ChapterPDF Available

Chapter 7: On al-Bīrūnī’s Kitāb Pātanğal and the Pātañjalayogaśāstra: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

September 2018

DOI:10.14220/9783737008624.283

In book: Yoga in Transformation (pp.283-334)

Authors:

Philipp A. Maas

Leipzig University

Noémie Verdon

University of Lausanne

Content uploaded by Noémie Verdon

Content may be subject to copyright.

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon

Chapter7:

On al-Bı

¯ru

¯nı

¯’sKita

¯bPa

¯tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra*

1. Introduction

1.1. The Life and Work of al-Bı¯ ru¯ n ı¯

Abu l-Rayh

˙a¯ nMuh

˙ammad bin Ah

˙mad al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ,or, more briefly, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ,was

aPerso-Muslim polymath who lived at the turn of the first millennium CE. Al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’sbiography is largely unknown, because the only available source of

information on the life of the scholar is the scant information scattered

throughout his oeuvre.1Yet, it is possible to reconstruct the main events of his

life. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ wasborn in 973 CE in today’sUzbekistan in the region known as

Khwarezm, located south of the Aral Sea, which wasexposed to various cultural

influences from Persia, South Asia and China throughout its history.2Probably

from 995 to 997, he lefthis home and stayedinRay (a south-eastern suburb of

present-day Teheran). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ also lived in ancient Gorgan, situated on the

south-eastern corner of the Caspian Sea in Iran, from 1000 to 1004. He returned

then to Khwarezm and lived there until 1017 when Mah

˙mu

¯d, the Ghaznavid, a

Muslim ruler coming from Ghazna in today’sAfghanistan,subdued this region.

*The present chapter is partly based on Noémie Verdon’spresentationatthe conference “Yoga

in Transformation: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on aGlobal Phenomenon”.

There, she convincingly explained anumber of characteristics of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as the

result of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ srevision of aSanskrit source text that at this time remained to be identified.

Subsequently,Noémie refined her approach to the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al by taking into account

recent results of Translation Studies. Whenshe presented adraftversion of the present chapter

to Philipp A. Maas, he introduced to Noémie his hypothetical identification of the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra as amain Sanskrit source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. The discussion of this hypothesis

led to ajoint thorough textual analysis of both the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra and the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

as well as to adetailed discussion of previous scholarly attempts to identifythe Sanskrit source

of the Arabic Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. Finally, Noémie and Philipp authored the present chapterjointly

by sharingtheir respectivelinguistic expertise, knowledge of South Asian and Arabicculture as

well as reflections and ideas online and in twoproject meetings in Vienna.

1See for instance the works of Kennedy (1970:II), Shamsi (1979), and Yano (2013).

2Kozah 2015: 8.

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

From 1017 to his death,atsome time between the years 1048 and 1050,3al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯

remained at the Ghaznavids’court, and stayed at different places in present-day

Afghanistan as, for example, Kabul and Ghazna. He also visited areas located in

north-western Pakistan, such as Peshawar,and Nandana(in the Salt Range). This

later period of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ slife appears to be the most probable time duringwhich

the scholar participated in an exchange with South Asian intellectuals. However,

the exact circumstancesofthis intellectual interaction remain unknown.

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ composed works on awide range of topics, such as astronomy,

mathematics, geography, history, gemmology, and pharmacology.4In South

Asian studies, he is well known for his monograph on India, the Ta h

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-

Hind. This work, which he wrote around the year 1030, is commonly referred to as

the Kita¯ bal-Hind or “India”.5In this book, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ discussedalarge variety of

subjects related to Indian science,history, geography, culture, literature, as-

tronomy, religion, and philosophy. He quoted abundantly from the mythological

literature of the Pura¯ n

˙a -s, from astronomical treatises, from abookthat he called

Gı¯ t a¯ ,from awork that he named Kita¯ bSa¯ nk, and from the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al.6The

twolast mentioned works areinfact Arabic translations of Sanskrit works that al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ prepared himself. The Kita¯ bSa¯ nk is connected with Sa¯ n˙khya philosophy,

while the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is arendering of awork belonging to aSouth Asian yoga

tradition. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ rendered both works probably at sometime between 1017,

when he accompanied Mah

˙mu

¯dineastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan,

and 1030, before he composed the Tah

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind.

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sArabic work on yoga is entitled “The Book by Pa¯ tang

˘al the Indian,

on the Deliverance from the Afflictions, into Arabic,byAbu

¯l-Rayh

˙a¯ nMu-

˙ammadbin Ah

˙mad al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ” .7In this title the word pa¯ tang

˘al is probably the

Arabic transliteration of the Sanskrit word pa¯ tañjala, which is a vr

˙ddhi-deriva-

3Kennedy 1970: II/151;Hermelink 1977;Shamsi 1979: 273–274.

4Boilot 1955.

5The full title of this work is ﻛﺘﺎﺏﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻧﻰﻓﻲﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖﻣﺎﻟﻠﻬﻨﺪﻣﻦﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔﻓﻲﺍﻟﻌﻘﻞﺍﻭﻣﺮﺫﻭﻟﺔ (“The Book of

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ on the Verif ication of Indian Treatises Accepted or Rejected by the Reason”). See al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958 and trans.Sachau 1888.

6See the lists of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ ssources provided by Sachau (1888: I/xxxix–xl) and Shastri (1975).

7ﻛﺘﺎﺏﺑﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﻯﻓﻰﺍﻟﺨﻼﺹﻣﻦﺍﻻﺛﻘﺎﻝﻧﻘﻞﺍﺑﻰﺍﻟﺮﻳﺤﺎﻥﻣﺤﻤﺪﺑﻦﺍﺣﻤﺪﺍﻟﺒﻴﺮﻭﻧﻰﺍﻟﻰﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻰ The reading “af-

flictions”(lit.: “burdens”,ﺍﺛﻘﺎﻝ )follows the emendation for the Arabic word meaning “sim-

ilarity, metaphor”(ﺍﻣﺜﺎﻝ )proposed by Pines and Gelblum (1966: 308 f.,n.51). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ referred

to the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al under the title “Translation of the Book Pa¯ tang

˘al on the Deliverance

from the Entanglements/Confusions”when he compiled alist of his own works in the year 1036

(ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔﻛﺘﺎﺏﺑﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞﻓﻰﺍﻟﺨﻼﺹﻣﻦﺍﻹﺭﺗﺒﺎﻙ ); see Boilot 1955: 208. Moreover, in his Tah

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind,

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ describes his work as dealing with “the deliverance of the soul from the fetters of the

body”(ﻓﻲﺗﺨﻠﻴﺺ

ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ

ﻣﻦﺭ

ﺑﺎﻁ

ﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ

ِ)(al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958: 6, l. 2f.; for adifferent translation see Sachau

1888: I/8) and with “the quest for the deliverance and the union of the soul with the [object] it

perceives”(ﻓﻰﻃﻠﺐﺍﻟﺨﻼﺹﻭﺍﺗﺤﺎﺩﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲﺑﻤﻌﻘﻮﻟﻬﺎ )(al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ 1958: 102, l. 3f.; for adifferent translation

see Sachau1888: I/132).

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon286

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

tion, i.e.,aword formed by means of vowelgradation, of the proper name

Patañjali. The word pa¯ tang

˘al is used to designate the authorship of awork, i. e., –

as we shall argue below –the authorship of the Arabic version of the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra. However, as wasalready highlighted by Hauer,8al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used the

word pa¯ tang

˘al not only to refertothe title of abook but also as aproper name of a

person.9

Pines and Gelblum10 suggested adifferent interpretation of the Arabic word

ba¯ tang

˘al (ﺑﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞ )orpa¯ tang

˘al.11 According to them, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ inserted the long a¯ in

pa¯ tang

˘al “in order to ensure an approximately correct pronunciation of the

foreign name”Patañjali.12 However, in the Tah

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ is

generally faithfulinrendering the length of Sanskrit vowels into Arabic letters.

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ transliterated the titles of various Pura¯ n

˙a-swith along a¯ at the proper

positions, as for example in bis

ˇnu-pura¯ na for vis

˙n

˙u-pura¯ n

˙a(ﺑﺸﻦﭘﺮﺍﻥ ), or in ba¯ gˇu-

pura¯ na for va¯ yu-pura¯ n

˙a(ﺑﺎﺝﭘﺮﺍﻥ ). Moreover, the orthography of the title “Book

Gı¯ t a¯ ”(ﮐﺘﺎﺏﮔﯿﺘﺎ ;kita¯ bgı¯ ta¯ )corresponds to the Sanskrit title Bhagavadgı¯ ta¯ in

having twolong vowels. Also the title of the “BookSa¯ nk”(ﮐﺘﺎﺏﺳﺎﻧﮏ;kita¯ bsa¯ nk,or

ﺳﺎﻧﮓ;sa¯ ng)which is related to the classical Sa¯ n˙khya school of thought has along

vowel. In some cases, however, along vowelinArabic doesnot represent along

vowelofaSanskrit word, as, for example, in Arabic ﭼﺘﺮﺟﻮﻙ (catur ju¯ ka)for

Sanskrit caturyuga, meaning “the four ages collectively”.Therefore the case

cannot be decided with absolutecertainty.

The Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al consists of adialogue between Pa¯ tang

˘al and “the ascetic

who roamed in the deserts and jungles”.13 In this conversation,the ascetic poses

questions that provide Pa¯ tang

˘al with the opportunity to present his exposition on

yoga.

The dialogue of Pa¯ tang

˘al and the ascetic is structured in four chapters that al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ framed with his own introduction and conclusion. The title and partly the

contents of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al suggest that the work is in one wayorthe other

related to the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, i.e.,the Yogasu¯ tra of Patañjali together with

8Hauer 1930: column277.

9The name Pa¯ tañjala occurs also in an Old Javanese work related to the South Asian yoga

tradition, namely in the Dharma Pa¯ tañjala. See Acri 2011:16.

10 Pines &Gelblum 1966: 308, n. 50.

11 The Arabic alphabet does not contain arepresentation of the voiceless bilabial stop p.

Therefore, the initial letter of the word “Pa¯ tañjal”occurs in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork either as the

Arabic letter b(ﺏ)orasthe Persian letter p(ﭖ).

12 See Verdon 2015: 133–137.

13 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 313. ﺳﺄﻝﺍﻟﺰﺍﻫﺪﺍﻟﺴﺎﻳﺢﻓﻰﺍﻟﺼﺤﺎﺭﻯﻭﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺽ .Instead of the word

“jungle”(ﺍﻟﻐﻴﺎﺽ ;al-g

˙iya¯ d

˙i), an alternativereading would be an Arabic word for desert ( ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺎﻓﻰ ;

al-faya¯ f ı¯ )(Ritter 1956: 169, l. 10, and n. 4). In medieval Islam, ascetics, who roamedthe deserts

(ﺳﺎﻳﺢ )ofIslamic territory,were regarded as religious saints in search of Allah. See Touati 2000:

187–188.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 287

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

the so-called Yogabha¯ s˙ya, from which, however, the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al differs

considerably with regard to its form and with regard to its contents. Even so, both

works are structured into four chapters. Moreover, the topics that are treated in

each of these chapters as well as the titles that we find in the concluding state-

ments of each chapter in both works roughly correspond to each other, as can be

seen in Table 1below.14

The chapter-concluding statements in the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

The chapter-concluding statements in the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra

“Here ends the first section, (dealingwith)

making the heart steadfastly fixed, of Pa-

tañjali’sBook.”ﺗﻤﺖﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰﻣﻦﻛﺘﺎﺏﺑﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞﻓﻰﺍﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐﻋﻠﻰ

ﻣﻘﺮﻭﺍﺣﺪ

“In the authoritativeexposition of Yoga

that originates from Patañjali, in the mag-

isterial Sa¯ n˙khya teaching, this wasthe first

part ‘on concentration’.”(iti pa¯ tañjale yo-

gas

´a¯ stre sa¯ m

˙khyapravacane sama¯ dhipa¯ -

dah

˙prathamah

˙)

“Here ends the secondsection (dealing

with)guidance towards the praxis which

has been treated previously in the first

section.”ﺗﻤﺖﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔﻓﻰﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩﺍﻟﻰﻋﻤﻞﻣﺎﻛﺎﻥﺗﻘﺪﻡﻓﻰ

ﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰ

“In the authoritativeexposition of Yoga

that originatesfrom Patañjali,inthe mag-

isterialSa¯ n˙khya teaching, this wasthe sec-

ond part called ‘instruction in means’.”(iti

pa¯ tañjale yogas

´a¯ stre sa¯ m

˙khyapravacane

sa¯ dhananirdes

´ona¯ ma dvitı¯ yah

˙pa¯ dah

˙)

“Here endsthe third section whose partic-

ular (subject) is recompense and the quale

of requital.”ﺗﻤﺖﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔﺍﻟﻤﻘﺼﻮﺭﺓﻋﻠﻰﺫﻛﺮﺍﻟﺠﺰﺍﺀﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ

ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﺯﺍﺓ

“In the authoritativeexposition of Yoga

that originatesfrom Patañjali, in the mag-

isterial Sa¯ n˙khya teaching, this wasthe third

part ‘on supernatural powers’.”(iti pa¯ -

tañjale yogas

´a¯ stre sa¯ m

˙khyapravacane vib-

hu¯ tipa¯ dastr

tı¯ yah

˙)

“Here ends the fourth section, (dealing

with)liberation and union, and with its

ending the (whole) book has ended.”ﺗﻤﺖﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻌﺔﻓﻰﺍﻟﺨﻼﺹﻭﺍﻻﺗﺤﺎﺩﻭﺗﻢﺑﺘﻤﺎﻣﻬﺎ

ﺍﻟﻜﺘﺎﺏ

“In the authoritativeexposition of Yoga

that originates from Patañjali, in the mag-

isterial Sa¯ n˙khya teaching, this wasthe

fourth part ‘on separation’.And here the

work ends.”(iti pa¯ tañjale yogas

´a¯ stre sa¯ m

˙-

khyapravacane kaivalyapa¯ das

´caturthah

˙.

sama¯ ptas

´ca¯ yam

˙granthah

˙)

Table 1: The wording of the chapter colophons of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and the Pa¯ tañjala-

yogas

´a¯ stra in comparison.

Although the chapter colophons of the twoworks differ, for example, in that the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra designates itselfas“the magisterial Sa¯ n˙khya teaching”

(sa¯ n˙khyapravacana), whereas al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ does not refer to Sa¯ n˙khya philosophy

here at all, the degree of similarity between the twosets of colophons cannot be

the resultofamere accident.

14 The text of the four chapter-concluding statements in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is taken from Ritter

1956: 177, l. 10, 183, l. 18, 192, l. 22 and 199, l. 1; the translations are those of Pinesand Gelblum

(Pines &Gelblum 1966: 325, 1977:527, 1983: 265 and 1989: 271). The text of the concluding

statements in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra follows Maas 2006: xxf.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon288

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

1.2. The Kita

¯bPa

tang

˘al in its Socio-Historical Context

Before we investigate the relationship of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al to possible Sanskrit

sources in more detail,itmay be worth recalling the socio–historical context in

which al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ composed his work. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ composed the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

during the Golden Age of the Islamic world, which lasted approximately from the

middle of the eighth to the beginning of the thirteenth century CE. In this period

of time, alarge numberofworks were translated into Arabic. The most intensive

phase of this important translation movement,which involved alarge variety of

domains,took place at the beginning of the Abbasid Caliphate(750–1258) in

Bagdad. Then, Arabthinkers translated, interpreted, and commented upon

many Greek philosophical works, often via intermediate Syriac translations.

These works include, for instance, almost the complete oeuvre of Aristotle.15

Indian scientific works, particularly astronomical and mathematical texts, were

also studied, interpreted and rendered into Arabic.

