1

haṃsamiṭṭhu: “pātañjalayoga is nonsense”

miṭṭhu is haṃsa, bhūlī is haṃsī1

It may have been in the pre-winter2 of 1764 AD that a desperate and dejected young Gujarati smārta
Brahmin called Miṭṭhu (or Miṭṭha) Śukla le the city of Benares in a quest to end his life, precipitating a
series of events which culminated in the writing of a work called the Haṃsavilāsa, or the ‘Transport of
the Haṃsas’3 that is the focus of this study.
This date is a provisional hypothesis based on a preliminary reading of the Haṃsavilāsa’s frame story.
According to its own colophons, the Haṃsavilāsa is a work ostensibly written by an otherwise unknown
Haṃsamiṭṭhu,4 a name metaphorically combining the two identities of Haṃsa and Miṭṭhu. Haṃsa, we
learn, is a pre-Miṭṭhu identity who incarnates as Miṭṭhu and subsequently awakens to a new composite
identity called Haṃsamiṭṭhu emerging halfway through the frame story. His wife Bhūlī partakes of a
similar dual identity as Haṃsī. This problematizes their already complex identity even further, for the
Haṃsavilāsa propounds a metaphysical non-dualism that views correlated male and female identities as
partial complements of a complex whole identity. The frame story, called the “Euphorium of the Causes
for the Descent of the Scripture,”5 is told by an omniscient third-person narrator in an innovative mode
combining elements of spiritual autobiography, cosmology, and travelogue.6 The work then shis to a
first person narrative calqued on the inherited Tantric dialogue between Pārvatī and Śiva. While the
common Tantric dialogue is revealed on the unimaginably remote Mt. Kailāsa and involves vast cosmic
timeframes, the Haṃsavilāsa is interspersed with asides establishing a humble domestic mise en scène. For
example, in the chapter discussed below we meet the following paragraphing trope: “O Housewife! Set
aside your housework and take my words to heart.”7 In this dialogue Haṃsī is assigned the role of the
questioner who prompts Haṃsa (he appears as Haṃsamiṭṭhu only in the colophons) to construct an
elaborate doxography of rival doctrines culminating in the teaching of a Rājayoga that is a Śākta form
of the Rāsalīlā. The introduction is plausibly an integral part of a text composed by the same, though
admittedly complex, authorial identity as the rest of the work.
The reasoning behind the proposed date for Miṭṭhu’s departure from Benares is the following. Accord-
ing to his own8 statements he arrived in Benares around 1755-1756 AD,9 and once there he spent some
time (kiyatkālam) studying Upaniṣadic and Tantric scriptures. We do not yet know how long exactly
Miṭṭhu stayed in Benares. Given the major political upheavals occurring in this period, there may have
been external events that prompted Miṭṭhu to leave or even flee from Benares. Three dates of signifi-

1 For a briefer introduction to Haṃsamiṭṭhu see Vasudeva (2011).

2 That is, hemanta, approximately September twentieth to November twentieth.
3 I am interpreting Haṃsa- as an elliptic ekaśeṣadvandva compound: Haṃsī ca Haṃsaś ca (tayor vilāsaḥ). I have corrected the haphazard

word separation and some spelling errors using square brackets for insertions [kiṃcit], and braces for deletions {kiṃcit}. The text as
printed is more than occasionally dubious, and a new critical edition is called for also to determine possible textual stratifications.
4 Usually formulated as: iti śrīhaṃsamiṭṭhuprakāśite śrīhaṃsavilāse…. I am analyzing Haṃsamiṭṭhu as karmadhāraya compound Haṃsaś

cāsau Miṭṭhuś ca, “Haṃsa who is Miṭṭhu” or “Miṭṭhu who is Haṃsa.”

5 Haṃsavilāsa p. 4: granthāvatārahetu[ ]nāma prathamollāsaḥ.
6 Haṃsavilāsa pp. 3–4.
7 Haṃsavilāsa p. 43: gṛhiṇi! gṛhakṛtyaṃ hitvā gṛhyatāṃ hṛdyaṃ madvacanam.
8 That is, in his identity as Haṃsamiṭṭhu.
9 The Haṃsavilāsa gives dates in saṃvat years of an unspecified era, which I take to be Vikramasaṃvat years, as a Śakasaṃvat dating

would give us implausibly late dates in the nineteenth century, probably postdating the MSS of the Haṃsavilāsā.
 2

cance come to mind: 1) On January 14, 1761, the Marāṭhās were defeated at Panipat, and concern for his
family’s welfare—Gujarat was under Marāṭhā rule—might have compelled Miṭṭhu to leave Benares. 2)
Aer the battle of Buxar on October 22, 1764 a British army led by Munroe advanced on Benares, occu-
pied it, and collected revenue. It would not be surprising if Miṭṭhu, aer all not a native of Benares,
might have chosen to leave in the rumor and panic preceding Munroe’s arrival. This is the departure
date tentatively proposed above. 3) Between 1769 and 1773 (principally 1770) Bengal, Bihar and Orissa
were afflicted by a devastating famine estimated to have killed one-third of the population. It is possi-
ble that it was this apocalyptic event that hastened Miṭṭhu’s descent into despair and pushed him over
the edge. We have evidence that Miṭṭhu was not an otherworldly ascetic, indifferent to social and mate-
rial realities. In the second chapter10 of the ‘Transport of the Haṃsas,’ a passage that can be read as an
explication of Miṭṭhu’s compulsion to pursue religion, the horrors of drought and famine feature
prominently in a lengthy discussion of the evils of the Kaliyuga.
“Alas, my beloved! In this age of Kali that I have just described, the preceptor Kapila depicts living
beings as overwhelmingly suffering the torments of hell. Whether there are any that are happy any-
where at all is a mystery.”11
Of course, Miṭṭhu may have le Benares at a quite different time, indifferent to these events, since hu-
man agency as the driving force of history is rarely adequately explained by such predictable motives,
especially where religion is involved. Whatever the precise date of his departure turns out to be, and
with further research we will be hopefully able to narrow down the possibilities, the hypothetical date
proposed above puts him into his late twenties. We may further guess that his appearance was not en-
tirely compatible with that of the typical, late eighteenth century Gujarati brahmin beau depicted by
K.M. Munshi:12
“His angarkha was of thin, Dacca muslin, tight-fitting and embroidered. His dhoti came from Nag-
pur, and had the broad red-silk border which even the rich coveted; and he wore it with finical
grace. He never went outdoors without first donning a newly dyed and fresh-folded deep-red tur-
ban from Nadiad.”
Rather, Miṭṭhu, as he made his way west and south towards the Vindhyā mountain range that separates
north and central India, harbored feelings of renunciation and disappointment,13 earlier he had even felt
that his own body was a corpse.14 In such an anguished condition of neglect he may have appeared to
casual observers like a gosain ascetic,15 though he might have been recognizable as a Gujarati by the pe-
culiar way in which his dhoti was tied.16 His journey took him to the Vindhyācala temple in Mirzapur,17 a
place destined to gain notoriety some fiy or sixty years later in Sleeman’s sensationalist accounts of

10 Attributed in the second Ullāsa of the Haṃsavilāsa to the Skandapurāṇa but as yet untraced in the printed recensions.
11 Haṃsavilāsa p.8 ll. 1–2 continuing immediately aer the description of the Kali age: re kānte! proktalakṣaṇe ’smin kalau tu bāhulyena
śrikapilācāryapradarśitalakṣaṇāḥ prāṇino narakaduḥkhabhājo dṛśyante. sukhinas tu kvacid vidyante na vety avagantavyam.
12 Cit. Ghurye (1995:131–2).
13 na tato ’pi saṃśayavaśāt prasannahṛdayo ’tas tām apy upahāya..., ‘Despite this, because of doubts, his heart was not pellucid, and there-

fore he le it... (i.e., Kāśī=Benares).’

14 Haṃsavilāsa p.3: dhik kalevaram iti.
15 See Pinch 2006.
16 See Ghurye 1995:131.
17 Haṃsavilāsa p.3: ...tatsakāśavartiśrīvindhyādrikandarāntargataśrīvindhyavāsinīśaktim upagataḥ, ‘[He] approached the Goddess Vindh-

yavāsinī who lay hidden in the caves of the majestic Vindhya mountains which were nearby.’
 3

“thugee.”18 A visiting European of the period would probably have seen Miṭṭhu’s appearance in the
Vindhyācala temple in quite a different light. When H.H. Wilson (compiler of the first Sanskrit-English
dictionary in 1819), who was later to become the first Boden professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, visited 56
years later he saw the scene through a different lens:19
“He [Professor H.H. Wilson] visited the temple in 1820, then frequented by the ruffians of the
western provinces. It presented, so the author writes, an extraordinary assemblage of most
atrocious-looking vagabonds.”
Just over a mile away lies a celebrated cave dedicated to the Goddess Vindhyavāsinī (see Yokochi 2004).
There Miṭṭhu planned to commit ritual suicide,20 for it is unlikely that the expression °tanutyāga° in this
passage of his spiritual autobiography merely means “neglecting the body.” That the Vindhyācala tem-
ples remained sites for ritual suicide well into the nineteenth century is evidenced by Colebrooke’s re-
port:
“Instances are not rare of persons cutting their own throats before the image of Bhaváni, at the
temples of Vindhyavásiní, near Mirzapur.”21
At this moment of spiritual crisis a chance meeting with a Paramahaṃsa mendicant changed everything
for Miṭṭhu: In a sudden awakening he remembered the esoteric secret of who he really was and what he
was doing in this world.22 Dying prematurely was no longer an option.
What transformative esoterium had the Paramahaṃsa divulged to Miṭṭhu? Haṃsamiṭṭhu himself re-
veals it in the frame story preceding the autobiographical passages to “The Transport of the Haṃsas”.
The events do not take place in our ordinary universe, rather the frame story makes use of the technical
vocabulary of the Śrividyā cult of the Goddess Tripurasundarī, a Kaula cult originating in love-magic
(see Sanderson 2009:47–9), to describe locations in the sacred space of the Śrīcakra. Haṃsamiṭṭhu is
claiming that these events took place in an undecaying counterpart (akṣaralīlā) beyond our conventional
reality (kṣaralīlā) that is represented in our world as the center of the Śrīcakra:
On the other side of this universe is Śrīnagara, an unbounded realm of light uncharted even by the
sacred scriptures. There abides something named the androgyne Ardhanārīśvara, the abode of the
plenary bliss of transcendent Brahman. At one time, it engendered the volition: “May I who am one
become many and divert myself.”23

18 Wagner 2009.
19 Colebrooke 1873:188.
20 Haṃsavilāsa p.3: tatra tu kṛtatanutyāgaikatānaḥ sa miṭṭhaḥ…, ‘There Miṭṭha, his mind set on giving up his body,…’
21 See also U. Thakur (1976); for a provisional discussion of specifically Śaiva doctrines on yogic suicide see Vasudeva (2004:437–

45), and, in more detail Mirnig (2009:24–25, 50, 70–71, 269–270).

