From Theory to Poetry: The Reuse of Patañjali’s Yogaśāstra in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha

 ABHANDLUNGEN FÜR DIE KUNDE DES MORGENLANDES Im Auftrag der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft herausgegeben von Florian C. Reiter Band 101 Board of Advisers: Christian Bauer (Berlin) Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst (Berlin) Lutz Edzard (Oslo/Erlangen) Jürgen Hanneder (Marburg) Herrmann Jungraithmayr (Marburg) Karénina Kollmar-Paulenz (Bern) Jens Peter Laut (Göttingen) Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg) Florian C. Reiter (Berlin) Michael Streck (Leipzig) 2017 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden  Adaptive Reuse Aspects of Creativity in South Asian Cultural History Edited by Elisa Freschi and Philipp A. Maas 2017 Harrassowitz Verlag . Wiesbaden Published with the support of Austrian Science Fund (FWF): PUB 403-G24 Open access: Wo nicht anders festgehalten, ist diese Publikation lizensiert unter der Creative-commons-Lizenz Namensnennung 4.0. Open access: Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative commons Atribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft 2017 Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed in Germany ISSN 0567-4980 ISBN 978-3-447-10707-5 e-ISBN PDF 978-3-447-19586-7  Contents Elisa Freschi and Philipp A. Maas Introduction: Conceptual Reflections on Adaptive Reuse ............................. 11 1 The dialectics of originality and reuse................................................ 11 2 The background .................................................................................. 12 3 Some basic conceptual tools .............................................................. 13 3.1 Simple re-use versus different grades of adaptive reuse ....... 13 4 Adaptive reuse: Aspects of creativity ................................................. 17 5 “Adaptive reuse” and related terms .................................................... 20 5.1 Adaptive reuse, intertextuality and adaptation studies .......... 20 6 On the present volume........................................................................ 21 References ................................................................................................ 24 Section 1: Adaptive Reuse of Indian Philosophy and Other Systems of Knowledge Philipp A. Maas From Theory to Poetry: The Reuse of Patañjali’s Yogaśāstra in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha................................................................................. 29 1 The Pātañjalayogaśāstra ................................................................... 30 2 Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha ..................................................................... 31 3 The Śiśupālavadha and Sāṅkhya Yoga in academic research ............ 34 4 Pātañjala Yoga in the Śiśupālavadha ................................................. 36 4.1 The stanza Śiśupālavadha 4.55 ............................................. 36 4.1.1 The reuse of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra in Śiśupālavadha 4.55 ............................................................... 37 4.1.2 Śiśupālavadha 4.55 in context .............................................. 41 4.2 The stanza Śiśupālavadha 14.62 ........................................... 46 4.2.1 The reuse of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra in Śiśupālavadha 14.62 ............................................................. 47 4.2.2 Śiśupālavadha 14.62 in context ............................................ 49 4.3 The passage Śiśupālavadha 1.31–33 .................................... 51 4.4 The reception of Māgha’s reuse in Vallabhadeva’s Antidote ....................................................... 53 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 55 6 Contens References................................................................................................ 57 Himal Trikha Creativity within Limits: Different Usages of a Single Argument from Dharmakīrti’s Vādanyāya in Vidyānandin’s Works ...................................... 63 1 A passage from the Vādanyāya and an overview of corresponding textual material ................................................................................... 65 1.1 The background of the argument .......................................... 66 1.2 Overview of corresponding passages.................................... 68 1.3 Groups of correlating elements ............................................. 71 2 The succession of transmission for the adaptions in Vācaspati’s and Aśoka’s works.......................................................... 73 2.1 Basic types of the succession of transmission ...................... 73 2.2 The adaption in the Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā .................... 75 2.3 The adaption in the Sāmānyadūṣaṇa .................................... 79 3 Vidyānandin’s use of the argument .................................................... 82 3.1 The adaptions in the Tattvārthaślokavārttikālaṅkāra ........... 82 3.2 The adaptions in the Aṣṭasahasrī .......................................... 87 3.3 The adaptions in the Satyaśāsanaparīkṣā ............................. 95 4 Conclusion........................................................................................ 101 References.............................................................................................. 102 Ivan Andrijanić Traces of Reuse in Śaṅkara’s Commentary on the Brahmasūtra ................ 109 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 109 2 Material marked by Śaṅkara or by sub-commentators as being reused from other authors ................................................................. 113 2.1 Indefinite pronouns as markers of reuse ............................. 113 2.2 Identifications of reuse by the sub-commentators .............. 115 2.2.1 Reuse of the views of the Vṛttikāra..................................... 116 3 Different interpretations of the same sūtras ..................................... 118 4 Examples of reuse ............................................................................ 119 4.1 The case of ānandamaya in Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.12–1.1.19 ..................................... 119 4.1.1 The introduction of the adhikaraṇa .................................... 120 4.1.2 Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.12 ................................................. 121 4.1.3 Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.13–17 ........................................... 121 4.1.4 Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.17 ................................................. 122 4.1.5 Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 1.1.19 ................................................. 123 4.2 The “bridge” (setu) from BS(Bh) 1.3.1 and MU(Bh) 2.2.5 ..................................................................... 126  Contens 7 5 Conclusions and outlook for further research................................... 129 References .............................................................................................. 130 Yasutaka Muroya On Parallel Passages in the Nyāya Commentaries of Vācaspati Miśra and Bhaṭṭa Vāgīśvara ......................................................................................... 135 1 Bhaṭṭa Vāgīśvara’s Nyāyasūtratātparyadīpikā................................. 136 2 Parallel passages in the Nyāyasūtratātparyadīpikā, the Nyāyabhāṣya and the Nyāyavārttika ................................................ 138 3 Parallel passages in the Nyāyasūtratātparyadīpikā and the Nyāyavārttikatātpāryaṭīkā ................................................................ 138 3.1 Vāgīśvara and Vācaspati on Nyāyasūtra 1.1.1 ................... 139 3.1.1 Udayana’s theory of categories........................................... 142 3.2 Vāgīśvara and Vācaspati on Nyāyasūtra *5.2.15(16) ......... 143 3.2.1 Dharmakīrti’s discussion of ananubhāṣaṇa ........................ 145 3.2.2 Vāgīśvara’s and Vācaspati’s references to Dharmakīrti ..... 147 4 On the relative chronology of Vāgīśvara and Vācaspati .................. 148 References .............................................................................................. 150 Malhar Kulkarni Adaptive Reuse of the Descriptive Technique of Pāṇini in Non-Pāṇinian Grammatical Traditions with Special Reference to the Derivation of the Declension of the 1st and 2nd Person Pronouns ............................................ 155 References .............................................................................................. 166 Section 2: Adaptive Reuse of Tropes Elena Mucciarelli The Steadiness of a Non-steady Place: Re-adaptations of the Imagery of the Chariot................................................................................. 169 Premise .................................................................................................. 169 1 The Ṛgvedic ratha: The chariot as a living prismatic metaphor ...... 171 1.1 ratha and swiftness ............................................................. 171 1.1.1 ratha as a means for crossing fields .................................... 173 1.2 The godly character of the ratha ......................................... 173 1.3 ratha and conquest .............................................................. 174 1.4 ratha in the ritual context.................................................... 174 1.5 ratha and poetry.................................................................. 175 1.6 ratha and generative power ................................................ 176 1.7 Summing up: The many semantic values of the ratha in the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā ............................................... 178 8 Contens 1.8 The medieval adaptive reuse of the ratha compared to its Vedic use ................................................... 178 2 The linear re-use of the ratha in the middle Vedic period: The symbolic chariot ............................................................................... 179 2.1 The socio-political context of the re-use ............................. 179 2.2 The chariot in the middle Vedic sacrifices ......................... 180 2.2.1 The chariot in non-royal sacrifices ..................................... 181 2.2.2 The chariot in the royal sacrifices ....................................... 182 2.2.3 The chariot and the evocation of fertility ............................ 187 2.3 Shrinking of meanings in middle Vedic reuse .................... 188 3 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 188 References.............................................................................................. 189 Cristina Bignami Chariot Festivals: The Reuse of the Chariot as Space in Movement ........... 195 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 195 2 The origins of chariot processions in the Vedic period .................... 197 3 Faxian’s record of chariot festivals ................................................. 198 4 A record of the chariot festival in the southern kingdom ................. 200 5 The modern ritual of rathotsava at the Cennakeśava Temple of Belur, Karnataka ....................................... 202 6 The modern ritual of rathayātrā at Puri, Orissa ............................... 204 7 Applying the concept of reuse: The chariot in the diaspora ............. 205 8 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 209 Figures ................................................................................................... 210 References.............................................................................................. 212 Section 3: Adaptive Reuse of Untraced and Virtual Texts Daniele Cuneo “This is Not a Quote”: Quotation Emplotment, Quotational Hoaxes and Other Unusual Cases of Textual Reuse in Sanskrit Poetics-cum-Dramaturgy ...... 219 1 Introduction: Reuse, novelty, and tradition ...................................... 220 2 Śāstra as an ideological apparatus.................................................... 221 3 The worldly śāstra, its fuzzy boundaries, and the derivation of rasas............................................................................ 224 4 Quotation emplotment and the teleology of commentarial thought....................................................................... 232 5 Quotational hoaxes and novelty under siege .................................... 236 6 Unabashed repetition and authorial sleight of hand ......................... 237 7 Conclusions: The alternate fortunes of the two paradigms of textual authoritativeness ............................................. 239  Contens 9 Appendix: Four translations of Abhinavagupta’s intermezzo ................ 246 References .............................................................................................. 247 Kiyokazu Okita Quotation, Quarrel and Controversy in Early Modern South Asia: Appayya Dīkṣita and Jīva Gosvāmī on Madhva’s Untraceable Citations ... 