataka around the twelfth century. Broadly speaking in secondary scholarship,
Vīramāheśvara or Vīraśaiva (sometimes proto-Vīraśaiva) is used to designate the earlier
historical tradition, while Liṅgāyata is often used with reference to the contemporary traditions,
however, the identity politics of these terms and movements is currently a matter of serious
contention, with some Liṅgāyata communities seeking autonomy and even minority religion
status in the modern state of Karnataka (see Lankesh 2017).

"27
5 Exceptions are the single brief article on the Śivayogapradīpikā by N.V. Koppal in a 1988 article
in the obscure journal, Pathway to God; select textual references in Christian Bouy's pioneering
study on the Yoga Upaniṣads (1996); and a concise yet cogent overview, tentative dating, and
textual parallels provided in the unpublished dissertation of Jason Birch. I wish to thank Birch
for first introducing me to the Śivayogapradīpikā in 2014 and providing me with preliminary
materials to begin this project. I am grateful to him, as well as James Mallinson and Shubha
Shantamurty, who have been kindly reading the text and provisional edition together with me
via Skype.
6 Citations of the Śivayogapradīpikā include the seventeenth through eighteenth-century works,
the Yogacintāmaṇi of Śivānanda, the Upāsanāsārasaṅgraha, the Yogasārasaṅgraha, a commentary on
the Yogatārāvalī, known as the Rājatarala, as well as the Śivatattvaratnākara of king Basavarāja of
Keladi (r. 1696-1714). Its history of reception includes at least two vernacular-inspired treatises:
the Telugu Śivayogasāramu of Kolani Gaṇapatideva (see note 1 above); and the Kannada prose-
rendition of the Śivayogapradīpikā, known as the Paramārthaprakāśike of Nijaguṇa Śivayogi (c.
15th century). There is also a unique Sanskrit précis rendition: the Śivayogapradīpikāsāra, or the
“Essence of the Lamp on Śiva’s Yoga.” Finally, there is also at least one commentary written in
Kannada: the Śivayogapradīpikāṭikā of the Vīraśāiva, Basavārādhya. In his Karṇāṭaka Kavicarite
(1929), Ār. Narasiṃhācārya dates Basavārādhya to circa 1700. I am grateful to Gil Ben-Herut for
supplying this reference. Personal communication, Sep. 2, 2016.
7 This project follows recent scholarship (e.g., Samuel 2008, Mallinson and Singleton 2017)
which understands the origins of the psychophysical techniques and idea of a soteriological
yoga to be found in the confluence of extra-Vedic śramaṇa (e.g., Buddhist, Jaina, Ājivika, etc.)
groups and Brāhmaṇical traditions in the areas of Greater Magadha, along the Gangetic plains
of northern India, sometime around the lifetime of the historical Śākyamuni Buddha (c. 5-6th
century BCE). This view thus rejects the still commonly held assumption that we can find
conclusive evidence of an earlier tradition of yoga indigenous to the Indus Valley Civilization (c.
2600-1900 BCE), long held as the origins point for not only yoga, but the religious traditions of
Śaivism as well. For an overview of the evidence and historiographical debates, see Samuel
(2008, 1-14) and White (2009, 48-59). Sanderson (2013, 219) has argued that the earliest
conclusive evidence of Śaivism is likely found in the Mahābhāṣya of the circa second-century CE
grammarian Patañjali (not to be confused with the later author of the Yogasūtra). The first
systematization of a Śaiva yoga is to be found in the Pāśupatasūtra (c. 2nd century CE) and its
commentary by Kauṇḍinya (c. 5-6th century), which would highly influence the later Purāṇa,
Śivadharma, Āgama, and Tantra traditions. Unlike the classical yoga of Patañjali’s Yogasūtra (c.
4-5th century), which famously defines yoga as the “stilling of the fluctuations of the
mind,” (yogaś cittavṛttinirodhaḥ, Yogasūtra 1.2), the early Śaiva tradition understood yoga to be
the ultimate soteriological “union of the individual self with God (i.e., Śiva)” (ātmeśvarasaṃyogo
yogaḥ, Pañcārthabhāṣya p. 6, 8-9; Kauṇḍinya on Pāśupatasūtra 1.1). See Hara (1999, 594).
8 The Sanskrit compound śivayoga is quite old, and is found in some of the earliest existing Śaiva
literature, including the Brahmayāmalatantra, the Śivadharmottara, the Skandapurāṇa, and many
other Purāṇas and Āgamas. The first chapter of this dissertation will seek to trace these earlier
expressions of Śivayoga and understand their relation to that of the Śivayogapradīpikā.
9The number of verses vary slightly across the different manuscripts. For a list of
Śivayogapradīpikā manuscripts, see Bibliography below.