22 Haṃsavilāsa p.3: ...sa miṭṭhaḥ kenacit śrīparamahaṃsena svāminopadiṣṭātmarahasyaḥ svātmanaṃ haṃsam iti manvānaḥ striyaṃ ca haṃsīm iti

pramuditoraskaḥ kā bhītiḥ śrītiraskāriṇīmohapaṭajanyāsmin saṃsāre śrīhaṃsayor āvayor iti nibiḍakṛtaikaniścayaḥ punaḥ svahaṃsyāḥ pārśvam āyātaḥ,
‘...Miṭṭha was taught the esoterium of the Self (or: his self) by some Paramahaṃsa Svāmin, and realizing that he himself was
Haṃsa and that his wife was Haṃsī, his chest swelling with joy, [thinking]: “In this world of transmigration what harm can the
glorious Tiraskāriṇī’s blind veil of stupefaction do to us Hamsas!,” he, resolved upon a single purpose, returned to the side of his
Haṃsī.’
23 Haṃsavilāsa p.2, l. 2–3: athāsya jagataḥ pāre nirāvaraṇaṃ jyotirmaṇḍalaṃ nigamānām apy agocaraṃ śrīnagaram asti. tatra parabrah-

mapūrṇānandadhāmārdhanārīśvaranāmakaṃ kiṃ (kiṃ] em., kaṃ Ed) cid vidyate. athaikadā “eko ’haṃ nānārūpo bhūtvā krīḍeyam” ity utthitaḥ
saṅkalpas tasmāt.
 4

To justify this initial volitional impulse (saṃkalpa) for creation, Haṃsamiṭṭhu quotes the Chāndoa
(6.2.3) and Bṛhadāraľaka Upaniṣads (1.4.2).24 The volitional impulse leads to the appearance of supreme
Śakti who propagates herself into many sub-Śaktis. Supreme Śiva then engages in sensual revelry with
these many Śaktis and unmanifest matter comes into being, and from that the world we live in. To es-
tablish that this, on the face of it, illogical causation, stepping from imperishable consciousness (akṣara)
to perishable materiality (kṣara), cannot and need not be rationally explained, Haṃsamiṭṭhu quotes both
Śruti revelation and Smṛti tradition, notably a passage which can be found in the critical text of the
Mahābhārata: “Those things which are inconceivable are inaccessible to logic,”25 and is cited already by
Śaṅkara in the Brahmasūtrabhā﬇a as the view of the Paurāṇikas. This sets the tone for the whole work,
large sections of which comprise of skillfully juxtaposed citations (usually without attribution) with
prose amplifications. Haṃsamiṭṭhu is apologetic; this account of creation through cosmic revelry can
be no more than a mere “approximation” (diṅmātram). What has this got to do with Miṭṭhu’s awakening
to the purpose of his life?
The frame story continues:
In Śrīnagara, while supreme Śiva, the haven of utter bliss, continually engages in sensual rapture, a
dear servant called Haṃsa is ever at his side. Once, on the occasion of the autumn festival, Śiva, the
Lord of the sensual rapture, cold-shouldered the glorious great Queen, the supreme Śakti, and en-
joyed the ecstasy of sensual rapture with others such as Lalitā, Kāmeśvarī, Nityaklinnā, Kulasundarī,
Bhagamālinī, etc. Then the great Queen, running towards her own apartments, accosted Haṃsa:
“Ah! I have seen through your master. How he has slighted me!” She stammered this and started to
leave. Haṃsa entreated her: “Mistress! Wait a moment until I inform the Lord and return again,”
and he went to his lord. There he bowed down bewildered: “My Lord! Why are you scorning the
great Queen?” The supreme soul ignored him too and simply continued in his revelry. “Why this
lechery, that he should scorn his own wife and be intimate with the spouses of others?” thus Haṃsa
mulled Śiva’s deeds over in his mind. Then, seeing that he was despondent, Śiva told him to go and
fetch the great Queen. Haṃsa put her on his shoulder and brought her to the hall of sensual rap-
ture, and Śiva attained what he wanted and was satisfied.26
This, it turns out, was a test for Haṃsa. Śiva was satisfied with his performance and offered to fulfill his
wishes. Haṃsa realized that he had been duped by Śiva into thinking dualistically, into believing that
these Śaktis were the wives of others, and not emanations of Pārvatī. Haṃsa asked for the boon of be-

24 Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s citations are frequently accompanied by prose paraphrases.For example, in chapter 51 he quotes Chāndoopaniṣad
8.14.1: śyetam adatkam adatkaṃ śyetaṃ lindu mābhigāṃ lindu mābhigām. P. Olivelle (1998:287) translates the passage as a reference to
old age: “Let me not go to grey and toothless state, to the toothless, grey, and slobbery state!” Haṃsamiṭṭhu, probably influ-
enced by Śaṅkara’s commentary, adds the gloss: adatkaṃ dantarahitaṃ lindu picchilaṃ śyetaṃ strīcihnam ityarthaḥ, making it clear that
he interpreted this as a reference to the vulva, and we may translate his understaning as: “May I not go to the pink and toothless
[place], to the toothless, pink, and slimy!” Śaṅkara appears to have taken this as a refernce to the return to the womb during re-
birth, but Haṃsamiṭṭhu quotes this as a scriptural criticism of the procreative act.
25 Mahābhārata 6.6.11: acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṃs tarkeṇa yojayet.
26 Haṃsavilāsa p.2, l. 19–31: sarvadaiva śrīnagare śrīrāsalīlāṃ viracayataḥ pūrṇānandadhāmnaḥ śrīmadardhanārīśvarasya pārśvavārtī priyaś ca

haṃsākhyānikaḥ kaś cit sevakaḥ sthitaḥ. ekadā tu śrīśaradutsavasamaye 'nekaśaktimaṇḍalālaṅkṛtaḥ śrīrāseśvaraḥ śrīmahārājñīṃ parāśaktim
apākṛtyānyābhiḥ śrīlalitākāmeśvarīnityaklinnākulasundarībhagamālinīprabhṛtibhiḥ saha rāsavilāsaṃ kṛtavān. tataḥ sā mahārājñī nijadhāma prati
dhāvantī haṃsam ākārya “re re dṛṣṭaṃ tava svāminaḥ svāntam. kiṃ mayi sāhasam” iti sagadgadam udīrya prasthitā. atha sa haṃsaḥ "bhoḥ svāmini!
nimeṣaṃ sthīyatāṃ yāvat svāminaṃ nivedya punar āgaccheyam" iti sapraṇayaṃ prārthya svāminaḥ sāmīpyam agamat. tatrāpi sasambhramaṃ natvā
bhoḥ svāmin! kim iti śrīmahārājñī nirasteti samprārthito 'pi sa puruṣottamas tam apy avamatya tathaiva vihṛtavān. kim idaṃ bata lāmpaŀaṃ yat
parakīyābhiḥ sākaṃ svīyām avagaṇayya vilasanam iti tena tadācaraṇam manasy ākṣiptam. atha viṣaṇṇamānasaṃ taṃ haṃsasevakaṃ niśamya "re
haṃsa! calānīyate sā sāṃrājñī" ity uktvātmanaḥ skandhe tām upaveśya rāsamaṇḍalam ānītā.so ’pi svābhilaṣitaṃ labdhvā saṃtuṣṭaḥ.
 5

ing allowed to see Śiva’s other, ephemeral play, the kṣaralīlā that constitutes our universe. Twice Śiva at-
tempted to dissuade Haṃsa, asking him to choose a different boon. The third time he agreed and ful-
filled his wish, but only aer giving him some crucial instructions:
My friend listen. That other play of mine is veiled by a great power of delusion called the venerable
Tiraskāriṇī. Therefore, due to the duality instigated by her power, there is great calamity there. The
scripture declares this with the statement: “He goes from death to death who sees plurality here”.27
My colleagues, the venerable Rudra, Viṣṇu and Brahmā are the rulers in this ephemeral play. Tens of
millions of others, who are partial incarnations of me, have descended there with frail, short-lived
bodies, bearing various names and forms, adhering to all kinds of rules of conduct, life-stages and
castes, in accordance to paths laid down in a plethora of doctrines taught in diverse traditional texts
and legends. They take on the bodies of gods, demons, humans, animals, birds, and beasts. They
exhaust their stock of experiences, and in their last life, through the power of a special kind of good
fortune, they take to the path of Śrīvidyā as taught by a true teacher, and following the observances
of the true doctrine, they realize the truth of the self and arrive back here in Śrīnagara. My servant!
Because of your wish you too will descend there, but because of my affection for you, you will re-
turn to Śrīnagara aer a single incarnation. Additionally, some other beings in their final births will
be instructed by you and they will be able to return to my presence, and, through your teachings,
other living beings removed in time will be able to return to me with scant effort.28
Śiva then sends Haṃsa together with his wife Haṃsī on a quasi-interdimensional journey to India to
awaken these favored living beings. It is at this point that the historical actors Miṭṭhu and Bhūlī are in-
scribed into the transcendent register of the narrative. The result is an unusual blending of the scrip-
tural and the historical.
Haṃsa attained a male human form as the child of a smārta Brahmin family in [vikrama]saṃvat 1794 in
Gujarat on the day of the full moon in the month Phālguna29 at midday.30 This date converts to
Wednesday, March 5, 1738 AD. His consort Haṃsī also became manifest in female form, but the precise
date is not recorded. Their parents, Surī and Kṛpārāma, and Rāmakumārī and Jīva, were partial incarna-
tions or “emanations” of Śakti and Śiva. On the twelh day aer their birth they were named Miṭṭhu
and Bhūlī by their parents with great celebration. Miṭṭhu grew rapidly, and in his fih year, the earliest
time permitted by the law books, he received from his family priest (kulācārya) his Vedic upanayana ini-
tiation with the Gāyatrīmantra and Sāman hymns. Miṭṭhu Śukla’s family seem to have observed a syn-
cretic Smārta/Tantric form of Hinduism as he also received instruction in the Kaula Śrīvidyā system.
Protected from Tiraskāriṇī—divinisation of the power of obscuration—by the grace of the Goddess