255 Introduction ............................................................................................ 255 1 The modern controversy: Mesquita vs. Sharma ............................... 256 2 Untraceable quotes and Purāṇic studies ........................................... 257 3 Untraceable quotes and Vedānta as Hindu theology ........................ 259 4 Early modern controversy: Appayya Dīkṣita vs. Jīva Gosvāmī ....... 260 4.1 Appayya Dīkṣita ................................................................. 260 4.2 Jīva Gosvāmī ...................................................................... 267 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 274 References .............................................................................................. 275 Elisa Freschi Reusing, Adapting, Distorting? Veṅkaṭanātha’s Reuse of Rāmānuja, Yāmuna (and the Vṛttikāra) in his Commentary ad Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.1 ........................................................................... 281 1 Early Vaiṣṇava synthesizing philosophies ....................................... 281 2 Veṅkaṭanātha as a continuator of Rāmānuja (and of Yāmuna) ........ 283 3 The Śrībhāṣya and the Seśvaramīmāṃsā: Shared textual material .. 285 3.1 Examples ............................................................................ 285 3.1.1 The beginning of the commentary ...................................... 285 3.1.2 Commentary on jijñāsā ....................................................... 287 3.1.3 vyatireka cases .................................................................... 288 3.1.3.1 Śaṅkara’s commentary on the same sūtra........................... 288 3.1.3.2 Bhāskara’s commentary on the same sūtra......................... 290 3.2 Conclusions on the commentaries ad Brahmasūtra / Pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra 1.1.1 .................................................. 293 4 The Śrībhāṣya and the Seśvaramīmāṃsā: A shared agenda concerning aikaśāstrya ..................................................................... 294 4.1 Similarities between the treatment of aikaśāstrya in the Seśvaramīmāṃsā and the Śrībhāṣya ................................... 295 4.2 The Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa ............................................................ 297 4.2.1 The extant Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa .................................................. 299 4.2.2 The Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa-devatākāṇḍa ....................................... 303 4.2.3 Quotations from the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa ................................... 304 4.2.4 The Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa and Advaita Vedānta .......................... 306 4.2.5 The Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa and the Pāñcarātra .............................. 309 10 Contens 4.2.6 Conclusions on the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa .................................... 310 4.2.7 The authorship of the Saṅkarṣakāṇḍa................................. 312 5 Yāmuna and the Seśvaramīmāṃsā: Shared textual material ............ 316 6 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 319 References.............................................................................................. 320 Cezary Galewicz If You Don’t Know the Source, Call it a yāmala: Quotations and Ghost Titles in the Ṛgvedakalpadruma .............................. 327 1 The Ṛgvedakalpadruma ................................................................... 329 2 The concept of the daśagrantha ....................................................... 330 2.1 Keśava Māṭe’s interpretation of the daśagrantha ............... 331 2.2 The sūtra within Keśava’s daśagrantha ............................. 332 3 The Rudrayāmala as quoted in the Ṛgvedakalpadruma ................... 336 4 The Rudrayāmala and the yāmalas .................................................. 338 5 Textual identity reconsidered ........................................................... 340 6 What does the name Rudrayāmala stand for? .................................. 341 7 Tantricized Veda or Vedicized Tantra?............................................ 342 8 Quotations and loci of ascription...................................................... 343 9 Spatial topography of ideas .............................................................. 345 References.............................................................................................. 346 Section 4: Reuse from the Perspective of the Digital Humanities Sven Sellmer Methodological and Practical Remarks on the Question of Reuse in Epic Texts .................................................................................................... 355 Introduction............................................................................................ 355 1 Epic reuse. ......................................................................................... 357 1.1 Internal reuse ....................................................................... 358 1.1.1 Repetitions .......................................................................... 358 1.1.2 Fixed formulas .................................................................... 359 1.1.3 Formulaic expressions ........................................................ 360 1.1.4 Flexible patterns .................................................................. 360 1.2 External reuse and its detection ........................................... 361 1.2.1 Unusual vocabulary ............................................................ 363 1.2.2 Exceptional heterotopes ...................................................... 365 1 .2 .3 Specific metrical patterns ................................................... 368 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 369 References.............................................................................................. 370  Section 1: Adaptive Reuse of Indian Philosophy and Other Systems of Knowledge  From Theory to Poetry: The Reuse of Patañjali’s Yogaśāstra in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha* Philipp A. Maas The present chapter discusses two cases of adaptive reuse of religio-philo- sophical ideas and text passages from the Pātañjalayogaśāstra (“The Au- thoritative Exposition of Yoga by Patañjali,” PYŚ), as well as a single case of a reference to the same, in a work of high-class poetry, namely, Māgha’s epic poem Śiśupālavadha (“The Slaying of Śiśupāla,” ŚPV). The reuse occurs in the two stanzas 4.55 and 14.62, the reference in the three stanzas 1.31–33. After a brief introduction to the two quite different literary works that serve as the respective source and target of reuse (in sections 1 and 2), the chapter outlines the history of research on the ŚPV and its relationship to Sāṅkhya and Yoga philosophy in section 3. The fact that Māgha alluded to Sāṅkhya and Yoga concepts has been known by scholars of Indology for more than a hundred years, but the exact nature of these references has never been inves- tigated in detail. To address this, the first part of section 4 interprets stanzas 4.55 and 14.62, and the passage 1.31–33, highlights the reused text passages and the concepts of classical Yoga, analyses the specific contexts in which the reuse occurs, and suggests possible answers to the question of what au- thorial intentions may have been behind Māgha’s reuse of Patañjali’s work. The final part of section 4 investigates the reception of Māgha’s reuse by the 10th-century Kashmiri commentator Vallabhadeva. In conclusion, section 5 examines the primary historical result of this investigation, namely that the PYŚ was widely known as a unitary authoritative work of Yoga theory and practice in different parts of South Asia at least from the 8th to 10th century. It was this appraisal of the work in educated circles that may have suggested it to Māgha as a source of reuse. By this, he achieved – irrespective of his actual intentions – two interrelated effects: On one hand, his reuse contri- buted to strengthening and maintaining the authority of the śāstra as a ∗ Many thanks to Elisa Freschi, Dominic Goodall, Petra Kieffer-Pülz, Andrey Klebanov, James Mallinson, Chettiarthodi Rajendran and Mark Singleton for valuable hints for, comments on, and corrections to earlier drafts of the present chapter. 30 Philipp A. Maas Vaiṣṇava work, and on the other hand, the reuse of the PYŚ charged the objects of Māgha’s poetical descriptions as well as his poem with the philo- sophical and religious prestige of the śāstra. 1 The Pātañjalayogaśāstra The PYŚ, which is the oldest surviving systematic exposition of philosophi- cal Yoga, was probably composed at some time between 325 and 425 CE by an author-redactor named Patañjali.1 Comparatively late primary sources as well as quite a few works of modern secondary literature suggest that the PYŚ in fact consists of two works, namely the Yogasūtra by Patañjali and a later commentary called the “Yogabhāṣya,” by a (mythical) author-sage named Vyāsa or Veda-Vyāsa. In the context of the present chapter, there is no need to re-discuss the authorship problem of the PYŚ in any detail.2 As I shall demonstrate below, the stanzas of Māgha’s poem reusing the PYŚ draw equally upon sūtra and bhāṣya passages of Patañjali’s work. This shows not only that the poet regarded the PYŚ as a single whole, but also that he ex- pected his audience to share this view. Moreover, even for the commentator Vallabhadeva, who probably lived approximately two hundred years after Māgha, the PYŚ was a textual unit.3 In general, the philosophical and religious views of Pātañjala Yoga are similar to those of classical Sāṅkhya, as is known from the summary of the lost Ṣaṣṭitantra in the seventy (or slightly more) stanzas composed by Īśvara- kṛṣṇa (5th century CE) that are usually called Sāṅkhyakārikā.4 The philo- sophical systems of Yoga and Sāṅkhya are based on the ontological dualism of primal matter (prakṛti or pradhāna) and its products on one hand, and pure consciousness existing as an infinite number of subjects (puruṣa) on the other. There are, however, some noticeable doctrinal differences between Sāṅkhya and Yoga. Classical Sāṅkhya, for example, acknowledges the exis- tence of a tripartite mental capacity, whereas according to classical Yoga the 1 Maas 2006: xix. 2 On the authorship question of the PYŚ, see Maas 2006: xii–xix and Maas 2013: 57–68. 3 See below, sections 2 and 4.3. 4 According to Albrecht Wezler (2001: 360, n. 45), the title of the work as reflected in its final stanza is not Sāṅkhyakārikā but Sāṅkhyasaptati. The title Sāṅkhyakārikā found its way into the handbooks of Indian literature and philosophy possibly due to Cole- brooke’s seminal essay “On the philosophy of the Hindus,” in which the author states: “The best text of the Sánc’hya is a short treatise in verse, which is denominated Cáricá, as memorial verses of other sciences likewise are” (Colebrooke 1827: 23).  From Theory to Poetry 31 mental capacity is a single unit. Moreover, Yoga emphasizes the existence of a highest God (īśvara), who is described as an eternally liberated subject (puruṣa). The difference between God and other liberated subjects consists in that the latter are conceived as having been bound to matter in the cycle of rebirths prior to their liberation. In contradistinction to this, God was never bound in the past nor is there any possibility for him to be bound in the fu- ture. The transcendental status of God leads to the problem of how a transcen- dental subject, who is axiomatically considered totally free of any activity, can intervene in the world. The solution that Patañjali presented consists in postulating that God’s effectiveness is quite limited. At the beginning of each of the cyclically reoccurring creations of the world, God assumes a perfect mental capacity in order to provide instruction to a seer and to start a lineage of teachers and pupils. This process, according to Yoga, is not an activity in the full sense of the word. It is an event that takes place in accordance with God’s compassionate nature.5 Based on these philosophical and religious foundations, the PYŚ teaches meditations aiming at an unrestricted self-perception of the subject, in which consciousness becomes conscious exclusively of itself, unaffected by even the slightest content of consciousness.6 This special kind of cognition is be- lieved to be soteriologically decisive, because it removes the misorientation of the subject towards matter. This liberating insight is therefore the release of bondage in the cycle of rebirths. 2 Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha Māgha’s ŚPV is a work of a different literary genre than the PYŚ. It is not an authoritative exposition or system of knowledge (śāstra), but an epic poem belonging to the genre of kāvya literature, or, more specifically, to the cate- gory of mahākāvya.7 As such it is one of the most distinguished Sanskrit poetic compositions in which aesthetical purposes outweigh didactic ones.8 5 See Maas 2009: 265f. and 276f. 6 On yogic meditations, see Oberhammer 1977 and Maas 2009. 