"28
10Yogaśāstra is an emic term used self-reflexively by the texts themselves. See, for example,
Dattātreyayogaśāstra 169, Yogayājñavalkya 8.4, Śivayogapradīpikā 5.58-59, Śivasaṃhitā 1.17, 1.19,
5.150, Haṭhapradīpikā 1.18, etc.
11Though these texts do not constitute a “canon” in any singular or closed sense of the term, it is
instructive to speak of them as constituting an intertextual corpus, in which authors were highly
aware of one another, constantly borrowing and readapting verses from earlier and coeval texts.
For an overview of these medieval yoga texts, see Bouy (1996), Mallinson (2011a, 2014,
forthcoming) and Birch (2011). On the likely south Indian provenance of many of the texts in
this corpus, see Mallinson (forthcoming) and Bouy (1996). Ten of these texts are currently being
edited and translated by the Haṭha Yoga Project (HYP) team; see section 3. Contribution to
Scholarship below.
12This set of questions regarding a distinctive “Vīraśaiva” identity has been taken up by
Chandra Shobhi (2005), who distinguishes between three different movements and historical
moments in constructing a “Vīraśaiva self”: the twelfth-century Kannada vacana poets centered
in Kalyana, the medieval capital of the Calukya and Kalacuri dynasties; a fifteenth-century
group of Śaiva devotees and ascetics known as the viraktas centered at the capital of the
Vijayanagara empire, who organized and theologized these vacanas, and narrated the lives of
the vacanakāras; and a contemporary Liṅgāyata community centered in the modern state of
Karnataka who locate their origins in the vacana movement. As Ben-Herut (2016, n. 8) has noted,
there is historical ambiguity regarding the term vīraśaiva prior to the fifteenth century, where the
more generic term śivabhakta was more commonly used to describe these south Indian Śaiva
devotional traditions. The circa fifteenth-century Śivayogapradīpikā may thus mark an historical
moment where the term began to gain traction.
13One of the primary reasons I read the Śivayogapradīpikā (and other Yogaśāstras) as prescriptive
and proscriptive is on the basis of Sanskrit grammar. The most common verbal mood is the
optative, conveying a sense of what the yogi should, would, could (or not) do. In this sense, the
text provides a set of instructions prescribing an idealized world of yogic theory and praxis. To
take but one example, Śivayogapradīpikā 1.5 states, “For the purpose of liberation, the
Mantrayogi should always chant the one-syllable or two- syllable, or even, the six-syllable or
eight-syllable [mantra]” (ekākṣaraṃ dvyakṣaraṃ vā ṣaḍakṣaram athāpi vā / cd aṣṭākṣaraṃ vā mokṣāya
mantrayogī sadā japet //).
14On the “force” of haṭhayoga, see Birch 2011. The medieval Haṭhayoga tradition is
distinguished by its emphasis on bodily techniques including yogic postures (āsana), cleansing
practices (ṣaṭkarma), methods of breath-control (prāṇāyāma), and in particular, a series of bodily
seals (mudrā) and binds (bandha). For an accessible overview, see Mallinson (2011a).
15This project differentiates (in so far as textual genre) between the Yogaśāstras, which are
Sanskrit treatises written exclusively about the theory and praxis of yoga, and tantric Śaiva (or
Vaiṣṇava) scriptures which feature prominent sections (pāda) on yoga, however, are not
necessarily the main purpose (prayojana) of the text.
16The four yogas are first taught together as such in the Dattātreyayogaśāstra (c. 12-13th century)
and the Amaroughaprabodha (c. 12-13th century). The Śivasaṃhitā (c. 15th century) also teaches
the four yogas, and mentions briefly the mental performance of daily rites, however, does not
sustain any discourse or instruction on this topic in the manner of the Śivayogapradīpikā.

"29
17On Rājayoga as Samādhi, see Birch (2014). The Śivayogapradīpikā teaches a unique tripartite
system of Rājayoga, which is further subdivided into three stages: Sāṅkhya, Tāraka, and
Amanaska.
18 For example, the Amanaska (c. 12th century) criticizes Haṭhayoga for being unnecessarily
difficult and producing pain in the body, advocating instead an “easy” meditative Rājayoga that
is said to produce a spontaneous state of Samādhi in which there is the complete absence of
mental activity (amanaska). The Haṭhapradīpikā (c. 15th century), on the other hand, counters by
declaring Haṭhayoga to be “like a stairway for one who desires to ascend the lofty peak of
Rājayoga” (pronnatarājayogam āroḍhum icchor adhirohiṇīva, Haṭhapradīpikā 1.1 cd). The
Śivayogapradīpikā echoes the Haṭhapradīpikā in this manner, understanding all yogas to be in the
service of Rājayoga, however, the notable difference of course, is that for Śaivas, all yogas,
including Rājayoga, culminate in Śivayoga.