From the ninth century onwards, Greek philosophical theories and con-

ceptions found their wayinto the Arab intellectual world by means of trans-

lations of awide range of Greek philosophical works that becamesubject to

debates and reinterpretations. Greek philosophical conceptions were used cre-

atively to develop new Arab philosophical and theological theories. Generally

speaking, the Arab interest in ancient Greek works wastoaconsiderable degree

motivated by the desire to receiveand create heuristic tools that areuseful for

developing and elaboratingaMuslim philosophical theology.16 Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ was

indebted to this intellectual milieu. Mario Kozah argues, for instance, that the

exchange with his rival scholar Ibn Sı¯ na¯ decisively influenced the development of

al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sreligious and philosophical world-view as well as his methodology.17

For an appreciation of the scope and the meaning of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’stranslation

work, it may be worth mentioning that the Arabic word that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used for his

literary activity is naqlu (ﻧﻘﻞ ).18 The term actuallydesignates in its primary

meaning the activities of carrying and transporting. It is then used with awider

meaning in the sense of the transportation of ideas from asource language to a

target idiom, just like the English term “transmission”.Moreover, as Robert

Wisnovsky et al. recall, the concept of translation implies the idea of trans-

mission and transformation of asource text.19 In this context, the translators of

15 Daiber 2012: 60.

16 See Daiber 2012: 43–63. On different translation projects into Arabic, see Ernst 2003: 173–174,

Koetschet 2011:11–14, and Zadeh 2011:53–60.

17 Kozah 2015: 11f.

18 The other commonly used term is tarjama (ﺗﺮﺟﻢ )which means “to translate”,but also “to

interpret”.

19 Wisnovsky et al. 2011:13.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 289

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

medieval Islam used different methods to transmit ideas, ranging from preparing

relatively literal translations to compositingcommentaries.Generally, their in-

tention wastoremain faithfultothe source text, “whether that wasinletter or in

spirit”.20

1.3. Al-Bı¯ ru¯ n ı¯ ’sHermeneutic ApproachtoSouthAsian Religion and

Philosophy

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ noticed, according to Wilhelm Halbfass, the similarity in difference

between the ancient Greek religion and that of South Asia in so far as both

religions are polytheistic and equally differentfrom monotheisticIslam. The

common difference from his own tradition provided al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ with aperspective

that allowedfor acomparison of the polytheistic Indian with the Greek religion as

well as with monotheistic Islam. His view led him to aremarkably and un-

precedentedly open hermeneutic approach towards the religion and philosophy

of South Asia.According to Halbfass, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ shermeneutics, which is based

on a “positiveinterest”and on alack of missionary ambitions,may be charac-

terised as follows:

Aclear awareness of his own religious horizon as aparticular context of thought led him

[i.e.,al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ]toperceivethe “otherness”of the Indian religious philosophicalcontext

and horizon with remarkable clarity, and he understood the difficulties of penetrating

it. This clarity of hermeneutic awareness is unparalleled in the world of classical an-

tiquity […].21

The intellectual background of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’sliterary activity already suggests that

the scholar may not haveintended to produce aliteral translation of any Sanskrit

source, but that he rather transformed his source in order to communicate the

contents, as far as he understood and valued it, to his Muslim readership.

1.4. The Reception History of the Kita

¯bPa

tang

˘al

The success of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’sprogramme to promote knowledgeofSouth Asian

religion and philosophy in the Muslim world appears to havebeen ratherlimited.

The survival of asingle textual witness of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as well as an almost

complete lack of references to al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork in later Arabic or Persian liter-

20 Wisnovsky et al. 2011:9.

21 Halbfass 1990: 26f.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon290

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

ature indicate that it wasreceived with reservation. At least one of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

Muslim readers even found his translation of the yoga work incomprehensible.22

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork did not receivemuch attention in medieval Islam; it became,

however, the objectofquite anumber of modern academic studies.Inthese

studies, the exact relationship of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al to the works of the South

Asian yoga tradition, as well as possible reasons for peculiarities in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

exposition of yoga, were controversially discussed, mainly on the basis of a

comparison between the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and possible Sanskrit sources. However,

as we shall argue in moredetail below, detecting similarities and differences

between al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork and probable Sanskrit sources in order to determine

the degree of faithfulness of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sliterary activity cannot do justice to his

oeuvre.

In the following section 2ofthis chapter, we shall discuss different attempts to

identifythe main source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al that scholars undertook since

1888.23 Then,weshall present our own solution and argue that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’smain

source wasprobably the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.24 In section 3, we shall initially take

afresh and thorough look at how al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used his main source by taking into

account what al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ himself related about the wayhedealt with it. Following

this, we shall introduce different translational strategies that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ apparently

used for the composition of his work. Finally, in our conclusion (section 4), we

stress the fact that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ composed awork that is to aconsiderabledegree

independent from its sources. Therefore, it is necessary to take al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’smo-

tives and authorial intention into consideration in order to arriveatafuller

picture of his literary activity and creativity.

2. The Search for the Sanskrit Source of the Kita

¯bPa

¯tang

˘al

2.1. Carl Edward Sachau:AQuest in Vain

The first westernscholar to work on the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al wasCarl Edward Sachau.

He brought the Arabic text to the attention of the academic world when he

published his Englishtranslation of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’s“ India”in 1888 (Sachau 1888).

This comprehensivesurvey of pre-modern South Asian culture and religion

22 See Pines &Gelblum 1966: 302, n. 1; Ernst 2003: 177.

23 The earliest history of research wasalready sketched by Pines and Gelblum (1966: 303–304).

24 The text version of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ knew will certainly havediffered to

some degree from the version of this work transmitted inmodernprinted editions. For a

discussion of an instance of textual deviation between al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ sversion of the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra (as inferable from Q46ofthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al)and PYS

´3.29, see below, p. 305f.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 291

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

contains eight literal or analogous quotations from the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as well as

three references to this work.

In 1922, Louis Massignondiscovered acomplete text of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al,

written in the margin of amanuscript containing another work in the Köprülü

Library (Köprülü1589) in today’sIstanbul. Thirty-four years later, in 1956,

Hellmut Ritter published acritical edition of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al that he based on

this unique textual witness. Because this witness has come down to us in arather

bad state of preservation, Ritter conjectured anumber of readingstothe best of

his abilities and filled some lacunae by supplementing text from parallel passages

of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’s“India”.Byproviding for the first time the complete text of the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, Ritter opened up anew chapter in the history of research.

However, even before, different scholars had developed various hypotheses re-

garding the original Sanskrit source of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’syoga work without knowing

the complete version of it.

To start with, Sachau compared the extracts from the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al in al-

Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ s“India”with the Yogasu¯ tra together with the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙aof king

Bhoja of Ma¯ lava25 and judged the relationship between the Arabic and the San-

skrit works as follows:

Alberuni’sPatañjali is totally different from “The Yoga Aphorisms of Patañjali”(with

the commentary of Bhoja Râjâ, and an Englishtranslation by Rajendralâlâ Mitra,

Calcutta,1883), and, as far as Imayjudge, the philosophic systemofthe former differs in

manypoints essentially from that of the Sûtras. Moreover, the extracts given in the

Indica stand in no relationwith the commentary of Bhoja Râjâ, although the com-

mentator here and there mentionsideas whichinalike or similar form occur in

Alberuni’swork,both works beingintended to explain the principlesofthe same school

of philosophy.26

In his search for apossible Sanskrit source of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’swork, Sachau, who was

not aSanskritist, had to rely on early translations. His choice of the Yogasu¯ tra

together with Bhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙aas astandard of comparison wasmorethan

obvious, because at Sachau’stime these were the only yoga works available in

English translations.27 Sachau, however, could not find the source of the Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

˘al in Bhoja’syoga commentary. In his view, the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is “totally

different”from Patañjali’sYogasu¯ tra as it appears in the English translation of

Ra¯ jendrala¯ lMitra, obviously with regard to its form as well as with regard to its

philosophical contents. The same is also true for Bhoja’scommentary on the

25 Bhoja ruled in the first half of the eleventh century in Dhar, acity located in what is nowadays

the western part of Madhya Pradesh. For Bhoja’sdate, see Pingree 1981:336.

26 Sachau 1888: II/264.

27 See Maas 2013: 69. The first English translation of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra (i.e.,ofthe

Yogasu¯ tra together with the so-called Yogabha¯ s˙ya)was only published in 1907 by Ganganatha

Jha (Jha 1907).

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon292

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Yogasu¯ tra, which, according to Sachau,only shares with the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al “here

and there”comparable ideas of the “sameschool of philosophy”.Inthe end,

Sachau’ssearch for the Sanskrit source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al did not lead him to

any result.

2.2. Surendra Nath Dasgupta:AThird Patañjali

Forty-twoyears later, Surendranath Dasguptaarrived at asimilar conclusion,

without, however, referring to the work of his predecessors Sachau and Richard

Garbe.28 According to him,

[…]itiscertain that this book [i. e.,the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al]was not the present Yogasu¯ tra

of Patañjali though it had the sameaim as the latter, namely, the search for liberation

and for the union of the soul with the objectofmeditation.29

For Dasgupta, the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al wasdefinitely neither an Arabic translation of

the Yogasu¯ tra nor, one may add, the translation of one of its commentaries. In

Dasgupta’sview, the twoworks share only their general orientation,namely

liberation from the cycle of rebirthsand afusion of “the soul with the object of

meditation”.Inhis final conclusion, Dasgupta assumed that the Sanskrit source

of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al wascomposedbyanauthor named Patañjali who is dif-

ferent from the grammatical author of the same name as well as from the author

of the Yogasu¯ tra.30

2.3. Richard Garbe:The Ra

¯jama

¯rtan

˙d

˙aof King Bhoja

As mentioned above, Dasgupta did not discuss Richard Garbe’sattempt to

identifythe Sanskrit source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. Garbe, afamous Sanskritist

and at his time one of the leading specialists of Sa¯ n˙khya and Yoga philosophy,

had arrived at the conclusion

that the Sanskrit source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al wasprobably the Yoga Su¯ tras,whichin

India are commonly known under the name of Pa¯ tañjala,along with the commentary of

Bhojara¯ j a¯ (and not, as Ihad suspected S.Ph. 63 that of Vya¯ sa) […]. Ibelieve,however,

that the use of certain similes and exemplifications showsthe identity of Albe¯ ru¯ni’s

exemplar with the commentary by Bhojara¯ ja¯ .The simile of the husked and unhusked

rice grains in Albe¯ ru¯nı¯ I, 55 is found in the end of Bhoja II, 13, and the twoexempli-

fications from the legends of Nandikes

´vara (Nandı¯ s´ vara) and Nahus

˙aatAlbe¯ ru¯nı¯ I, 93

28 On Garbe’sattempt to identifythe source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, see section 2.3 below.

29 Dasgupta 1930: 60.

30 Dasgupta 1930: 64.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 293

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

occurinthe same wayjointly in Bhoja II, 12 (cf. IV, 2). The last mentioned agreement

appears to me as especially evidentiary. If one compares the whole of Albe¯ ru¯ni’sex-

position of the yogateaching at the instances that Sachau’sindex contains s. v. Patañjali,

the teachingappears to be blurred and occasionally wrong; one gets the impression that

Albe¯ ru¯nı¯ used defectiveinformation in apopular form besides the vr

˙tti of Bhoja.31

Garbe arrived at the oppositeconclusion than Sachau, for whom, as we have

stated above, the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al wasneither closely related to the Yogasu¯ tra, nor

to Bhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a. Although the German indologist acknowledged major

differences between the exposition of yoga in al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork and that of

probable Sanskrit sources, which he ascribed to “defectiveinformation in a

popular form”(mangelhafte Information in populärer Form), he also saw

striking similarities that allowedfor the identification of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ ssource at

least with ahigh degree of probability. In the course of his work, however, Garbe

had alternated in his judgement. Initially, he wasinclined to identifythe Pa¯ -

tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra (i.e.,the Yogasu¯ tra together with its bha¯ s˙ya)asthe most

probable source of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork. Later, however, he favoured the Yogasu¯ tra

together with Bhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a. The reasonfor Garbe’schange of mind was

that he discovered anumber of specificexemplifications, namely that of husked

and unhusked rice grains as well as that of the twomythological figures Nan-

dı¯ s´vara und Nahus

˙ainal-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’swork.

2.3.1. The Agricultural Example

All of these philosophical examples appear in Mitra’stranslation of the Ra¯ ja-

ma¯ rtan

˙d

˙a. However, as Garbe noticed himself in footnote 3tothe passage cited

above, the part of the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙acontaining the example of husked and

unhusked rice is missing in Mitra’sedition of the Sanskrit text. The samepassage

31 Garbe 1896: 41–42, translated from the original German, which reads as follows: “[…]

wahrscheinlich die in Indien allgemein mit den Namen Pa¯ tañjala bezeichneten Yogasu

¯tras

nebst dem Commentare Bhojara¯ ja’s(nicht Vya¯ sa’swie ich S. Ph. 63 vermutet habe) gewesen

[…]. Ich glaube jedoch, dass die Verwendung einiger übereinstimmenderGleichnisse und

Beispiele die Identität vonAlbe¯ ru¯ni’sVorlage mit dem Commentare Bhojara¯ ja’sdarthut. Das

Gleichnis vonden unenthülsten und enthülsten Reiskörnernbei Alb e¯ ru¯nı¯ I, 55 findet sich bei

Bhoja II, 13 Schluss, und die beiden Beispiele aus den Legendenvon Nandikes

´vara (Nan-

dı¯ s´vara) und Nahus

˙abei Albe¯ ru¯n ı¯ I, 93 stehen ebenso neben einander bei Bhoja II, 12 (cf. IV,

2). Die letztere Übereinstimmung scheint mir besonders beweisend.Wenn man Albe¯ ru¯n ı¯ ’ s

ganze Darstellung der Yoga-Lehre an den in Sachau’sIndex s. v. Patañjali verzeichneten

Stellen vergleicht, so erscheint sie freilich verschwommen und manchmal unrichtig; man hat

den Eindruck, dass Albe¯ ru¯n ı¯ eine mangelhafte Information in populärer Form neben Bhoja’s

˙tti benutzt habe.”“S. Ph. 63”in this quotation refers to Garbe’sbook Die Samkhya-Phi-

losophie (Garbe 1894). In the first edition of this work, Garbe assesses that the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

is to be identified with the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, while in the second edition he regards the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as arendering of the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a(Garbe 1917:91).

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon294

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

is also missing in A

¯ga¯ s´ e’sedition of the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a.32 Therefore it is at least

doubtful whether this passage wasanoriginal part of Bhoja’swork on yoga or

whether it wasadded to the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙ain the course of its transmission. If the

latter alternativewould be true, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ could definitely not havesilently reused

Bhoja’swork in his example of rice grains.

Several additional pieces of information suggest that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ most probably

did not use the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙aas the Sanskrit source of his Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. First,

no evidence suggeststhat al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ever visited Bhoja’skingdom of Ma¯ lava.33

Second, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ never mentioned awork with the title Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a, and

third, it is possible that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ composed his work earlier than Bhoja com-

posed his yoga work, who according to DavidEdwin Pingree, flourished between

the years 1005–1055.34

For discussing the question of which work most probably wasthe main source

of this exemplification in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al it is also relevant to notice that

Bhoja wasnot the first author to use the exemplifications that Garbe took to be

“evidentiary”(beweisend). The same illustrativeexamples already appear in

parallel passages of amuch earlier work of the philosophical yoga tradition,

namely in the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra 2.12 and 2.13, re-

spectively.