7 For a general introduction to kāvya literature, see Lienhard 1984 and Warder 1974– 1992. 8 Reusing the work of his predecessor Mammaṭa (11th c.), the 12th century poetologist and polymath Hemacandra specified in his Kavyānuśāsana (1.3) that the first and most important purpose of poetry is pleasure resulting from relishing poetry. Additional aims are fame for the poet and instructions that are delivered – as gently as only lovers 32 Philipp A. Maas The plot of the ŚPV is a modified and lengthy retelling of an episode from the second book of the Mahābhārata (i.e., MBh 2.33–42) that narrates the events leading Kṛṣṇa to kill his relative, the king Śiśupāla.9 Accordingly, the ŚPV as a whole is a case of adaptive reuse of a passage of the MBh as its literary exemplar.10 In his poetic creation, Māgha apparently had several interrelated inten- tions. One of these was providing his audience with a refined aesthetical ex- perience. Moreover, he aimed at glorifying the god Viṣṇu in his incarnation as Kṛṣṇa. Māgha took every effort to show his own poetic skills, his mastery of a large number of meters, and his learnedness in several branches of know- ledge, including literary criticism, metrics, grammar, music, erotology, philo- sophy, etc.11 As was already noted by Hermann Jacobi, Māgha’s literary agenda was also to outdo his predecessor and rival author Bhāravi, who had composed a glorification of the god Śiva in his great poem Kirātārjunīya.12 Modern critics have viewed Māgha’s extraordinary display of poetic and metrical skills as being disproportionate to the development of the plot of the ŚPV, which proceeds with a minimum of dramatic action. However, as Law- rence McCrea has convincingly argued, this slow development of an undra- matic plot and the plethora of embellishments work hand in hand to portray Kṛṣṇa as a consciously omnipotent being who is actually beyond any need of action to fulfill his role in the course of the universe, i.e., establishing and maintaining the Good.13 It is difficult to determine the date of the ŚPV’s composition. A still wide- ly accepted guess is that of Franz Kielhorn from 1906, who drew on informa- tion from the first stanza of the description of the poet’s family lineage (vaṃ- śavarṇana). This brief outline contains the name of a king under whom Mā- gha’s grandfather served as a minister.14 Kielhorn identified this king with a do – to the connoisseur. See Mammaṭa’s Kāvyaprakāśa 1.2 and Both 2003: 48. 9 For a brief summary of the plot of the ŚPV, see Rau 1949: 8f. 10 For a comparison of the ŚPV with its presumptive source, see Salomon 2014. 11 On the different branches of knowledge that a poet was supposed to master, see Kāvya- prakāśa 1.3 (p. 6) and its adaptive reuse in Hemacandra’s Kāvyānuśāsana 1.8 (Both 2003: 52–59). 12 Jacobi 1889: 121–135. According to Rau (1949: 52), Bhāravi and Māgha could at least theoretically both have relied on an unknown common source as their respective point of reference. On Māgha’s program, see also Tubb 2014. 13 See McCrea 2014. 14 sarvādhikārī sukṛtādhikāraḥ śrīdharmlābhasya babhūva rājñaḥ / asaktadṛṣṭir virājaḥ sadaiva devo ’paraḥ suprabhadevanāmā // 1 // (Kak and Shastri 1935: 305) “The glo- rious king Dharmalābha had a chief minister called Suprabhadeva (God of Good Ra- diance), who was chiefly obliged to virtuous actions, always liberal and pure, like a  From Theory to Poetry 33 certain Varmalāta who, according to epigraphic evidence, reigned “about A.D. 625.” This would establish that Māgha “must be placed in about the second half of the 7th century A.D.”15 However, the name of the patron of Māgha’s grandfather occurs in different versions of the ŚPV in twelve va- riants as Gharmalāta, Carmalāta, Dharmadeva, Dharmanātha, Dharmanābha, Dharmalāta, Dharmalābha, Nirmalānta, Varmanāma, Varmalākhya (=Varma- la), Varmalāta and Varmanābha.16 Already Wilhelm Rau observed that most of these variants can be ex- plained as scribal errors caused by the similarity of certain writing blocks or akṣaras in north Indian scripts.17 However, without additional evidence it is impossible to decide which variant (if any) was the starting point for the textual developments leading to the other eleven readings. The fact that “Var- malāta” is the only name attested in an inscription does not establish this reading as the original wording of the ŚPV.18 A final conclusion concerning the original name of the king could only be reached on the basis of research in the text genealogy of Māgha’s work.19 The same is also true for the ques- tion of whether the five stanzas making up the description of Māgha’s family lineage are an original part of the ŚPV or whether they were added in the course of its transmission, as Rau was inclined to believe on the basis of their absence in Mallinātha’s version of the ŚPV (1949: 56f.). Rau even thought that he could identify the commentator Vallabhadeva as the author of the vaṃśavarṇana. In order to arrive at this conclusion, he emended the appar- ently corrupt wording of the final colophon of Vallabhadeva’s Saṃdehavi- ṣauṣadhi (“The Antidote against the Poison of Doubt,” henceforth: Antidote) in such a way that it clearly states Vallabhadeva’s authorship of the five stanzas. This emendation may be unnecessary. According to the printed edition of Kak and Shastri, to which Rau did not have access, the 10th-century commentator from Kashmir actually introduced the section under discussion by stating that it was authored by the poet Māgha, and not by himself: second king (or: like a god).” 15 Kielhorn 1906: 146. McCrea (2014: 123) placed Māgha in the 7th century without further discussion. Bronner and McCrea (2012: 427) suggested the late 7th or early 8th century as the date of composition for the ŚPV, equally without providing any refer- ence. Salomon (2014: 225), who agreed with this dating, referred to Kielhorn 1906. 16 See Rau 1949: 54f. 17 Rau 1949: 55. 18 Hultzsch (1927: 224), however, stated that this is “the inscriptionally attested form of the name” (“die inschriftlich beglaubigte Form des Namens”). 19 Already Rau remarked that this question “can only be solved on the basis of the manu- scripts” (Rau 1949: 55 “läßt sich endgültig nur durch die Handschriften entscheiden”). 34 Philipp A. Maas adhunā kavir lāghavena nijavaṃśavarṇanaṃ cikīrṣur āha (Kak and Shastri 1935: 305,1.). Now the poet, desiring to briefly describe his own lineage, recites the following stanzas. However, even if it can be established that it was the poet Māgha who composed the description of his lineage, this part of his work does not allow for any definite conclusion concerning the date of composition of the ŚPV. At the present state of research, the dating of Māgha to ca. 750 CE, which George Cardona has suggested on the basis of the consideration that Māgha must have lived after Jinendrabuddhi,20 the author of a grammatical commen- tary to which the ŚPV apparently refers, may be the best educated guess.21 3 The Śiśupālavadha and Sāṅkhya Yoga in academic research Despite its high literary quality, the ŚPV has received until quite recently comparatively little scholarly attention. One of the few monographs on Mā- gha’s work is the dissertation of Wilhelm Rau from 1949, which was pub- lished posthumously only in 2012. Rau investigated the textual history of the ŚPV by comparing the text as transmitted in a transcript of a manuscript in Śāradā script containing Vallabhadeva’s Antidote22 with two printed edi- tions.23 In this context, Rau dealt, inter alia, with the historical relationship of two different versions of a passage from the fifteenth chapter of the ŚPV. One version, which was the basis of Vallabhadeva’s Antidote, consists of a series of stanzas that can be understood in two different ways. If interpreted in one way, these stanzas revile Kṛṣṇa. If the verses are understood in a dif- ferent way, they praise Viṣṇu. In contrast to this, the second version plainly denigrates Kṛṣṇa. Rau concluded that the version with two meanings (which Bronner and McCrea 2012 calls the “bitextual version”), that is, the version that Vallabhadeva commented upon, is probably of secondary origin, whereas the version with a single meaning (the “non-bitextual version,” in the termi- nology of Bronner and McCrea 2012), which was the basis of Mallinātha’s 15th-century commentary, was probably composed by Māgha himself. 20 See also Kane 1914: 91–95. 21 Cardona 1976: 281. 22 The exemplar of the transcript was divided in two parts and is now kept at the Staats- bibliothek in Berlin. See the editorial comment by Konrad Klaus und Joachim Sprock- hoff in Rau 1949: 11, n. 4. 23 These editions were Vetāl 1929, and Durgāprasāda and Śivadatta 1927.  From Theory to Poetry 35 In a recent article on this passage by Ygal Bronner and Lawrence McCrea (Bronner and McCrea 2012), the two authors have convincingly argued that using methods of literary criticism and narratology should become a standard for future research on Sanskrit kāvya literature. Bronner and McCrea applied these methods to the above-mentioned passage in the fifteenth chapter of the ŚPV that is transmitted in two different versions. In their discussion of these two divergent versions, they confirmed Rau’s conclusion that the bitextual version is probably of secondary origin, using a whole range of new argu- ments. In addition, they suggested that the younger version was probably composed in the ninth century in Kashmir. The anonymous author of the secondary version presumably considered Māgha’s original unacceptable because of its negative attitude towards Kṛṣṇa, the incarnation of Viṣṇu. Richard Salomon (2014) reviewed seven arguments that Bronner and McCrea adduced in favor of the conclusion that the bitextual version is of secondary origin. According to him, these arguments “have a cumulative force that is persuasive, though their individual power varies.”24 Salomon supplemented Bronner and McCrea’s work by comparing the two versions of the monologue in chapter 15 of the ŚPV with the passage MBh 2.33–42 that Māgha reused for his poem. He found the non-bitextual version to be closer to the MBh passage and in this way added an eighth argument in favor of the originality of the non-bitextual version. According to Salomon, these ar- guments taken collectively strongly suggest that the non-bitextual version is authentic.25 One of Bronner and McCrea’s arguments for the secondary origin of the bitextual version that Salomon does not discuss, probably because the argu- ment is not particularly strong, is that “the philosophical and Sāṅkhya-de- rived themes in the bitextual speech of chapter 15 echo nothing to be found elsewhere in the poem.”26 Although the secondary version of the speech in chapter 15 indeed con- tains many more allusions to Sāṅkhya and Yoga philosophy than the bulk of the text, references to Sāṅkhya and Yoga actually occur in other parts of the ŚPV as well. 24 Salomon 2014: 227. 25 Salomon 2014: 236. 26 Bronner and McCrea 2012: 447. 36 Philipp A. Maas 4 Pātañjala Yoga in the Śiśupālavadha The existence of references to Sāṅkhya and Yoga philosophy in the ŚPV was noticed quite early by scholars of Indology. Already more than one hundred years ago, James Haughton Woods pointed out that the two stanzas ŚPV 4.55 and 14.62, which will be discussed in more detail below, refer to Pātañjala Yoga.27 Eugene Hultzsch, the translator of the ŚPV into German, presented a list of references in Māgha’s work to Sāṅkhya and Yoga concepts in an article that appeared in the Festschrift dedicated to Richard Garbe in 1927.28 This article, which comprises just four and a half pages, mainly lists eighteen references that Hultzsch noted based on the explanations contained in Vallabhadeva’s Antidote. A detailed analysis of the credibility of Vallabha- deva’s information as well as of the nature of Māgha’s references and their respective relationship to the philosophical works of Sāṅkhya and Yoga was apparently beyond the scope of Hultzsch’s article.29 Seven of the eighteen references that Hultzsch listed occur within the bi-textual version of chapter 15. There remain, however eleven instances in the bulk of the text that, at least according to Vallabhadeva, refer to Sāṅkhya and Yoga concepts. Of these, the two stanzas 4.55 and 14.62 stand out, be- cause they do not only refer to Sāṅkhya and Yoga ideas in general; they adaptively reuse clearly identifiable text passages and ideas of the PYŚ. These stanzas therefore attest the thorough acquaintance of their author and his audience with the PYŚ. 4.1 The stanza Śiśupālavadha 4.55 The stanza ŚPV 4.55 is part of a long description of the mountain (or high hill with five peaks) Raivataka, the modern Girnār in Gujarat,30 to which Mā- gha dedicated the fourth chapter of the ŚPV. This chapter can be divided, according to the analysis of Gary Tubb, into three parts.31 The first and the second part consist of nine stanzas each, which constitute the introduction to the chapter and its extension. In these two parts, the voice of the author de- scribes the beauty of the mountain. Thereafter, Dāruka, Kṛṣṇa’s charioteer, 27 Woods 1914: xix. 28 Hultzsch 1927. 