19For example, in the section on breath-control (prāṇāyāma), each of the four yogas are
correlated with a different progressive stage of Prāṇāyāma: “Mantrayoga is natural
[Prāṇāyāma], while indeed Laya is modified [Prāṇāyāma]; Haṭha is known as
Kevalakumbha[ka], [and] Rājayoga is taught as the Amanas, “no-mind" [state]” (prākṛto
mantrayogaḥ syād vaikṛto laya eva ca / haṭhaḥ kevalakumbhākhyo rājayogo 'manāḥ smṛtaḥ //
Śivayogapradīpikā 2.46).
20See, for example, Kiss (2009, 3), who writes of the Matsyendrasaṃhitā (c. 13th century), “The
Matsyendrasaṃhitā can thus be seen as a manifestation of an important phase in the history of
yoga, of the process of its gradual separation from ritualistic Śaiva Tantra… This process can be
seen as an abandonment or concealment of sectarian marks in yogic teachings that gradually
leads to the early formative period of pan-Indian haṭhayoga.”
21See, for example, Dattātreyayogaśāstra 41-42, which states, “Whether brahmin, ascetic,
Buddhist, Jain, Skull-bearer (kāpālika) or materialist (cārvāka), the wise man endowed with faith,
who is constantly devoted to his practice obtains complete success. Success happens for he who
performs the practices—how could it happen for one who does not?” (trans. Mallinson).
Mallinson (2014, 2016) and Birch (2015, forthcoming 2018) have suggested that the ecumenical
emphasis on yogic praxis over metaphysical doctrine in medieval Sanskrit yoga treatises was
indicative perhaps of a broader, more public, religiously inclusive, and even house-holder
audience, than the previous ascetic, oral, and strictly initiate-based traditions.
22Other early Haṭhayoga texts which were espoused in a Śaiva milieu also include the the
Śivasaṃhitā, Haṭhapradīpikā, and the texts ascribed to Gorakṣanātha, especially the
Amaroughaprabodha, Yogabīja, Vivekamārtaṇḍa, and Gorakṣaśataka. These texts, however, although
drawing on Śaiva metaphysics and cosmology, focus mainly on Haṭhayoga methods, and are
largely devoid of any deity-specific mantras, ritual worship, or the complex visualization
practice of installing and meditating (dhyāna) upon the deity—which frequent the Śaiva Āgamas
and Tantras, and are featured in the Śivayogapradīpikā’s synthesis of Śivayoga.
23As Valerie Stoker (2016) has demonstrated, the religious diversity within the Vijayanagara
kingdom, the dominant Hindu empire and polity of this period, amounted to, not simply an
ethos of religious pluralism or ecumenicalism, but also gave rise to hostile polemics and
sectarian rivalry between competing groups of Śaivas and Vaiṣṇavas, as well as Mādhva
Brahmins and Śrīvaiṣṇavas, all of whom were contesting for royal patronage within the capital.

"30
24While the text is clearly aimed primarily at Śaivas, there are moments where it appears that
our author is seeking to promote Śivayoga as something that transcends any narrow sectarian
or religious categories. Śivayogapradīpikā 1.13 is careful to state that, “In reality, there is no
difference between Śivayoga and Rājayoga, however, for devotees of Śiva, a difference is
taught.” In this way, the author implies that while this text will focus on Śivayoga, a non-Śaiva
approach is equally and soteriologically valid. The author also incorporates Vaiṣṇava and
perhaps even Buddhist terminology, for example, the phrases viṣṇupada and buddhapada.
25The Śivayogapradīpikā does not employ the term iṣṭaliṅga; rather, at the culmination of its
section on Aṣṭāṅgayoga (Śivayogapradīpikā 3.61), we find the terms ākāśaliṅga (liṅga of space) and
prāṇaliṅgin (the yogi possessed of the inner liṅga of the breath)—referring to the more
interiorized yogic expressions of liṅga worship.
26See for example the Śivayogapradīpikā’s teachings on yogic posture (āsana), which states,
“Lotus (ambuja) is for householders, Adept (siddha) is for those on paths other than
householders (i.e., ascetics), and Comfortable Posture (sukhāsana) is for all—this threefold
[division] is best.” (gṛhiṇām ambujaṃ siddhaṃ gṛhasthetaravartmanām / sukhāsanaṃ ca sarveṣām ity
etat trividhaṃ varam // Śivayogapradīpikā 2.14). Such statements are corroborative with other
medieval Yogaśāstras which indicate a growing householder and more public audience (see
Mallinson 2011a, forthcoming).