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra (PYS

´)2.13 states that the afflictions(kles

´a)are respon-

sible for the maturation of karma, which cannot happen if the afflictions are

removed. In order to illustrate the relation between the afflictions and the ma-

turation of karma, Patañjali introduces the exemplification of rice grains that

may or may not havehusks. He says:

As long as afflictions exist, the accumulation of karmakeeps ripening. This is not the

case if its root, i. e.,the afflictions, is cut off. Rice grains that are covered by their husk

and whose seeds are not parched can sprout; not, however, if their husk is removed or if

their seeds are parched.35

This passage is similar to aquotation from the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al appearing in al-

Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ s“India”,36 which in turn corresponds to apassage from Q29

37 of the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. The passage reads as follows:

32 A

¯ga¯ s´e1904: 20.

33 However,al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ waswell aware of the fact that Bhoja wasthe king of Ma¯ lavaathis time (see

al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958: 152, ll. 4–6; trans.Sachau1888: I/191).

34 Pingree 1981:336. See section 1.4 in Verdon 2015: 187–188.

35 Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra (PYS

´)2.13, p. 68, l. 18–69, l. 2: satsu kles

´es

˙ukarma¯ s ´ ayo vipa¯ ka¯ rambhı¯

bhavati nocchinnakles

´amu¯ lah

˙.yatha¯ tus

˙a¯ vanaddha¯ h˙s´ a¯ litan

˙d

˙ula¯ adagdhabı¯ jabha¯ v a¯ h˙praro-

hasamartha¯ bhavanti na¯ panı¯ tatus

˙a¯ dagdhabı¯ jabha¯ v a¯ v a¯ ….Wetake the Sanskrit word bı¯ ja,

which we translate with “seed”,torefer to the part of arice grain that is responsible for

germination, i.e.,towhat is called the “embryo”in modern biological terminology.

36 “The following passage is taken from the book of Patañjali: –‘The soul, being on all sides tied

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 295

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

The soul vis-à-vis these factors [i.e.,the factors that cause bondage]may be compared

to agrain of rice within its husk. As long as (the grain) has the husk with it, it has the

disposition(required) for sproutingand for ripening, and it alternatesbetween its being

generatedand generating. When, however, the husk is removed from it, these occur-

rences cease. It is purified (and thus becomes fit) for permanent existenceina

(changeless) state.38

ﻭﻣﺜﺎﻝﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲﻓﻴﻤﺎﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎﻛﺎﻻﺭﺯﻓﻰﺿﻤﻦﺍﻟﻘﺸﺮﻓﺎﻧﻪﻣﺎﺩﺍﻡﻣﻌﻪﻛﺎﻥﻣ

ﻌﺪ

ًّ

ﺍﻟﻠﻨﺒﺎﺕﻭﺍﻻﺳﺘﺤﺼﺎﺩﻭﻣﺘﺮﺩﺩﺍﺑﻴﻦﺍﻟﺘﻮﻟﺪﻭﺍﻻﻳﻼﺩ،

ﻓﺎﺫﺍﺍﺯﻳﻞﺍﻟﻘﺸﺮﻋﻨﻪﺍﻧﻘﻄﻌﺖﺗﻠﻚﺍﻟﺤﻮﺍﺩﺙﻭﺻﻔﺎﻟﻠﺒﻘﺎﺀﻋﻠﻰﺣﺎﻝ

(ed. Ritter 1956: 180, ll. 1–3)

The wording of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al can be identified as parallel to that of the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in as much as both passages use the example of rice grains

and their husk, the presence of which determines the ability of rice to sprout.

However, whereas the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra mentions that the germinationca-

pacity of rice may be annihilated by exposing rice grains to heat, the Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

˘al does not refertothis process of sterilisation. Moreover, the twopas-

sages differ even more strikingly in that the respectiveexamples of husked and

unhusked rice grains seem to be differently contextualised.The Sanskrit work

explains how future consequences of the storage of karmacan be prevented,

whereas the Arabic work explains that the soul is covered by ignorance like arice

grain may be covered by its husk. In the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, the husk has to be

removed in order to prevent changes of the soul, whereas, according to the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, removing the husk prevents the ripening of karma.

In spite of these apparent differences, it is possible to identifythe passage of

the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra as aprobable source of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork if one considers

the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al not as aliteral translation but as an adaptation that neces-

sarily required changes of contents. In the present case, it is quite probable that

the doctrine of karma and rebirth underlying the passage of the Pa¯ tañjalayo-

gas

´a¯ stra, which is foreign to Islam, called for areformulation of the passage in al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork. Therefore,the passage of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra becomes rec-

ognizable as the source of the parallel passage in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al if one

considers that “ignorance”(Skt. avidya¯ ), which al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ mentions to be the

cover of the “soul”(Ar. ﻧﻔﺲ ), is the most important of the afflictions (kles

´a)in

Patañjali’sauthoritativeexposition of Yoga (see PYS

´2.4). The conception of

to ignorance, which is the cause of its being fettered, is like rice in its cover. As long as it is

there, it is capable of growing and ripening in the transition stages between being born and

giving birth itself. But if the cover is taken off the rice, it ceases to develop in this way, and

becomes stationary’” (trans. Sachau 1888: I/55; ed. al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ 1958: 42, ll. 7–11).

37 The abbreviation “Q”followed by anumber refers to the numbering of passages in the Kita¯ b

Pa¯ tang

˘al in Ritter’sedition that comprise the respectivequestions together with their an-

swers.

38 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1977:524. Cf. Verdon 2015: 188f.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon296

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

ignorance in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is quite similar. There, ignorance is described as

the “root”(Ar. ﺍﺻﻞ )and the “basis”(Ar. ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ )ofthe other afflictions (Ar. ﺍﺛﻘﺎﻝ ;lit.

“burdens”).39 Viewed in this way, the removal of the “cover”of the soul in al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sterminology may correspond to the removal of the afflictions from the

mind (citta)40 that in Patañjali’swork leads to liberation from the cycle of re-

births, or, in al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ swords, makes the soul fit “for permanent existence in a

(changeless) state”.

It is possible that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’sknowledge of Sanskrit wasindeed “not pro-

found”(Pingree 1983: 353) and that he had to rely on the assistance of South

Asian pandits for his translation. However, the extent to which al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used

oral explanations is difficulttoestimate. The only reference in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

to the wayinwhich panditsassisted in the composition of the bookisal-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

statementthat the Indianbooks on wisdom “were read to me letter by letter”(Ar.

ﻗ

ﺮﺋﺖﻋﻠﻰ

ﺣﺮﻓﺎﺣﺮﻓﺎ ).41 In the present case, however, he reused his Sanskrit source

creatively in order to adapt it to his own conceptionofthe soul and its covers.

2.3.2. The Mythological Example

The second text passage on which Garbe based his argument for identifying the

Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙aas the Sanskrit source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is the exemplification

referring to the twomythological characters Nandı¯ s´vara and Nahus

˙a. This ex-

ample occurs in al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sIndia42 as well as in Q28ofthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, which

in turn is parallel to PYS

´2.12. The passage reads as follows:

For instance Nandikes

´vara. When he offered many sacrifices to Maha¯ deva, the greatest

of the angels, he merited paradiseand wastransposed to it in his corporeal form and

became an angel. (Another) instance (is) Indra, chief of the angels. When he fornicated

39 See Q26(trans. Pines &Gelblum 1977:522f.; ed. Ritter 1956: 177, l. 21 –178, l. 8), as well as the

beginning of the answer to question 29 (trans. Pines &Gelblum 1977:524; ed. Ritter 1956: 179,

l. 20 –180, l. 1).

40 The Arabic word for “soul”or “mind”(ﻧﻔﺲ )appears generally as the rendering of the Sanskrit

word “mental organ”(citta)inthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, but in Q26, the Arabic term “heart”(ﻗﻠﺐ )is

used in order to designate the object that is afflicted by the five burdens. However, these two

terms havebeen used as synonyms in the philosophical discussions among Perso-Muslim

authors of medieval Islam. They were employed to mean “the seat of the intellectual proc-

esses”by some authors (Calverley &Netton 2012; for the concept of “heart”,see Gardet &

Vadet 2012).These “burdens”(Ar. ﺍﺛﻘﺎﻝ )inal-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ swork correspond to the concept of the

five “afflictions”(kles

´a)that trouble the “mentalorgan”(citta)inthe Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.

41 Ed. Ritter 1956: 167, l. 10; trans.Pines &Gelblum1966: 309. See also Pines &Gelblum 1966:

305.

42 “The book Patañjali relates that Nandikes

´vara offered many sacrifices to Mahâdeva,and was

in consequence transferred into paradise in his human shape; that Indra, the ruler, had

intercourse with the wife of Nahusha the Brahmin, and thereforewas changed into aserpent

by wayofpunishment”(al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958: 70, ll. 13–15; trans. Sachau 1888: I/93).

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 297

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

with the wife of the bra¯ hman

˙aNahus

˙a, he fell under acurse and wastransformed into a

snakeafter having been an angel.43

ﻣﺜﻞﻧ

ﻨ

ﺪ

ﻛﻴﺸ

ﻔ

ﺮ

ﻓﺎﻧﻪﻟﻤﺎﺍﻛﺜﺮﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺑﻴﻦﻟﻤ

ﻬﺎﺩﻳﻮ

ﻋﻈﻴﻢﺍﻟﻤﻼﺋﻜﺔﺍﺳﺘﺤﻖﺍﻟﺠﻨﺔﻭﺍﻧﺘﻘﻞﺍﻟﻴﻬﺎﺑﻘﺎﻟﺒﻪﺍﻟﺠﺴﺪﺍﻧﻰﻭﺻﺎﺭﻣﻠﻜﺎ،ﻭﻣﺜﻞ

ﺇ

ﻧ

ﺪ

ﺭ

ﺭﺋﻴﺲﺍﻟﻤﻼﺋﻜﺔﻓﺎﻧﻪﻟﻤﺎﺯﻧﻰﺑﺎﻣﺮﺍﺓﻧ

ﻬ

ﺶ

ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻫﻤﻦﻟ

ﻌﻦﻭﻣ

ﺴﺦﺣﻴﺔﺑﻌﺪﺍﻥﻛﺎﻥﻣ

ﻠ

ﻜﺎ

(ed. Ritter 1956: 179, ll. 13–16)

The parallelpassage in Bhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙ahas the following wording:

In the same wayasNandı¯ s´ vara’sspecial life-form and so on became manifest in his birth

here on earth, because of the power he had attained by venerating the exalted god S

´iva,

in this waythe life-form and the duration of life of others such as Vis

´vamitra became

manifest because of the power they attained through asceticism; and for some others

only alife-formbecame manifest. As for example,for those who vehemently commit

evil deeds, like Nahus

˙a, atransformation into adifferent life-form and so on takes place,

but Urvas

´ı¯ became only acreeper in the Ka¯ rtikeya forest. In the same way, this applies

for each of the threeitems of (1) life-form,(2) duration of life and (3) experiences in life,

individually or collectively, according to circumstances.44

Acomparison of the twopassages reveals anumber of differences. First, Bhoja’s

exemplification is more comprehensivethan al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’s. The formerdoes not

only mention the twomythological figures of Nahus

˙aand Nandikes

´vara (which

is acommon variant of the nameNandı¯ s´vara), but also Vis

´vamitra, an ascetic and

seer who became aBrahmin in his present life although he wasborn in the social

class of warriors. Moreover, Bhoja cites the example of the heavenly nymph

Urvas

´ı¯ who wascursed to become acreeper in her present incarnation.

Furthermore, with regardtothe mythological figure of Nahus

˙a, the two

authors refer to twodifferent narratives. According to al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ,the “angel”

(Ar. ﻣﻠﻚ ;Skt. deva, “god”)45 Indra wastransformed into adifferentlife-form as a

punishment for having committed adultery withthe wife of the Brahmin Nahus

˙a.

According to Bhoja, however, it wasNahus

˙ahimself who waspunished for a

severe misdeed. In view of these differences, it appears quite unlikelythat al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used Bhoja’swork as his main source.46

43 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1977:524.

44 Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a2.12, p. 19, ll. 22–26: yatha¯ nandı¯ s´ varasya bhagavanmahes

´vara¯ ra¯ dhanabala¯ d

ihaivajanmani ja¯ tya¯ dayo vis

´is

˙t

˙a¯ h˙pra¯ durbhu¯ ta¯ h˙,evamanyes

˙a¯ m

˙vis

´vamitra¯ d ı¯ na¯ m

˙tapah

˙-

prabha¯ v a¯ jja¯ tya¯ yus

˙ı¯ ,kes

a¯ m

˙cij ja¯ tir eva. yatha¯ tı¯ vrasam

˙vegena dus

˙t

˙akarmakr

˙ta¯ m

˙nahus

˙a¯ dı¯ -

na¯ m

˙ja¯ tyantara¯ diparin

˙a¯ mah

˙,urvas

´ya¯ s´ca ka¯ rtikeyavane lata¯ ru¯ pataya¯ ,evam

˙vyastasamas-

taru¯ patvena yatha¯ yogam

˙yojyam.

45 In translating the Sanskrit term deva as “angel”al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ follows the practice of previous

translators of “polytheistic Greek texts into Arabic”(Ernst 2003: 177).

46 Pines and Gelblum (1966: 303f.) arrived at the same conclusion, without, however, discussing

the pertinent text passages in detail.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon298

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

This assessment is supported by the fact that the parallelpassage in the Pa¯ -

tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra is closer to the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al than the text of the Ra¯ ja-

ma¯ rtan

˙d

˙a. There we read:

In the same waythat the boy Nandı¯ s´ vara gaveuphis human transformation and was

transformed into adeity, so Nahus

˙agaveuphis own transformation as the Indra of the

gods and wastransformed into an animal.47

This passage resembles the passage from the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al in that it only refers

to twomythological characters, i. e. ,toNandı¯ s´ vara and Nahus

˙a. Nevertheless,

there are also considerable differences. For example, it is only al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ who

mentions that the change of Nandikes

´vara’slife form wascaused by his vener-

ation of S

´iva, whereas only Patañjali refers to the literary motif of Nandı¯ s´ vara’s

turning into agod from beingaboy. These differences do not, however, rule out

the possibility that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra as an important

source that he supplemented with other written and oral sources. The motiveof

Nandikes

´vara’sveneration of S

´iva, which gained him adivine body, is narrated in

Lin

˙gapura¯ n

˙a1.43 and wasprobably so well-known to the audience of the Pa¯ -

tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra that Patañjali did not even need to mention it.48 Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ,

however, could not expect the same background knowledge from his Muslim

readership and therefore probably felt compelled to provide additional in-

formation. Moreover, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ mayhavewanted to highlight asimilarity be-

tween the Indian religion and Islam, in that the veneration of an angel leads to

religious merits.

One of the differences between the Arabic and theSanskrit work in the

passage cited above in fact supports thehypothesis that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra asamain source. Aswealreadynoticed, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ narrates

that Nahus

˙awas the husband of awomanwith whom Indra hadillegitimate

intercourse, whereas Patañjali refers to Nahus

˙ahimself as the wrongdoer. This

version of the myth correspondstowhat we actually find in Maha¯ bha¯ rata 5.11–

17 and 13.102f. whereNahus

˙a,ahuman, issaid to have been appointed to be the

king of the gods in ordertoreplace Indra. Having reached this exaltedposition,

Nahus

˙abecame arrogant, neglectedhis religious duties, andtreated the Seers

˙s

˙i)badly, on account of which he wascursedand transformed into asnake.49

47 PYS

´2.12, p. 68, ll. 6–8: yatha¯ nandı¯ s´ varah

˙kuma¯ ro manus

˙yaparin

˙a¯ mam

˙hitva¯ devata¯ tvena

parin

˙atah

˙.tatha¯ nahus

˙odeva¯ na¯ mindrah

˙svakam

˙parin

˙a¯ mam

˙hitva¯ tiryaktvena parin

˙ata iti.