29 Hultzsch deals with the following stanzas of the ŚPV: 1.31–33, 2.59, 4.55, 13.23, 13.28, 14.19, 14.62–64, 14.70 and 15.15, 15.18, 15.20–21, 15.27, 15.28, 15.29 (of the bi-textual version). 30 On mount Girnār, see Rigopoulos 1998: 98 and the literature referred to in ibidem, n. 38. 31 Tubb 2014: 174.  From Theory to Poetry 37 takes over and describes again the excellence of the range in an additional fifty stanzas. As Tubb has demonstrated, the entire fourth chapter of the ŚPV (plus the initial strophe of the following canto) consists of twenty-three triads of stan- zas. The initial stanza of each triad is consistently composed in the Upajāti meter in the first two parts of the chapter, and in the Vasantatilakā meter in the third part, whereas the meters in the second and third stanzas of the triads vary. In general, Māgha had a tendency in the third part of the chapter to use comparatively rare meters for the second and third stanzas.32 More important than these metrical peculiarities are the stylistic characteristics of each stanza in a triad. The initial stanzas of a triad “usually have little or no ornamen- tation on the level of sound, and it is here that the poet, freed from the dis- tractions of elaborate rhyme und unusual meter, brings out his heavy guns of imagery.”33 The stanzas in the second position generally contain alliterations (anu- prāsa) and less lively and imaginary descriptions of the mountain, whereas the final stanzas of each triad frequently contain yamakas, i.e., structured repetitions of identical words or syllables with different meanings. Within the third part of the description of the mountain, i.e., within Dā- ruka’s description, stanzas 4.55, the first in a triad, reads as follows: maitryādicittaparikarmavido vidhāya kleśaprahāṇam iha labdhasabījayogāḥ | khyātiṃ ca sattvapuruṣānyatayādhigamya vāñchanti tām api samādhibhṛto nirodhum || (ŚPV 4.55, part 1, p. 146; meter: Vasantatilakā). And here absorption practicing yogis, knowing that benevolence et ce- tera prepare the mind, effect the removal of afflictions (kleśa) and reach an object-related concentration. They realize the awareness of the difference of mind-matter (sattva) and subject (puruṣa), and then they even want to let this cease.34 4.1.1 The reuse of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra in Śiśupālavadha 4.55 The stanza 4.55 of the ŚPV adaptively reuses concepts of Yoga soteriology and describes in a nutshell the yogic path to liberation. At an early stage of 32 Tubb 2014: 184. 33 Tubb 2014: 177. 34 This translation is based on the result of the analysis presented in the next sections of this chapter. Here and everywhere else in this chapter, I have refrained from using square brackets in order to enhance the readability of the translations. 38 Philipp A. Maas this path and as a preparation for more advanced types of attainments, the yogi practices meditations leading to mental stability or prolonged periods of attention. Once this aim is achieved, the aspirant is qualified for other con- tent-related forms of meditation, culminating in the awareness of the differ- ence between matter (which makes up the mind or citta) and subject. In order to gain the liberating insight, i.e., self-perception of the subject, even this ultimate content of consciousness has to cease. The stanza ŚPV 4.55 does not only reuse the PYŚ conceptually by de- scribing the just-mentioned path to liberation, it also reuses the terminology of – as well as phrases from – Patañjali’s authoritative exposition of Yoga. To start with, pāda a of stanza 4.55 draws heavily on the end of PYŚ 1.32 and the beginning of PYŚ 1.33, which read as follows: … tasmād ekam anekārtham avasthitaṃ cittam, yasyedaṃ śāstreṇa parikarma nirdiśyate. (32) maitrīkaruṇāmuditopekṣāṇāṃ sukhaduḥ- khapuṇyāpuṇyaviṣayāṇāṃ bhāvanātaś cittaprasādanam (sūtra 1.33) (PYŚ 1.32,24–33,2). Therefore, it has been established that the mind is a single entity refer- ring to multiple objects. The authoritative exposition teaches its prepa- ration: From cultivating benevolence, compassion, joyousness and dis- regard for beings experiencing happiness, suffering, merit and deme- rit, the mind becomes pure. In this passage, Patañjali states that the “authoritative exposition” or the “sys- tem of knowledge” (śāstra) teaches the cultivation of benevolence and other positive attitudes. To which exposition does this statement refer? Meditations aiming at the cultivation of virtually the same attitudes are prominent in different pre-modern South Asian religions and systems of knowledge. In Buddhism, these meditations are known as “The Four Immeasurable” (apra- māṇa) or “The Divine States of Mind” (brahmavihāra).35 The oldest syste- matic exposition of Jainism in Sanskrit, the Tattvārthasūtra, also teaches in sūtra 7.6 the cultivation of virtually the same attitudes to different kinds of beings. Moreover, Ayurvedic physicians, according to the Carakasaṃhitā, are also expected to develop similar attitudes towards different categories of patients.36 Although, accordingly, benevolence and so on play an important role also in non-yogic milieus, the lack of any reference to a non-yogic con- text in the passage cited above makes it probable that Patañjali referred with the word śāstra to his own authoritative exposition of Yoga or to a different 35 See Maithrimurthi 1999. 36 See Wujastyk 2012: 31.  From Theory to Poetry 39 śāstra of his own school of thought (including the authoritative expositions of Sāṅkhya).37 Cultivating benevolence, etc. occurs in different religions and systems of knowledge. This may in principle render it doubtful whether Māgha actually reused the PYŚ or an altogether different source. However, as James H. Woods noticed long ago, the manner in which ŚPV 4.55 a combines the text of the bhāṣya part of PYŚ 1.32 containing the word “preparation” (pari- karma) of the mind – which does not occur in any other source known to me – with the text of sūtra 1.33 indicates strongly that Māgha indeed reused the passage of the PYŚ cited above and not a similar formulation in a different work.38 The first word of pāda b is an additional case of a verbatim reuse, this time of the technical term “affliction” (kleśa), which refers in the context of Pātañjala Yoga to the set of five basic mental misorientations that sūtra 2.3 lists as “misconception, sense-of-I, craving, aversion and self-preservation.”39 As long as the mind (citta) is affected by these afflictions, the subject mistakenly identifies itself with the contents of mental activities. This process maintains and consolidates the bondage of the subject in the cycle of rebirths. Thus, to reach liberation the afflictions must be removed. In this connec- tion, Patañjali frequently used the word “removal” (hāna) and other deriva- tives of the verbal root hā, as for example in PYŚ 2.15, where he compared his authoritative exposition of Yoga with the science of medicine in the fol- lowing way: tad asya mahato duḥkhasamudāyasya prabhavabījam avidyā. tasyāś ca samyagdarśanam abhāvahetuḥ. yathā cikitsāśāstraṃ caturvyūham – rogo rogahetur ārogyaṃ bhaiṣajyam iti, evam idam api śāstraṃ caturvyūham eva. tad yathā – saṃsāraḥ saṃsārahetur mokṣo mokṣo- pāya iti. tatra duḥkhabahulaḥ saṃsāro heyaḥ. pradhānapuruṣasaṃ- yogo heyahetuḥ. saṃyogasyātyantikī nivṛttir hānam. hānopāyaḥ sam- yagdarśanam iti (PYŚ 2.15; Āgāśe 1904: 77,9–78,5). Therefore (the affliction) “misconception” is the seed for the growing of this huge mass of suffering. And the right view is the cause for its extinction. In the same way that the medical system of knowledge has four divisions – i.e., disease, the cause of disease, health and medicine 37 On the use of the word śāstra in different contexts and with different meanings within the PYŚ, see Wezler 1987: 343–348, which does not refer, however, to the occurrence of the word śāstra in the present context. 38 Woods 1914: xxi. 39 avidyāsmitārāgadveṣābhiniveśāḥ kleśāḥ (sūtra 2.3; ed. Āgāśe 1904: 59). 40 Philipp A. Maas – so also this system of knowledge of Yoga has four divisions, namely, the cycle of rebirths, the cause of the cycle of rebirths, libera- tion and the method leading to liberation. In this regard, the cycle of rebirth that is rich in suffering is what must be removed. The connec- tion of primal matter and the subject is the cause of what must be re- moved. The final dissolution of the connection is removing. The me- thod of removing is the right view.40 The word “removal” (prahāna) in ŚPV 4.55 b is a quasi-synonym of the word “removing” (hāna) and a clear allusion to Patañjali’s conception of the cancellation of the bondage of the subject by means of the removal of afflic- tions.41 The following word of stanza ŚPV 4.55 b, “absorption with an object” (sabījayoga), also refers to the PYŚ, where the phrase “these attainments are the object-related absorption” (tā eva sabījaḥ samādhiḥ) occurs as sūtra 1.46. The choice of the word -sabījayogaḥ instead of its synonym -sabījasamādhiḥ can probably be explained by metrical constraints. This change of terminol- ogy is unproblematic, because Patañjali introduced these two words as syn- onyms at the beginning of his work (PYŚ 1.1), where he explained that “yoga is absorption” (yogaḥ samādhiḥ).42 In addition, ŚPV 4.55 c reuses the central yogic concept of the awareness of the difference between mind-matter (sattva) and the subject (puruṣa).43 Patañjali mentioned this special awareness, which, as it were, paves the way to final liberation, seven times in his exposition, i.e., in PYŚ 1.2, 2.2, 2.26, 3.35, 3,49 (twice), and 4.27. Māgha reused also the next word of ŚPV 4.55 c, the verb-form “realize” (adhigamya), from the PYŚ. This verb or derivatives thereof occur at nine points in Patañjali’s work.44 Of these, the occurrences in PYŚ 1.29 and 2.32 40 For more detailed discussions of this passage, see Maas 2008: 127–130 and Maas 2014: 70f. 41 The addition of the preverbium pra- to -hāna in ŚPV 4.55 is presumably motivated by metrical requirements. 42 PYŚ 1.1,3. 43 My translation of Skt. sattva as “mind-matter” is based on the teaching of Sāṅkhya- Yoga that the mind (citta) consists of the luminous substance sattva, one of the three constituents of primal matter (pradhāna). The expression cittasattva “mind-sattva,” oc- curs, for example in PYŚ 1.2,2. The Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa explains the com- pound by stating that it is a descriptive determinative compound (kārmadhāraya) in which the first part is in an attributive relationship to the second (cittam eva sattvaṃ cittasattvam; Pātañjayogaśāstravivaraṇa 1.2, p. 10.25). 44 These nine instances are: PYŚ 1.29 (twice), 2.32 (as a quotation of sūtra 1.29), 2.41, 3.6, 3.25, 3.36, 3.48, and 4.23.  From Theory to Poetry 41 are probably the most pertinent cases in the present context, because just as in stanza ŚPV 4.55 they refer to the self-perception of the subject and the reali- zation of the ontological difference between the subject and matter. In addition, also the reference to the stopping of the awareness of the on- tological difference in ŚPV 4.55 d reuses PYŚ 1.2 as follows: ity atas tasyāṃ viraktaṃ cittaṃ tām api khyātiṃ niruṇaddhi. … sa nir- bījaḥ samādhiḥ (PYŚ 1.2,10f.). Therefore the mental capacity, when it becomes detached from this awareness, lets even this cease. This is absorption unrelated to an object. The description of the process of cessation as described in the ŚPV differs, however, from the description of the same development in the PYŚ. Whereas in stanza ŚPV 4.55 the final stopping of mental activity is the result of an act of volition on the side of yogis (vāñchanti), according to the PYŚ the practice of a so-called cessation-experience leads to the stopping of mental activity.45 The designation of yogis as “practitioners of absorption” (samādhibhṛt) in 4.55 d, although not taken directly from the PYŚ, reuses the central yogic term “absorption” (samādhi), which occurs in the final position of the series of terms sketching the yogic path to liberation that is called “ancillaries of Yoga” (yogāṅga).46 If this interpretation is correct, Māgha alluded with this term again to the equation of yoga and samādhi in PYŚ 1.1 (cf. above, p. 40). On the whole, the terminology of the stanza ŚPV 4.55 is similar to the technical yogic terminology of the PYŚ to such a degree that there can vir- tually be no doubt that Māgha consciously reused the PYŚ; he did not reuse a different work of pre-classical yoga or a different and now lost classical yoga treatise. 4.1.2 Śiśupālavadha 4.55 in context If one reads the stanza ŚPV 4.55 as a part of the monologue of Kṛṣṇa’s cha- rioteer Dāruka, it can hardly be overlooked that the yoga-related motifs figur- ing so prominently in stanza 4.55 differ from the literary motifs that Dāruka addresses in the remaining part of his speech. None of the remaining forty- eight stanzas describing the mountain addresses primarily religious or philo- sophic motifs. 