27For example, the text defines Samādhi in Vedāntic terms, as “the oneness of the individual
and supreme soul” (ekatvaṃ jīvātmaparamātmanoḥ, Śivayogapradīpikā 3.48), and shortly after in
Vīraśaiva terms, as “the soul’s non-dual state of oneness with the liṅga (i.e.,
Śiva)” (liṅgaikyādvaitabhāvātmā, Śivayogapradīpikā 3.63).
28Although the early period (c. 12-14th centuries) of Vīraśaiva devotional lyrics (vacaṇa) and
hagiographical literature were decidedly in Kannada, the regional language of Karnataka, in
opposition to the Brāhamaṇical “orthodoxy” of the Sanskrit traditions, by the fifteenth century,
a growing movement of more Brāhmaṇically inflected Vīraśaiva intellectuals began
systematizing a distinct Vīraśaiva theology in Sanskrit works, drawing strongly on both the
Śaiva Āgama tradition and Vedānta. Duquette (2018) suggests that first blending of Vīraśaiva
devotion and Vedānta philosophy was likely the Anubhavasūtra of Māyideva (c. 15th century),
which would influence Siddhāntaśikhāmaṇi of Śivayogi Śivācārya (c. 15-16th century). Both of
these texts, like the Śivayogapradīpikā, freely mix Vedāntic and Vīraśaiva philosophical and
theological terminology. On the phrase “Śivādvaita” see Duquette (2016, n.1).
29For a nuanced take on the role of temples within Vīraśaiva devotional and literary traditions,
see Ben-Herut (2016).
30 The iṣṭaliṅga, or “personal emblem” of the god Śiva, is the primary insignia of the Vīraśaiva. It
is comprised of a small slate stone, worn on a necklace, and utilized as an object of daily
meditative praxis (i.e., liṅgadhāraṇa). For the Vīraśaiva devotee, the liṅga is a physical
representation of Śiva himself, and is a constant reminder of the presence of the deity.
31For example, the text states, “Through the path of Aṣṭāṅgayoga, [the yogin] should constantly
worship the supreme god [Śiva] in the abode of the inner-lotus. What’s the point in
worshipping the deity through external [means]?” (aṣṭāṅgayogamārgeṇa sadāntaḥpadmasadmani /
pūjayet paramaṃ devaṃ kiṃ bāhyair devapūjanaiḥ // Śivayogapradīpikā 2.8).
32 evam aṣṭāṅgayogena vīraśaivo bhaven naraḥ, Śivayogapradīpikā 3.63cd.

"31
33 Most Śaiva Āgamic systems teach a yoga with six auxiliaries (ṣaḍaṅga), wherein moral
restraints (yama) and observences (niyama) are omitted, and posture (āsana) is replaced with
inquiry (tarka) (see Brunner 1994, 440; Vasudeva 2004, 380-81). This is likely not because posture
is not taught, but because the āsanas are all standard seated postures to aid breath-control and
concentration. The Śivayogapradīpikā, like other medieval Haṭhayoga texts, teaches ten yogic
postures, including both seated and non-seated varieties.
34 However, even here there is a Śaiva “twist.” The “classical” model of Aṣṭāṅgayoga, or yoga
with eight auxiliaries, outlined in Yogasūtra 2.29 is as follows: restraints (yama), observances
(niyama), posture (āsana), breath-control (prāṇāyāma), sense-withdrawal (pratyāhāra), fixation
(dhāraṇā), meditation (dhyāna), and absorption (samādhi). In Śivayogapradīpikā 2.5-8, notably the
order of meditation (dhyāna) and fixation (dhāraṇā) have been swapped. This is rare, but not
entirely unknown in Sanskrit texts, and may be owing to an earlier Śaiva yoga tradition. This
auxiliary order is also found in the Yogavidhi section of the Skaṇḍapurāṇa 6.36ab–41ab, which
gives an exposition of Pāśupatayoga, however, Bisschop and Yokochi (2016) note that it is either
a five or six auxiliary tradition. For a detailed treatment of various yogāṅga systems, with
particular emphasis on the Śaiva traditions, see Vasudeva (2004, 367-436).
35We should note that the theology of the Śaivasiddhānta tradition is strictly dualistic (dvaita),
positing an ontological separation between Śiva, the Lord (pati), and other bound souls (paśu).
Though the adept is able to become equal to Śiva (śīvatulya), a degree of separation always
remains. The Śivayogapradīpikā, while advocating the stage of śivatulya, ultimately promotes a
nondualist (advaita) theology, which draws on the terminology of Advaita Vedānta.