We read devata¯ tvena (“into adeity”)with manuscript Tvyas against devatvena (“into agod”)

of A

¯ga¯ s´e ’sedition and manuscripts Adand Jd.Furthermore,weread nahus

˙owith manuscripts

Ad,J

,and Tvyas against nahus

˙o’pi in A

¯ga¯ s´e’sedition.

48 Orelskaya 1997:240.

49 See Sörensen1904–1925: 495a and b, s. v. Nahushopa¯ khya¯ na. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ waswell aware of the

existence and the popularity of abook entitled Bha¯ rat

¯a(ﺑﻬﺎﺭﺙ )(al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958: 102, l. 13 –104,

l. 8; trans. Sachau 1888: I/132–134). He also knew that the Kita¯ bGı¯ ta¯ wasapart of the Kita¯ b

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 299

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

It appears that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ mistakenly combined thismyth withadifferentone,

namely with thenarrative of Indrawho seduced Ahalya¯ ,the wife of the

Brahmana Gautama, on account of which, according to theversionofthisstory

in the Ra¯ ma¯ yan

˙a,the god losthis positionofbeing the chief of the celestials.50

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sblending of thetwo different myths waspossibly fostered by the fact

that hissource forthe mythofNahus

˙ainconnection with Yogasu¯ tra (YS) 2.12

contained, just like thepassage of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra cited above, the

formulation “Indra of thegods”(deva¯ na¯ mindrah

˙).51 Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ may have

wrongly interpretedthisexpression to refer as apropername to the god Indra,

instead of understanding the phrase correctly as an epithet of Nahus

˙a. This

apparent misunderstanding explains why, everywhere in al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork,

Indra, and notNahus

˙a, figuredasthe wrongdoer. If this is true, the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra is indeedapossible candidate forhaving been an important

sourceofthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al.

In any case, we maynotice that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork does not provide any evidence

that would justifyGarbe’scommitment in favour of Bhoja’swork as its main

source. On the contrary, as wasalready noticed by Pines and Gelblum,al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

work in general has more in commonwith the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra than with the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a.52

Garbe’shypothesis on the source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al presumably can be

explained as aresultofthe rather limited Indological knowledge about Sanskrit

yoga works that wascurrent at his time. The first scholar who provided an

account of the literature on yoga as aSouth Asiansystem of knowledge was

Henry Thomas Colebrooke. In his essay “On the Philosophyofthe Hindus”,53

Colebrooke stated that the pertinent literature consisted of the Yogasu¯ tra and of

acommentary on the su¯ tra-sentitled “Pátánjala-bháshya”(i. e.,the so-called

Yogabha¯ s˙ya)byVya¯ sa. According to Colebrooke, “both text and gloss”were

commentedupon by Va¯ caspatimis

´ra in his Tattvavais

´a¯ radı¯ (c 950). Moreover,

Colebrooke drawsattention to Vijña¯ nabhiks

˙u’sYogava¯ rttika (c 1550) as afur-

Bha¯ rat

¯a, although he does not frequently refer to the latter (al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ 1958: 21, l. 17;trans.

Sachau 1888: I/29).

50 “The story has found wide favour in the epics and Pura¯ n˙as; it is alluded to twice in the

Maha¯ bha¯ rata, told in detail twice in the Ra¯ ma¯ yan

˙a, and then again in several Pura¯ n˙as …”

(Söhnen 1991:73).

51 Already Pines and Gelblum noticed that “[a]l-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ smistake may be accounted for by his

misunderstanding aSanskrit text, especially if it used the word indra both as aprivate name

and as aname of an institution or title, such as in the expression deva¯ na¯ mindra which occurs

in Vya¯ sa’sversion of the story here”(Pines &Gelblum 1977:537, n. 63).

52 See Pines &Gelblum 1966: 304. For these twoauthors, the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra were, however, an independent commentary on the Yogasu¯ tra that wascom-

posed by an author called Veda-vya¯ sa. On this authorship question, see below, p. 312.

53 Colebrooke 1827:25.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon300

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

ther commentaryand to Bhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙aas a “third commentary”.The

exact nature and the relativechronology of theseworks were, however, unknown

to Colebrooke and his immediate successors.

Therefore, academic research on the yoga works that Colebrooke listed was

not, and in fact could not be, pursued chronologically and systematically. As

mentioned above, the first work that appeared in acomplete English translation

wasBhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a.54 This work is not an independent commentary on

the Yogasu¯ tra, but asimplified revision of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, i.e.,the

Yogasu¯ tra together with the bha¯ s˙ya. The first translation of the Pa¯ tañjalayoga-

´a¯ stra into English waspublished onlyin1907 by GanganathaJha,55 whereas the

first English rendering of the Tattvavais

´a¯ radı¯ waspublished by Ra¯ ma Prasa¯ da in

1910.56

2.4. Jean Filliozat:Al-Bı¯ ru¯ nı¯ ’ sCreativity

Although Garbe’sargument in favour of the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙aas the source of the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is inconclusive, it appears to haveinfluenced Jean Filliozat in his

assessment:

It is perhapspartly in this text [i.e.,the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a]that wasthen very recent,that

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ initiated himself into the Yoga of Patañjali, on which, by the way, he wrote a

work in Arabic.57

Filliozat speculatedthat the Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙amay havepartly been al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

source of information about the yoga system of Patañjali. However, in contrast to

Garbe, Filliozat did not regard the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as atranslation of aSanskrit

work, but as an original, and to aconsiderable degree independent,creation by

al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ .

54 Mitra 1883. See above, p. 292.

55 Jha 1907.

56 Prasa¯ da 1910.

57 Renou &Filliozat 1953: 46, translated from the original French,which reads as follows: “C’est

peut-être en partie dans ce texte, alors tout récent, qu’al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ s ’est initié au Yoga de

Patañjali sur lequel il ad’ailleurs écrit un ouvrageenarabe”.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 301

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

2.5. Shlomo Pines and Tuvia Gelblum:The Yogasu

¯tra with an Unknown

Commentary

Shlomo Pines and Tuvia Gelblum, who published the results of their extensive

studies on the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al from 1966 onwards, were the first scholars to base

their work on Ritter’scritical edition of the completetext of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al.

With regard to the possible sources of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork the twoscholars remark

that

[…]most of the Yogasu¯ tras themselves are traceable in the Arabic text, occurring

generally in their originalsequence. They have, however, been woventogether with a

commentary on the Yogasu¯ tra […]. The commentary used by al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ cannot be

identified with any of the printed commentaries, despite alarge number of similarities

in the interpretationofthe text. […][p. 304] It is quite possible that the source of the

commentary in question is traceable to one of the numerousmanuscripts of unknown

commentaries housed in Indian libraries. […]But the possibility also existsthat the

sourceinquestion has been lost. […]Itmay be argued that the commentary in question

could be related to the theistic developments evident in late commentatorsprior or

posterior to al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ [ …]. [p. 305] But against such argumentation one should not

ignore the fact that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ wasaMuslim, so that in this major characteristic of his

translation as well as in its minor characteristics, whichlikewise exhibit agood deal of

‘islamization’,his own interpretation, conditioned by his own cultural orientation,

mighthavebeen at work. […][T]here is much in our text to suggest that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ relied

to aconsiderableextent on his own intelligence and autodidactic capacity in studying

the su

¯tras and their commentary. […][

p. 307] The Arabic translation betrays ac

onstant

effort to bring the work as near as possible to the mentality of the Muslim readers. This is

evident both in the selection of the terminology and thetransposition of Indian phil-

osophical notions and problemsinto similar ones grounded in Aristotelian and other

streams of Muslim thought. […]Evidently, from the point of view of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ and his

readers,the Arabic work provides an operativeorfunctional, though not literal,

translation of the Yogasu¯ tra with its commentary.58

For Pines and Gelblum, the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is based on the Yogasu¯ tra of Patañjali,

on al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sown cultural background and creativity, as well as on an unknown

commentary on the Yogasu¯ tra.59 This commentary, in the view of the twoau-

thors, can neither be identified with the so-called Yogabha¯ s˙ya, nor with the

(sub-)commentary Tattvavais

´a¯ radı¯ by Va¯ caspatimis

´ra, which provides ex-

planations to the su¯ tra-aswell as to the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the Pa¯ tañjalayoga-

58 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 303–307.

59 In assuming that the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is atranslation of the Yogasu¯ tra together with an

unknown commentary, Pines and Gelblum follow Hauer (1930:columns 279–281) and Ritter

(1956: 166).

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon302

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

´a¯ stra, nor with Bhoja’sRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a.60 Accordingly, Pines and Gelblum as-

sume that thiscommentary, if it still exists, can only havesurvived unpublished

in the form of manuscripts. Moreover, following asuggestion of Dasgupta (1930:

63 f.), they speculate on the basis of cosmographical differences between the Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

˘al and the so-called Yogabha¯ s˙ya –which they date in accordance with

Woods (1914: xxi) to atime span of 650–850 CE –that the unknown source must

havebeen composed before the Bha¯ s˙ya had “attained any great sanctityor

authority”.61 Thisassessment wasaccepted in scholarlyliterature on the history

of yoga in South Asia and the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, as, for example, in Gelblum 2008

(p. 261) and in Kozah 2015 (p. 85).

2.5.1. The Medical Excursion

Pines and Gelblum (1966:304) ruled out the possibility that their unknown

commentary could be identical with the bha¯ s˙ya-part of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra,

inter alia on the basis of twoconcrete references that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ provides to the

commentary he used. The first reference deals with the conceptionsofthe human

body occurring in Q46ofthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, which is parallel to PYS

´3.29. There

we read:

If the complete concentration (sam

˙yama)isdirectedonthe wheelofthe navel, there

arises knowledge of the arrangement of the body [YS 3.29]. By performing complete

concentration on the wheel of the navel one can distinctly know the arrangement of the

body.Wind, bile and phlegm are the humours. Skin, blood, flesh, sinew,bone, marrow

and semenare the seven corporeal elements. This arrangement is such that each pre-

ceding element is exterior to following one.62

The parallelpassage of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al runs as follows:

Whoever wishes toknow his own body should meditate continuouslyonthe navel. This

too belongstothe commentator’sexplanation. When food is digested in the belly,

matter is produced from it to which (pertain)asediment which is expurgated(?) and

threeresidues which remain in the body. They are wind, bile and phlegm.(They)harm

(?)seven things, namely the chyle, the blood, the flesh, the fat, the bones, the marrow

and the semen. As for the above-mentioned matter, it is transformed into blood. Out of

60Intheir footnotes, Pines and Gelblum highlighted many parallels between passages of the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and other Sanskrit works.

61 Pines &Gelblum1966: 304. In n. 9, the twoauthors refer to Garbe 1894: 63 for the date of the

so-called Yogabha¯ s˙ya. There, however, Garbe does not mention any date at all. We ,therefore,

inferred that the twoauthors actually meant the dating that Woods proposed in his famous

translation. The same argument is repeated in Gelblum2008: 262. On differences in the

cosmography of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra and the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, see below, section 2.5.2.

62 PYS

´3.29, p. 153, ll. 6–9: na¯ bhicakre ka¯ yavyu¯ hajña¯ nam [YS 3.29]. na¯ bhicakre sam

˙yamam

˙tva¯ ka¯ yavyu¯ ham

˙vija¯ nı¯ y a¯ t. va¯ tapittas

´les

˙ma¯ n

˙as trayo dos

˙a¯ h˙.dha¯ tavah

˙sapta tvag-lohita-

ma¯ m

˙sa-sna¯ yv-asthi-majja¯ -s´ ukra¯ n

˙i. pu¯ rvam

˙pu¯ rvam es

˙a¯ m

˙ba¯ hyam ity es

˙avinya¯ sah

˙.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 303

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

the subtle (part) of the latter flesh is generated, and from its remaining gross (part) –all

things that come forth from the body, such as sweat and hair and the nails. Then the fat

of corpulence is generatedfrom the flesh, the bones from fat, the marrow from bones,

and the semen, which (among)these is the noblest, from the marrow. Whatever is

farther from matter is more excellent. The utility of comprehending the trans-

formations of thesethingsand of the manner of their generation and passing away, of

(the ways in which) they are useful or harmful, of the periods(in which) this (happens)

and of (the relevant)measures (consists in) establishing the truth that (all) this is not

good, nay that it is an evil. And this is areason for beingdrawn towardsthe good. At this

pointwereturn to the text.63

ﻭﻣﻦﺍﺭﺍﺩﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔﺑﺪﻧﻪﻓﻠﻴﺪﻡﺍﻟﺘﻔﻜﺮﻓﻰﺍﻟﺴ

ﺮ

ﺓ

ﻭﻫﺬﺍﻣﻦﻛﻼﻡﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮﺍﻳﻀﺎ:ﺍﻥﺍﻟﻐﺬﺍﺀﺍﺫﺍﺍﻧﻄﺒﺦﻓﻰﺍﻟﺠﻮﻑﺣﺼﻞﻣﻨﻪﻣﺎﺩﺓﻟﻬﺎﺛﻘﻞﺗﺒﺮﺃﻭﻓﻀﻮﻝﺛﻠﺜﺔﺗﺒﻘﻰﻓﻰﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥﻫﻰ

ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺢﻭﺍﻟﻤﺮﺓﻭﺍﻟﺒﻠﻐﻢﻣﻀﺮﺓﺑﺴﺒﻌﺔﺍﺷﻴﺎﺀﻫﻰﺍﻟﻜﻴﻠﻮﺱﻭﺍﻟﺪﻡﻭﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢﻭﺍﻟﺸﺤﻢﻭﺍﻟﻌﻈﻢﻭﺍﻟﻤﺦﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻰ،ﻓﺎﻣﺎﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ

ﻓﺘﺴﺘﺤﻴﻞﺍﻟﻰﺍﻟﺪﻡﺛﻢﻳﺘﻮﻟﺪﻣﻦﻟﻄﻴﻔﻪﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢ،ﻭﻣﻦﻛﺜﻴﻔﻪﺍﻟﻔﺎﺿﻞﺟﻤﻴﻊﻣﺎﻳﺒﺮﺯﻣﻦﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥﻣﻦﻋﺮﻑﻭﺷﻌﺮﻭﻇﻔﺮﻭﺍﻣﺜﺎﻟﻬﺎ،ﺛﻢ

ﻳﺘﻮﻟﺪﺷﺤﻢﺍﻟﺴﻤﻦﻣﻦﺍﻟﻠﺤﻢﻭﻳﺘﻮﻟﺪﺍﻟﻌﻈﻢﻣﻦﺍﻟﺸﺤﻢﻭﺍﻟﻤﺦﻣﻦﺍﻟﻌﻈﻢﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻰﻣﻦﺍﻟﻤﺦﻭﻫﻮﺍﺷﺮﻓﻬﺎ،ﻭﻛﻞﻣﺎﻫﻮﺍﺑﻌﺪﻋﻦ

ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﺓﻓﻬﻮﺍﻓﻀﻞ،ﻭﻣﻨﻔﻌﺔﺍﻻﺣﺎﻃﺔﺑﺎﺳﺘﺤﺎﻻﺕﻫﺬﻩﺍﻻﺷﻴﺎﺀﻭﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔﻛﻮﻧﻬﺎﻭﻓﺴﺎﺩﻫﺎﻭﻣﻨﺎﻓﻌﻬﺎﻭﻣﻀﺎﺭ

ﻫﺎﻭﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕﺫﻟﻚ

ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮﻫﺎﻫﻰﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖﺑﺎﻧﻬﺎﻟﻴﺴﺖﺑﺸﻰءﺑﻞﻫﻰﺷﺮ،ﻭﺫﻟﻚﻳﻜﻮﻥﺳﺒﺐﺍﻻﻧﺠﺮﺍﺭﺍﻟﻰﺍﻟﺨﻴﺮ،ﻭﻗﺪﺭﺟﻌﻨﺎﺍﻟﻰﺍﻟﻨﺺ

(ed. Ritter 1956: 188, ll. 1–11)

This text passage of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, which is more comprehensivethan PYS

3.29, is clearlynot aliteral translation of Patañjali’swork. However, in contrast to

the assessmentofPines and Gelblum, the text does not show that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used a

different yoga-commentary than the above-cited bha¯ s˙ya-passageofthe Pa¯ tañ-

jalayogas

´a¯ stra.

