question on recaka-pUraka-kumbhaka

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Many thanks to those who have given me valuable references on this
question, both on the list and off it.

>Despite similar titles, (note the difference between yoga- and yogi-)
>these two texts do not seem to be related to each other.  That is, the
>B.rhadyogiyaaj~navalkyasm.rti is not an expanded version of the
>Yogayaaj~navalkya.

Yaajnavalkyasm.rti is a more generic Dharmazaastra text, while my
impression of the other text is that it is more focussed on Yoga.
The Sm.rti has a commentary called Baalakrii.daa, by Vizvaruupa,
traditionally equated with Surezvara, disciple of Zankara, and
the more widely known Mitaak.sara commentary by Vijnaanezvara.

Interestingly, verse 3. 110 in the Sm.rti must be a reference to
the other Yoga text - yogazaastram ca mat-prokta.m jneya.m yogam
abhiipsataa. The Yaajnavalkyasm.rti is available online from the
Indology site, as prepared by Prof. Ikari's team from Kyoto,
following the Nirnayasagar edition (1949).

>Unfortunately, currently I do not have access to these texts.  So, I
>cannot check if they use the term puuraka, recaka, and kumbhaka.

The Yaajnavalkyasm.rti does not. I don't have Yogayaajnavalkya
with me, so any help would be greatly appreciated. By the way,
one cannot find all three terms directly in the Ramayana or the
Mahabharata also. General references to praa.naayaama are there
in both epics.

>BTW, the commentary (vivara.na) on the Yogabhaa.sya ascribed to
>'Sa"nkara mentions puuraka and recaka as the terms used by others,
>i.e., not in the Paata~njalayoga"saastra.

This was what prompted my original request for references. In a
1998 paper in JIP, T. S. Rukmani interprets this "anye" (others)
as a reference to Vaacaspati Mizra, and argues that the vivara.na
is therefore a later text. I doubt whether the vivara.na on the
Yogasuutrabhaa.sya is by the author of the Brahmasuutrabhaa.sya,
but I nevertheless question the assertion that the reference in
the vivara.na is a straightforward one to Vaacaspati Mizra.

In the bhagavadgiitaabhaa.sya (4. 29), the terms puuraka, recaka
and kumbhaka are used as a matter of course, in order to explain
the sacrifice of praa.na in apaana and vice versa, controlling
the movement of both. There is also a full description of baahya
and aabhyantara v.rttis in this connection. Here, "apare" (others)
comes from the Giitaa verse itself, but the Bhaas.ya clearly shows
that Zankara himself was quite aware of all these details. Swami
Tyagananda pointed to the Zvetaazvatarabhaa.sya reference, but
the attribution of this commentary to Zankara is doubted. On the
other hand, after the work of Raghavan, Ingalls and Mayeda, there
is now no doubt whatsoever about the Giitaabaa.sya.

>Hauer thought the technique later known as puuraka, recaka, kumbhaka
>dates all the way back to the Atharvaveda. (Die Anfaenge der
>Yogapraxis im alten Indien, pp. 11-3)

That is a v. interesting piece of information. Any Atharvavedic
references available?

Best wishes,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.