36See, for example, Davis (1991, ix-x) and Brunner (1994). Speaking of the importance of the
jñāna and kriyā sections (pāda) in the Śaiva Āgamas, Davis (1991, x) writes, “The other two
sections, dealing with yogic disciplinary practices [yogapāda] and proper day-to-day conduct
[caryāpāda], are also necessary but clearly subordinate in importance to the first two.” There are
perhaps exceptions to this general observation in the nondual Śaiva schools of Kashmir, for
example the Trika of Abhinavagupta and his successors, where a more yogic and gnoseological
approach has been adopted. For Abhinavagupta, Śaiva ritual, both daily rites and high level
initiation (dīkṣā), is still foundational, however, it is overpowered by a mystical theory of the
descent of power (śaktipāta) from the guru, the chief promulgator in the individual’s realization
of liberation (mokṣa). See Sanderson (1995).
37 As Isaacson (1998, 6) has observed, one the primary differences between tantric Śaiva and
Buddhist Vajrayāna traditions, is the soteriological efficacy of ritual initiation (dīkṣā) for Śaivas
and levels of empowerment (abhiṣeka) for Buddhists. He notes that the “Śaiva ritual of initiation
(dīkṣā) is in general thought to be itself, directly salvific—not in the sense that the initiand is
immediately thereby liberated, but rather that in the ritual the bonds that hold the soul in its
non-liberated condition are cut, with the exception of a tiny portion that gradually decreases (if
the post-initiatory observances are kept correctly) until death, when the soul becomes fully
liberated.” For the Buddhists, on the other hand,“it was in general repeated practice of tantric
meditation that brought about liberation.”
38 Śivayogapradīpikā 3.58 refers to Aṣṭāṅgayoga as an auxiliary of Śiva ritual worship
(śivapūjāṅgam); which is to say, ritual worship becomes the totalizing schema under which the
methods of yoga are the aids of accomplishing. However, elsewhere in the text, the aṅgas of
yoga are homologized (and thus equated) with the traditional elements of pūjā.

"32
39We should note that medieval Sanskrit religious texts often speak of an internalized worship
of God (manasā pūjā). Broadly speaking, however, ritual worship (pūjā, kriyā) and yoga are
understood within both Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava traditions as separate, though mutually supportive,
religious activities. The famous Vedāntin, Rāmānuja, for example, in his Nityagrantha describes
the methods of meditation and breath-control as interior preparation of the worshipper’s body,
as well as the mental visualization and worship of the deity on a yogic throne (yogapīṭha), with
characteristics very similar to that of the Śivadharmottara (see Clooney 2018; Goodall 2011).
However, in the case of the Nityagrantha, it is important for the completion of the ritual, and the
satisfaction of God (bhagavān), that the traditional material offerings (dravya) and services
(upacāra) are performed; whereas in the Śivayogapradīpikā these are completely interiorized with
their yogic equivalents. For an illuminating overview of the role of yoga within the Vaiṣṇava
Pāñcarātrika daily routine, see Rastelli (2018).
40 For example, in Śivayogapradīpikā 2.6-7, the eight auxiliaries of Aṣṭāṅgayoga are reframed
ritually as follows: yama and niyama comprises self-purification (ātmaśuddhi), āsana becomes the
seat (pīṭha) to house the deity, prāṇāyāma is the water (jala) for bathing the divine liṅga,
pratyāhāra is the fragrant sandalwood paste (gandha), dhyāna is heaps of flowers (prasūnanicaya),
dhāraṇā is the incense (dhūpa), while samādhi itself is the final pure great offering
(śuddhamahopahāra).
41The dating of the Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati is contested. Though it is attributed to the twelfth-
century Gorakṣanātha, White (2012) dates it to the sixteenth century, while Mallinson (2011b)
has argued for a later composition of late seventeenth or early eighteenth century.
42The Nātha Yogis are one of the key Śaiva religious orders associated with the development of
Haṭhayoga traditions, and many of its treatises are attributed to their putative founder
Gorakṣanātha (Hindi: Gorakhnāth, Gorakh). Mallinson (2011b) has recently shown that despite
their later associations with northern India, there is strong evidence to suggest that a proto-
Nātha tradition first emerged in the Deccan region of southern India. Here, the Nātha and
Vīraśaiva connections in the Deccan appear to be strong, yet largely unexplored in a critical
manner, save for Jones (2018). The Telugu Navanāthacaritramu (c. 14-15th century), composed by
Gauraṇa at Śrīśailam, in Andhra Pradesh is telling. This important text, which first codified
written hagiographies of nine Nātha yogis, was compiled by Gauraṇa, who is said to be a
Vīraśaiva. Most curious, is a story found in chapter five (see Jones 2018, 194-95), which depicts a
yogic rivalry between the Vīraśaiva yogi-saint Allama Prabhu and Gorakṣanātha. Allama
Prabhu ridicules the physical yogic powers (siddhi) of Gorakṣanātha and defeates him in a siddhi
contest, after which, Gorakṣanātha admits his defeat and accepts Allama Prabhu as his guru.