45 See Maas 2009: 273f. 46 yamaniyamāsanaprāṇāyāmapratyāhāradhāraṇadhyānasamādhayo ’ṣṭāv aṅgāni. [sū- tra 2.29]. “The eight ancillaries are commitments, obligations, postures, breath control, withdrawing the senses, fixation, meditation and absorption.” 42 Philipp A. Maas Dāruka’s monologue contains an appealing description of the natural beauty of Raivataka, as for example the famous stanza 4.20, in which Māgha poetically depicts the simultaneous appearance of the sun and moon during their respective rise and setting as the appearance of two bells that shed radiance on the body of an eminent elephant.47 Moreover, Dāruka’s monolo- gue repeatedly emphasizes that the mountain abounds in precious stones and metals, filling the landscape with splendor.48 From the perspective of Yoga, these appealing visual features do not recommend the range as a suitable place for yogic practice, because the mountain as described by Dāruka pro- vides views that are too spectacular. At least according to the prescription of Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad 2.10, a place for yogic meditation should be pleasing to the mind, but not overwhelming to the eye.49 A further motif in Dāruka’s description of the mountain that Māgha may have connected with Yoga is “mountain caves.” The caves of Raivataka are, however, not – as one might expect based on stanza 4.55 – places for yogic meditation in reclusion,50 but the location of amorous pleasures that young women share with their lovers.51 The only two stanzas that might be regarded as providing a link to Yoga, because they contain the motif of world-renouncing anchorites, are ŚPV 4.54 and 4.64. The first of these, which appears immediately before the Yoga stanza under investigation, reads as follows: samīraśiśiraḥ śiraḥsu vasatāṃ satāṃ javanikā nikāmasukhinām | bibharti janayann ayaṃ mudam apām- 47 Stanza 4.20, which according to Vallabhadeva earned Māgha the name Ganthamāgha (Māgha of the Bells), reads as follows: udayati vitatordhvaraśmirajjāv ahimarucau himadhāmni yāti cāstam / vahati girir ayaṃ vilambighaṇṭādvayaparivāritavāraṇen- dralīlām // 20 // (Kak and Shastri 1935, part 1, p. 132; meter: Puṣpitāgara) “When the sun is rising as the moon is setting, each with its ropes of rays stretched upward, this mountain has the pomp of a lordly elephant caparisoned with a pair of hanging bells.” (Tubb 2014: 145). 48 See, for example, stanzas 4.21, 26, 27, 28, 31, 37, 40, 44, 46, 49, 53, 56, 65, 68. 49 same śucau śarkarāvahnivālukāvivarjite ’śabdajalāśrayādibhiḥ / mano’nukūle na tu cakṣupīḍane guhānivātāśrayaṇe prayojayet // (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 2.10, Olivelle 1998: 418). “At a pure, level place that is free of grit, fire or sand, with noiseless water sources and so on, which is pleasant but does not press upon the eye, in a cave or a re- fuge that is protected from wind, he should concentrate.” 50 Pātañjayogaśāstravivaraṇa 2.46 mentions mountain caves (giriguhā) as a suitable place for the practice of yogic meditation (p. 225.15). 51 See ŚPV 4.67, p. 152.  From Theory to Poetry 43 apāyadhavalā balāhakatatīḥ || (ŚPV 4.54, part 1, p. 146; meter: Jalod- dhatagati). This mountain, cool by its breezes, pleases the ever-eased sages stay- ing on its summits by bearing bands of clouds that, through shedding their rain, turned into white curtains. Stanza 4.54 is a typical representative of a final stanza of triads that make up the fourth chapter of Māgha’s work. It is a verbal miniature painting creating a lively image of a cool, cloudy and beautiful mountain at the end of the rainy season. At the level of sound, the stanza contains a nice alliteration of sibi- lants in pāda a, combined with the yamakas or “structured repetitions and chiastic structures” that Tubb pointed out as a stylistic peculiarity of the third stanzas in the triads of the fourth chapter of the ŚPV (set in bold in the San- skrit text above). In contrast to what might be expected, however, Dāruka’s reference to sages living on the summits of mount Raivataka lacks any specific connota- tion of asceticism. On the contrary, the charioteer emphasizes that the moun- tain is pleasant by stating that the sages take special advantage of the cool clouds. On one hand, the clouds have already lost their water so that they do not make the sages too cold.52 On the other hand, the clouds are ultimately curtains that shelter the ascetics, possibly from the excessive heat of the sun- light. It appears that due to the cool wind and the clouds, asceticism on mount Raivataka is less painful than elsewhere. Just like many other verses in Dāru- ka’s monologue, stanza 4.54 creates a poetic sentiment of pleasure and ease. Unlike stanza 4.55, it neither refers, nor even alludes to any specific yogic soteriological concept. The same is true for the second stanza in Dāruka’s monologue referring to ascetics, i.e., stanza 4.64, which reads as follows: prāleyaśītam acaleśvaram īśvaro ’pi sāndrebhacarmavasanābharaṇo ’dhiśete | sarvartunirvṛtikare nivasann upaiti na dvandvaduḥkham iha kiñcid akiñcano ’pi || 64 || (ŚPV 4.64, part 1, p. 150; meter: Vasantatilakā). 52 Andrey Klebanov informed me (personal communication, September 2015) that the stanza ŚPV 4.54 possibly contains an allusion to stanza 1.5 of Kālidāsa’s Kumāra- saṃbhava. There, Kālidāsa describes the Himalaya as a place where perfected ascetics (siddhas) move to the sunny summits of the mountain range in order to avoid the rain in lower regions. By stating that sages are always at ease on Raivataka, Māgha may have implied that this mountain range was better suited to ascetics than the Himalaya. 44 Philipp A. Maas Even the Lord dwells on the snow-cold Lord of Mountains wearing a vesture of warming elephant-hide,53 whereas no renouncer is ever pained by the pair of opposites54 when he lives on this bliss-bringer throughout the year. This stanza contains again a number of alliterations (anuprāsa), as is cha- racteristic for the second stanzas in the triads of the fourth chapter of Māgha’s poem. The first repetition concerns the word “Lord,” referring to the Himalaya and the god Śiva (…eśvaram īśvaro). The second repetition in- volves the two indefinite pronouns in a sequence …a kiñcid akiñcano. On the level of meaning, the stanza contains a slightly ironic mocking of Śiva, who in other literary works frequently appears as the prototype of ascetics free of needs. Māgha, however, portrays Śiva as requiring warm clothes when he lives on the top of the Himalaya, whereas even ordinary ascetics on mount Raivataka never experience any needs at all. The message of the stanza con- sists again in a praise of the mountain as a pleasant location well worth being visited by Kṛṣṇa; it does not allude to any yoga-specific soteriological con- cepts. If one considers that Māgha consistently construes the characters in his poem in such a way that their speech mirrors their general character, also discussed in Bronner’s and McCrea’s recent article,55 stanza 4.55 does not fit well into the poem. In neither the ŚPV nor the MBh is Dāruka, Kṛṣṇa’s charioteer, related in any way to Sāṅkhya or Yoga theories of soteriological practices.56 An additional unusual feature of stanza 4.55 is that it does not refer to any sensually appealing quality of the mountain. This contradicts what is to be expected, because the very purpose of Dāruka’s monologue is making a stay at the mountain palatable for Kṛṣṇa by highlighting the various positive fea- tures of the place.57 53 Wearing an elephant hide is an attribute of Śiva in his appearance as the killer of the elephant-demon (gajāsurasaṃhāramūrti); see Haussig 1984: 166. 54 “The pair of opposites” (dvandva-) refers to troublesome sensations like heat and cold, hunger and thirst, etc. The PYŚ refers to this concept in the context of posture practice in section 2.48, which states that “[b]ecause of that (mastery of posture), one is not hurt by the pairs of opposites (sūtra 2.48). Because one masters the postures, one is not overcome by the pairs of opposites such as heat and cold” (tato dvandvānabhighātaḥ (sūtra 2.48) śītoṣṇādibhir dvandvair āsanajayān nābhibhūyate, iti.). 55 Bronner and McCrea 2012: 451. 56 See Sörensen 1904: 234b. 57 This can be concluded from the fact that Māgha expressedly states that Dāruka’s mo- nologue made Kṛṣṇa want to visit the mountain: “Hearing thus the true and beautiful  From Theory to Poetry 45 On the basis of these considerations one might suspect that the stanza ŚPV 4.55 is an interpolation in Māgha’s poem. However, the fact that the whole chapter is structured into triads of stanzas makes this conclusion im- possible, unless one is willing to argue that the stanza under discussion must have been a substitution for a different and unknown stanza at an unknown point of the transmission. Such an argument could, however, only be made on the basis of manuscripts that actually present an alternative to stanza ŚPV 4.55. For the time being, it seems that ŚPV 4.55 is an odd but probably ge- nuine part of Māgha’s composition. This unusual stanza adds an aspect to the description of the mountain that is not covered by any other stanzas of the ŚPV, namely its being the site of yogic practice leading to liberation from the bonds of rebirth.58 In this way, the description of a beautiful and charming mountain is supplemented by an element of ascetic value, or, in other words, the charming mountain is also a venue with a mystical flavor. Irrespective of whether one believes the author of this stanza made a lucky choice from an aesthetic point of view when introducing this additional characteristic of the mountain to the poem, it appears that the reuse of texts and concepts from the PYŚ in stanza 4.55 served a number of interrelated literary purposes. By explicitly mentioning that Raivataka was the place where yogis actually achieve liberation from the cycle of rebirths, the author implicitly identified the mountain as the place of fulfilling the religious aspi- rations of yogis. In this way, he created the notion of what might tentatively be called the sacredness of mount Raivataka. Moreover, the poet created sup- port for the claim that the PYŚ is the authoritative work on the theory of prac- tice of Yoga leading to liberation, possibly because this was the general view at his time and in the social circles to which he belonged. Accordingly, the śāstra and the notion of the mountain as a sacred space lend literary autho- rity, prestige and religious power to each other. The ŚPV contributed on one hand to reinforcing the recognition of the PYŚ as the authoritative work on words of his driver that were, as it were, incomparably sweet, he then, at their end, thus longed to live for a long time on that mountain that was dressed in a dress of the rows of its trees. (itthaṃ giraḥ priyatamā iva so ’vyalīkāḥ śuśruva sūtanayasya tadā vya- līkāḥ / rantum nirantaram iyeṣa tato ’vasāne tāsāṃ girau ca vanarājipaṭaṃ vasāne // 1 //) ŚPV 5.1, p. 153. 58 Mallinātha, the 15th century commentator on the ŚPV, highlighted this aspect of the stanza by saying: “The intention of the stanza is stating that this mountain is not only a place for sensual enjoyment, but also a place for achieving liberation.” (na kevalaṃ bhogabhūmir īyam, kiṃtu mokṣakṣetram apīti bhāvaḥ. Durgāprasāda and Śivadatta 1927: 108.) 46 Philipp A. Maas Yoga. On the other hand, the author of stanza 4.55 participated in shaping the public imagination of mount Raivataka as a place for fulfilling yogic practice. Quite interestingly, in the course of history, the mountain actually became a place of religious worship. Today, the mountain group harbors Jaina temples, of which the oldest can be dated to the 12th century, along with temples dedi- cated to the worship of Gorakhnāth and Dattātreya, both prominent figures in medieval forms of yoga (see Fig. 1).59 Figure 1: View of the Dattatreya Temple of Girnar (detail). Source: Sachinvenga <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girnar> (CC BY-SA 4.0). 4.2 The stanza Śiśupālavadha 14.62 The second stanza of the ŚPV containing clearly identifiable instances of reuse from the PYŚ is stanza 14.62. This stanza appears at the beginning of a speech of praise that Bhīṣma holds for Kṛṣṇa in order to introduce him as the only suitable guest of honor for the rājasūya because of his divine nature. The stanza reads as follows: sarvavedinam anādim āsthitaṃ dehinām anujighṛkṣayā vapuḥ | kleśakarmaphalabhogavarjitaṃ puṃviśeṣam amum īśvaraṃ viduḥ || (ŚPV 14.62, part 2, p. 123; meter: Rathoddhatā). 59 See Rigopoulos 1998: 98.  From Theory to Poetry 47 The yogis know him to be God, a special subject who doesn’t expe- rience afflictions, karma and its results. He, who is omniscient and without predecessor, embodied himself due to his wish to favor the embodied beings (or souls). 