27 Cit. Bṛhadāraľakopaniṣad 4.4.20.

28 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l. 4–15: bhoḥ sakhe śrūyatām. asmadīyā sā līlā tu śrītiraskāriṇīnāmnyā mahāmāyayācchāditāsti. atas tatra tatprabhāvato dvai-
tabhāvatvān mahāpattiḥ. śrutiś ca “mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum āpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati” ityādi vakti. kiṃ ca kṣaraprapañcakhelayāyāṃ śrīrudraviṣṇu-
vidhātāro ’smatsakhāyas tadadhipatyena vartante. itare 'pi tatrāvatīrṇā asmadaṃśabhūtā koṭiśo nānānāmarūpāḥ kṣaṇabhaṅguraśarīriṇaḥ
śrīsmṛtipurāṇādinānāprapañcaśāstrapradarśitapathibhir vicitravarṇāśramācāraniṣṭhāḥ. surāsuranaramṛgapakṣipaśvādilakṣaṇāni kati kati kalevarāṇi
dhṛtvā tattattanūcitaṃ bhogadhanaṃ ca bhuktvā punaḥ pāścātyajanmani kasmiṃś cid bhāavaśena sadgurusamupadiṣṭaśrīrahasyamārgam āśritya
sacchāstradarśitānuṣṭhānena vijñātātmarahasyatattvāḥ śrīnagaram iha samāsādayanti. re kiṅkara! tadabhilāṣavaśāt tavāpy avatāras tatra bhavi﬇ati.
kiṃ tv asmatpremṇā hy ekenaivāvatāreṇa tvaṃ tu śrīpuraṃ prāpsyasi. kiṃ ca bhavadupadiṣṭāḥ kati canāpare 'pi pāścātyajanmino 'smannikaṭam
āyāsyanti. tvadupadeśenetare ’pi prāṇinaḥ svalpaśramāḥ kālāntare 'py asmatpadam āsādayi﬇anti.
29 February-March, i.e. the day on which the spring festival Holī is celebrated.
30 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l. 18–20.
 6

Gāyatrī31 he claims to have mastered this system with little study (svalpābhyāsena). In his twelh year he
married Bhūlī and entered the life stage of a householder (gṛhāśrama). Since he was as yet unaware of the
liberating, esoteric truth of “universal fusion” (sāmarasya)32 that he would discover later on, he spent the
next four years merely gratifying his animalistic instincts, “frolicking like a crow” as he himself puts it.33
In his seventeenth year (i.e. 1755 AD), however, a causeless dispassion (ākasmikī viraktiḥ) welled up within
him.34 Miṭṭha became indifferent even to his own body, and, considering it no more than a corpse, he
decided to leave his home and family and go to Benares to cast off his mortal body. Miṭṭhu is not ex-
plicit concerning the kind of death he envisages, but it appears that he initially had hoped to achieve
liberation by natural death in Benares (Kāśīmṛtimokṣa)35 rather than the esoteric practice of yogic suicide
(utkrānti). The former is more likely since in scriptural accounts utkrānti presupposes considerable yogic
skills, which he does not claim to have possessed at that time, and, more importantly, because there
would be no compelling doctrinal reason for him to commit yogic suicide in Vindhyācala rather than in
Benares.
When Miṭṭhu had arrived in Benares some time aer 1755 AD, the Zāmīndār administrator of the city
was the Bhūmihāra Brahmin Balwant Singh (reg. 1740–1770 AD). Despite chronic political disturbances
(Motīcandra 1962:253–265), his turbulent rule ushered in a period of increased agricultural production,
trade, and revenue which saw Benares become the inland commercial capital of the Indian subconti-
nent. From 1750–90, aer the decline of Murshidabad, Benares was the fastest growing urban area of
India (Bayly 1983:104), ideally situated to profit from the growing overland trade between the Marāṭhā
confederacy and British Bengal. The fast growing city attracted also many scholars. Upādhyāya
(1985:124–31) reports that the Marāṭhā Peshwas subsidized scholars in Benares with stipends of three
lakhs of rupees per year. It also drew ascetics and religious seekers of all kinds, and Miṭṭhu, a seventeen
year old smārta Brahmin initiate into the cult of the Goddess Tripurasundarī from Gujarat may have
been one of them. As Bayly (1985:187, fn.36) notes, the new Bhūmihāra rulers of Benares had striven to
make it more attractive to Hindus: “In Benares similarly the new Bhumihar rulers banned the slaughter
of cattle within the holiest parts of the city.”
Once there, Miṭṭhu tells us that he “reveled in the study of the Tantras and the Upaniṣads for a while
and learned some esoteric doctrines.”36 Since these works are abundantly cited in the Haṃsavilāsa we get
an insider’s view of some of the major theological and philosophical issues debated in Benares at the
time. This study did not suffice to answer his questions, however. His heart was not at peace and he le
Benares to seek death more proactively, leading to the meeting with the Paramahaṃsa Ānandanātha
noted above.37 In this encounter Miṭṭhu was told the secret of his true identity, and he realized that he

31 As is typical for Haṃsaviḷāsa, such statements are substantiated by nirvacana etymologies: gāyantaṃ trāyata ity atas tayā śrīgāyatryā
trātaḥ.
32 For this technical term see Vasudeva (2007:534–36).
33 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l. 27–8: tatas tayā sārdhaṃ gṛhāśramam āśrityāviditaśrīsāmarasyatattvaḥ kākakrīḍayāṣoḍaśavarṣavāsarā nītāḥ.
34 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l. 28–30: saptadaśe varṣe tu {t}tasminn ākasmikī[ ]viraktir ujjṛmbhitā / tato vairāavaśena tāṃ tyaktvā dhik kalevaram iti[

]tad api tyaktukāmaḥ śrīkailāsasadṛśīṃ sa kāśīṃ prayātaḥ. ‘In his seventeenth year, however, a causeless dispassion welled up within him.
Under the sway of this indifference, he abandoned his bride, and thinking [of his own body]: “Shame! it is a corpse!”, wishing to
cast it off, he went to magnificent Vārāṇasī which resembled Mt. Kailāsa.’
35 Elaborated in works such as the Kāśīmṛtimokṣa of Sureśvara. See also Minkowski (2002:335–338) on the meaning of the term

Kāśīmaraṇān muktiḥ.
36 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l.30–31: atha śrīkāśyāṃ kiyatkālam āgamopaniṣadādy ullasitaṃ ca kiñci(d) rahasyam āśrutam.
37 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l.31–32: na tato ’pi saṃśayavaśāt prasannahṛdayo ’tas tām apy

apahāya.tatsakāśavartiśrīvindhyādrikandarāntargataśrīvindhyavāsinīśaktim upagataḥ.
 7

himself was Haṃsa and that his wife was Haṃsī. He tells us that his “chest swelled with joy” as he be-
came aware that: “In this world of transmigration what harm can the glorious Tiraskāriṇī’s blind veil of
obscuration do to us Haṃsas!” Then he rushed back to be beside his Haṃsī, Bhūlī,38 who was, as he
now knew, the other half of his being.39 Once back in Gujarat he played a waiting game with her, not
revealing the secret of their origin, waiting “eagerly, day and night” for her to show signs of dispassion.
When she eventually confided her dispassion to Miṭṭhu as they were resting in private he considered his
life fulfilled and promptly imparted the Paramahaṃsa’s secret to her.40 As Haṃsa and Haṃsī they
spent the rest of their days engaged in “royal yoga” (rājayoga), which in the Haṃsavilāsa designates a
Śākta form of the Rāsalīlā involving above all sexual intercourse.41 They also awakened a few other cou-
ples in accordance with their maturing karma, and revealed the esoteric scripture called the Haṃsavilāsa,
“Transport of the Haṃsas.” They honored the esoteric doctrines of Śrīvidyā for the remainder of their
lives, celebrating the sensual rapture (rāsalīlā) through sexual intercourse, and “…finally returned to their
own place, resplendent in the northern/transcendent direction, the magnificent hall of sensual rapture
in the coruscating wish-granting-jewel palace in the resonant centre of the Śrīcakra.”42
This autobiographical frame story raises unusually complex issues of identity. Haṃsamiṭṭhu constructs
the narrative of his autobiography as if it were a story of the Yogavasiṣṭha, a work he frequently cites with
approval, where we find similar motifs of reincarnations and awakenings in parallel universes.43 The dif-
ference, of course, is that Haṃsamiṭṭhu presents this not as fiction but as fact.
The remainder of this paper investigates the Haṃsavilāsa’s critique of Pātañjalayoga and his justification
of his own soteriology. Haṃsamiṭṭhu uses the terms Pātañjalayoga and Haṭhayoga interchangeably,
showing that he did not know of a practice of Patañjali’s system outside of the Haṭhayoga tradition.
This system he contrasts unfavorably with his own understanding of Rājayoga. As is common in śāstric
discourse, he begins with what he considers a faithful presentation of his opponents view, the pūrva-
pakṣa.

pātañjalayoga is haṭhayoga
The “Ninth Euphorium” (Ullāsa 9) of the Haṃsavilāsa, titled “An Account of Pātañjala Doctrine,” forms
part of a longer doxographical section that critically examines rival soteriologies and systems of phi-
losophy. It begins with an identification of a key mechanism by which Pātañjalayoga is supposed to
work:

38 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l.32–35: tatra tu kṛtatanutyāgaikatānaḥ sa miṭṭhaḥ kenaci(c ch)rīparamahaṃsena svāminopadiṣṭātmarahasyaḥ svātmanaṃ
haṃsam iti[ ]manvānaḥ striyaṃ ca haṃsīm iti pramuditoraskaḥ kā bhītiḥ śrītiraskāriṇīmohapaṭajanyāsmin saṃsāre śrīhaṃsayor āvayor iti ni-
biḍakṛtaikaniścayaḥ punaḥ svahaṃsyāḥ[ ]pārśvam āyātaḥ.
39 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l.35–36: tatrāgamya tūṣṇīkaḥ svīyārdhāṅgarūpiľāṃ tasyāṃ bhūlyāṃ viraktiṃ pratyaikṣata.
40 Haṃsavilāsa p.3, l.36– p.4, l. 1–4: kadāsyāṃ sahasā vairāam utpatsyata iti. ahorātraṃ lipsamāne sati miṭṭhaiḥ śrīparamahaṃsaprasādenai-

kadaikānte vihāravelāyāṃ tayā saniḥśvāsaṃ svamanogataṃ śuddhavairāaṃ vijñāpitam. tato hṛṣṭaḥ sa miṭṭhaḥ kṛtakṛtyo 'ham anayā[ ]kāntayety
ātmānaṃ kṛtārthaṃ manyamānaḥ prabhāte nirvṛttitasnānasandhyādiḥ susnātāṃ sānuliptāṃ sālaṅkṛtāṃ tāṃ svāṅkam upaveśya śrīpārama-
haṃsyarahasyopadeśaṃ tasyai dattavān.
41 Haṃsavilāsa p. 319, ll. 22–25: “What are we saying? In divine sensual rapture an indescribable nectar is to be drunk. Food cooked

to one’s taste is to be eaten. And I insist that lovemaking involves the deliberate ejaculation of semen.” For Haṃsa’s exposition of
this sexual yoga system as Rājayoga see Vasudeva 2011.
42 Haṃsavilāsa p.4, l.5–8.
43 See Granoff 1989, O’Flaherty 1984 etc.
 8