The additional information in al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’stext refers to different A

¯yurvedic

theories.First, we find the conception that food is transformed into matter. Then,

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ mentions the three humours (dos

˙a-s) wind, bile, and phlegm, which

also occur in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, as products of food. Next, the Arabic

author enumerates the well-known seven bodily elements and mentions the

theory of food transformation from chyle to semen.64 In view of the fact that these

theories and conceptions of the human body must havebeen commonknowl-

edge among educated audiences of South Asia at least from the time of the

composition of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra onwards, it wasnot necessary for al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ to take his explanation from an unknown commentary. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ prob-

ably used his own knowledge of A

¯yurveda in order to make his translation

comprehensible to aMuslim readership. The fact that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ had knowledge of

63 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1983: 261f. The Arabicequivalent to “expurgated”in the third

sentence is uncertain; Pines and Gelblum’sproposition appears reasonable. By translating

“harm”in “(They) harm(?) seven things”,Pines and Gelblum accepted Ritter’semendation,

which is probably correct.

64 Jolly 1901:41.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon304

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

¯yurveda can be concluded from al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’sreference to the oldest classical

Sanskrit work on A

¯yurveda, i.e.,the Carakasam

˙hita¯ ,in the Tah

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind.65

In order to assess the probability of the hypothesis that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ supple-

mented his work with information that he drew from an unknown yoga com-

mentary, it may be worth mentioning that none of three existing commentaries

(i.e.,neither the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stravivaran

˙a[8th c. CE?], nor the Tattvavai-

´a¯ radı¯ ,nor the Yogava¯ rttika)contains any explicit reference to an A

¯yurvedic

theory of food transformation.66

Pines and Gelblum, however, did not base their assessment exclusively on the

different contents of the twopassages. For them it wasevenmoresignificant that

the list of bodily constituents in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al differs from that in the

version of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra cited above in tworespects: (1) Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ slist

starts with the item chyle instead of skin and (2) it contains the bodily elementfat

instead of sinew as item no. 4.67 However, in contrast to Pines and Gelblum’sview,

these twodeviations do not indicate that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used any other source than the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra. The textual differences only show that the scholar had a

different text version of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra at his disposal than the one that

we find in the printed edition of A

¯ga¯ s´ e, quotedabove.68 First, as Philipp A. Maas

showed in the variants to his critical edition of the list of bodily constituents in

PYS

´3.29, quite anumber of manuscripts contain the secondary reading medas

(“fat”)instead of sna¯ yu (“sinew”)asitem no. 4.69 This textual change was

probably introduced in the course of the history of the transmission of Pa-

tañjali’’swork by one or more scribes who knew that the standard list of bodily

elements as it occurs in the work(s) of Va¯ gbhat

˙acontains medas at the position at

which Patañjali’slist originally had sna¯ yu.70 Secondly, the reading tvag (“skin”)

instead of rasa (“chyle”)that we find at the beginning of the list of bodily

constituents in the printed edition is, in contrast to the view of Pines and

Gelblum,71 clearlyofsecondary origin. The reading tvag (“skin”)was probably

introduced by ascribe who misunderstood Patañjali’sstatement concerning the

arrangement of bodily constituents in so far that he thought it to refertothe

“physical,spatial arrangementofconstituents”,whereas Patañjali himself meant

“the degree of their transformation from food, which is foreign to the body, to

65 Meulenbeld 1999–2002: I/116.

66 Maas 2008a: 131.

67 Pines &Gelblum 1983: 284, n. 163.

68 See note 24 on p. 291.

69 Maas 2008a: 132, n. 13.

70 Maas 2008a: 142.

71 Pines and Gelblum (1983: 284, n. 163) state that the “context shows that this variant [rasa]is

spurious”without providing ajustification for their conclusion.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 305

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

semen, which is intimately related to the body, i. e.,its essence”.72 It appearsthat

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ understood Patañjali correctly when he rendered his statementthat

“the sequence is such that each preceding is exterior to the following one”with

“[w]hatever is farther from matter is moreexcellent”.Inany case, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ s

treatment of PYS

´3.29 does not supportthe hypothesis that he used an unknown

commentary as amajor source for his Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al.

2.5.2. The Cosmographical Excursion

The second case that Pines and Gelblum take as evidence for their claim that al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ must havebased his Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al on an unknown commentary of the

Yogasu¯ tra is the cosmographical excurse that appears in Q46ofal-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork

(as well as partly in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’s“ India”).73 In the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ in-

troduced his cosmographic exposition in the followingway:

The commentator has at this pointanexplanatory discourse describing the world and

the Earths.Itseems useful to quote this discourseinanexact manner. For it is one of the

sciences currentamong them. In the descriptionofthe existent (things) he starts with

the lowest section (proceeding) towardsthe uppermost.74

ﻭﻟﻠﻤﻔﺴﺮﻓﻰﻫﺬﺍﺍﻟﻤﻮﺿﻊﻛﻼﻡﺷﺮﺣﻰﻓﻰﻭﺻﻒﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢﻭﺍﻻﺭﺽﻭﺍﻳﺮﺍﺩﻩﻋﻠﻰﻭﺟﻬﻪﻧﺎﻓﻊﻓﺎﻧﻪﻣﻦﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺭﻑﺍﻟﺸﺎﻳﻌﺔﻓﻴﻤﺎ

ﺑﻴﻨﻬﻢ،ﻭﻗﺪﺍﺑﺘﺪﺃﻓﻰﻭﺻﻒﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺍﺕﻣﻦﺟﻬﺔﺍﻟﺴﻔﻞﻧﺤﻮﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮ

(ed. Ritter 1956: 185, ll. 16–18)

Although the following part of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’scosmography agreeswith that of the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra from asystematic point of view in so far as both descrip-

tions start with the lowest part of the cosmos, the twoexpositions initially differ

with regard to the listed items. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ slist consists of asequence of entities

that arerecorded with their respectiveextent measured in yojana-s: “darkness”,

“hell”,asecond level of “darkness”,and “earths”called “Va jra”(Ar. ﺑ

ﺰ

ﺭ

َ;bazra),

“Garbha”(Ar. ﻛ

ﺮ

ﺏ

ُ;karbu)and “Suvarn

˙a”(Ar. ﺳﻮﺑ

ﺮ

ﻥ

َ;su¯ barna). Thislist of

cosmographical items is odd in so far as it has, as far as we can see, no parallel in

the cosmographical literaturesofpre-modern Asia.75

72 Maas 2008a: 134.

73 “The commentator of the book of Patañjali, wishing to determine the dimension of the world,

begins from below and says: […]”(trans. Sachau 1888: I/236 f.; ed. al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958: 194, ll. 6–7).

74 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1983: 260. Ritteremended the manuscript at the end of the first

sentence and inserted the name of Vya¯ sa ( ﻭ

ﻳﺎﺹ ). Pines and Gelblum refute this emendation

and propose the translation “the world and the earth”(ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢﻭﺍﻻﺭﺽ )which fits the context well

(Pines &Gelblum1983: 275, n. 88). At the end of the second sentence, the Arabic expression

(ﻋﻠﻰﻭﺟﻬﻪ )literally means “properly”,“in the right manner”,and it at least remains uncertain

whether al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ wanted to provide aliteral quotation.

75 See, also for the following part of this paper, Ta ble 2below.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon306

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

In contradistinction to this, the bha¯ s˙ya-part of PYS

´3.26 starts with abrief but

quite complicated overview of the whole cosmos that apparently is intended to

combine the older view of the cosmos as consisting of the three regions of the

terrestrial world (bhu¯ rloka), of the intermediate space (antariks

˙a), and of the

heavenly world (svarloka)with amore recent view, according to which the world

consists of seven regions.76 Thereafter, Patañjali lists seven hells having solid

matter, water, fire, wind, space and darkness as their respectivebasis. This list of

hells as well as the location of hells in the cosmosisquite unusual for aBrah-

manical work. First of all, withinthe cosmos, i. e.,within Brahma¯ ’segg, hells are

generally not located at the very bottom, but occupy the second position above

the netherworlds (pa¯ ta¯ la).77 Moreover, the number of hells usually exceeds seven

in Brahmanical works. As Willibald Kirfel showed in his authoritativesurvey of

Indian cosmographies, the number of hells varies between twelveand 140 for the

five text groups that differ according to the enumeration and arrangementof

hells.78 Early Buddhist literature,however, accepts the number of hells to be

seven, although the individual names differ from those presented in the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.79

The Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra agree with each other re-

garding the respectivenumber of hells as well as regarding the relativeposition of

netherworlds and hells as against the rest of the Brahmanical and Jaina literature

that Kirfel surveyed. This may indicate aclose historical relation between al-

Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork and that of Patañjali, although the respectiveaccounts do not agree

exactly.

Next, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ provides alist of islands or ring-continentsthat together with

seven oceans areconceived as making up the main part of the terrestrial region of

the cosmos. These islands are to be imagined as concentric circles (surrounding

mount Meru) that are divided by oceans consistingofdifferent liquids. In al-

Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork, the sequence of islands and oceansagrees with the sequence that

Kirfel found in the majority of Pura¯ n˙ic sources and that he designated as the first

group of texts.80 The Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra provides avery similar list. It differs,

however, with regard to the sequence of islands as well as with regard to the name

of one island. Patañjali’slist, which is identical with the list in Kirfel’ssecond

group of texts (consisting of passages from the Matsya- and the Var a¯ hapura¯ n

˙a ),

76 Klaus 1986: §17.

77 See Kirfel 1920: 147. The three manuscripts Ad,J

dand Tvyof the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra that

transmit in general an ancient text version whenever they share acommon reading, do not at

all contain the list of netherworlds that we find in the Vulgate version of the Pa¯ tañjalayo-

gas

´a¯ stra.

78 Kirfel 1920: 148–173.

79 Kirfel 1920: 199–201.

80 See Kirfel 1920: 112–122.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 307

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

contains the nameGomeda instead of Plaks

˙a.81 The Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra and the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al agree, however, in that the island and the oceans arelisted in two

separate lists. This is remarkable, because from asystematic point of view a

description of the terrestrial region as consistingofasequence of island, ocean,

island, etc.,could be regarded as amore suitable –though less concise –choice.

An additional structural parallel appears at the end of both passages where both

the Arabic and the Sanskrit work refer to seven world regions and their respective

inhabitants, although Patañjali does not provide the names of the first twodi-

visions. The lists in the twoworks differ, however, slightly,82 as can be seen in

Table 2below.83 The Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra recordsthe items (1) Earth, (2) Inter-

mediate space, (3) Mahendra-,(4) Mahar-,(5) Jana-,(6) Tapo-and (7) Satya-loka,

whereas the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al omits the third “heaven”,i.e.,the world region called

Mahendraloka, and adds Brahmaloka as the highest region of the world. The fact

that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ reports his yoga source to haveBrahmaloka at the highest position

of the cosmos could be the result of amisunderstanding(or of atextual cor-

ruption)ofthe Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra. Patañjali’swork indeed has abrief sentence

containing the word brahmaloka at the end of its cosmographical passage.84

81 See Kirfel 1920: 122–126.

82 For Hauer (1930: column 281f.), the differences between the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´astra and the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al provewithout doubt that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ translated an unknown commentary on

the Yogasu¯ tra.

83 Afew philological remarks are due here. In the case of the seven Pa¯ ta¯ las, the manuscript of the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is damaged.Ritter tried to emend this passage on the basis of the “India”.In

the case of the sixth island, gomeda, A

¯ga¯ s´ e(1904: 150, l. 6) has gomedha in the main text of his

edition and provides the variant plaks

˙ain parentheses without indicatinghis source. How-

ever, three important manuscripts of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, Ad,J

dand Tvy,read gomeda

here.

84 See PYS

´3.26, p. 152, l. 7: ta ete saptaloka¯ h˙sarvaeva brahmaloka¯ h˙.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon308

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Cosmographical

regions

Items listed in PYS

´3.26 (based

on A

¯ga¯ s´ e1904: 149f.)

Items listed in Q46ofthe Kita¯ b

Pa¯ tang

˘al (based on Pines &Gel-

blum 1983: 260f.)

Seven hells

(naraka)

7. Avı¯ ci, no material basis

mentioned

6. Maha¯ k a¯ la, based on solid

matter

Darkness,18,500,000? yojana-s

extent

(Ar. ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ;z

˙ulma)

5. Ambarı¯ s˙a, based on water Naraka, 1,300,000,000 yojana-s

extent

(Ar. ﻧ

ﺮ

ﻙ

َ,naraka;ﺟﻬﻨﻢ ,jahannam

“hell”)

4. Raurava,based on fire Darkness,100,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ;z

˙ulma)

3. Maha¯ raurava,based on wind Vajra, 34,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﺑ

ﺰ

ﺭ

َ;bazra)

2. Ka¯ lasu

¯tra, based on space Garbha,60,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﻛ

ﺮ

ﺏ

ُ;karbu)

1. Andhata¯ misra, based on

darkness

Suvarn

˙a, 30,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﺳﻮﺑ

ﺮ

ﻥ

َ;su¯ barna)

Seven nether-

worlds (pa¯ ta¯ la)

7. Maha¯ tala

6. Rasa¯ tala

5. Atala

4. Sutala seven Pa¯ t a¯ las

(Ar. ﺳ

ﭙ

ﺖﭘﺎﺗﺎﻝ

َ;sapta pa¯ t a¯ la)

3. Vitala

2. Tal a¯ tala

1. Pa¯ ta¯ la

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 309

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

(Continued)

Cosmographical

regions

Items listed in PYS

´3.26 (based

on A

¯ga¯ s´ e1904: 149f.)

Items listed in Q46ofthe Kita¯ b

Pa¯ tang

˘al (based on Pines &Gel-

blum 1983: 260f.)

Seven islands

(dvı¯ pa)

1. Jambu, 100.000 yojana-sex-

tent

1. Jambu, 100,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﺟ

ﻨ

ﺐ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;janbu dı¯ ba)

2. S

´a¯ ka, double extent of the

6. Plaks

˙a, 200,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﭘ

ﻠ

ﻜ

ﺶ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;plaks

ˇadı¯ ba)

3. Kus

´a, double extent of the

5. S

´a¯ lmala, 400,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﺷﺎﻟ

ﻤ

ﻞ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;s

ˇa¯ lmali dı¯ ba)

4. Krauñca, doubleextent of the

3. Kus

´a, doubleextent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﻛ

ﺶ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;kus

ˇadı¯ ba)

5. S

´a¯ lmala, double extent of the

4. Krauñca, double extent of the

(Ar. ﻛﺮ

ﻭﻧ

ﺞ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;krawnja dı¯ ba)

6. Gomeda (variants: Gomedha

and Plaks

˙a), double extent of

the previous

2. S

´aka, doubleextent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﺷﺎﻙ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;s

ˇa¯ ka dı¯ ba)

7. Pus

˙kara, doubleextentofthe

7. Pus

˙kara, double extent of the

(Ar. ﭘ

ﺸ

ﻜ

ﺮ

ﺩﻳﺐ

َ;pus

ˇkara dı¯ ba)

Seven oceans

1. Lavan

˙a1.Ks

a¯ ra, 200,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﻛ

ﺸﺎﺭ

َ;ks

ˇa¯ ra)

2. Iks

˙urasa 2. Iks

˙u, double extent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﺍ

ﻛ

ﺶ

ُ;iks

ˇu)

3. Sura¯ 3. Sura¯ ,double extent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﺳ

ﺮ

َ;sura)

4. Sarpis (variant: Ghr

˙ta) 4. Sarpis, double extent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﺳ

ﺮ

ﺏ

َ;sarba)

5. Dadhiman

˙d

˙a(variant: Dadhi) 5. Dadhi, double extent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﺩ

ﺫ

ِ;dad

¯i)

6. Ks

˙ı¯ ra 6. Ks

˙ı¯ ra, double extent of the pre-

vious

(Ar. ﻛ

ﺸﻴﺮ

َ;ks

ˇı¯ ra)

7. Sva¯ d u¯daka 7. Sva¯ d u¯daka, double extent of the

(Ar. ﺳ

ﻮﺍﺩ

ﻭﺩ

ﻙ

َ;swa¯ d u¯ daka)

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon310

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

(Continued)

Cosmographical

regions

Items listed in PYS

´3.26 (based

on A

¯ga¯ s´ e1904: 149f.)