This story is also featured in the Kannada Śūnyasampādane (ch. 21) and Prabhuliṅgalīle (ch. 19);
see, Michael (1992, 56-57), and Devadevan (2016, 71), respectively. The Vīraśaiva “defeat” of the
physical Haṭhayoga of Gorakṣanātha make the inclusion of Haṭhayoga techniques in the
Vīraśaiva Śivayogapradīpikā all the more interesting, and the text’s possible relations with the
Nātha yoga traditions all the more curious. This was a problem that was perhaps attempted to
be resolved in Svātmārāma’s Haṭhapradīpikā (15th century), where both Gorakṣanātha and
Allama Prabhu are listed as Great Adepts (mahāsiddha) of Haṭhayoga in Svātmārāma’s yogic
genealogy (Haṭhapradīpikā 1.5-9).

"33
43Birch (forthcoming) has noted that the earlier Netratantra speaks of a similar group of four
metaphysical teachings, comprised of: cakras, ādhāras, five vyoman, and three lakṣyas, “so there is
the very real possibility that both texts borrowed from a third source.” The number and
placement of the cakras and ādhāras, however, are distinct in the Śivayogapradīpikā, and strongly
paralleled in the Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati.
44Unless both texts are drawing on a shared alterior source-text, my suspicion is that the
Siddhasiddhāntapaddhati was drawing on a version of the Śivayogapradīpikā, as the former might
be viewed as a prose form of the metered verses of the latter.
45 These parallels were first noted by Birch (forthcoming).
46See Nemec (2009) on the importance of studying and translating lesser-known Indian texts,
and their value in contributing to the academy’s broader understanding of religion.
47Digital scans of the Sanskrit manuscripts were been obtained during the summer of 2016 from
the Oriental Research Institute in Mysore, the Madras Government Oriental Library at the
University of Madras, and the Adyar Theosophical Library in Chennai. They are recorded in a
variety of south Indian scripts including Kannada, Telugu, Grantha, and Nandināgarī. One of
these manuscripts, as well as three more, have been transcribed into Devanāgarī and digitized
by the Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP).
48The manuscript is listed as ORI C.821 at the Oriental Research Institute, Mysore. It is on
paper, in Devanāgarī script, in good condition, with 6 folios, though incomplete; maintained
only up to the fourth chapter (paṭala).
49The improvements in digital humanities and repositories of searchable e-texts make it now
possible to establish the intertextual borrowings and parallel verses of these Sanskrit texts in
ways unimaginable to previous generations of textual scholars.
50This project thus builds upon other textual studies of Śaiva yoga texts, including Sanderson
(1999) on the Mṛgendratantra, Vasudeva (2004) on the Mālinīvijayottaratantra, Mallinson (2007) on
the Khecarīvidyā, Kiss (2009) on the Matsyendrasaṃhitā, Bühnemann (2011) on the
Śāradātilakatantra, Nicholson (2014) on the Īśvaragītā of the Kūrmapurāṇa, and Birch
(forthcoming) on the Amanaska.
51These include the Amṛtasiddhi, Dattātreyayogaśātra, and especially the Śaiva-inflected,
Amaroughaprabodha, Vivekamārtaṇḍa, Gorakṣaśataka, Yogabīja, Śivasaṃhitā, and the Haṭhapradīpikā.
Information regarding editions of all of these Sanskrit texts can be found in the bibliography.
52It is important to note that yoga was by no means limited to the Śaiva texts and traditions
during the medieval period. They are equally found throughout Vajrayāna Buddhist texts, Jaina
yoga manuals, as well as the Vaiṣṇava Pañcarātrika traditions. In this project, I will on occasion
refer to these texts, especially as the latter pertain to south Indian traditions; though to
circumscribe the vast archive of medieval Sanskrit texts, I will limit myself primarily to the
Śaiva materials. This is also justified because these are the primarily materials our author
Cennasadāśivayogi himself seems to draw from.

"34
53Based on textual parallels I have noticed thus far in my research, I will give attention
especially to the Śivadharmottara, an important early scripture for lay Śaiva devotion, and the
Netratantra, which teaches an eight-fold (aṣṭāṅga) yoga and appears to share some metaphysical
and bodily frameworks with the Śivayogapradīpikā. The Śivadharmottara’s descriptions of the
visualization (dhyāna) of Śiva—wherein the deity is visually installed on a throne (pīṭha, āsana)
and worshipped internally—are notably similar to that of the Śivayogapradīpikā. On the Śaiva
“throne of worship,” see Goodall (2011).