“Some of the learned claim that Patañjali’s teachings are a true doctrine. For what reason? Because
they liberate from karma.”44
Here one might have expected Haṃsamiṭṭhu to supply a reference to the eradication of karma (kar-
manivṛtti) as it is presented at the end of the Yogasūtra (especially 4.29–30)45 or at least some derivative
directly based on this theory that he may have studied.46 Instead he predicates, without naming his
source, the principle that: “Bound by karma one is a limited soul, freed from karma one is Sadāśiva.”
This half-verse, surprisingly, is a citation of Kulārṇavatantra 9.43cd, an esoteric Tantric work.
Haṃsamiṭṭhu next asserts that the Pātañjala system therefore seeks to forcibly free the limited soul
from all karma and thereby enable it to become Sadāśiva.47 This perceived element of force in
Patañjali’s karmanivṛtti is why Haṃsamiṭṭhu identifies the Pātañjala system with Haṭhayoga, or “forci-
ble” yoga. The argument that haṭhayoga is forcible or painful had already been made in the Advayatāra-
kopaniṣad, the Maṇḍalabrāhmaṇopaniṣad, and the Amanaskayoga.48 As we will see, when Haṃsamiṭṭhu states
in the frame story that he studied Upaniṣads in Benares he probably intended not just early Upaniṣads
commented on by Śaṅkara, but also these later texts that are commonly grouped together as the Yoga
Upaniṣads.49 These introductory statements suggest that Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s milieu had already conflated
Patañjali’s system with Haṭhayoga. A similar syntheses of the two, albeit with different justifications,
can already be found in yoga manuals (yoganibandha) such as the seventeenth century Yuktabhavadeva of
Bhavadeva Miśra. Aer establishing this equivalence, Haṃsamiṭṭhu makes very little use at all of
Patañjali’s Yogasūtra. Even his first attributed citation of Patañjali’s work is not the opening verse of the
vulgate text,50 but rather an alternative opening sūtra cited already by Śaṅkara ad Brahmasūtrabhā﬇a 2.1.3
and also in the Yogasūtravivaraṇa (attrib. to Śaṅkara):51 atha tattvadarśanopāyo yoga iti pātañjalaṃ sūtram,
“Now yoga is the direct means to realize truth.” Jacobi (1970:701) believed that this definition of yoga
rather introduced the Yogaśāstra of Hiraṇyagarbha.
Aer identifying Pātañjalayoga’s soteriological mechanics, Haṃsamiṭṭhu proceeds to investigate the
proposed means by declaring: “Haṭhayoga is accomplished by either eight or ten aṅgas.” It is conceiv-
able that we must diagnose a textual corruption here, for he continues to enumerate an eight aṅga
scheme and a fieen aṅga scheme, not a ten aṅga scheme.52 At the same time, the exact number of aṅgas
may be of little consequence to Haṃsamiṭṭhu. For, as we will see, aer naming the aṅgas he will elabo-
rate on even more than fieen aṅgas, saying that these can be practiced at will. While the eight aṅgas are
those of the Yogasūtra, the fieen are those taught in the Aparokṣānubhūti and the Tejobindūpaniṣad.53

45 Klostermaier 1986.
46 E.g. Vidyāraṇya’s Pañcadaśī 1.60.
47 Haṃsavilāsa p.43, l.26–7: karmabaddho bhavej jīvaḥ karmamuktaḥ sadāśiva ity (=Kulārṇava 9.43cd) aṅgīkṛtya haṭhāt kṛtsnakarmabhyo jīvaṃ

mocayitvā sākṣā[c ch]ivarūpaṃ prāpayati.

48 See Birch 2006.
49 See Buoy 1994.
50 Maas 2006.
51 Brahmasūtrabhā﬇a 2.1.3 (NSP ed. p. 438, ll. 8–9): yogaśāstre ’pi “atha tattvadarśanopāyo yogaḥ” iti samyagdarśanābhyupāyatvenaiva yogo

’ṅgīkriyate. Yogasūtravivaraṇa 2.28 (p. 208, ll. 9–13): tathā cācāryair uktam, “yogas tattvajñānārthaḥ” iti. This second citation appears to
invert the order of the subject (uddeśya) and predicate (vidheya).
52 Haṃsavilāsa p.43, l. 29: aṣṭāṅgair daśāṅgair vā haṭhayogaḥ siddhyati. We perhaps ought to emend as pañcadaśāṅgair vā. For aṅga as an

“ancillary” rather than a “limb” of yoga see Vasudeva (2004:367).

53 Aparokṣānubhūti 102–3 (Tejobindūpaniṣad 15–16): yamo hi niyamas tyāgo maunaṃ deśaś ca kālatā | āsanaṃ mūlabaṃdhaś ca dehasāmyaṃ ca

dṛksthitiḥ || prāṇasaṃyamanaṃ caiva pratyāhāraś ca dhāraṇā | ātmadhyānaṃ samādhiś ca proktāny aṅgāni vai kramāt ||
 9

Haṃsamiṭṭhu next gives a combination of brief definitions and more detailed descriptions of these
aṅgas, adding further ancillaries and related practices wherever he thinks fit.54 It is possible that this
reflects his personal experience with the Yoga-system. The main scriptural source cited is the Haṭhayoga-
pradīpikā, though with sometimes considerable textual variation. The topics discussed are, in order:

[1.] The five yamas of Patañjali

[2.] The five niyamas of Patañjali
[2a.] the ten niyamas of the Haṭhayogapradīpikā
[3.] tyāga, renunciation
[4.] mauna, silence
[5.] deśa, the place
[6.] kāla, time
[7.–8.] mūlabandha, the root lock, combined with āsana, posture
[9.] prāṇāyāma, breath control
[10.] dehasāmya, equanimity of the body
[11.] dṛksthiti, fixed gaze
Additional aṅgas:
[i.] ṣaṭkarma, the six purifications
[ii.] aṣṭakumbhaka, eight subtypes of breath retention
[iii.] nāḍīśuddhi, purification of bodily channels
[iv.] Kuṇḍalinī
[v.] yogic mudrās
[vi.] Khecarīmudrā,
[vii.] the rise of Kuṇḍalinī
[12.] pratyāhāra, withdrawal
[13.] dhāraṇā, fixation
[13a.] dissolving the mind in the turyapada, the state of the fourth
[14.] dhyāna, visualization of Paramaśiva
[15.] samādhi, trance
[15a.] mukti, liberation
[15b.] nāda, sonic experiences in samādhi
[15c.] unmanī, transmental state
[15d.] siddhi, paranormal powers

Following this, the pūrvapakṣa continues with more elaborate defintions of the aṅgas in order but with
additions. Since neither Haṃsamiṭṭhu nor the editors provided references to the many sources cited I

54 Haṃsavilāsa p.44, l. 4ff.

 10

supply them in the following paragraph. We begin with a paraphrase of Yogasūtra 2.30 and 2.32 to explain
Patañjali’s five yamas 55 and five niyamas. Haṃsamiṭṭhu cites Haṭhayogapradīpikā 1.15–16 enumerating the
six obstacles and the six aids to yoga. This is followed by an untraced verse that largely corresponds to
Mahāsubhāṣītasaṃgraha 125. Tyāga, “renunciation,” is the non-attachment with mind and body to all
samsaric things.56 This definition appears to be loosely based on the Tejobindūpaniṣad.57 Mauna, “silence,”
is practiced by speaking only the truth if one has to speak at all.58 Deśa, “place,” is a lonely monastery in
a place with abundant access to alms in a religious area in a well-governed kingdom as described in the
Haṭhayogapradīpikā 1.12–13. Kāla, “time,” is an auspicious astrological moment.59 Mūlabandha, “the root-
lock,” and āsana, “posture,” are treated together by quoting (again with substantial variants) Haṭhayoga-
pradīpikā 1.37–38, which defines siddhāsana. This is for Haṃsamiṭṭhu one of four principal seated pos-
tures: siddhāsana, padmāsana, siṃhāsana and bhadrāsana.60 The purpose of prāṇāyāma, according to
Haṃsamiṭṭhu, is the purification of the nāḍīcakra,61 the nexus of the bodily channels through which the
vital energies (prāṇa) circulate. This is an explanation commonly met with in Haṭhayogic literature (see,
for example Haṭhayogapradīpikā 2.4-6). The channels are normally blocked by unspecified “dirt” (mala)
which prevents the vital energy from entering them and moving freely.62 Haṃsamiṭṭhu again substanti-
ates this with unattributed scriptural citation. In the Prāṇatoṣiṇī compiled by Rāmatoṣaṇa,63 we find the
first three verses of this quote (with a few variants) identified as belonging to the thirteenth chapter of
the as yet unpublished Grahayāmala.64 The whole passage also appears to be partly intertextual with

55 Haṃsavilāsa p.44 ll. 4–6: tṛṇādiṣu prapañcajāteṣu vastuṣ[v] ahiṃsā. tathaitadādiṣu cāsteyatā. vacaneṣu satyatā. brahmacaryam. aparigrahaś ca.
eṣa[ ]pañcāṅgo[ ]yamaḥ.| śaucaṃ. tapaścaryāḥ. saṃtoṣaḥ. svādhyāyaḥ. ārādhanam. eṣa{ḥ} pañcāṅgo niyamaḥ.
56 Haṃsavilāsa p.44 l. 14: manasā śarīreṇa ca sarvathā sāṃsārikavastuṣv asaṅgatā tyāgaḥ.
57 Tejobindūpaniṣad 19ab: tyāgaḥ prapañcarūpasya saccidātmāvalokanāt; Aparokṣānubhūti 106ab: tyāgaḥ prapañcarūpasya cidātmatvāvalokanāt.
58 Haṃsavilāsa p.44 l. 15: kena cit prasaṅgena vaktavyaṃ syāt tatra satyam eva vacanaṃ maunam.
59 Haṃsavilāsa p.44, l. 23–4: sudine sumuhūrte ’pi grahatārābalānvite | śubhe māse haṭhābhyāsaḥ kartavyo haṭhayogibhiḥ ||. This verse remains

untraced and may be original despite its generic content.