Items listed in Q46ofthe Kita¯ b

Pa¯ tang

˘al (based on Pines &Gel-

blum 1983: 260f.)

End of the world

Loka¯ loka Loka¯ loka, 10,000 yojana-s

(Ar. ﻟﻮﻛﺎﻟﻮﻙ

َ;lu¯ k a¯ l u¯ ka)

“Land of Gold”,100,000,000

yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﺍﺭﺽﺍﻟﺬﻫﺐ ;ard

˙al-d

ahab)

Regions above

Pitr

˙loka, 6,134,000 yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﺑ

ﺘ

ﺮ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;bitrilu¯ ka)

Brahma¯ n˙d˙a

(Ar. ﺑ

ﺮ

ﻫ

ﻤﺎﻧ

ﺪ

َ;brahma¯ nda)

Darkness/Tamas, 18,500,000

yojana-sextent

(Ar. ﻇﻠﻤﺔ ,z

˙ulma;ﺗ

ﻢ

َ,tama)

Seven world

regions

1. Bhu

¯rloka (Earth) 1. Bhu

¯rloka

(Ar. ﺑ

ﻬ

ﻮﺭ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;bhu¯ rlu¯ ka)

2. Antariks

˙a(Intermediate

Space)

2. Bhuvarloka

(Ar. ﺑ

ﻬ

ﻮﺑ

ﺮ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;bhu¯ barlu¯ ka)

3. Mahendraloka

4. Maharloka 3. Maharloka

(Ar. ﻣ

ﻬ

ﺮ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;maharlu¯ ka)

5. Janaloka 4. Janaloka

(Ar. ﺟ

ﻦ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;jana lu¯ ka)

6. Tapoloka 5. Tapoloka

(Ar. ﺗ

ﺐ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;tabalu¯ ka)

7. Satyaloka6.Satyaloka

(Ar. ﺳﺖﻟﻮﻙ

َ;sat lu¯ ka)

7. Brahmaloka

(Ar. ﺑ

ﺮ

ﻫ

ﻢ

ﻟﻮﻙ

َ;brahmalu¯ ka)

Table 2: Acomparison between the cosmographiesofPYS

´3.26 and of Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al Q46.

The differences in the cosmographies of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and the Pa¯ tañja-

layogas

´a¯ stra rule out that this particular Sanskrit work wasthe only source for al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sknowledge of Indian cosmography.85 It is, however, very much con-

ceivable that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used Patañjali’sexposition as an important source and

adopted its content to what he knewtobethe standard cosmography of his time

85 Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sTa h

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind, ch. 21, which is entitled “Description of earth and heaven

according to the religiousviews of the Hindus, based upon their traditional literature”(ﺍﻟﺴﻤﻌﻴ

ﺔ

ﺍﻟﺮﻭﻳﺎﺕﻭﺍﻟﺨﺒﺎﺭﺇﻟﻰﺗﺮﺟﻊﺍﻟﺘﻰﺍﻟﻤﻠ

ﻴ

ﺔﺍﻟﻮﺟﻮﻩﺍﻟﺴﻤﺎﺀﻋﻠﻰﻭﺍﻻﺭﺽﺻﻮﺭﺓﻓﻰ ), presents indeed the cosmo-

graphical descriptions of the A

¯dityapura¯ n

˙a, the Vis

˙n

˙upura¯ n

˙aand the Va¯ yupura¯ n

˙a, as well as

that of the commentatorofthe Book Pa¯ tang

˘al (Ar. " ﭘﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞ "ﻣﻔﺴ

ﺮﻛﺘﺎﺏ

ِ); see al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ 1958: 185, l.

3–196, l. 17;trans. Sachau 1888: I/228–238.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 311

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

and in the region that he visited. Therefore it is not at all obvious that the

differences between the works of Patañjali and al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ havetobeexplained by

the influenceofanunknown commentary on the Yogasu¯ tra.

Moreover, against the background of the results of recent research, the as-

sessment of Pines and Gelblum that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ composed his work before the

bha¯ s˙ya-part of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra had “attained any great sanctityor

authority”86 has become difficult to maintain. As Maas argued, the Yogasu¯ tra

together with the so-called Yogabha¯ s˙ya were probably partly composed and

partly compiled as aunitary work entitled Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra by asingle author

and redactor with the name of Patañjali. The time of the composition of the work

can be dated with some confidence to c325–425 CE.87 At least from the middle of

the eighth century onwards, the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra wassowidely known in

educated circles of north-westernSouth Asia that the famous poet Ma¯ gha reused

several of its passages in his epic poem S

´is

´upa¯ lavadha.88 The Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra

wasalso during the following centuries widely known and referred to in Sanskrit

literature. This can safely be concluded from the numerous quotations of Pa-

tañjali’swork in the works of Kashmir S

´aivism and other Sanskrit works.89

2.6. ANew Hypothesis: The Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra

The Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra contains twodifferent layers of text. The first layer, the

su¯ tra-s, consists in most printed editions of 195 brief nominal phrases. Patañjali

probably took these su¯ tra-sover, at least in part, from literary works of early

Sa¯ n˙khya Yoga that are now lost. The su¯ tra-ssometimes provide brief summaries

of the contents of the second layer of text, the so-called bha¯ s˙ya, or function as

headings for these contents, whereas the bha¯ s˙ya-part of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra

consists of commentarial explanationsofthe su¯ tra-text, of polemical discussions

of divergent philosophical views, of supplementary expositions,and of citations

from works of pre-classical Sa¯ n˙khya Yoga literature that are meant to support

Patañjali’spositions. It is this layer of textthat the secondary literature from

Colebrooke onwards refers to as the Yogabha¯ s˙ya, even though the work itself

does not contain any reference to this designation.90

The question of how al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ judged the authorship the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra

and the historical relationship between its su¯ tra-and its bha¯ s˙ya-part is, of course,

86 Pines &Gelblum 1966: 304. The same argument is repeated in Gelblum 2008: 262.

87 Maas 2006: xii–xix and Maas 2013: 57–68.

88 Maas 2017.

89 See Maas 2006: 111f. On the status of the Sanskrit works that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ chose to render into

Arabic see also Verdon 2015: 100–110.

90 Maas 2006: xvf.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon312

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

to somedegree independent of the question of whether Patañjali actually

composed his Yogas

´a¯ stra as aunified whole or not. In thisrespect, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’s

own testimony, which probably reflects the common view of the South Asian

thinkers with whom he interacted, is more significant. As Maas showed in a

recent publication, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ quoted bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra

that he introduced as beingpart of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al.91 This indicatesthat for al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ the book of Patañjali did not only consist of the Yogasu¯ tra (as Pines and

Gelblum assumed), but also of the bha¯ s˙ya-part of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.

Nevertheless, as can be concluded from the end of the introduction to the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ waswell aware of the fact that the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra

consists of twodifferent layers of text, i. e. ,ofsu¯ tra-and of bha¯ s˙ya-passages.

There he stated that “[t]his is the beginning of the book of Patañjali, text in-

terwoven with commentary”.92 If one is willing to accept that the word “text”

(Ar. ﻧﺺ

ّ)refers to the su¯ tra-passages and the word “commentary”(Ar. ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ;ﺷﺮﺡ )

to the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, twoproblems with regard to

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’speculiar reference to his sources are solved. The first problem is that

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ neither mentioned the name of the author, nor the title of the com-

mentary that he translated. This silence would be entirely understandableiffor

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ the commentary wasnothing but the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the Pa¯ tañ-

jalayogas

´a¯ stra. In this case, the author of the commentary would simply be

Patañjali, and the title of the work just Yogas

´a¯ stra, of which Kita¯ bpossibly is al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sArabic rendering.93

Secondly, also al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ srepeated references to “the commentator”in con-

nection with Q46(that we havediscussed above, p. 303) would cease to be

problematic.Since al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ announced at the beginningofhis work that he

presents the “text interwovenwith commentary”,itwould be not unusual for him

to inform his readers of cases in which he deviates from this procedure. And

exactly this is the case in Q46, where al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ presented comprehensiveex-

positions that occur not in the su¯ tra-part, but only in the bha¯ s˙ya-passages of the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.

Although it may be difficult to arriveatany definitiveconclusion, the as-

sessment at which Maas arrived on the basis of less evidence than we were able to

present aboveappearstobeareasonable hypothesis. Most probably the Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

˘al is “an Arabic version of the PYS

´”94 that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ supplemented with

information he received from avariety of additional sources. There is no need to

assume that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used an unknown commentary exclusively on the su¯ tra-s

91 Maas 2013: 59.

92 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 310; ed. Ritter 1956: 168, l. 5.

93 For possible interpretationsofthe word pa¯ tang

˘al,see above, p. 286f.

94 Maas 2013: 60.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 313

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in order to account for differences between al-Bı¯ -

¯nı¯ ’swork and all known yoga sources. It is much moreprobable that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯

used the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra as his main source than that he relied on adifferent

yoga source that cannot be identified.

However, it should not go without mention that the beginning of the Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

˘al contains atext passage that clearlyisnot arendering of any part of the

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra. This passage, which occurs immediately after the statement

“This is the beginning of the book of Patañjali”,consists of twomain parts: (1) a

benedictory stanza, in which the anonymous speaker venerates God and “the

angels and other spiritual beings”in order to secure for himself supportin

composing his work,95 and (2) an introduction to the work in which the same

speaker, who still refers to himself in the first person, states, among other things,

the subject and the aim of the work.96 The section ends with the statement that

“my comment will havefor the reader astatus similar to that of sense-perception

productiveofconviction”.97 Apparently, Pines and Gelblum (as well as their

predecessors) interpreted this section as the beginning of the unknown com-

mentary that they regarded as the main source of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as awhole.

We would like to argue, however, in favourofadifferent hypothesis. In our

view, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ integrated this passage into his work in order to overcome what he

(or his informants) regarded as shortcomings of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra,

namely the violation of twoliterary conventions for the composition of an au-

thoritativeand scholarly exposition (s

´a¯ stra). These conventions are (1) the rule

that a s

´a¯ stra should begin with abenedictory stanza (a so-called man

˙gala verse)98

and (2) that a s

´a¯ stra has to state its subject matter (vis

˙aya), its aim (prayojana)

and the connectionbetween the exposition and its aim (sam

˙bandha).99 At the

time when al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ composed his work, these literary conventions had become

so widely accepted in Brahmanicalcircles that it wasvirtuallyimpossible to

compose a s

´a¯ stra without complying with them. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ wasapparently aware

of these rules, and he feltthe need to respond to them in his Arabic work, possibly

because similar literary conventions existed also for Arabic scholarlyworks. It is

therefore very much conceivable that either one of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ informantscom-

posed aSanskrit man

˙gala stanza and an introduction to the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra,

which the Perso-Muslim scholar translated into Arabic in order to create a

95 Pines &Gelblum 1966: 310.

96 See Pines &Gelblum 1966: 310–313.

97 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 312.

98 On the history of the man

˙gala verse in South Asian systems of knowledge see Minkowski

2008. On the lack of a man

˙gala verse in the early text versions of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra see

Maas 2008b.

99 See Funayama1995: 181.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon314

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

complete Arabic “Yogas

´a¯ stra”,orthat al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ himself composed this passage

in the style of atranslation.

Accordingly, Pines and Gelblum were probably not correct in assuming that

the Yogasu¯ tra together with an unknown commentary wasthe main source of al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork. However, their excellent work, which is very meticulous and offers

so to say amicroscopic view of the relationship between avariety of Sanskrit

works that mayhavecontributed to the composition of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork, remains

avaluable research tool. The studies of Pines and Gelblum are essential and

groundbreaking for any further researchinto al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ shermeneutic approach

to yoga and other aspectsofpre-modernSouth Asian religions and cultures.

Moreover, Pines and Gelblum were surely right in providing several ex-

planations for the fact that the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al differs considerably from all

known Sanskrit works. They suggested that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ islamised and hellenised

South Asian conceptions, that he used his own intelligence and creativity to

communicate the ideas presented in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra to his audience,and

that he wasprobably assisted in his translation by South Asian pandits.

3. The Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra in Transformation

3.1. Explicitly MentionedTransformations

The abovesurvey of the relationship between the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and the Pa¯ -

tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra already provides afirst assessment of the wayinwhich al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used his main source. In order to go moreinto detail, it may be suitable to

take seriously into account what al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ himself relatedabout the wayhe

handled his main source. The following passage from the introduction to the

Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is quite informativeinthis regard.100

[…]Iwasobliged to amalgamate in (my) translation the text with that over-lengthy

commentary,toarrangethe work in away which resembles (a dialogueconsisting of)

questions and answers, and to omit (the parts which) are concerned with grammar and

language. This is an apology which Ioffer because of the difference in size of the book in

the twolanguages, if such acomparison is made.(Idothis) in order that no one should

thinkthat this (difference) is due to remissness in (the rendering of) the meaning.

Indeed he should be assured that it is due to acondensationofwhat (otherwise) would

be troublesome (in its) prolixness. May God bestowHis favour upon the good. This is

the beginning of the book of Patañjali, text interwoven with commentary.101

100 The very fact that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ added his own introduction and conclusion to the Arabic version

of the Sanskrit work indicates that he dealt with his source freely.

101 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 310.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 315

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

(ed. Ritter 1956: 168, ll. 1–5)

In this passage, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ mentioned in some detail how he modified his main

source when he rendered it into Arabic. This process involved the following three

kinds of transformation: (1) combining the basic text with its commentary,

(2) changing the structure of his source into that of adialogue and, (3) omitting

passages that are comprehensible only for readers knowingSanskrit.

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ neither used the term “Sanskrit”nor an Arabic equivalent in order

to designate the language in which his source waswritten. Instead, he used a

number of different expressions. For example, he employed the substantive

“India”as acollectiveterm to refer to the Indians ( ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪ )and their language, or he

chose the adjective “Indian”(ﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﻱ )for the same purpose. In addition, he used the

phrase “in the Indianlanguage”(ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻐﺘﺔﺍﻟﻬﻨﺪﻳ

ﺔ). Moreover, in his introduction to

the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ employed the expression “from the language of

India”(ﻣﻦﻟﻐﺔﺍﻟ

ﻬﻨﺪ )102 to refer to the source-language of his translation. The Arabic

transliterations of Indian technical termsthat al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ provided in the Tah

˙qı¯ q

ma¯ li-l-Hind indicate, nevertheless, that the original language of these terms

actually wasSanskrit. For instance, he wrote: “This is what Patañjali says about

the knowledge which liberatesthe soul. In Sanskrit [i. e.,inIndian] they call its

liberation Moksha (sic;Ar. mu¯ k sˇ a)–i. e., theend”(ﻓﻬﺬﺍﻣﺎﻗﺎﻝﭘﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞﻓﻰﺍﻟﻌﻠﻢﺍﻟﻤﺨﻠﺺ

ﻟﻠﻨﻔﺲﻭﻳﺴﻤ

ﻮﻥﺧﻼﺻﻬﺎﺑﻠﻬﻨﺪﻳ

ﺔﻣﻮﻛﺶﺃﻯﺍﻟﻌﺎﻗﺒﺔ ).103 In general, Arabic and Persian writers

did not use the word “Sanskrit”at all.104

In the following (sections 3.1.1–3.1.3), we try to retrace some of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

transformations by introducing selected examples for each of the three kinds of

formal transformations that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ mentioned in the abovequoted in-

troduction. An understanding of how the Perso-Muslim author changed his

main source, even if thissource can only be hypothetically identified, contributes

to an improved understanding of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ shermeneutic approach to his source

and to his supplementary materials, as well as of his strategy to disseminate his

knowledge of yoga.