4.2.1 The reuse of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra in Śiśupālavadha 14.62 This stanza reuses conceptions found in the īśvara section of Patañjali’s work, more specifically, in PYŚ 1.24–25. Pādas c and d of ŚPV 14.62 are virtually a metrical paraphrase of sūtra 1.24. kleśakarmavipākāśayair aparāmṛṣṭaḥ puruṣaviśeṣa īśvaraḥ (PYŚ 1.24,2). God is a special subject who is unaffected by afflictions, kar- ma, its ripening and mental dispositions. In his reuse, Māgha substituted the word puruṣa “subject” from the sūtra with its synonym puṃs. Moreover, he changed the formulation -vipākāśayair aparāmṛṣṭaḥ “unaffected by ripening and mental dispositions” to the less technical but similar formulation -phalabhogavarjitaṃ “without experience of the results.” In addition, if interpreted through the lens of the PYŚ, it appears that Māgha reused conceptions occurring in the bhāṣya part of PYŚ 1.25 in pādas a and b of ŚPV 14.62. This section of the PYŚ deals, among other things, with the omniscience of God, which is established on the basis of the argu- ment that every increasable faculty must at some point reach a peak. This applies also, according to Patañjali, to knowledge, which reaches its peak in the state of omniscience. The argument concludes as follows: yatra kāṣṭhāprāptir jñānasya sa sarvajñaḥ (PYŚ 1.25,4f.). An omnis- cient person is somebody in whom the utmost limit of knowledge is reached. Apparently, Māgha changed the expression sarvajña from the PYŚ to the quasi-synonym sarvavedin, which, however can also be read to mean “know- ing all Vedas.” The same section of the PYŚ also deals with the problem of how God, a transcendental being and an eternally liberated subject, may be effective in the world. Patañjali presented the following solution: tasyātmānugrahābhāve ’pi bhūtānugrahaḥ prayojanam. “jñānadhar- mopadeśena kalpapralayamahāpralayeṣu saṃsāriṇaḥ puruṣān ud- dhariṣyāmi,” iti. tathā coktam – “ādividvān nirmāṇacittam adhiṣṭhāya kāruṇyād bhagavān parama ṛṣir āsuraye jijñāsamānāya provāca,” iti 48 Philipp A. Maas (PYŚ 1.25,8–11). Although he is beyond help for himself, helping living beings is his motive: “At the dissolutions at the end of an eon and at the Great Dissolutions of the universe, I shall rescue the sub- jects from the cycle of rebirth by teaching them knowledge and dhar- ma.” And in the same way it has been authoritatively stated: “The first knower, the venerable ultimate seer, assuming a mind of magical transformation, out of compassion taught Āsuri when he desired to know.”60 This passage explains the efficacy of God in the world by assigning to him the role of a primordial teacher. Periodically, at the beginning of each re- creation of the universe, he assumes a mind (citta) in order to help suffering beings by instructing them in the teaching of Yoga, which enables these be- ings to achieve liberation from the circle of rebirths.61 Māgha reused this passage in pādas a and b of stanza 14.62 by adapting the terminology as well as specifically yogic theorems to the needs of his poetry. He alluded to the yogic teaching of God, the original knower of yoga (ādividvān) who periodically re-disseminates the teaching of Yoga at the beginning of each re-creation, by simply stating that God is without a prede- cessor (anādi). Moreover, the poet adapted the specific yogic idea of God as- suming “a mind of magical transformation” (nirmāṇacitta) by stating in a much less technical tone – and in accordance with the needs of the episode that he depicts – that God assumed a body (āsthitaṃ vāpus). Similar con- siderations may have also lead Māgha to stating that God assumed a body due to his intention of helping embodied beings or souls (dehinām anujighṛ- kṣayā), instead of sticking to the yogic concept of God helping subjects (puruṣas) that are entangled in the cycle of rebirths (saṃsārin) due to the altruistic motive (prayojana) of helping beings (bhūtānugraha). These adap- tations did not only increase the intelligibility of the stanza, they also led to the creation of a metrical composition containing one of the previously noted stylistic features of Māgha’s poetry, structured repetitions (in this case of ve- dinam anādim, vedinam … dehinām, vapuḥ … viduḥ). Nevertheless, the simi- larities of Māgha’s stanza to the passages in the PYŚ discussed above clearly indicate that Māgha consciously reused Patañjali’s work. 60 In his commentary on the PYŚ, Vācaspatimiśra ascribed this fragment to the Sāṅkhya teacher Pañcaśikha (see Āgāśe 31.16). However, as Chakravarti (1951: 115f.), Ober- hammer (1960: 81f.), and others have argued, this ascription is almost certainly ahistoric. 61 Cf. Maas 2009: 277.  From Theory to Poetry 49 4.2.2 Śiśupālavadha 14.62 in context As mentioned above, the stanza ŚPV 14.62 is part of a speech of praise that Bhīṣma holds for Kṛṣṇa in order to introduce him as the only suitable guest of honor for the rājasūya. It is this speech that causes king Śiśupāla’s outbreak of rage, which in turn leads to his reviling speech against Kṛṣṇa in the next chapter of the ŚPV. This is the passage, as discussed above, that is transmit- ted in two versions in different recensions of the ŚPV. In Bhīṣma’s speech, which consists for the most part of the twenty-nine stanzas providing an ex- tended version of MBh 2.33.28–29, the following four stanzas precede stanza 14.62: atra caiṣa sakale ’pi bhāti māṃ praty aśeṣaguṇabandhur arhati | bhūmidevanaradevasaṅgame pūrvadevaripur arhaṇāṃ hariḥ || 58 || martyamātram avadīdharad bhavān mainam ānamitadaityadānavam | aṃśa eṣa janatātivartino vedhasaḥ pratijanaṃ kṛtasthiteḥ || 59 || dhyeyam ekam apathi sthitaṃ dhiyaḥ stutyam uttamam atītavākpatham | āmananti yam upāsyam ādarād dūravartinam atīva yoginaḥ || 60 || padmabhūr iti sṛjañ jagad rajaḥ sattvam acyuta iti sthitaṃ nayan | saṃharan hara iti śritas tamas traidham eṣa bhajati tribhir guṇaiḥ || 61 || (ŚPV 14.58–61, part 2, p. 122f.; meter: Rathoddhatā). 58 I see clearly that here in the whole congregation of gods on earth (brāhmaṇas) and gods of men (kings) Hari, the enemy of the previous gods, the abode of all good qualities, is worthy of this honor. 59Do not consider Him, who subdued the Daityas and Dānavas, a mere mortal! He is a part of the Creator, and although he is beyond the world, he abides in every being. 60The yogis state that he’s unique: the mentally inaccessible object of their meditation. They say that he’s perfect: the inexpressible object of their praise, the object of their diligent venera- tion, remaining in remotest distance. 61Through the three material qualities, this God is threefold: When he creates the world as rajas, he 50 Philipp A. Maas is Brahmā. When he maintains as sattva, he is Viṣṇu. When he de- stroys as tamas, he is Śiva. A closer reading of the opening stanzas of Bhīṣma’s monologue indicates that stanza 14.62 is in perfect agreement with its context. Bhīṣma mentions that Kṛṣna is not an ordinary human being but a divinity. He alludes to Viṣṇu’s victory over different classes of demonic beings or Asuras, before he ad- dresses aspects of Vaiṣṇava theology such as the paradoxically immanent and transcendent nature of Viṣṇu. In stanza 61, Māgha even lets Bhīṣma depict Kṛṣṇa as encompassing the three important deities of Brahmā, Śiva and Viṣṇu in their respective functions of creator, maintainer and destructor of the world by drawing on the sāṅkhyistic concept of the three qualities or con- stituents of primal matter, sattva, rajas and tamas. Even more important in the present context is stanza 60, which introduces yogis as a group of devo- tees to Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa, for whom God is the object of their meditation. It there- fore does not come as a surprise that stanza 14.62 refers more technically to Yoga theology as is outlined in the PYŚ. This in turn corresponds quite nicely to the literary figure of Bhīṣma, who also in the MBh delivers yoga- and sāṅkhya-related teachings. On the whole, the stanza ŚPV 14.62, unlike the previously discussed stanza ŚPV 4.55, is well integrated into the poem. Although the two stanzas differ from each other with regard to the degree to which they fit into their respective contexts, the purposes and the methods of the two cases of adaptive reuse are similar. In stanza 4.55, the poet identi- fied mount Raivataka as the place where yogis actually reach their aim of spiritual liberation. In this way, he had, on the one hand, reinforced the notion of the sacredness of the mountain. On the other hand, he had supported the claim of the PYŚ as the authoritative exposition of the practice of Yoga by identifying a geographical location where the aim of Yoga was actually reached. In the case of stanza 14.62, Māgha reused the PYŚ in order to rein- force the notion of Kṛṣṇa being a divine incarnation by identifying him with the unnamed transcendental God of classical Yoga theology. On the other hand, he appropriated the PYŚ, which Patañjali had consciously created as a trans-sectarian work, for his own project of venerating Viṣṇu. Moreover, by making Kṛṣṇa the high god of Yoga theology, Māgha even turned the PYŚ virtually into a work of Vaiṣṇava theology.62 62 The Kashmiri poet Ratnākara composed his Haravijaya in praise of Śiva in ca. 830 CE (according to Sanderson 2007: 425). In stanza 6.21 he reused virtually the same concepts of the PYŚ as ŚPV 14.62. In this way, he appropriated the PYŚ as a work of Śaiva theology. My thanks to Andrey Klebanov for drawing my attention to this parallel case of adaptive reuse of the PYŚ.  From Theory to Poetry 51 4.3 The passage Śiśupālavadha 1.31–33 The final passage that will be discussed in this chapter is a weak case of reuse; it might equally be interpreted as a reference or a strong allusion to the PYŚ. It appears in the first canto of the ŚPV, where Māgha sets the stage for the remaining part of the poem. Here, the heavenly seer Nārada arrives as a burning flame from the sky at Kṛṣṇa’s home, where the latter welcomes the divine ascetic with due respect before enquiring about the purpose of his visit. The poem continues in the following way: iti bruvantam tam uvāca sa vratī na vācyam itthaṃ puruṣottama tvayī | tvam eva sākṣātkaraṇīya ity ataḥ kim asti kāryam guru yoginām api || 31 || udīrṇarāgapratirodhakaṃ janair abhīkṣṇam akṣuṇṇatayātidurgamam | upeyuṣo mokṣapathaṃ manasvinas tvam agrabhūmir nirapāyasaṃśrayā || 32 || udāsitāraṃ nigṛhītamānasair gṛhītam adhyātmadṛśā kathaṃcana | bahirvikāraṃ prakṛteḥ pṛthag viduḥ purātanaṃ tvāṃ puruṣāṃ purāvidaḥ || 33 || (ŚPV 1.31–33, part 1, p. 19–20; meter: Vaṃśastha) 31 The sage replied to him, who had spoken thus: “Oh Highest Being, you may not speak like this. As even yogis have to visualize only you, which task could be more important for me?”32 For the wise man who wants to reach the path to liberation that is blocked by excited craving and inaccessible for ordinary people, because it remains constantly un- practiced, you are the final destiny that shelters without ill [(like) a far-away land to which only one liberating road leads, a road that is extremely difficult to travel, because robbers whom the people cannot drive away lurk there with excited desires]. 33With controlled minds the wise men of old realized that you are the ancient, totally passive subject. By seeing their inner self, they grasped with effort that you are different from matter and beyond its modifications. In these three stanzas Nārada introduces Kṛṣṇa to the audience of the poem. Initially, the divine seer addresses Kṛṣṇa with the term puruṣottama “Highest Being,” which can be understood as a general reference to the fact that Kṛṣṇa is the incarnation of God Viṣṇu. However, the term can also be understood as 52 Philipp A. Maas a technical term of Sāṅkhya-Yoga designating a transcendental subject, the faculty of pure consciousness (puruṣa), of which God (īśvara) is an ideal form.63 It is this meaning that Nārada alludes to when he states that “even yogis have to visualize only you” (tvam eva sākṣātkaraṇīya … yoginām api), because it is the aim of yogis practicing theistic meditation to realize the fundamental identity of God, conceptualized as an eternally liberated subject (puruṣa), and their own individual subject.64 This interpretation suggests itself even more if one considers the wording of the stanza ŚPV 1.33, in which the term puruṣa is clearly used as a technical term of Sāṅkhya-Yoga to refer to the faculty of consciousness that is ontologically different from (and opposed to) matter (prakṛti) and its modifications. An additional reference to the PYŚ is the expression adhyātmadṛśā “by means of the sight of the inner self” in stanza 1.33b, which is a conceptional parallel to PYŚ 1.29. This passage describes the result of theistic yogic me- ditation in the following way: kiṃcāsya bhavati tataḥ pratyakcetanādhigam[aḥ] … (sūtra 1.29). … svapuruṣadarśanam apy asya bhavati: “yathaiveśvaraḥ śuddhaḥ pra- sannaḥ kevalo ’nupasargas tathāyam api buddheḥ pratisaṃvedī ma- dīyaḥ puruṣaḥ,” ity adhigacchatīti (PYŚ 1.29,1–5). Moreover, from this yogic meditation the yogi acquires the realization of his inner consciousness (sūtra 1.29). He even acquires a vision of his own subject. He realizes: “As God is pure, clear, alone and free from trouble, so also is my subject here that experiences its mental capacity.”65 The two key terms of this passage are pratyakcetanādhigama “realization of inner consciousness” from the sūtra and its paraphrase svapuruṣadarśana “the vision of one’s own subject,” because adhyātmadṛś “seeing one’s inner self” that Māgha used in ŚPV 1.33b could be a synonym of these two com- pounds, used in order to describe the means by which the yogis of old rea- lized the ontological status of God as being different from matter. The fact that for Māgha a yogi practicing theistic meditation attains knowledge of the ontological status of God by seeing his inner self indicates that Māgha knew 63 See above, sections 1 and 4.2.1. A stanza occurring in Viṣṇupurāṇa 6.6.2 that Patañjali quotes in PYŚ 1.28,5–6 uses the expression para ātman “Highest Self,” a quasi-syn- onym of puruṣottama, to refer to God. 64 For a detailed exposition of theistic yogic meditation, see Maas 2009, especially pp. 276–280. 