60 Haṃsavilāsa p.44 l. 26–7: āsanāni tu bahūni santi. kiṃ tu teṣāṃ catvāri siddhapadmasiṃhabhadrābhidhānāni mukhyāni. tatrāpi siddhāsanaṃ

prakṛṣṭam. atas tallakṣaṇam evocyate, “There are many postures, but four of them are principal: siddhāsana, padmāsana, siṃhāsana and
bhadrāsana. Among these [four] siddhāsana is the best. Therefore it alone is defined.”
61 Haṃsavilāsa p.45 l. 4: tatra[ ]nāḍīcakrasaṃśodhanāya {|} yogaśāstramārgeṇa prāṇāyāmaṃ vidadhīta. See Hatley’s entry on “nāḍīcakra, nāḍ-

icakra” in Tantrikābhidhānakośa 3 for this sense of nāḍīcakra, citing Gorakṣaśataka 95 etc. as evidence.
62 Haṭhayogapradīpikā 1.41cd: dvāsaptatisahasrāṇāṃ nāḍīnāṃ malaśodhanam. The Grahayāmala cited in the Yogakarṇikā of Aghorānanda

2.163d: prāṇāyāmair eva sarve saṃśu﬇anti malāḥ priye, adds the details that these defilements “dry up.” A quite different understand-
ing of nāḍīśodhana as “calming the wind in the channels” can be found in earlier Tantric scriptures. Svacchandatantra 7.294cd-295ab:
apasavyena pūryeta savyenaiva virecayet // nāḍīsaṃśodhanaṃ caitan mokṣamārgapathasya ca, “One should inhale through the le [nostril]
and exhale through the right [nostril]. This is the cleansing of the channels and of the path to liberation (=the central channel
suṣumnā)”. Kṣemarāja’s Uddyota ad loc explains °saṃśodhanaṃ as follows: …śodhanaṃ marutapraśamanaṃ bhavati, “Purifying means paci-
fying the wind [in the channels]”.
63 Secondary literature frequently dates the Prāṇatoṣiṇī to 1821 AD. This is erroneous, for Rāmatoṣaṇa Vidyālaṅkāra was careful

enough to provide the date he completed his work in two eras, the solar Kaliyuga era and the lunar Śāka era. Prāṇatoṣiṇī Sargakāṇḍa
p. 4: bhūnetradharmayugasammitavītavarṣe rādhe dine guṇamite mṛdulā himāṃśoḥ | śāke netrayugādrikāśyapimite ’tīte ’kṣayāyāṃ tithāv eṣā…
[Prāṇatoṣiṇī]. This gives us the following two dates: 4921 expired [Kali years] in the month Rādha (=Vaiśākha) on the third (guṇa=3)
solar day when the moon was waxing, and 1742 expired Śāka years on the Akṣayā lunar day. Sircar (1998:80) discusses only the sec-
ond, Śāka date, ignoring the Kali era date. He correctly interprets akṣayāyāṃ tithau as the akṣayatṛtīyā celebrated on the third tithi of
the waxing fortnight of the month Vaiśākha. According to M. Yano and M. Fushimi’s and Pancanga 3.13
(http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~yanom/pancanga/ accessed Nov. 27th, 2010), using the latitude of Ujjain and the longitude of
Calcutta) this converts to Monday, May 15th 1820 AD.
64 Prāṇatoṣiṇī Kāṇḍa 6, p. 788: grahajāmale trayodaśapaṭale.
 11

Gheraṇḍasaṃhitā 5.35ff. The fourth verse,65 a generic formulation assigning the Iḍā channel to the le
nostril, the piṅgalā channel to the right nostril, and the suṣumṇā in between these two, remains unidenti-
fied but has several close parallels, e.g. in the Jñānasaṃkulītantra.66 This is followed by a hemistich locat-
ing the moon in the Iḍā channel and the sun in the Piṅgalā channel. A parallel can be found in Ahirbudhn-
yasaṃhitā,67 though it may also have formed part of the Grahayāmala. An unidentified verse then supplies
a well-known ratio of 16:64:32 yogic mātrās for inhalation, retention, and exhalation in prāṇāyāma.68 De-
hasāmya, “equanimity of the body,” is the immobilization of the limbs so that the yogi resembles a rock.
The Tejobindūpaniṣad 28 and the Aparokṣānubhūti 115 similarly compare the state to a dried up tree
(śuṣkavṛkṣavat). One must remain immobile and endure it even if vehemently pestered by flies, gnats or
ants.69 Dṛksthiti is practiced by forcibly crossing the eyes so that they fixate on a point between the eye-
brows. This again echoes the definitions of these aṅgas in the Tejobindūpaniṣad and the Aparokṣānubhūti but
emphasizes the forcible and the painful aspects. At this point in his presentation of Pātañjalayoga
Haṃsamiṭṭhu introduces additional aṅgas to be employed as the yogi sees fit.70 The first of these are the
ṣaṭkarma, the six purifications as taught in Haṭhayogapradīpikā 2.22. Then eight subtypes of breath reten-
tion (aṣṭakumbhaka) as taught in Haṭhayogapradīpikā 2.44. This is followed by the purification of bodily
channels (nāḍīśuddhi) as taught in Haṭhayogapradīpikā 2.78 and a discussion of Kuṇḍalinī citing Haṭhayoga-
pradīpikā 3.104, 3.106, 3.5, and some unidentified verses. Kuṇḍalinī is to be awakened with the ten yogic
mudrās listed in Haṭhayogapradīpikā 3.6. There follows a treatment of the haṭhayogic Khecarīmudrā,71 re-
quiring the tongue to be inverted, citing Haṭhayogapradīpikā 3.47–49, 3.109–111, (+3.98cd?).
Haṃsamiṭṭhu again observes that these additional aṅgas are forcible means to raise Kuṇḍalinī up the
central channel and break through the six cakras. A discussion of the cakra system is explicitly deferred
until later. Haṃsamiṭṭhu then returns to his list of fieen aṅgas and defines pratyāhāra, “withdrawal,” as
the repeated turning away of the mind and vital energies from sensory objects (cf. Tejobindūpaniṣad 34,
Aparokṣānubhūti 121). Dhāraṇā, “fixation,” requires the mind to be withdrawn from both external and in-
ternal objects and fixated in the “state of the fourth (turyapada)”72 located between the eyebrows. There
follows a citation of Haṭhayogapradīpikā 4.48 teaching the dissolution of the mind in this locus of fixa-
tion. To practice dhyāna, “visualization,” Haṃsamiṭṭhu points out that one needs to ignore one’s meta-
physical identity with Śiva:
“Even though one is Śiva oneself, [one must] ignore that, and one has to contemplate for a long
time, immersed in the fourth state, Supreme Śiva, even though he is pervasive like ether, in a thou-
sand petalled lotus on top of one’s head, according to the maxim of the moon [appearing to be] on
a branch (śākhācandranyāya).” 73

65 Haṃsavilāsa p.45 ll. 14–15: iḍā tu vāmanāsāyāṃ dakṣiṇāyāṃ tu piṅgalā / tayor madhyagatā nāḍī suṣumṇā sarvasiddhidā //
66 Cf. Jñānasaṃkulītantra 11 (corrected from the cit. in the Prāṇatoṣiṇī): iḍā bhāgīrathī gaṅgā piṅgalā yamunā nadī | tayor madhyagatā nāḍī
suṣumnākhyā sarasvatī ||
67 Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā 32.30ef: iḍāyāṃ vartate candraḥ piṅgalāyāṃ prabhākaraḥ, “In Iḍā is the moon, and in Piṅgalā the sun.”
68 For example, it is attributed to the Gautamīyatantra in the Bṛhattantrasāra of Kṛṣnānanda Āgamavāgīśa 2.44ka: pūrayed iḍayā vāyuṃ

sudhīḥ ṣoḍaśamātrayā | mātrayā tu catuḥṣaṣṭhyā kumbhayec ca suṣumnayā | dvātriṃśanmātrayā mantr[ī] recayet piṅgalākhyayā |
69 Haṃsavilāsa p.45, l. 22: tatkṛte maśakamakṣīkāpipīlikādibhir gāḍhaṃ bādhito ’pi dhairyeṇa tad avadhīrya tathaiva[ ]stheyaṃ.
70 Haṃsavilāsa p.45, l. 25: athātra yogasiddhaye ’anyāny api tadaṅgāni kānicid yathāruci cetaścamatkṛtaye ca kartavyāni, “Now here other an-

cillaries for the mastery of yoga can be employed as one pleases (yathāruci) and to thrill the mind (cetaścamatkṛtaye).”
71 On Khecarīmudrā in Haṭhayogic texts see Mallinson (2004:26–31).
72 On the “state beyond the fourth” see Tantrikābhidhānakośa 3, s.v. turyapada.
73 Haṃsavilāsa p.47 ll. 19–21: svayam eva śivo 'pi tad anādṛtya kiṃcij jīvatvena vyomavad vyāpakam api śrīparamaśivaṃ śākhācandravat svamūrd-

hasthasahasradalakamalakarṇikāyāṃ cirakālaṃ tūryārūḍhacetasā cintayet.

