In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Gomanta (Mbh. Sabhâ, ch. 14[:38; in a list of janapadas])” (ibid.). This latter interpretation is the one accepted by White (1996, 331). 49. See also a fine stone-image of Matsyendra sitting on a fish from Kadri exhibited in the State Government Museum, Mangalore in Deshpande 1986, 164. 50. As regards Maharashtra, the Siddhāntaśikhāman ִi, a Maharashtra vīraśaiva text, also shows some resemblance to some of the passages of the MaSam ִ . 51. Matsyendra gives the Chola king the name Goraks ִeśa in MaSam ִ 55.17cd–18ab: tatah ִ svaśis ִyam ִ colendram ִ dīks ִayitvāgamoditaih ִ || dadau vidyākaro nāma goraks ִeśeti yogirāt ִ. 52. See images of Chola bronzes e.g. in Dehejia et al. 2006 or Rauravāgama, vol. 2. 53. See e.g. Huntington and Huntington 1985, 308: “Aiyanār-Śāstā, a hunter god . . . is known only in south India’.” I owe thanks to Professor Sanderson for drawing my attention to the fact that Śāstr ִ is an exclusively South Indian god and for providing the following references to South-Indian sources: Raurav āgama vol. 3, pat ִala 49 (it outlines the procedure for a festival of the village deities [grāmadevatāh ִ]: Gan ִeśa, Subrahman ִya, Vis ִn ִu, Durgā, and Śāstr ִ; Ajitāgama, vol 3. pat ִala 83 (śāstr ִpratis ִt ִhotsavavidhih ִ), ibid.; the editor cites other āgamic sources (evidently from the same region) that deal with Śāstr ִ: the Suprabheda, the Bhīmasam ִ hitā, the Padmasam ִ hitā, and the Kulālaśāstra. See also Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati Kriyāpāda pat ִala 58 on the pratis ִt ִhā, etc. of Śāstr ִ and his visualization, ibid. 32.9–15. See also Adiceam 1967. 54. For details, see Kiss 2009, 57. 55. More specifically, the Prapañcasāra probably originates in pre-thirteenthcentury Orissa. See Sanderson 2007, 230–33. 56. A minor exception is 4.90b. 57. On s ִad ִaṅgayoga cf. Vasudeva 2004, 282 ff. Śaiva s ִad ִaṅgayoga very frequently includes tarka, which is absent from the MaSam ִ . Vasudeva (2004, 290) treats the MaSam ִ (with reference to MS W) first as if it had only four aṅgas (prān ִāyāma, dhāran ִā, pratyāhāra, dhyāna), then, on the same page, as as ִt ִāṅga (yama, niyama, āsana, prān ִāyāma, dhāran ִā, pratyāhāra, dhyāna, samādhi). In fact, the MaSam ִ teaches neither yamas nor niyamas in the Pātañjala sense of the word, but it does have all the ancillaries of the Yogasūtra except yama and niyama for which it has a dehaśuddhi section (note also niyama mentioned in 6.31, 52.35, and 55.46). 58. 2.9b: yoginīmelanam ִ , 6.27c: yoginīh ִ [tarpayet], 7.25a: yoginīgan ִasammukhām ִ . 59. 3.1b: sādhakānām ִ hitāya vai. On the sādhakas as the “target audience” of Śaiva (Saiddhāntika) yoga, see Brunner 1994, 431–35. 60. Cf. Brunner (1994, 437), who deals with yoga in Śaivasiddhānta texts. She says that though Śaivasiddhānta texts “sometimes use the terms mūlādhāra and 196 NOTES TO CHAPTER 9 brahmarandhra, [they] ignore the names svādhis ִt ִhāna, man ִipūra, anāhata and viśuddha.” 61. Yogasūtra 2.54–55: svavis ִayāsamprayoge cittasya svarūpānukāra ivendriyān ִām ִ pratyāhārah ִ: “When they are separated from their objects, the senses’ imitation, so to say, of the mind’s true nature is Withdrawal.” 62. deśabandhaś cittasya dhāran ִā: “‘Fixation is the mind’s binding to a spot’.” In the MaSam ִ , it is not clear if the fixations are attached to single points of the body or involve the whole body. Since fixation in the MaSam ִ is a paraphrase of bhūta śuddhi in pat ִala 2, and the śos ִan ִa, etc. sequence in the bhūtaśuddhi ritual is attached to the Mūlādhāra, the heart, the middle of the eyebrows, and the whole body, one can say that the Pātañjala teaching of dhāran ִā is not so distant from the teaching of the MaSam ִ . 63. Vasudeva (2004, 319n113) says: “A derivative of the four fixations is also taught in the Matsyendrasam ִ hitā. . . .” I agree, but clearly there are only three kinds of dhāran ִās in the text. Cf. MaSam ִ 6.2a: dhāran ִā trividhā devi. 64. There seems to be also a reference to vārun...

Share