65 Translation based on Maas 2009: 279.  From Theory to Poetry 53 a form of theistic meditation similar to, or even identical with, the one taught in the PYŚ. 4.4 The reception of Māgha’s reuse in Vallabhadeva’s Antidote Vallabhadeva, who wrote his Antidote “in the first half of the tenth century” in Kashmir,66 fully recognized the reuse of the PYŚ in stanza 4.55, and he provided it with the most comprehensive commentary of a single stanza of the whole chapter. His gloss highlights the reuse of PYŚ 1.33 by quoting the sūtra almost verbatim and paraphrasing the bhāṣya passage.67 Moreover, the Kashmiri commentator explained the concept of afflictions (kleśa) with a brief summary of PYŚ 2.3–2.10.68 In addition, he provided a pregant des- cription of the yogic path to liberation. One of the few instances in which Vallabhadeva deviated from the PYŚ, to which he never referred by name, is his quotation of sūtra 2.29. This quote contains the already mentioned list of eight ancillaries. Possibly due to a slip of memory, the commentator pre- sented the last three ancillaries as “meditation, fixing the mind and absorp- tion” (dhyāna-dhāraṇā-samādhi), whereas the original sequence in the PYŚ is “fixing the mind, meditation and absorption” (dhāraṇā-dhyāna-samādhi). On the whole, however, Vallabhadeva demonstrated his detailed knowledge of Yoga philosophy and a clear understanding of Māgha’s reuse. At the end of his commentary on this stanza, however, the 10th-century commentator stated that his exposition was based on the explanations of his teacher Prakāśavarṣa.69 He added that the “understanding of this stanza (?) cannot exist in detail without knowledge derived from personal experience (anubhava).”70 This may imply that Vallabhadeva felt unable to explain the 66 Goodall and Isaacson 2003: xvii. On Vallabhadeva, see also Goodall and Isaacson 2003: xv–xxi. 67 Vallabhadeva paraphrases sūtra 1.33 (maitrīkaruṇāmuditopekṣāṇāṃ sukhaduḥkhapuṇ- yāpuṇyaviṣayāṇāṃ bhāvanātaś cittaprasādanam) with maitrīkaruṇāmuditopekṣāṇām sukhadu[ḥ]khapuṇyāpuṇyaviṣayāṇām abhyāsāc cetaḥprasādanaṃ cittaparikarma (Kak and Shastri, part 1, p. 147.11f.). 68 See Kak and Shastri, part 1, p. 147.16–19. 69 Prakāśavarṣa, Vallabhadeva’s teacher, was the author of a commentary (Laghuṭīkā) on the Kīrātārjunīya of Bhāravi. Andrey Klebanov, who is working on a critical edition of Prakāśavarṣa’s commentary, was kind enough to inform me (email 25 September 2016) that Prakāśavarṣa referred to Pātañjala Yoga in his commentary on Kirātārjunīya 3.26. 70 śrutvā prakāśavarṣāt tu vyākhyātaṃ tāvad īdṛśam. viśeṣatas tu naivāsti bodho ’trānu- bhād ṛte, iti (Kak and Shastri 1935, part 1, p. 147.22). In an email (4 November 2013) Dominic Goodall was kind enough to draw my attention to Goodall and Isaacson 2003: liii, where the two authors highlight the fact that Vallabhadeva “occasionally concedes that the poem takes him into areas of knowledge that are beyond his experience.…” In 54 Philipp A. Maas stanza in every detail, even with the help of his teacher Prakāśavarṣa. It would, however, be hazardous to draw any conclusions from Vallabhadeva’s statement as to the degree to which the PYŚ was known in Kashmir during Vallabhadeva’s lifetime. At least some circles of Kashmiri scholars knew the PYŚ quite well. This can be concluded from the fact that Abhinavagupta, the famous polymath who probably lived in Kashmir slightly later than Valla- bhadeva, and Rāmakaṇṭha (950-1000 CE) quoted the PYŚ repeatedly in their respective works.71 Also the poet Ratnākara, who lived approximately one hundred years before Vallabhadeva, reused the PYŚ in his own poetry.72 In his commentary on stanza 14.62, Vallabhadeva indicated clearly that he knew a distinct group (of theologians?) committed to the Yoga of Patañjali called “Pātañjalas.”73 Moreover, the commentator revealed that he was aware of the fact that this group had a peculiar exposition of their teaching, i.e., a śāstra.74 The same awareness of the PYŚ is also reflected in Vallabhadeva’s commentary on ŚPV 1.33, where he referred his reader for more information to the PYŚ by saying “etat tu sarvaṃ yogaśāstrād eva sujñānam.”75 This suggests that Vallabhadeva regarded Patañjali’s composition, just as Māgha had done before him, as a unified whole rather than a sūtra work together with a later commentary. Moreover, he apparently assumed that his reader would be able to access this work in some way or another, that is, either from memory or in writing. support of this, the two authors quoted the passage from Vallabhadeva’s commentary on ŚPV 4.55 cited above. Moreover, they referred to Vallabhadevas’s commentary on ŚPV 12.8, where the commentator admits that as a Kashmiri he does not know much about chariots. 71 For Abhinavagupta, see Maas 2006: 111. The dating of Rāmakaṇṭha follows Watson, Goodall and Sarma 2013: 15. On Rāmakaṇṭha’s references to the PYŚ see Watson, Goodall and Sarma 2013: 447–450. 72 See above, n. 62. 73 Vallabhadeva glossed the verb viduḥ “they know” in pāda d with pātañjalā avidan “The followers of Patañjali knew.” (Kak and Shastri 1935, part 2, p. 124.8). 74 “And it has been stated: ‘God is a special subject that is unaffected by afflictions, karma, its ripening and mental dispositions (YS 1.25),’ and this can easily be unders- tood from the [explanations in] the authoritative exposition (śāstra). If however, I would investigate the matter here, my work would become overloaded” (uktaṃ ca – “kleśakarmavipākāśayair aparāmṛṣṭaḥ puruṣaviśeṣa īśvaraḥ” ity etac ca tacchāstrād subodhyam, iha tu vicāre granthagauravaṃ syāt”) (Kak and Shastri 1935, part 2, p. 124.14f.). 75 Kak and Shastri 1935, part 1, p. 20, l. 14.  From Theory to Poetry 55 5 Conclusions The previous sections have examined how Māgha reused concepts and text passages of the PYŚ at two points in his ŚPV. The nature of the reuse makes it virtually impossible that Māgha reused a work different than the PYŚ. At a third point, Māgha merely referred to characteristic teachings of the PYŚ, teachings which he could theoretically also have known from a different yoga work that is today lost. The detailed nature of Māgha’s reuse of – and refer- ences to – Pātañjali’s work indicates, in any case, that the poet was thorough- ly familiar with the PYŚ. Apparently, Māgha expected that at least some of his audience was acquainted with the PYŚ to a similar degree, because other- wise the adaptive reuse would not have been recognizable.76 This finding suggests that the PYŚ was widely known in educated circles extending beyond specialists in Gujarat – if this region was indeed the home of the poet – at the time of the composition of the ŚPV, which was probably around the middle of the 8th century CE.77 The respective effects that the poet created with these two cases of adap- tive reuse of the PYŚ were similar to each other. They are related to the fact that Māgha expected his audience to share his view of the PYŚ as a presti- gious work at least to some degree. By reusing the PYŚ, Māgha reinforced its reception as the authoritative work on Yoga par excellence among the edu- cated audiences of his poem. Moreover, the poet transferred the prestige of the śāstra to the object of his poetical description, i.e., to a sacred mountain in stanza 4.55 and to Kṛṣṇa in stanza 14.62. This in turn may have contri- buted to the reception of the ŚPV as a prestigious poetic composition. Māgha’s reuse was recognized even about two hundred years after the composition of the ŚPV, that is, in the first half of the 10th century in Kash- mir. This indicates the PYŚ was known as an authoritative work on Yoga even outside yogic or philosophical circles for several centuries after its com- position.78 In fact, the PYŚ played an important role throughout South Asian cul- tural, philosophical and religious history. Already during the first hundred 76 On the multiple purposes of adaptive reuse, see the introduction to the present volume. 77 See above, section 2. 78 A detailed analysis of the reception history of the stanzas ŚPV 4.55 and 14.62 in later commentaries, as for example in Mallinātha’s Sarvaṃkaṣā (15th century) and in the more than fifty-six additional commentaries on Māgha’s poem listed in the NCC, could cast more light on the reception history of the PYŚ in pre-modern and early modern South Asia. Due to limitations of time and space, this work must be left to another oc- casion. 56 Philipp A. Maas years after its composition, the work emerged as the authoritative exposition of philosophical yoga. This is indicated by numerous references to the PYŚ, and quotations from it, from the fifth century onwards in various genres of South Asian literature.79 The first chapter of the PYŚ alone is quoted in more than twenty premodern, mainly philosophical Sanskrit works (Maas 2006: 111). Patañjali’s work was also well known in Buddhist circles. A mediaeval Singhalese chronicle provides the legendary account that the eminent fifth- century Buddhist commentator and author Buddhaghosa was a follower of Patañjali before he converted to Buddhism and emigrated to Sri Lanka (War- ren and Kosambi 1950: ix–xii and Hinüber 1997: 102, § 207). Additional tes- timony for the favourable reception of the PYŚ comes from the northwest of South Asia. There, the eleventh-century Perso-Muslim scholar al-Bīrūnī drew heavily on Patañjali’s work when he described the religion and culture of the people in his India.80 Al-Bīrūnī also rendered the PYŚ into Arabic.81 The virtually continuous relevance of Patañjali’s work in premodern South Asian philosophical and religious history is also indicated by the fact that the PYŚ became the subject of three commentaries: (1.) The Pātañjala- yogaśāstravivaraṇa (Vivaraṇa) possibly from the eighth century,82 by a certain Śaṅkara, (2.) the Tattvavaiśāradī or Pātañjalayogaśāstravyākhyā by the famous polymath Vācaspatimiśra I, who flourished around 950–1000 (Acharya 2006: xxviii), and (3.) the late sixteenth-century Yogavārttika by Vijñānabhikṣu (Nicholson 2010: 6). Thus, the various interpretations, re- interpretations and critical responses to the PYŚ that were produced over the last approximately 1600 years make the PYŚ an extremely important source for research in the history of South Asian philosophy and religion. 79 The earliest quotation from the PYŚ known to me occurs in the earliest commentary (vṛtti) on the Vākyapadīya of Bhartṛhari (ca. 450–510), which quotes a bhāṣya passage from PYŚ 2.6 in commenting on Vākyapadīya 2.31 (p. 67). Whether the vṛtti is an autho-commentary of Bhartṛhari or whether it was composed by one of Bhartṛhari’s students, is still a matter of debate in indological scholarship. 80 See the lists of al-Bīrūnī’s sources provided by Sachau (1888: I: xxxix–xl) and Shastri (1975). 81 See Maas and Verdon (forthcoming), who argue that al-Bīrūnī’s Kitāb Pātanğal is a free rendering of the PYŚ into Arabic and not at all a more or less literal translation of the “Yoga Sutra” together with an unknown commentary. 82 There are basically two arguments in favour of an early date of the Vivaraṇa. First, the Vivaraṇa does not refer to any author later than Kumārila, who lived in the 7th c. (Halbfass 1983: 120), and second, it can be demonstrated that the textual version of the PYŚ commented upon by the author of the Vivaraṇa goes back to an early stage of the transmission (Maas 2006: lxxii).  From Theory to Poetry 57 References Primary Sources and Abbreviations Antidote Vallabhadeva, Saṃdehaviṣauṣadhi, see Kak and Shastri 1935 Haravijaya Ratnākara, Haravijaya, see Dvivedī and Paraba 2005 Kāvyaprakāśa Mammaṭa, Kāvyaprakāśa, see Dwivedi 1966 Kumārasaṃbhava Kālidāsa, Kumārasaṃbhava, see Murti 1980 MBh Mahābhārata. The Mahābhārata. For the First Time Crit. ed. by V. S. Sukthankar, S. K. Belvalkar et al. 20 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1933 (1927)–1966. NCC New Catalogus Catalogorum, see Dash 2014 Pātañjayogaśāstravivaraṇa = Pātañjala-Yogasūtra-Bhāṣya-Vivaraṇa, see Rama Sas- tri and Krishnamurthi Sastri 1952 PYŚ Pātañjalayogaśāstra. For references to chapter 1, see Maas 2006. For references to other chapters, see Āgāśe 1904 Sarvaṃkaśā Mallinātha, Sarvaṃkaśā on the ŚPV, see Durgāprasāda and Śivadatta 1927 ŚPV Māgha, Śiśupālavadha, see Kak and Shastri 1935 Tattvārthasūtra Umāsvati, Tattvārthasūtra, see Premchand 1904 Vākyapādīya [Bhartṛhari, Vākyapadīya.] Vākyapādīyam. (Part II: Vāk- yakāṇḍam) by Bhartṛhari: With the Commentary of Puṇ- yarāja and Ambākartri by Raghunātha Sarmā. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1980. Sarasvatī- bhavana-Granthamālā 91. Secondary Sources Acharya 2006 Acharya, Diwakar. Vācaspatimiśra’s Tattvasamīkṣā: The Earliest Commentary on Maṇḍanamiśra’s Brahmasiddhi. Stuttgart: Steiner 2006. Nepal Research Center Publica- tions 25. Āgāśe 1904 Āgāśe, Kāśināth Śāśtri, ed. Vācaspatimiśraviracitaṭīkā- saṃvalitaVyāsabhāṣyasametāni Pātañjalayogasūtrāṇi, ta- thā BhojadevaviracitaRājamārtaṇḍābhidhavṛttisametāni Pātañjalayogasūtrāṇi <Sūtrapāṭhasūtravarṇānukramasū- cībhyāṃ ca sanāthīkṛtāni,> … tac ca H. N. Āpaṭe ity ane- na … prakāśitam, Puṇyākhyapattana [= Pune] 1904. Ānandāśramasaṃskṛtagranthāvaliḥ 47. Both 2003 Both, Leo. Hemacandras Kāvyānuśāsana: Kapitel 1 und 2 . Eine Einführung in die Grundlagen des indischen 58 Philipp A. Maas Dramas und der indischen Poesie. Wiesbaden: Harras- sowitz, 2003. Drama und Theater in Südasien 2. Bronner and McCrea 2012 = Bronner, Yigal, and Lawrence McCrea. “To Be or Not to Be Śiśupāla: Which Version of the Key Speech in Mā- gha’s Great Poem Did He Really Write?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 132.2 (2012): 427–455. Bronner, Shulman and Tubb 2014 = Bronner, Yigal, David Shulman and Gary A. Tubb, eds. Innovations and Turning Points: Toward a His- tory of Kāvya Literature. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2014. South Asia Research Ser. Cardona 1976 Cardona, George. Pāṇini: A Survey of Research. The Hague: Mouton, 1976. Trends in Linguistics. State-of-the- Art-Reports. Chakravarti 1951 Chakravarti, Pulinbihari. Origin and Development of the Sāṃkhya System of Thought. Calcutta: Metropolitan Print- ing and Publishing House, 1951. Colebrooke 1827 Colebrooke, Henry Thomas. “On the Philosophy of the Hindus. Part 1: Sánkhya.” Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society 1 (1827): 19–43. Dash 2014 Dash, Siniruddha, editor-in-chief. New Catalogus Catalo- gorum: An Alphabetical Register of Sanskrit and Allied Works and Authors. Vol. 34. Śāla-Śīrṣopaniṣad. Chennai: University of Madras, 2014. Durgāprasāda – Śivadatta 1927 = Durgāprasāda and Śivadatta, eds. The Śiśupāla- vadha of Māgha: With the Commentary (Sarvaṅkashā) of Mallinātha. 9th ed. revised by Laxman Shāstrī Paṇasīkar. Bombay: Nirṇaya Sāgara Press, 1927. Dvivedī and Paraba 2005 = Dvivedī, Durgāprasāda and Kāśinātha Pāṇḍuraṅga Paraba, eds. The Haravijaya of Rājānaka Ratnākara: With the Commentary of Rājānaka Alaka and English Introduction. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan, 2005. Dwivedi 1966 Dwivedi, R. C., ed. and transl. The Poetic Light: Kāvya- prakāśa of Mammaṭa. Vol. 1. Ullāsas 1–6: Text with Transl. and Sampradāyaprakāśinī of Śrīvidyācakravartin. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1966. Goodall and Isaacson 2003 = Goodall, Dominic and Harunaga Isaacson. The Raghu- pañcikā of Vallabhadeva: Being the Earliest Commentary on the Raghuvaṃśa of Kālidāsa. Vol. 1. Groningen: Eg- bert Forsten, 2003. Groningen Oriental Studies 17. Halbfass 1983 Halbfass, Wilhelm. 1983. Studies in Kumārila and Śaṅ- kara. Reinbek: Inge Wezler, 1983. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, Monographie 9. Haussig 1984 Haussig, Hans Wilhelm, ed. Götter und Mythen des indi- schen Subkontinents. Unter Mitarbeit von Heinz Bechert et  From Theory to Poetry 59 al. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984. Wörterbuch der Mytho- logie 1.5. Hinüber 1997 Hinüber, Oskar von. A Handbook of Pāli Literature. First Indian ed. New Delhi: Munshiram Manohar, 1997. Hultzsch 1927 Hultzsch, Eugene. “Sāṃkhya und Yoga im Śiśupālava- dha.” Aus Indiens Kultur. Festgabe Richard von Garbe dem Forscher und Lehrer zu seinem 70. Geburtstag darge- bracht von seinen Freunden, Verehrern und Schülern. Ed. Julius von Negelein. Erlangen: Palm und Enke, 1927. 78– 83. Jacobi 1889 Jacobi, Hermann. “Bhāravi and Māgha.” Wiener Zeit- schrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 3 (1889): 121– 145. Rpt. in Bernhard Kölver, ed., Hermann Jacobi. Klei- ne Schriften. Teil 1. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1970. 447– 478. Glasenapp Stiftung 4,1. Kak and Shastri 1935 Kak, Ram Chandra and Harabhatta Shastri, eds. Māgha- bhaṭṭa’s Śiśupālavadha: With the Commentary (Sandeha- Viṣauṣadhi) of Vallabhadeva. [Rpt. of the ed. Srinagar: Kashmir Mercantile Press, 1935]. Delhi: Bharatiya Book Corporation, 1990. Kane 1914 Kane, Pandurang Vaman. “Bhāmaha, the Nyāsa and Mā- gha.” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Soc. 23 (1914): 91–95. Kielhorn 1906 Kielhorn, Franz. “Epigraphic Notes,” Nachrichten der Kö- niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl. 1906: 143–146. Rpt. in Wilhelm Rau, ed., Franz Kielhorn, Kleine Schriften. Mit einer Auswahl der epigraphischen Aufsätze. Teil 1. Wiesbaden: Franz Stei- ner, 1969. 428–431. Glasenapp-Stiftung 3,1. Lienhard 1984 Lienhard, Siegfried. A History of Classical Poetry: Sans- krit - Pāli - Prakrit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984. A history of Indian literature 3.1. Maas 2006 Maas, Philipp André. Samādhipāda: Das erste Kapitel des Pātañjalayogaśāstra zum ersten Mal kritisch ediert = The First Chapter of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra for the First Time Critically Ed. Aachen: Shaker, 2006. Studia Indolo- gica Universitatis Halensis. Geisteskultur Indiens. Texte und Studien 9. Maas 2008 — “The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease in Classical Yoga and Āyurveda.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 51 (2008): 123–162. Maas 2009 — “The So-called Yoga of Suppression in the Pātañjala Yogaśāstra.” Yogic Perception, Meditation, and Altered States of Consciousness. Ed. Eli Franco in collaboration 60 Philipp A. Maas with Dagmar Eigner. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akad. d. Wiss., 2009. 263–282. Sitzungsberichte der phil.- hist. Klasse 794 = Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesge- schichte Asiens 64. Maas 2013 — “A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philo- sophy.” Historiography and Periodization of Indian Phi- losophy. Ed. Eli Franco. Vienna: Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde, 2013. 53–90. Maas 2014 — “Der Yogi und sein Heilsweg im Yoga des Patañjali.” Wege zum Heil(igen): Sakralität und Sakralisierung in hinduistischen Traditionen? Ed. Karin Steiner. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2014. 65–90. Maas and Verdon forthcoming = Maas, Philipp A. and Noémie Verdon. “On the Hermeneutics of Yoga in al-Bīrūnī’s Kitāb Pātanğal.” Eds. Karl Baier, Philipp A. Maas, Karin Preisendanz. Yoga in Transformation. Vienna: Vienna University Press. Maithrimurthi 1999 Maithrimurthi, Mudagamuwe. Wohlwollen, Mitleid, Freu- de und Gleichmut: Eine ideengeschichtliche Untersuchung der vier apramāṇas in der buddhistischen Ethik und Spi- ritualität von den Anfängen bis hin zum frühen Yogācāra. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1999. Alt- und neu-indische Studien 50. McCrea 2014 McCrea, Lawrence. “The Conquest of Cool. Theology and Aesthetics in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha.” In: Bronner, Shul- man and Tubb 2014: 123–141. Murti 1980 Murti, M. Srimannarayana with assistance of Klaus L. Ja- nert, ed. Vallabhadeva’s Kommentar (Śāradā-Version) zum Kumārasambhava des Kālidāsa. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980. Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 20.1. Nicholson 2010 Nicholson, Andrew J. Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History. New York: Colum- bia University Press, 2010. Oberhammer 1960 Oberhammer, Gerhard. “The Authorship of the Ṣaṣṭitan- tram.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ost- asiens 4 (1960): 71–91. Oberhammer 1977 — Strukturen yogischer Meditation: Untersuchungen zur Spiritualität des Yoga. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akad. d. Wiss., 1977. Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klas- se 322 = Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Spra- chen und Kulturen Südasiens 132. Olivelle 1998 Olivelle, Patrick. The Early Upaniṣads: Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. South Asia Research Ser.  From Theory to Poetry 61 Premchand 1904 Premchand, Mody Keshavlal, ed. Tattvârthâdhigamasūtra by Umâsvati … . Vol. 1,2. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1904. Bibliotheca Indica, New Ser. 1079. Rama Sastri and Krishnamurthi Sastri 1952 = Rama Sastri, Polakam Sri and S. R. Krishnamurthi Sastri, eds. Pātañjala-Yogasūtra-Bhāṣya- Vivaraṇa of Śaṅkara-Bhagavatpāda: Crit. Ed. with Introd. Madras: Government Oriental Manuscript Library, 1952. Madras Government Oriental Ser. 94. Rau 1949 Rau, Wilhelm. “Vallabhadevas Komentar zu Māghas Śiśu- pālavadha: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Māghakāv- ya.” Inaugural Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgra- des der Philosophischen Fakultät der Philipps-Universität Marburg. Marburg 1949. Rept. Konrad Klaus and Joachim Sprockhoff, eds. Wilhelm Rau: Kleine Schriften. Teil 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012. 1–204. Veröffentlichun- gen der Helmuth von Glasenapp-Stiftung 46. Rigopoulos 1998 Rigopoulos, Antonio. Dattātreya, the Immortal Guru, Yo- gin, and Avatāra: A Study of the Tranformative and Inclu- sive Character of a Multi-Faceted Hindu Deity. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998. SUNY Series in Religious Studies. Sachau 1888 Sachau, Carl Edward. The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athâr-ul- bâkiya of Albîrûnî or “Vestiges of the past.” London: W. H. Allen & Co, 1888. Salomon 2014 Salomon, Richard. “Māgha, Mahābhārata, and Bhāgavata: The Source and Legacy of the Śiśupālavadha.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 134.2 (2014): 225–240. Sanderson 2007 Sanderson, Alexis. “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir.” Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner / Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Eds. Domi- nic Goodall and André Padoux. Pondicherry: Institut français d’Indologie / École française d’Extrême-Orient, 2007. 231–442, and (bibliography) 551–582. Collection Indologie 106. Shastri 1975 Shastri, Ajay Mitra. “Sanskrit Literature Known to al-Bī- rūnī.” Indian Journal of History of Science, 10 (1975): 111–138. Sörensen 1904 Sörensen, Sören. An Index of the Names in the Mahābhā- rata with Short Explanations and a Concordance of the Bombay and Calcutta Editions and P. C. Roy’s Trans- lation. London: Williams and Norgate, 1904(–1925). Tubb 2014 Tubb, Gary. “Kāvya with Bells On. Yamaka in the Śiśu- pālavadha. Or, ‘What’s a flashy verse like you doing in a 62 Philipp A. Maas great poem like this?’” In: Bronner, Shulmann and Tubb 2014. 142–194. Vetāl 1929 Vetāl, Anantarāma Śāstrī, ed. The Śiśupālavadha by Ma- hākavi Māgha: With Two Commentaries, the Sandehavi- ṣauṣadhi by Vallabhadeva and the Sarvaṅkaṣā by Mallinā- tha. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Ser. Office, 1929. Kāshi Sanskrit Ser. 69, Kāvya Section 9. Warder 1974–1992 Warder, Anthony Kennedy. Indian Kāvya Literature. Vols. 2–6. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974–1992. Warren and Kosambi 1950 = Warren, Henry Clarke and Damodar Dharmanand Ko- sambi. Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosâcariya. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950. Harvard Ori- ental Series 41. Watson, Goodall and Sarma 2013 = Watson, Alex, Dominic Goodall and S. L. P. Anjaneya Sarma. An Enquiry into the Nature of Liebe- ration: Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Paramokṣanirāsakārikāvṛtti, a Commentary on Sadyojyotiḥ’s Refutation of Twenty Conceptions of the Liberated State (Mokṣa), for the First Time Crit. Ed., Translated into English and Annotated. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry : École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 2013. Collection Indologie 122. Wezler 1987 Wezler, Albrecht. “Zu der ‘Lehre von den 9 Ursachen’ im Yogabhāṣya.” Hinduismus und Buddhismus: Festschrift für Ulrich Schneider. Ed. Harry Falk. Freiburg: Hedwig Falk, 1987. 340–379. Wezler 2001 — “Zu der Frage des Strebens nach äußerster Kürze in den Śrautasūtras.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländi- schen Gesellschaft 151 (2001): 351–366. Woods 1914 Woods, James Haughton. The Yoga-System of Patañjali, Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine of Concentration of Mind: Embracing the Mnemonic Rules, Called Yoga-Sūtras, of Patañjali and the Comment, Called Yoga-Bhāshya, Attri- buted to Veda-Vyāsa, and the Explanation, Called Tattva- Vaiçāradī, of Vāchaspati-Miçra. Cambridge, Mass.: Har- vard University Press, 1914. Harvard Oriental Ser. 17. Wujastyk 2012 Wujastyk, Dagmar. Well-Mannered Medicine: Medical Ethics and Etiquette in Classical Ayurveda. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.