102 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 309; ed. Ritter1956: 167, l. 6.

103 Trans. Sachau 1888: I/70; ed. al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ 1958: 53, ll. 8–9. See also the lists of the Indianmonths,

of the names of the planets, and of the zodiac signs in “The Chronology of Ancient Nations”

(Al-A

¯t

¯a¯ ral-Ba¯ qiya)inthe tables on pp. 80, 221 and 222 of Azkaei 2001;trans. Sachau 1879:

83, 172 and 173) and tables 1–3inVerdon 2015: 71–73.

104 See Ali 1992: 43 and Ernst 2010: 360f.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon316

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

3.1.1. Combining Different Layers of Text

In the passage quoted above, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ mentioned twice that he combined two

different layers of text, for which he uses the Arabic words for “text”(ﻧﺺ

ّ)and

“commentary”(ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ or ﺷﺮﺡ ), which we havehypothetically identified with the

su¯ tra-and the bha¯ s˙ya-part of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.105 The Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

indeed presents in an integrated manner topics that are addressedinthe two

different layers of text of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra. For example, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sex-

position of the five different kinds of mental activities (Ar. ﻗﻮﺓ ;Skt. vr

˙tti)inQ5,

i.e.,(1) grasping, understanding ( ﺍﺩﺭﺍﻙ ), (2) imagination ( ﺗﺨﻴ

ﻞ), (3) false as-

sumption( ﻇﻦ ), (4) dream ( ﺭﺅﻳﺎ ), and (5) memory ( ﺫﻛﺮ ), sums up the contents of

PYS

´1.5–1.11, which deals with the mental activities of (1) valid knowledge

(prama¯ n

˙a), (2) error (viparyaya), (3) conceptual thinking(vikalpa), (4) deep

sleep (nidra¯ ), and (5) memory (smr

˙ti)inseven su¯ tra-s, of which six are supple-

mented with bha¯ s˙ya-passages.106

However, already in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, su¯ tra-and bha¯ s˙ya-passages are

not always separable. For example, YS 1.5 together with its introductory bha¯ s˙ya-

passages forms asyntactical unit: “These, however, which havetobestopped

although they are numerous, are the activities of the mind, whichare fivefold and

either afflicted or unafflicted.”107 Accordingly, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sintegration of basic

text and commentary in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is not entirely an innovation.The

author rather developed further acharacteristic feature that he already found in

his hypothetical main source.

3.1.2. Creating aDialogue

The second transformation that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ mentioned in his introduction is the

restructuration of his source into adialogue consisting of questions and answers

(I wasobliged […]toarrange the work in away which resembles [a dialogue

consisting of] questions and answers; ﺍﺟﺮﺍﺀﺍﻟﻜﻼﻡﻋﻠﻰﻣﺎﻳﺸﺒﻪﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝﻭﺍﻟﺠﻮﺍﺏ […]

ﺍﺿﻄﺮﺭﺕ ). As we already stated in the introduction,108 in this conversation Pa¯ -

105 Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ said: “For this reason Iwas obliged to amalgamate in (my) translation the text with

that over-lengthy commentary”(ﻟﺬﻟﻚﺍﺿﻄﺮﺭﺕﻓﻰﺍﻟﻨﻘﻞﺍﻟﻰﺧﻠﻂﺍﻟﻨﺺﺑﺬﻟﻚﺍﻟﺘﻔﺴﻴﺮﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ )and “This is

the beginning of the book of Patañjali, text interwoven with [its] commentary”(ﻭﻫﺬﺍﻫﻮﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﺀ

ﻛﺘﺎﺏﺑﺎﺗﻨﺠﻞﻣﺮﻛ

َّ

ﺒﺎ

ﻧﺼﻪﺑﺸﺮﺣﻪ ).

106 Note, however, that the sequence of items no. 2and 3isinverted in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. For Q

5ofthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, see ed. Ritter 1956: 171, ll. 1–13; trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 315–6.

107 PYS

´1.5, p. 9, l. 3f.: ta¯ h˙punar niroddhavya¯ bahutve ’pi cittasyavr

ttayah

˙pañcatayyah

klis

˙t

˙a¯ klis

˙t

˙a¯ h˙(YS 1.5). This passage is also discussed in Maas 2013: 63.

108 See p. 287 above.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 317

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

tang

˘al answers the questions of an ascetic.109 Some of these questions clearly

mirror introductory questions that are already found in the Pa¯ tañjalayo-

gas

´a¯ stra,110 whereas other questions, like question no. 3inthe passage cited

below, were mostprobably created by al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ himself.111

One of the many examples for both cases occurs in Q2–3ofthe Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

which run as follows:

Q2.Whatisthe state of aman who has compressed withinhimself the faculties of his

soul and hindered them from spreadingout?Ans. He is not completely bound, for he

has severed the bodily ties between himself and that which is other than himself, and has

ceased to cling to things external to him. But on the other hand, he is not prepared for

liberation, since his soul is with his body.

Q3.How is he (to be described) when he is in neither of the twostates which havebeen

mentioned?Ans. He then is as he really is in his essence.112

٢ـﻗ ﺎﻝﺍ ﻟﺴﺎ ﻳﻞ:ﻓ ﺎ ﺫ ﺍﻗ ﺒﺾﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥﺍ ﻟ ﻴ ﻪﻗﻮﻯﻧ ﻔﺴﻪﻭﻣ ﻨﻌﻬ ﺎﻋﻦﺍﻻﻧ ﺘﺸﺎﺭﻛ ﻴﻒﻳ ﻜﻮﻥﺣﺎ ﻟ ﻪ؟

ﻗ ﺎﻝﺍ ﻟ ﻤﺠﻴﺐ:ﻻﻳﻜﻮﻥﻋﻠﻰﻛﻤﺎﻝﺍ ﻟ ﻮﺛ ﺎﻕﻭﻗﺪﻗﻄﻊﻋﻼﻳﻖﺍ ﻟﺠﺴﻤ ﻴ ﺔﻋﻤﺎ ﺑ ﻴ ﻨ ﻪﻭﺑ ﻴﻦﻣﺎﺳﻮﺍ ﻩﻭﺗﺮﻙﺍ ﻟ ﻨﺸﺒﺚﺑ ﺎ ﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﺎﺕﻋﻨﻪ

ﻭﻻﻳ ﻜﻮﻥﻣﺴﺘ ﺄﻫﻼﻟ ﻠﺨﻼﺹﻻﻥﻧ ﻔﺴﻪﻣﻊﺍ ﻟ ﺒ ﺪﻥ

٣ـﻗ ﺎﻝﺍ ﻟﺴﺎ ﻳﻞ:ﻓ ﺎﺫ ﺍﻟ ﻢﻳ ﻜﻦﻋﻠﻰﺍﺣﺪﻯﺍ ﻟﺤﺎ ﻟ ﺘ ﻴﻦﺍ ﻟ ﻤﺸﺎﺭﺍ ﻟ ﻴ ﻬﻤﺎﻓﻜﻴﻒﻳ ﻜﻮﻥ؟

ﻗ ﺎﻝﺍ ﻟ ﻤﺠﻴﺐ:ﻳﻜﻮﻥﻛﻤﺎﻫﻮﻋﻠﻰﺫ ﺍ ﺗ ﻪﺑ ﺎ ﻟﺤﻘ ﻴ ﻘﺔ

(ed. Ritter1956: 170, ll. 5–11)

As Pines and Gelblum already noticed,113 question no. 2roughly corresponds to

the introduction of PYS

´1.3, which reads as follows:

“When the mental organ is in this state (i. e.,when its activities haveceased), then,

because there is no object, the following question arises: What is the nature of the

Subject whose essence it is to makethe mind conscious?114 Then, the subject of per-

ception abides in its own form (YS 1.3). The faculty of consciousness (i. e.,the Subject) is

then established in its own form, like in separation (i.e., in final liberation)”.115

At first sight, question no. 2inal-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork differs from the introductory

question of PYS

´1.3 in anumber of respects. To start with, the objectofenquiry

differs in both works. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’squestion refers to apeculiar state of aman ( ﻓﺎﺫﺍ

109 The personal name Pa¯ tang

˘al only occurs in the answer to the first question. See ed. Ritter

1956: 169, l. 15; trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 313.

110 For example, the introductory question of PYS

´1.24 corresponds to that of Q12of the Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

˘al, which al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ quotesinhis “India”.See Maas 2013: 59.

111 The literary form of adialogue wascommonly used in Arabic philosophical works as well as

in some Upanis

˙ads.

112 Trans. Pines &Gelblum1966: 314. In the first sentence of the answer, the readingofthe

Arabic is uncertain. Ritter’semendation of ﺍﻟﻌﺼﻤﺔ to ﺍﻟﺠﺴﻤﻴﺔ (“bodily”)isprobably correct.

113 Pines &Gelblum 1966: 314, n. 104.

114 This translation follows the interpretation of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stravivaran

˙ap. 165, ll. 7–9.

115 PYS

´1.3, p. 7, ll. 1–4: tadavasthe cetasi vis

˙aya¯ bha¯ v a¯ dbuddhibodha¯ tma¯ purus

˙ah

˙kim

˙svabha¯ -

vah

˙?tada¯ dras

˙t

˙uh

˙svaru¯ pe ’vastha¯ nam (YS 1.3). svaru¯ papratis

˙t

˙ha¯ tada¯ nı¯ m

˙cicchaktir yatha¯

kaivalye.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon318

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

ﻗﺒﺾﺍﻻﻧﺴﺎﻥﺍﻟﻴﻪﻗﻮﻯﻧﻔﺴﻪﻭﻣﻨﻌﻬﺎﻋﻦﺍﻻﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻒﻳﻜﻮﻥﺣﺎﻟﻪ ), whereas Patañjali enquires

about the nature of the Subject (purus

˙a). However, when the Sanskrit word

purus

˙ais not used terminologically, it frequently just means “man”.Moreover,

both al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ and Patañjali refer to aparticular state. In the Sanskrit work,

however, the specific state, i. e.,the state of the mental organ of ayogi, is not the

object of enquiry. It figures only in the conditional subclause of the main

question. There, the Sanskrit compound tadavastha “being in this state”is a

bahuvrı¯ hi-compound with the anaphoric pronoun tad in the initial position.This

pronoun refers back to the topic of the previous section of the Pa¯ tañjalayoga-

´a¯ stra, i.e.,tothe cessation of mental activities(cittavr

˙ttinirodha). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯

apparently understood the reference of the pronoun tad correctly,when he

composed asimplified version of the original question, in which here, as else-

where, he referred to the cessation of mental activities with the expression “the

compressed and spread out faculties”.

The Arabic and the Sanskrit work share anumber of additional features that

allow for an identification of the question in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra as the

source of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’squestion. First, the twoquestions occur at identical posi-

tions in the respectivework. Second, the answer to question no. 3inal-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’s

work is aliteral translation of YS 1.3. And, finally, the answer to question no. 2in

the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al appears to be atranslation of the bha¯ s˙ya-part of PYS

´1.3,

which states that the cessation of mental activities is not identicalwith final

liberation. The Arabic translation of the original “like in separation”(yatha¯

kaivalye)contains additional information that is necessary in order to com-

municatethe full meaning of this expression to al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’saudience.116 The yogi

enters the state of separationonlyatthe moment of his physical death, when the

Subject (purus

˙a)and the mental organ (citta)separateonce and for all. Thus, al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ srendering of the Sanskrit passage, in which he states that the yogi has

reached an advanced state of spiritual development but “is not prepared for

liberation since his soul is with his body”(ﻭﻻﻳﻜﻮﻥﻣﺴﺘﺄﻫﻼﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹﻻﻥﻧﻔﺴﻪﻣﻊﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ ),

shows that his understanding of this passage corresponds to the meaning of his

Sanskrit source.

Just like the previously discussed integration of su¯ tra–and bha¯ s˙ya-passages,

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ screation of the dialogic structure of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al is afurther

development of afeature that already existed in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra.117 Al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ translated somequestions of his exemplar and composed new ones. In

addition, he provided his work with anew narrativestructure by introducing the

twocharacters of Pa¯ tang

˘al and the ascetic. In this respect, his work differs clearly

116 For more details on the translational strategy of “addition”,see below, section 3.2.7.

117 The quotations of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sKita¯ bSa¯ nk that occur in the Tah

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind show that this

work, just like the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, wascomposed in the form of adialogue.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 319

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

from the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, in which questions merely introduce the topics

that are discussed under the heading of the respective su¯ tra-s.118

3.1.3. OmittingLinguistic Explanations

In the passage quoted abovefrom the introduction of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, al-

Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ informedhis reader that he felt not only justified but obliged “to omit(the

parts which) are concerned with grammar and language”(ﻭﺍﻟﻰﺍﺳﻘﺎﻁﻣﺎﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖﺑﺎﻟﻨﺤﻮ

ﻭﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ),119 in order to overcome atranslational problem that is, according to his

view, especially pertinent for any translator dealing with Sanskrit literature.

According to al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ,

acompleteand accurate translation is difficult, because the commentators are con-

cerned with grammar and etymology and other (matters)which are of use only to a

(person) who is versed in their literary languages as distinct from the vernacular.120

ﻳﻌﺴﺮﻧﻘﻞﻛﻠﻪﻭﻋﻠﻰﻣﺎﻫﻮﻋﻠﻴﻪﻻﺷﺘﻐﺎﻝﺍﻟﻤﻔﺴﺮﻳﻦﺑﺎﻟﻨﺤﻮﻭﺍﻻﺷﻘﺎﻕﻭﺳﺎﻳﺮﻣﺎﻻﻳﻨﺘﻔﻊﺑﻪﺍﻻﺍﻟﻤﺤﻴﻂﺑﻠﻐﺎﺗﻬﻢﺍﻟﻔﺼﻴﺤﺔﺩﻭﻥ

ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺘﺬﻟﺔ

(Ritter 1956: 167, l. 21 –168, l. 1)

Some passages of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra contain indeed linguistic explanations

that do not correspond to any passage of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. For example, al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork lacks any reference to the very first section of the Pa¯ tañjalayo-

gas

´a¯ stra, which in its initial part discusses the exact meaning of the Sanskrit

equivalent to the adverb “now”(atha), the meaning of the word “authoritative

teaching”(anus

´a¯ sana)and the etymology of the word yoga as aderivativeofthe

second Sanskrit root yuj (yuja)“to be aware of sth.,toconcentrate, to be mentally

absorbed”.Inthis way, Patañjali defines the term yoga as asynonym of the

Sanskrit equivalent for “absorption”(sama¯ dhi). Then, in the second part of this

passage, the author explains that sama¯ dhi is the common characteristic of all

forms of mentalawareness.121 This explanation is ratherpsychological than

grammatical. However, the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al also does not contain any reference to

this psychological excursion.

