James Mallinson Balliol College Oxford. By the time that the text achieved its greatest fame as an authority on the hat. The second introductory chapter concerns the physical practice. It starts by ex- amining textual evidence in the Pali canon and Sanskrit works for practices similar to the hat.
|Published (Last):||26 December 2008|
|PDF File Size:||2.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
James Mallinson Balliol College Oxford. By the time that the text achieved its greatest fame as an authority on the hat. The second introductory chapter concerns the physical practice. It starts by ex- amining textual evidence in the Pali canon and Sanskrit works for practices similar to the hat. Acknowledgements The enthusiasm of my teachers and fellow indologists in Oxford has been a constant source of inspiration.
Many have helped directly with this thesis but a few have been particularly generous with their time and learning. Firstly, I want to thank my supervisor Professor Sanderson who has always been ready to help me with his encyclopaedic knowledge.
Somdev Vasudeva is responsible for any elegance in the presentation of the thesis and has provided me with a great deal of useful textual material. Dominic Goodall encouraged me to go to India in search of manuscripts and helped me with the south Indian witnesses.
Others from Oxford that I want to thank by name for their comments and help are Dr. Thanks are due to the many people who have helped me obtain copies of manu- scripts, in particular Simon Stocken, Dr.
Ram, Dr. The Hat. Full Collation B. Works cited in the Br. The second pat. The third pat. The short fourth pat. The Matsyendrasam. It does not contain a systematic description of its yoga, nor does it call its yoga. It contains no statements of its ontological standpoint. Members of the cults connected with the Matsyendrasam. I am grateful to Professor Sanderson for providing me with these references.
IIA pp. See the notes to the translation for further details. I have not included the following titles from his list: Hat. Nowotny has edited the Goraks. In the Goraks. This evidence indicates that the work now generally called the Goraks. Recensions of the text consisting of a hundred or so verses do exist, but are clearly incomplete. He sees the lack of a reference to the Hat. These cleansing techniques, which may have been developed from medical practices, are thus probably a unique feature of hat.
I am grateful to Dr. Dominic Goodall and Dr. Harunaga Issacson for pointing this out to me. In it the Hat. Its witnesses are found all across the subcontinent, from Jodhpur in the west to Calcutta in the east, and from Kathmandu in the north to Pondicherry in the south.
The possibility of an eastern origin is hinted at by the superiority and greater age of the readings found in the manuscripts of the Matsyendrasam. Twenty-two manuscripts form a discrete group on account of their similarity. The edited text as presented corresponds most closely to the text as found in these witnesses. Three manuscripts of a text entitled Matsyendrasam. He lent me Dr. It has no pat. On the next page is a stemmatic diagram of the relationships between the witnesses.
The subgroups themselves can be further divided. Because of extensive contamination between and within the subgroups it has not been possible to use stemmatic analysis to decide which readings to adopt.
The text as presented in the Br. The many such errors that support the division of the witnesses of the KhV are not listed here. The interested reader is invited to consult the full collation. As a result there is some confusion in the vocatives found in the text, and one cannot always be sure who is talking to whom. At the beginning of the Matsyendrasam. These subjects correspond closely to the subject matter of pat. The following is an edited version of witness A f.
Thus it seems likely that MaSam. In style and language too the texts are very similar. Thus Matsyendrasam. All the other subjects she lists correspond to single pat. This appears to be capping the previous pat. In G and the KhV manuscripts, it has been redacted to make it more palatable to orthodox practitioners of hat.
It might well be asked how one can be so certain of the direction of borrow- ing, especially since, as shown above, the Matsyendrasam. G seems to have attempted to resolve the problem of context by shifting MaSam. See e. G shows no evidence of contamination with any of the other manuscript traditions.
In order to do this, some new upanis. The verses omitted by the upanis. The name of the text is very unusual—I know of no other tantric or hat. I have been unable to locate this reference. Dominic Goodall for suggesting this possibility.
His reasons for this are not clear. Somewhat surprisingly in the light of vv. The only practice described is the ha- t. The many rewards described almost all have direct parallels in the KhV and the ascription of the ability to prevent dos. Such parallels cannot be found in other texts that describe the technique. Why this should be so is unclear. The Vasis.. He believes it was composed or compiled to establish a tantric sam. What more would you like to hear?
The KhV manuscripts also have a fourth pat. Besides its lack of continuity in subject matter, this pat. The fourth pat. It seems likely that this fourth pat. None of the textual descriptions of the trainee hat. These three pat. Editorial Policy The text has been presented in the form in which it is found in the KhV manuscripts.
It is in this form that the text enjoyed its greatest popularity and for which there is the greatest amount of evidence. The composite nature of the text and the redaction it has undergone have resulted in internal contradictions that must have been present since at least the second stage outlined above. Witness G has no chapter divisions, while the MaSam. See, for example: pat. There is considerable contamination between and within the witness groups to the extent that stemmatic analysis is impossible.
Where a plausible alternative can be found among the other witnesses, the readings of U have not been adopted. This is because U has undergone the most redaction so its variant readings are the least likely to be original.
Where these are straightforward improvements to the text they have been adopted. Where their variants in the KhV manuscripts show signs of doctoring for ideological reasons they have not. My reliance on the quality of individual variants as the criterion for their adoption gives me considerable editorial license. Where I feel that my reasons for adopting a particular variant may not be entirely clear I have explained them in the footnotes to the translation.
In pat. This chapter starts with a survey of textual evidence for practices related to the hat. Forerunners of the hat. In one passage the practice is condemned by the Buddha while in the other two it is praised.
In the full practice, the tongue is made long enough to do this with many months of daily tongue stretching and by gradually severing the lingual frenulum with a sharp implement over a period of months. In the beginning stages and for most practitioners, the tip of the tongue touches the soft palate as far back as possible without straining,  or is placed in contact with the uvula at the back of the mouth. The Buddhist Pali canon contains three passages in which the Buddha describes pressing the tongue against the palate for the purposes of controlling hunger or the mind example , depending on the passage. Khechari Mudra is to be practised when the practitioner is on a light, healthy diet, otherwise constipation tends to occur, as the prana or life energy needed to digest food does not adequately reach the lower chakras. After cutting, he should rub the cut with a powder of rock salt and black myrobalan.
The Khechari Vidya