 12

This is substantiated by a citation of Haṭhayogapradīpikā 4.1. The subsequent discussion of samādhi,

“trance,” adds nothing to verses cited (again without attribution) from the Haṭhayogapradīpikā 4.5ab, 4.7,
4.10cd–12 [+ additional untraced hemistich], 4.50ab, 4.54–57, and 4.41. Haṃsamiṭṭhu then defines
liberation (mukti) according to the Pātañjala system simply by citing yet more Haṭhayogapradīpikā, namely
4.4, 4.62, and 4.61, again without attribution or further explanation. Next, various inner sounds are
said to manifest to the yogin in this samādhi. These are examined in a reworking of Haṭhayogapradīpikā
4.47–51ab. Haṃsamiṭṭhu then quotes the Nādabindūpaniṣad 52cd–53ab which states that the yogin even-
tually does not hear even very loud external sounds such as those of a kettledrum, he yogin attains the
transmental state (unmanī) and his body becomes like a piece of wood.
To what extent can Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s prima facie exposition (pūrvapakṣa) of yogic doctrine and practice be
considered an authentic account? The Haṃsavilāsa here builds on works that other writers also accepted
as authoritative in the Haṭhayoga tradition. Another example of an author not too remote in time
drawing on these same texts is the learned Maithila Brahmin Bhavadeva Miśra who in the seventeenth
century wrote a yoga manual (yoganibandha) called the Yuktabhavadeva, which uses almost the identical
sources (see Gharote & Jha 2002:lxxxviii), though excerpting entirely different passages. Thus, while the
pūrvapakṣa cannot be considered distortive in its choice of sources, it is evident that Haṃsamiṭṭhu has
deliberately chosen his excerpts to emphasize the forcible and artificial nature of Pātañjalayoga. This
sets the scene for his first intervention.

pātañjalayoga is not rājayoga

Haṃsamiṭṭhu criticizes Pātañjalayoga on the grounds that it not only privileges spontaneity over pain-
ful effort, but that it even admits that effortless Rājayoga is the telos of Haṭhayoga. If this is accepted,
he says, it would better to just practice Rājayoga directly, and as he notes there are teachings outside of
the Pātañjala system which teach Rājayoga. As evidence for this privileging he adduces the final verse
of the Nādabindūpaniṣad:
“He, whose gaze is steady even without anything being seen, whose breath is steady without effort,
whose mind is steady without support, he alone is a yogin, a teacher, worthy.”74
This is expanded with two verses from the Haṭhayogapradīpikā that emphatically declare the superiority
of royal yoga to forcible Haṭhayoga:
“All forcible means and means of merging are only for the purpose of achieving royal yoga. A man
who has mastered royal yoga deceives death. Those who merely practice forcible yoga without
knowing royal yoga are, in my opinion, lacking in attainment, because they are subject to karma.”75
Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s reading of the last verse, which differs from the editions available to me, involves
wordplay with the word karma, inasmuch as Haṭhayoga is paradoxically a “forcibly action” (haṭhakarma)
that seeks to remove karma/action. He summarizes his view of the futility of Pātañjalayoga in prose:
“What is being said? Pātañjala [yoga], aer forcibly releasing the individual soul from [the retribu-
tion of] accumulated, activated and future karma, causes it to attain Rājayoga. Is it therefore [a] true

74 Haṃsavilāsa p.47 ll. 15–18 (≈Nādabindūpaniṣad 56): dṛṣṭiḥ sthirā yasya vinaiva dṛśyaṃ vāyuḥ sthiro yasya vinā prayatnam (prayatnam] em.,
prayatnataḥ Ed. unmetrical) | cittaṃ sthiraṃ yasya vināvalambaṃ sa eva yogī sa guruḥ sa sevyaḥ ||
75 Haṃsavilāsa p.47 ll. 20–23 (≈Haṭhayogapradīpikā 4.103, 4.79): sarve haṭhalayopāyā rājayogāya kevalam | rājayogaṃ samārūḍhaḥ puruṣaḥ

kālavañcakaḥ || rājayogam ajānantaḥ kevalaṃ haṭhakarmagāḥ | ye tān karmavaśān manye prayāsaphalavarjitān (-varjitān] em., -varjitāḥ Ed.) ||
 13

[teaching]? The individual soul can attain the glorious Rājayoga similarly even without forcible ac-
tion. What is the point of these appalling exertions?76 Beautiful woman! Innately good people have
directly revealed royal yoga, it has been seen and heard. Therefore Pātañjala doctrine cannot be ac-
cepted as a valid doctrine.”77
The paranormal powers (siddhi), too, that are achieved through Pātañjalayoga, are seen as nothing but
impediments for a liberation seeker.78 Haṃsamiṭṭhu here shis to a secondary set of scriptures to make
his point. Given the great attention paid to paranormal powers in the Yogasūtra79 and the Haṭhayogic
texts he had cited so far, he falls back on the Bhāgavatapurāṇa 11.15.33 and also cites a long passage of the
Yogavasiṣṭha that is critical of the soteriological value of the yogic powers. Ultimately, Haṃsamiṭṭhu dis-
misses Pātañjalayoga quite brusquely:
My dear! Pātañjalayoga is nonsense since there is no spontaneity when something is overcome
through force. An effortless, holistic royal yoga (pūrṇarājayoga) has been taught by the wise.80
What, then, is Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s conception of Rājayoga?

rājayoga is the rāsalīlā

The royal yoga of the Haṃsavilāsa—revealed only aer many more chapters in which Haṃsamiṭṭhu en-
gages in an exhaustive and sometimes comical, yet also bitter,81 struggle with rival soteriologies—is the
culmination of a quartet of yogas.82 It is conceived of as an esoteric sensual rapture (rahasyarāsa) superior
to the “incomplete”83 Rāsalīlā84 extolled in devotional Vaiṣṇava circles (see, e.g., Hardy 1983:Appendix
IV). Its superiority lies in the admission of sexual practices.85 The final part of the Haṃsavilāsa is given
over to an elaborate defence of the soteriological validity of this royal yoga. Haṃsamiṭṭhu is at pains to
demonstrate that the apparent carnality of his esoteric sensual rapture must not be considered abhor-
rent, rather it is “pure” (śuddha).

76 Haṃsavilāsa p.49 ll. 24–26: kim uktam? saṃcitaprārabdha{ṃ}kriyamāṇebhyaḥ karmebhyo haṭhāj jīvaṃ mocayitvā rājayogaṃ prāpayati
pātañjalam ity ataḥ kiṃ sat? vinaiva haṭhakarma[ ]jīvenaivam eva śrīrājayoga{m} āsādyate kim etair utkaṭaprayāsaiḥ.
77 Haṃsavilāsa p.49 ll. 26–27: sundari! sahajasaralaiḥ sadbhī rājayogaḥ prāduṣkṛto dṛṣṭaḥ śrutaś ca, ataḥ Pātañjalaśāstraṃ sacchāstratvena

nāṅgīkṛtam iti.
78 Haṃsavilāsa p.50 ll. 1–2: kiṃ tu sanmumukṣubhis tā upekṣaṇīyāḥ. kutaḥ ? antarāyabhūtatvāt.
79 There does exist a single sūtra in the siddhipāda of Patañjali’s Yogasūtra, 3.37, that considers some siddhis (at least those mentioned

in 3.35–6) impediments in the context of samādhi. Haṃsamiṭṭhu quite rightly does not cite it, for it would not have been consid-
ered convincing evidence.
80 Haṃsavilāsa p. 51 l. 15–16: priye! yad yad balena niṣpāditaṃ na tatra kiṃ cid svārasyam ity ataḥ Pātañjalamatam asamañjasam. svalpāyāsena

pūrṇarājayogaḥ sūcitaḥ sajjanair iti.

81 Haṃsavilāsa p. 320 ll. 15–16: ke cit tu (ke cit tu] em., kācattu Ed.) kātarāḥ ṣaṇḍāś ca hīnavīryā āturā vṛddhā daridrāḥ kutsitāś ca sarvasārasyaṃ

surataṃ śāstrāntariaḥ kutsyante, “Some cowards, eunuchs, weaklings, valetudinarians, dotards, washouts, and bums revile lovemak-
ing, which is entirely delectable, on the basis of other scriptures” etc. See Vasudeva (2011).
82 Haṃsavilāsa p. 180 ll. 18–19: yogini! yogāś catvāraḥ. karmayogo bhaktiyogo jñānayogo rājayogaś ceti, “O Yoginī! The are four yogas: ritual-

ism, devotionalism, gnosticism and royal yoga.”

83 At Haṃsavilāsa p. 283 l. 9 Haṃsī complains that Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana had revealed useless “incomplete” rāsas: kim etena

bāhyarāsenāparipūrṇeneti.
84 Already in the third century AD Kāmasūtra (2.10.12) the rāsa had been explained as a sensual dance popular in Gujarat (accepting

the reading lāṭarāsakaiḥ for nāŀarāsakaiḥ).

85 See Vasudeva (2011). There were of course Vaiṣṇava groups suspected if similar things, such as charges brought against the Val-

labhācāryas in the notorious “Maharaja Libel Case” of 1862 (see Haberman 1993).
 14

What kind of purity does he have in mind?

The problem of perceived abhorrence that threatens to undermine the validity of Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s het-
eropraxy is introduced at the end of the work. If esoteric sensual rapture is perceived as abhorrent how
could it generate the spiritual euphoria necessary for liberation? An irreconcilable conflict between two
possible foundations for the notion of purity emerges. These two polar opposites are well-known from
a long history of śāstric debate: lokācāra, “conventional modes of behavior,” and śāstrācāra, “scripturally
sanctioned modes of behavior.” The tension between conventional notions of purity and
Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s unconventional, heterodox, purity is not expressed, as it might have been in the works
of earlier Tantric theorists, in attempts to demarcate the boundaries of the domains of the Vaidika and
the Tāntrika. Rather we are presented with an antagonism between Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s idealized bhakta
devotee of sensual rapture on the one hand, and a hypocritical, but fundamentally irreligious, moral
majority on the other hand.
“Haṃsī—My lord! It is said that one should not do what goes against convention even if it be pure.
There is definitely no abhorrence when one conforms to what is conventionally pure.
Haṃsa—If what is conventionally pure is contrary to scripture, then why bother with that conven-
tional mode of behavior? If what is sanctioned by scripture were to go against conventional modes
of behavior, then, nevertheless, who would be able to prevent the attainment of rewards in this
world and the next, resulting from conformity to it? Mere adherence to conventional behavior is
praised only in this world, not in the hereaer. Aer death one would descend to hell. Convention
and scripture are mutually opposed. Conventional behavior is censured in scripture, and conven-
tional people discredit conformity to scripture, saying: “Whatever fills the stomach is right!”, and
“Who could possibly observe what is taught in scripture!” And how could both [simultaneously] be
sanctioned conduct? Just as someone conforming to one scripture is censured by those conforming
to other scriptures, so in the realm of convention too, someone observing one convention is de-
nounced by those observing other conventions. Whether it is conventionally sanctioned or de-
nounced, it is certainly sanctioned in scripture. When it is conformed to, there can be no harm either
here or in the hereaer. What harm can the criticism of those adhering to convention do to one who
observes it? Can dogs, though they may bark, bite an attentive man with a stout cudgel in his hand?
Just as in the case of a venomous serpent and a snake-sorcerer, someone adhering to convention is
powerless against a devotee?86
We see here a motif Haṃsamiṭṭhu keeps returning to: the idea that the vulgar unititiated, or “crows,” as
he sometimes calls them, are seeking to sate their uncontrolled appetitive cravings, whereas the refined,
initiated rasikas, or “Haṃsa birds,” act with deliberation in accordance to scriptural teachings and in-
dulge themselves only aer realizing their true nature. This crow-like behavior clouds the ethical judg-
ment of those following conventional morality to the point that anything that satisfies cravings is
termed “good.” Even worse, from Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s perspective, is the consequent rejection of the scrip-