54For example, the Pārameśvarāgama, a unique Vīraśaiva Āgama, whose tenth chapter includes a
description of a Śivayoga with eight auxiliaries (aṣṭāṅgayoga), namely: devotion (bhakti),
dispassion (vairāgya), repetitive practice (abhyāsa), meditation (dhyāna), residing in a secluded
place (ekāntasevana), alms begging (bhikṣāṭana), liṅga worship (liṅgapūjā), and the constant
remembrance (smaraṇa) of Śiva. This Vīraśaiva Śivayoga expression of Aṣṭāṅgayoga is thus
notably different than that of the Śivayogapradīpikā’s. I will also read the Śivayogapradīpikā
alongside the Siddhāntaśikhāmaṇi of Śivayogi Śivācārya (c. 14-15th century). This important
Vīraśaiva work, along with the Anubhavasūtra of Māyideva, is one of the first to systematize the
uniquely Vīraśaiva devotional framework of the six stations (ṣaḍsthala); see Ramanujan (1973,
151-56) and Duquette (2018). That the Siddhāntaśikhāmaṇi is authored by a “Śivayogi” Śivācārya,
and that the primary subject/agent throughout the text is the ideal Śivayogi speaks to a broader
Vīraśaiva Śivayoga tradition beyond the Śivayogapradīpikā.
55Especially sections of the Kriyāsāra of Nīlakaṇṭhaśivācārya (c. 1350-1530), a large and
authoritative Vīraśaiva ritual compendium (paddhati); and the Śivārcanācandrikā of
Appayyadīkṣita (16th century), an important compendium on Śaiva worship (śivapūjā) from
south India, which from my brief reading of it thus far, also appears to include some teachings
on yoga. Compared to the author’s more well-known works on grammar, poetics, and
philosophy, the Śivārcanācandrikā appears lesser-studied; an important exception is De Simini
(2016). On recent scholarship on the polymath and prolific author Appayyadīkṣita, see Bronner
(2015, 2016), Duquette (2015, 2016), and Fisher (2017, forthcoming). I will also drawn on
Davis’ (1991) excellent study of the Śaivasaiddhāntika daily ritual (nityapūjā), based primarily
on the south-Indian Kāmikāgama and Aghoraśiva’s Kriyākramadyotikā (12th century).
56On the problems and challenges in the study of “syncretism” within the study of religion, see
Shaw and Stewart (1994); as it relates to the study of south Asian religions and yoga, see Stewart
(2001), Ernst (2005), and Nicholson (2013).
57Josephson notes that his theory of “hierarchical inclusion” is indebted to Paul Hacker’s earlier
notion of “inklusivismus,” in reference to the “appropriation of central concepts of ‘alien’
systems into one’s own” (Josephson 2012, 273, n.16). Such a strategy of reconciliation and
appropriation is indeed an Indian textual strategy not unique to the Śivayogapradīpikā; it can be
traced back at least to the homological reframing of Vedic ritual in the Upaniṣads, the
theological supersessionism of the Bhagavadgītā, and is moreover, a hallmark of the textual
world of Śaivism. The Śaivasaiddhāntika addition of eleven further metaphysical levels of
reality (tattva) to the standard twenty-five of classical Sāṅkhya is a well-known example (see
Goodall 2015). Here, the earlier metaphysical blueprint of Sāṅkhya is not refuted or rejected, but
rather hierarchically assimilated into a “higher” ontological understanding of reality. It is in this
same fashion, that Svātmarāma in his fifteenth-century Haṭhapradīpikā begins by declaring
Haṭhayoga to be “like a stairway for one who desires to ascend the lofty peak of
Rājayoga” (pronnatarājayogam āroḍhum icchor adhirohiṇīva, Haṭhapradīpikā 1.1 cd).

"35
58Clooney (2003) has spoken of a more expansive and modern expression of “hierarchical
inclusion” in the Hindu universalist writings of Swami Vivekananda.
59While Josephson uses this framework to better understand Japan’s early modern encounter
with non-Japanese, and specifically non-Buddhist, religio-cultural traditions, I suggest that
hierarchical inclusion is a very useful theory for understanding the hermeneutics of medieval
Sanskrit Yogaśāstras and the Śivayogapradīpikā’s strategy for reconciling yogic difference and
alterity within a ritual framework of Śivayoga.