86 Haṃsavilāsa p. 320–321, ll. 32–7: haṃsī—bhoḥ svāmin! yady api śuddhaṃ lokaviruddhaṃ nācaraṇīyam iti. lokaśuddhācaraṇe no jugupsā.
śrīhaṃsaḥ—samyak samyak sundari! śāstraviruddhaṃ (śāstraviruddhaṃ] conj., omitted Ed.) cel lokaśuddhaṃ tat kiṃ tena lokācāreṇa? yadi
śāstraśuddhaṃ lokaviruddhaṃ bhavet tad api tadācaraṇād aihikam āmuṣmikam api phalaṃ kena nivārayituṃ śakyaṃ. kevalaṃ lokaśuddhācaraṇaṃ
loka (loka] em., loke Ed.) eva stutyaṃ na paratra. dehānte tu nirayāpattiḥ. lokaśāstrayor api parasparaṃ virodhaḥ. yal loka ācarati tac chāstreṇa nin-
dyate, yac chāstrācaraṇaṃ tal loka (loka] em., loke Ed.) “udaraṃ pūryate yena tat samyak” ity ukvā “śāstroktaṃ kena pālayituṃ śakyam” ity asatku-
rute. ubhayor api śuddhācaraṇam iti tu durlabhatamam. yathā śāstrācāraḥ śāstrāntarīyācārair nindyate tadval loke ’pi lokāntarācārair lokācāro 'py
ākṣipyate. yadi loke śuddhaṃ viruddhaṃ vā śāstre tu śuddhācaraṇaṃ syāt[.] na tadācarite ’tra paratra ca kadācid āpat. tadācāravantaṃ lokaḥ kiṃ
kartuṃ nirbhartsanayā śaktaḥ? sāvadhānān {|} nibiḍalaguḍākaraṃ naraṃ bukkayanto ’pi kukkurāḥ kiṃ daṣṭuṃ śaktāḥ? āśīviṣagāruḍival lokaḥ kiṃ
bhaktasya kartuṃ śaktaḥ?
 15

tural injunction as a valid motivation for action. Haṃsamiṭṭhu does not seek a resolution of this con-
flict, lokācāra is simply not conducive to liberation, whereas his own modes of behavior, sanctioned by
Śaiva and Śākta scriptures, are. Though he dismisses his opponents as powerless to impede his convic-
tion in his heteropraxy, he cannot have been blind to the fact that some might do more than just criti-
cise. To avoid potential problems he advocates secrecy, something the earliest Kaula scriptures reserve
for hostile environments.87 Even then, Haṃsamiṭṭhu will not concede that he is forced into secrecy,
rather it is no more than just another scriptural injunction he voluntarily observes.
“My beloved! Nevertheless, because it is explicitly taught in esoteric Śaiva scripture, one should not
perform openly what contradicts conventional modes of behavior. As it is said: “One must conceal it
like one’s own vagina.” One may perform it at will in private. What is [conventionally] pure, how-
ever, can be practiced openly. In reality, whatever is hidden is delectable, whatever is in plain sight is
insipid. Whether conventional or scriptural, everyone carefully conceals anything that is hard to get,
beautiful, sublime, delightful to the eye and mind. A woman hides her breasts and private parts etc.
because they are sublime, the wealthy hide their gold and jewels etc. In the same way, the ultimate
secret is sex, and when it is performed in secret it is decent. Even though people know it is happen-
ing, it is not a topic of discussion, with whom could one talk about it, overcome with embarrasment.
Men and women do not even speak aloud the name of love-making in front of each other, never
mind the names of the vagina or the penis that are are used to enact it, because these are most taboo.
People perform the sex act aer offering all kinds of valuables such as gold, pearls, diamonds etc.
Therefore the happiness in love-making must be greater than all precious things.”88
Haṃsamiṭṭhu here forestalls a possible objection that secrecy might be construed as a response to em-
barrassment, which in turn could be caused by abhorrence. Secrecy, he contends, implies no such thing,
to the contrary, it proves the great value of what is concealed. Even though he employs such reasoning,
his advocation of alcohol, bhang, meat and sexual pleasure in the Rāsalīlā cannot be legitimately ques-
tioned by conventional morality, its “purity” is defended on the grounds of scriptural authority alone.
“Did you hear, fair one? Both the [alcoholic and narcotic] drinks and [meat-based] food used in the
glorious sensual rapture we have revealed are beyond conventional morality, they are scripturally
pure. There is nothing dubious about them that could give rise to abhorrence. To the contrary, is
there anyone who does not enjoy love-making, wherefore it might be suspected of being blamewor-
thy? If learned beasts (paṇḍitapaśu),89 go as far as reviling even that, then let them revile it all the
more, it is not our loss.”90

87 See Kulasāra fol. 81v: vidviṣṭe janamadhye tu kaulikācāravarjitaḥ, “Abandoning Kaula observance in the midst of a hostile popula-
tion….”
88 Haṃsavilāsa p. 321, ll. 8–19: priye! tathāpi śaivarahasye vihitatvāl lokaviruddhaṃ yat tat samakṣaṃ no vidheyam. gopanīyaṃ svayonivad ityuk-

teḥ. (cit. Tārātantra 4.21d, Śaktisaṃgamatantra Kālīkhanda 11.24d etc.). yathāsukham ekānte vidhātavyam. yac (yac] em., tac Ed.) chuddhaṃ tu
tad adhyakṣam anuṣṭheyam. vastuto yad rahasyaṃ tatra sārasyam, yat prakaṭaṃ tan nīrasaṃ[.] loke śāstre ’pi yad yad durlabhataraṃ sundaraṃ
sarasaṃ dṛṅmanasarañjanaṃ vastu tat prayatnena sarvair yatra tatra gopyate[.] strī kucopasthādikaṃ gopāyati sārasyād dhanavantaḥ svarṇaratnādi.
tadvat sarvataḥ paramarahasyaṃ surataṃ tat tu guptataraṃ kṛtaṃ cec chubham. yady api lokas tadācaraṇaṃ jānāti tad apy alak﬇aṃ kena śakyaṃ
kathayituṃ lajjābāhulyāt. pumāṃsaḥ purandhryaś ca parasparasamakṣaṃ no suratasya nāmamātram apy uccair uccaranti na ca tatsādhanabhūtayor
bhagaliṅgayor api rahasyatamatvāt. suvarṇamuktāphalahīrakādi nānāratnaṃ cāpi samarpya maithunam anuṣṭhīyate manujādyaiḥ. ataḥ sarvasmād
ratnavrātāt surate sukham adhikaṃ manyāmahe.
89 The term paśu, literally “beast,” is a common Śaiva term for the uninitiated.
90 Haṃsavilāsa p. 322 ll. 3–5: śrutaṃ varavarṇinyā?asmaddarśite śrīrāse peyaṃ bhak﬇am ity etad dvayaṃ tu lokotkṛṣṭaṃ śāstraśuddham. na tatra

kiṃcic chaṅkyaṃ yena jugupsā syāt. maithunaṃ tu kena na kriyate yan nindyam ity āśaṅkyam. tad api paṇḍitapaśavo nindanti cet tadādhikyaṃ
nindantu nāsmākaṃ kṣatiḥ.
 16

Given this emphasis on secrecy, it is unlikely that Haṃsamiṭṭhu intended the Haṃsavilāsa as anything
other than a work for a small circle of initiates, and we may legitimately question how it came to be
published at all. It was printed in 1937 in Gaekwad’s Oriental Series by Swami Trivikrama Tirtha and
Mahāmahopādhyāya Hathibhai Shastri of Jamnagar. The former was a collaborator of Sir John
Woodroffe, who under his pseudonym of Arthur Avalon was responsible for popularising much other
Tantric literature,91 and as such his interest in the Haṃsavilāsa, a comparatively detailed Tantric work,
might be understandable. But the truth is that we still know very little about the motivations of the fig-
ures responsible for the first publications of such Tantric works. The role of the other editor involved in
the Haṃsavilāsa’s publication, Mahāmahopādhyāya Hathibhai Shastri, though a well-known figure, re-
mains equally elusive. At the Hindu Mahāsabhā held in Benares in the August of 1923, he declared that
Hinduism was in a “time of distress” (āpatkāla), since conversion out of Hinduism was easy, but entry
into it was impossibe. He called for a Vidvatpariṣad, a committe of scholars, to be set up to see if recon-
version to Hinduism might be a remedy (Mitra 1923:137).92 Whether such views concerning the state of
Hinduism influenced Hathibhai Shastri’s decision to be involved with the publication of a work like the
Haṃsavilāsa is a topic for further research. Aer publication, the Haṃsavilāsa suffered a nearly total
scholarly neglect.93 One year later, V. Raghavan (1938) published a two page summary of chapters 26 and
45 dealing with rāgas and music in general, noting that Haṃsamiṭṭhu was primarily indebted to the
Rāgārṇava. In 1975 Raghavan returned to the work and briefly remarked that Haṃsamiṭṭhu accepted the
existence of a tenth aesthetic sentiment (rasa) called māyā, “the phenomenal” (Haṃsavilāsa p.253, trans-
parently a borrowing from Rasataraṅgiṇī 7.28), an innovation appearing first in the Rasataraṅgiṇī of the
fieenth century rhetorician and poet Bhānudatta.

haṃsa is miṭṭhu, haṃsī is bhūlī

It seems likely that the Haṃsavilāsa was completed towards the end of Haṃsamiṭṭhu’s life. In the final
chapter we find him apparently close to death, ready to re-assume his original identity of Haṃsa and
return to Śrīnagara with Haṃsī. Before giving his final teachings, a Kaula rejection of all rules and hier-
archies (including even caste) that deserves to be the focus of a future study, he summarizes his life as
follows:
O Haṃsī! What is the point of further talk? My intellect is no longer alert and lasts for just two
moments. My mortal body is mere filth. My life force is not satisfied without food and drink etc.
even for a moment. Pains afflict me day and night. The servants of death94 threaten me every day. My
body is flooded with masses of false worries. Suffering is all around me. This world is a net of mis-
ery, how could I hope to find happiness in it? Therefore, by the grace of the lotus feet of the illustri-
ous lord, the true guru, I have, together with you, taken refuge in the universal fusion of Śiva and
Śakti, blazing forth uninterruptedly from the City of Glory.95

91 For an account of Sir John Woodroffe see Taylor (2001).

92 While this proposal was eagerly accepted on the twentyfirst of August 1923, the next day’s morning session saw the Mahāsabhā
split in an acrimonious debate when the question of the abolition of untouchability was discussed.
93 Kavirāj (1972:724), calling Haṃsa “Haṃsabhikṣu” without further explanation, does no more than note his existence.
94 I am conjecturing that bhillabhūpa, lit. “bhilla king,” here denotes yamadūta.
95 Haṃsavilāsa p. 322, ll. 6–12: bho haṃsi! kim abhīkṣṇaṃ bhaṇeyam. mama buddhir aprabuddhā dvikṣaṇāvasthāyinī, martyaṃ śarīraṃ kevalaṃ

malīmasaṃ[,] kṣaṇam apy annodakādyaṃ vinā na nirvṛṇoti mama prāṇaḥ[,] dyuniśaṃ rujo 'pi pīḍayanti, bhillabhūpā api pratidinaṃ bhāyayanti,
plu﬇ate vapur asaccintāsaṃhatibhiḥ. duḥkham āvṛtaṃ mām abhitaḥ. duḥkajālaṃ kiledaṃ jagat tatra sukham ahaṃ kiṃ lipseyety ataḥ śrīnāthasad-
gurupadapaṅkajaprasādatas tvayā sārdham akhaṇḍadaṇḍāyamāṇaṃ śrīnagarollasitaṃ śrīśaktiśīvayoḥ sāmarasyaṃ śaraṇaṃ prapanno ’smi.
 17

bibliography
primary sources

Bṛhadāraľakopaniṣad, see Olivelle 1998.

Śrīmadbhāgavatapurāṇam with the Ṭīkā Bhāvārthabodhinā of Śrīdharasvāmin. Edited by Jagadisalala Sastri. 1st
ed. Delhi: Motilala Banarasidas, 1983.
Chāndoopaniṣad, see Olivelle 1998.
Haṃsavilāsa of Haṃsamiṭṭhu, GOS LXXXI, Baroda 1937, ed. Swami Trivikrama and Mahamahopadhyaya
Hathibhai Shastri of Jamnagar Tirtha.
Haṭhapradīpikā (with 10 chapters) of Svātmārāma : with Yogaprakāśikā, a commentary by Bālakṛṣṇa. Edited by M. L.
Gharote, Parimal Devnath. Lonavla Yoga Institute, 2006. 
Jñānasaṅkulītantram : mūla tathā bhāṣānuvāda, S.N. Khaṇḍelavāla, Vārāṇasī, Bhāratīya Vidyā Saṃsthāna,
1993.
Kāmasūtram with the commentary of Yaśodhara, mudraṇāvaśiṣṭā vātsyāyanīya kāmasūtrasya ṭīkā, yaśodharavi-
racitā jayamaṅgalā, Nirnayasagara Press, 1905.
Kāśīmṛtimokṣavicāra of Sureśvara, in: Tristhalīsetuḥ, Bhaṭṭojīdīkṣitakṛtaḥ. Tīrthenduśekharaḥ, Nāgeśabhaṭṭakṛtaḥ.
Kāśīmokṣavicāraḥ, Sureśvarācāryakṛtaḥ. Kulapateḥ Ḍô. Maṇḍanamiśrasya prastāvanayā samalaṅkṛtāḥ ;
sampādakaḥ Sūryanārāyaṇaśuklaḥ. 2. saṃskaraṇam. Vārāṇasyām: Sampūrṇānanda Saṃskṛta Viśvav-
idyālaya, 1997. Sarasvatībhavana-granthamālā ; 65–67.
Kulapradīpa of Śivānandācārya, etext typed from ms no. 1800 N 134, formerly in the India Office collec-
tion, now deposited in the British Library, London. Data-entered by the staff of Muktabodha under
the supervision of Mark S.G. Dyczkowski, January 28, 2007.
Kulasāra, palmleaf manuscript NAK 4-137 (NGMCP 4-137), palmleaf.
Kulārṇava Tantra, Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe), M. P. Pandit, Tārānātha Vidyāratna, Madras, Ga-
nesh, 1965.
Rasataraṅgiṇī, see Pollock 2009.
The early Upaniṣads: annotated text and translation, Olivelle, Patrick, South Asia research, New York : Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Yogakarṇikā, An Ancient Treatise on Yoga. Ed. by Narendra Nath Sharma. Delhi 1981.
Yuktabhavadeva of Bhavadeva Miśra: a treatise on Yoga. Critically edited by M.L. Gharote and Vijay Kant Jha.
1st ed. Lonavala: Lonavala Yoga Institute (India), 2002.
 18

secondary sources
Bayly, C.A. Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870. Cam-
bridge South Asian Studies No. 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
—“The Pre-History of ‘Communalism’? Religious Conflict in India, 1700-1860.” Modern Asian Studies,
19, 2, pp. 177-203, 1985.
Buoy, Christian. Les Nātha-Yogin et les Upaniṣads. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1994.
Chandra, Motī. Kāśī kā Itihāsa. Bambaī: Hindī Grantha Ratnākara, 1962.
Colebrooke, H. T., T. E. Colebrooke, & Edward B. Cowell. Miscellaneous Essays. London: Trübner, 1873.
Granoff, Phyllis “The Yogavāsiṣṭha: The continuing search for a context” in: V. N. Jha (Ed.) New Hori-
zons of research in Indolo (Silver Jubilee Volume), Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in San-
skrit. Class E.10, Poona 1989, pp. 181–205.
Ghurye, G. S. Indian Costume. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1966.
Hardy, Friedhelm. Viraha-Bhakti: The Early History of Kṛṣṇa Devotion in South India. Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1983.
Jacobi, Hermann. Über das ursprüngliche Yogasystem, in Kleine Schrien. Glasenapp-Stiung Band 4.2,
Wiesbaden 1970, pp. 683–725, pp. 726–736
The Indian annual register, congress & conferences 1923, ed. H. N. Mitra, New Delhi 1923.
Kaviraj, Gopi Nath. Tāntrika sāhitya: vivaraṇātmaka granthasūcī. 1. saṃskaraṇa. Lakhanaū, Hindī Samiti [Ut-
tara Pradeśa Śāsana], Hindī Samiti granthamālā 200, 1972.
Klostermaier, Klaus. “Dharmamegha samādhi: Comments on Yogasūtra IV, 29”, in: Philosophy East and
West, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 253-262, University of Hawai'i Press.
Maas, Philipp. Samādhipāda. Das erste Kapitel des Pātañjalayogaśāstra zum ersten Mal kritisch ediert. Aachen:
Shaker, Studia Indologica Universitatis Halensis, Geisteskultur Indiens. Texte und Studien 9, 2006.
Mallinson, James. The Khecarīvidyā of Ādhinātha: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation of an Early Text of
Haṭhayoga. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.
Minkowski, Christopher. “Nīlakaṇṭha Caturdhara’s Mantrakāśīkhaṇḍa.” Special Issue: Indic and Iranian Stud-
ies in Honor of Stanley Insler on His Sixty-Fih Birthday. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 122, 2, (Apr.
- Jun., 2002), pp. 329-344. Ann Arbor: American Oriental Society, 2002.
Mirnig, Nina. Liberating the Liberated, A History of the Development of Cremation and Ancestor Worship in the Early
Śaiva Siddhānta, Analysis, Texts and Translations. Doctoral Thesis submitted to the University of Oxford
Faculty of Oriental Studies, Oxford 2009.
Mitra, H.N. The Indian Annual Register: An Annual Digest of Public Affairs of India, Recording the Nation’s Activi-
ties Each Year in Matters, Political, Economic, Industrial, Educational, Social, Etc., 1919-1947. Vol. 2. New Delhi:
Gyan Publishing House, 1923.
O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. Dreams, Illusions and Other Realities. The University of Chicago Press, Chi-
cago and London 1984.
 19

Pinch, William R..R. Warrior Ascetics and Indian Empires. Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Soci-
ety, no. 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Pollock, Sheldon. “Bouquet of Rasa” and “River of Rasa” by Bhānudatta. New York: New York University
Press, 2009.
Raghavan, V. Music In The Haṃsa Vilāsa. Journal of the Music Academy, Madras, IX, 1938. pp. 42–43. (ac-
cessed online at: http://issuu.com/themusicacademy/docs/ma_journals_1938)
• et al. New Catalogus Catalogorum: An Alphabetical Register of Sanskrit and Allied Works and Authors. Madras:
Madras University Sanskrit Series, 1968–1991.
• The Number of Rasa-s. Adyar Library Series, 23. Third Revised Edition. Madras: The Adyar Library
and Research Centre, 1975.
Sanderson, Alexis. “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early Medieval Pe-
riod” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, pp. 41–350. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series,
23. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, Institute of Oriental Culture, March 2009.
Sircar, Dines Chandra. The Śākta pīṭhas. second rev. ed. Delhi 1998.
Smith, F. “The Hierarchy of Philosophical Systems According to Vallabhācārya.” Journal of Indian Philoso-
phy, 33, 4, pp. 421–453, August, 2005
Tantrikābhidhānakośa III, Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique, A dicitionary of tech-
nical terms from Hindu Tantric literature, Wörterbuch zur Terminologie hinduistischer Tantren, Direction édito-
riale du troisième volume : Dominic Goodall, Marion Rastelli, forthcoming 2010.
Taylor, Kathleen. Sir John Woodroffe, Tantra and Bengal: ‘An Indian soul in a European body’? (SOAS London
Studies on South Asia.) xvi, 319 pp. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press, 2001.
Upādhyāya, Baladeva. Kāśī kī Pāṇḍītya Paramparā. Vārāṇasī: Viśvavidyālaya Prakāśana, 1983.
Vasudeva, Somadeva. The Yoga of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra. Collection Indologie 97, Institut français de
Pondichéry, Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient 2004.
• “Synaesthetic Iconography I: The Nādiphāntakrama,” in: Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène
Brunner. Ecole française d'Extrême Orient, Pondichéry, 2007.
• “The Transport of the Haṃsas: A Śākta Rāsalīlā as Rājayoga in Eighteenth-century Benares,” in:
Yoga in Practice. Ed. David White. (forthcoming 2011).
Wagner, Kim A. Stranglers and Bandits, A Historical Antholo of Thuee. 2009.
Yokochi, Yuko. The Rise of the Warrior Goddess in Ancient India, A Study of the Myth Cycle of Kauśikī-Vindhyavāsinī
in the Skandapurāṇa. Ph.D. Dissertation. Groningen, 2004.