60 According to Bell (1992, 74), “…ritualization is a way of acting that is designed and
orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually
more quotidian, activities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specific
strategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privileging a qualitative
distinction between the 'sacred' and the 'profane,’ and for ascribing such distinctions to realities
thought to transcend the powers of human actors.” Though I do not adhere strictly to Bell’s
fourfold framework of ritualization (1992, 81), her broader notion of moving from ritual to
ritualization I believe is particularly useful for understanding the orientation of Śivayoga. Such
a model is also apparent in Adam Seligman, et al. (2008, 5), who write: “It is the framing of
actions, not the actions themselves, that makes them rituals.” Here, we are concerned with the
distinct manner in which yogic praxis is framed ritually. And while ritualization for Bell,
following Bourdieu’s logic of practice, is always social, understood as a “strategic play of power,
of domination and resistance, within the arena of the social body (1992, 204), here we are
interested in the textualized prescriptions of an individual yogi’s practice, and theological
frameworks of ritualization accomplished through Śivayoga.
“With deceptive simplicity, one might say that while the documentary marks a difference, the
61

worklike makes a difference” (LaCapra 1983, 30).

62For an excellent example of reading medieval south Indian Sanskrit texts and their
commentaries with LaCapra in mind, see Galewicz (2009).
63A few recent projects of note here include Galewicz (2009), Devadevan (2016), Stoker (2016),
Fisher (2017), Ben-Herut (2018), and the dissertations of Steinschneider (2017) and Jones (2018).
64Mallinson (forthcoming), has recently argued that it is most likely the south Indian maṭhas
(monastic institutions) where medieval Yogaśāstras, such as the Śivayogapradīpikā, were likely
produced. ”The rise of monasteries in southern India and the Deccan is the most likely reason
for the appearance in the 11th to 15th centuries of a corpus of texts on haṭhayoga in which ascetic
practices were codified in manuals that could be used by students, scholars and aspiring yogis
of any tradition.”
65The Haṭha Yoga Project (HYP) is a five-year European Research Council (ERC) funded
research project. Part of the the project's output is the publication of critical editions and English
translations of ten important Sanskrit works on Haṭhayoga, dating from the eleventh through
eighteenth centuries. The Śivayogapradīpikā is a part of this larger textual yoga corpus, and my
dissertation and edition will be enhanced through a highly collaborative effort and close
working relations with the HYP research team, comprised of Dr. James Mallinson, Dr. Jason
Birch, Dr. Mark Singleton, and Dr. Daniela Bevilacqua.

"36
66There are currently two other scholarly projects, that I am aware of, which are seeking to
assess the Sanskrit religio-philosophical textual record of Vīraśaiva traditions. Aspects of these
ongoing projects have been mapped out in Fisher (2017, forthcoming) and Duquette (2018). For
a brief overview of the Sanskrit Vīraśāiva materials, see Sanderson (2015, 38).
67Sanderson (2009) has magisterially documented that the traditions of Śaivism constituted the
dominant religious matrix of India from the fifth through twelfth centuries of the Common Era.
As a fifteenth-century text, the Śivayogapradīpikā thus arose after this period. I have been invited
to participate in a pre-conference workshop on this very theme at the upcoming 2018 South Asia
Conference at the University of Madison, Wisconsin, which I believe will be highly informative
towards contextualizing my project within the broader Śaiva world of post-twelfth century
south India.
68The “Knowledge Systems on the Eve of Colonialism” project restricts itself to the following
seven intellectual disciplines during the early modern period of 1550-1750: “vyākaraṇa (language
analysis), mīmāṃsā, nyāya (logic and epistemology), dharmaśāstra (law and moral philosophy,
broadly speaking), alaṅkāraśāstra (poetics), āyurveda (life science), and jyotiḥśāstra (astral
science).” According to Sheldon Pollock, these seven disciplines “have been selected for their
centrality to Sanskrit culture (language and discourse analysis), for their comparative and
historical value (life and astral sciences), or for the new vitality the system seems to have
demonstrated during these centuries (logic and epistemology)” (Pollock 2011, 20-21). While the
composition of the Śivayogapradīpikā (c. 15th century) slightly predates the early modern period
of Pollock’s project, its relevance within the construction of precolonial Sanskrit knowledge
systems remains justifiable, and might be thought of as contributing to a broader investigation
of the history of yoga “on the eve of colonialism.”
69See, for example, Coakley (1997), Flood (2005), Michaels and Wulf (2012), and Holdrege
(2015).
70According to Foucault, technologies of the self refer to “techniques which permit individuals
to effect, by their own means, a certain number of operations on their own bodies, on their own
souls, on their own thoughts, on their own conduct, and this in a manner so as to transform
themselves, modify themselves, and to attain a certain state of perfection, of happiness, of
purity, of supernatural power, and so on” (1999 [1980]: 162). Though undoubtedly we are
dealing here with different ontologies, different notions of the self, subjectivity, self care, and
bodily technologies in late medieval south Indian Sanskrit materials than Foucault's Greco-
Roman and Christian sources—nonetheless, I find Foucault’s concept in surprising accord with
Sanskrit yoga sources when describing the traditional aims of yogic praxis.

"37