118 Already Pines and Gelblum assumed, although for different reasons, that the dialogic

structure of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al mirrors the structure of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ smain source (Pines &

Gelblum 1966: 303 and 1989: 265).

119 Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ soeuvre does not contain asingle reference to the grammatical work Vya¯ kara-

˙amaha¯ bha¯ s˙ya by another Patañjali, who lived approximately 550 years prior to the yoga

author. It is therefore highly unlikely that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sjust quoted statementconcerningthe

omission of grammatical explanations from the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al refers to any other work than

the Sanskrit work on yoga that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ translated into Arabic.

120 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 310.

121 For adiscussion of the different forms of awarenessand absorption see Maas 2009: 267–269.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon320

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Moreover, linguistic explanationsare very rare in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra.

Their omission in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al therefore would hardly affect the read-

ability of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ swork. On the whole, it appears that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ did not only

leaveout passages that would havebeen of interest exclusively for areadership

with knowledge of the Sanskrit language, but that he omitted all passages from

his Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al that he thought to be of no interest to his readership.Al-

Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ swork is, accordingly, the result of his conscious selection of material that

his main source contained. If this assessment is correct,the mere absence of a

reference to any passage of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al does

not justifythe conclusion that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ ssource did not contain the respective

passage,122 because it is quite probable that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ schoicetocommunicate

certain topics and to leaveout other subjects is the result of the creativity involved

in the composition of an Arabic work that is to aconsiderable degree in-

dependent of its Sanskrit source. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ did not refer to this selectiveprocess when he mentioned that he omitted

linguistic explanations from his work.

3.2. Translational Strategies

In section 3.1 above, we discussed the three types of transformation that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯

mentioned in the introduction to his work. These modifications mainly con-

cerned the structureofhis work. However, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ also transformed his source

in numerous other ways that resultfrom the difficulties he wasfacingwhen he

composed his work. In fact,al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ had set himself the difficult task to com-

municateBrahmanical religious and philosophical concepts that had been for-

mulated at the time of the Guptas, i. e.,probably at sometime between 325 and

425 CE, to aMuslim readership of the eleventh century. This audience wasnot

acquainted with the Brahmanical cultureofthe time, and it definitely lacked any

awareness of the religious and philosophical milieu of classical South Asian

culture. It appears therefore almost unavoidable that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ took the liberty of

dealing freely and selectively with his source.

The problemsthat al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ had to face when he rendered the Pa¯ tañjalayo-

gas

´a¯ stra into Arabic were very much comparable with the difficulties that every

translator,modern or pre-modern, in general has to cope with. The work of the

linguist Vladimir Ivir helps to deal with thesedifficulties. Ivir identified diffi-

122 The assumption of Pines and Gelblum that the fact that some su¯ tra-s“do not appear in the

Arabic version suggests the possibility that the commentary used by al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ had dealt with

avery early version of the Yogasu¯ tra, before interpolations were added”(Pines &Gelblum

1966: 304f.) has to be revised inthe light of the results of the present study.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 321

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

culties in the translational process as well as possible strategies to overcome

them. According to Ivir, translational difficulties particularlyarise when the

culture in which asource wascomposed differs from the culture of the target

language. Ivir explains that

[…]language and culture are inextricably interwoven and […]the integration of an

element into aculture (and into the conceptual framework of its members as in-

dividuals) cannot be said to havebeen achieved unless and until the linguistic ex-

pression of that element has been integrated into the languageofthat culture.123

Therefore, accordingly to Ivir, “[t]ranslating means translatingcultures, not

languages.”124

Ivir points out that the degree of difficulty to translate atext is conditioned by

the degree of “mutual similarities”between the source culture and the target

culture.125 In the case presently under discussion, to which Ivir does not refer, the

differences between the twoculturesare severe. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ sPerso-Muslim cul-

ture of the eleventh century and the religious–philosophical world view of Yoga

that wascreatedsome six hundred years before differ with regard to, for example,

their respectivetheologies, the ontological status of the soul or Subject, and the

qualification for religious practice of different members of the twosocieties. In

addition, elements of the Brahmanical culture of the Gupta time do either not

correspond exactly to al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’scultural background, or they are entirely

missing, like for example, the South Asian theories of karma and rebirth. This

problematic situation may haveled al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ to take recourse to different

strategies of finding appropriate translational solutions.

According to the model developed by Ivir, there are in principle seven strat-

egies that atranslator can apply for bridging cultural gaps, each of which has

inherent advantages and drawbacks: (1) borrowing, (2) definition, (3) literal

translation, (4) substitution, (5) lexical creation, (6) omission, and (7) addition.

In the following (sections 3.2.1–7), we briefly introduce these strategies and

provide examples of how and why al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ applied all of them with the single

exception of lexical creation.

3.2.1. Borrowing

Borrowing or importing words from the source language into the target language

is apowerful but problematic strategy to overcome cultural gaps.126 In order to

introduce aloanword successfully into the target language, it is necessary to

123 Ivir 1987:35.

124 Ibid.

125 Ivir 1987:36.

126 Ivir 1987:37.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon322

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

ensure that the audienceacquires asufficient knowledge of the corresponding

extralinguisticreality of the concept referred to by the borrowed word. An im-

portant means for this end is the definition of the loanword in the target lan-

guage. However, even if atranslator achieves an appropriate understanding of the

reality behind aloanword for his audience, its willingness to acceptthe foreign

term as part of its language depends on multiplesocio-linguistic issues. The

loanword must fitinto the target language phonologically and morphologically.

In addition, ageneral familiarity of the audience with the source language will

increase its willingness to acceptanew word as part of its language. Finally, the

general attitude of the audience to its own language as well as to the source

language may influence the success or failure of any attempt of atranslator to

borrow directly from asource language.

In the case of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ,itappears that borrowing wasastrategy that was

largely at variance with his authorial intention. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ saim wastotransfer

specific yogic and Brahmanical conceptions into the intellectual sphere of the

Islamic culture. The importation of (technical) terms would haveadded afurther

dimension of difficulty for understanding an already complicated work. More-

over, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ may also havefeared that the willingness of his audienceto

integrate foreign Sanskrit terms into its language would havebeen low. There-

fore, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ rarely used borrowing as atranslational strategy,sothat not even

the central term yoga found its wayinto the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al. However, within the

cosmographical excursion of Q46that we discussed aboveinsection 2.5.2, al-

Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used Sanskrit terms that he transcribed into Arabic for the individual

regions of the world even in cases where he could haveeasily translated the

respectivenames into Arabic, because the names are telling,i.e., their names

haveameaning, like, for example, the name Tapoloka (“The Wo rld of Heat”)or

Satyaloka (“The World of Truth”). An additional striking example of this pro-

cedure is al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’streatment of the designations of the seven oceans that

separate the seven ring continents. Eachofthese oceans consists of adifferent

fluid. In the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra and in other works dealing with cosmography,

the Sanskrit names of the oceans are simply the words for these fluids, i.e.,Salt

[water] (lavan

˙aor ks

˙a¯ ra), SugarCane Juice (iks

˙urasa), Spirituous Liquor(sura¯ ),

etc.127 Although al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ could haveeasily translated these Sanskrit names into

Arabic, he decided to borrow them from his source. In addition, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ also

provided translations of these transliterations from the Sanskrit. It appears that

he used the strategy of borrowing mostly when dealing with propernames, and

very rarely in the case of technical terms.128

127 See Table 2onpp. 309–311 above.

128 In Q57, however, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ borrowed theSanskrit term rasa¯ yana (ﺭﺳﺎﻳﻦ ). See ed. Ritter 1956:

193, l. 9and trans.Pines &Gelblum 1989: 267.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 323

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

3.2.2. Defining the ElementsofCulture

Defining the elements of culture makes use of knowledge shared by the members

of the source and of the target culture.This translational strategy uses the

common knowledge of the members of both cultures in order to reduce “the

unknown to the known and the unshared to the shared”.129 What Ivir means here

is that translational processesdepend upon the common experiental basis of

human beings, which provides the very background for communication across

cultures. Even strongly culturally determined concepts can be reduced in their

complexity and communicated, i. e. ,explained, by making reference to this

common human background.

However, definitional translations are inconvenient. Because they tend to be

long and complicated, they attract too much attentionfor themselves, which

affects the immediate intelligibility of the translatedtext. Therefore,definitional

translations should be avoided for concepts that are only part of the cultural

background of the source text, and not the topic on which the discussion is

focused. Otherwise, they almost certainly lead to over-translations.

Numerous instancesofdefinitional translations occur in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’swork. For

example, the titles of the twofirst chapters of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al as transmitted in

the concluding statementsofthe chapters contain definitions of the corre-

sponding Sanskrit terms.130 In his colophon to the first chapter, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ defines

the Sanskrit term “absorption”(sama¯ dhi)as“making the heart steadfastly fixed”

(ﻓﻰﺍﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﻟﻘﻠﺐﻋﻠﻰﻣﻘﺮﻭﺍﺣﺪ ).131 In the concludingstatement of the second chapter, he

explains the term “means”(sa¯ dhana)bythe expression “guidance towards the

praxis which has been treated previously in the first section”(ﻓﻰﺍﺭﺷﺎﺩﺍﻟﻰﻋﻤﻞﻣﺎﻛﺎﻥ

ﺗﻘﺪﻡﻓﻰﺍﻟﻘﻄﻌﺔﺍﻻﻭﻟﻰ ).132

3.2.3. Literal Translation

Literal translation wasprobably for along time the most prominent translational

strategy in modern scholarship. It has been the ideal of academic translations

that wasbelieved to easily overcome cultural and lexical gaps, because it is faithful

to its source and transparent in the target language. Ivir, however, says that

129 Ivir 1987:38.

130 See above, p. 288.

131 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 325; ed. Ritter 1956: 177, l. 10. An alternativetranslation for the

Arabic word qalb,which al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ used to render the Sanskritword citta,could be “mind”.

132 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1977:527;ed. Ritter1956: 183, l. 18.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon324

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

[l]ikethe other proceduresdiscussedhere, literal translation has its advantages and

limitations, which need to be weighedcarefully for each particular cultural elementand

lexical item and for each act of communication it features in.133

There are cases in which the extra-linguistic realities of the twocultures differ to

such an extent that aliteral translation does not lead to asatisfactory result. For

instance, idiomatic expressions of the source language defyall attempts of literal

translation. Moreover, any literaltranslation is inappropriate when it would

result in ungrammatical or stylistically unacceptable formulations in the target

language.

In general, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ wasnot inclined to compose aliteral translation for the

several reasonsthat we already discussed above. Nevertheless, it is possible to

detect some passages that consist of aliteral translation of his hypothetical

source. For example, the answer to question 3, “He then is as he really is in his

essence”(ﻳﻜﻮﻥﻛﻤﺎﻫﻮﻋﻠﻰﺫﺍﺗﻪﺑﺎﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ),134 is clearly an attempt to provide aliteral

translation of YS 1.3: “Then, the subject of perception abides in its own form”

(tada¯ dras

˙t

˙uh

˙svaru¯ pe ’vastha¯ nam).135

3.2.4. Substitution

Substitution is aconvenient waytobridge cultural gaps by drawing upon con-

cepts that are “available to the translator in cases in which the twocultures

display apartial overlap rather than aclear-cutpresence vs. absence of apar-

ticular element of culture.”136 The asset of this strategy is that the substitute for

the source concept is readily available for the translator and perfectly intelligible

for the audience. However, the familiarity of the audience with this concept may

hide certain aspectsofthe source concept that are not encompassed by the term

used in the target language. Moreover, because the semanticoverlap between the

twoconcepts is only partial, the target concept may evoke connotations that the

source concept did not justify.

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ abundantly used substitution as atranslational strategy.Astriking

example of this is his translation of the Sanskrit term for “God”(ı¯ s´ vara)with the

Arabic “Allah”(ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ), for instance in Q12, Q13, Q16, and Q21ofthe Kita¯ b

P a¯ tang

ˇal.137 Both concepts refer to the idea of asupreme being. In the case of

Pa¯ tañjala Yoga, this supreme beingisaspecial kindofSubject (purus

˙a)that

mainly serves as an object of meditation and whose role in the world is rather

133 Ivir 1987:39.

134 Ed. Ritter1956: 170, l. 11;trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 314.

135 See above, p. 318.

136 Ivir 1987:41.

137 Ed. Ritter 1956: 173, l. 12–174, l. 5; 174, ll. 11–17;175, l. 21–176, l. 1; trans. Pines &Gelblum

1966: 319–322.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 325

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

limited.138 In contrast, on an ontological level, Allah is unique. He is the God of

judgment and retribution who determines the post-mortem fate of all human

beings. In contradistinction to this, Yoga philosophy and religiontakes the quasi

mechanismofkarmic processes to determine the welfare or otherwise of human

beings in their next existences.

3.2.5. Lexical Creation

Lexical creation is the process of coining new expressions in the target language,

either by creating new words or by using unusual collocations of terms. Ac-

cording to Ivir, it is less frequently employed than the previously discussed

strategies, because it requires alarge amount of creativity on the side of the

translator and hermeneutical skills on the side of the audience.139 The newly

coined term is “culturally ‘empty’” and thus

ready to receiveand convey the intended content […]ofthe source-culture element.At

the same time,such culturalneutralityhas the disadvantage of masking the cultural

provenance of the element in question.140

As far as we can see, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ did not use lexical creation as atranslational

strategy. He did not invent new terms. Whether al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used unusual collo-

cations or not is difficult to judge. In order to detect the inventiveuse of ex-

pressions in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’swork, it would be necessarytobealmostperfectly fa-

miliar not only with his language, but also with the standard language of his time

and culture.

3.2.6. Omission

According to Ivir, omission is astrategy that translators may employ not out of

necessity but for pragmatic reasons. Althoughinprinciple one of the previously

discussed strategiescould always be used instead of an omission, atranslator

may decide to employ an omission when otherwise the communicativecosts

would be higher than the gain.141

In the aforementioned part of his introduction, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ justified the fact that

he abbreviated his source to aconsiderable degree with the argument that a

translation of the work with all its technical contentswould be difficult to un-

derstand for his readers.142 On the whole, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sargument is based on the

138 Maas 2009: 276–280.

139 Ivir 1987:43.

140 Ivir 1987:44.

141 Ibid.

142 Ed. Ritter 1956: 168, ll. 3–4; trans.Pines &Gelblum 1966: 310.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon326

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

same line of thought as Ivir’smodel of communicativecosts. An example for an

omission of apassage from the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork was

discussed above.143

It is, however, possible to differentiate several kinds of omissions in al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

work. Besides omissions that arepart of atranslational strategy, there are also

passages from the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ did not incorporateinto his

work because he probably found them not to be of relevance for his audience. As

mentioned above, these omissions are part of the creativity that he used when

composing the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al.144 This type of omissionstherefore appears to be

the resultofpersonallyorculturally determined preferences of the author–

translator.

3.2.7. Addition

Addition is atranslational strategy that has to be employed whenever the author

of the source expresses himself in such away that aliteral translation of his

wording would leaveimportant pieces of information unexpressed.Whereas the

audience of the source culture can easily supplement theseelements from their

common cultural knowledge, the members of the target culture, who do not have

access to this knowledge, need additional information in order to properly un-

derstand the intention of the author.

The Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra is composed in scholastic Sanskrit. In this style of

literary composition, brevityofverbal expression is acharacteristicfeature.

Accordingly, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ had many opportunities to add pieces of information in

his translation in order to make the work intelligible to his readership. An ex-

ample for al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’suse of this translational strategy, already referred to above,

occurs in Q2.There, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ felt the need to supplementthe expression “like in

separation”(yatha¯ kaivalye)with twosentences:

“He is not completely bound,for he has severed the bodily ties between himselfand that

whichisotherthan himself, and has ceased to cling to thingsexternal to him.But on the

other hand, he is notprepared for liberation, since his soul is with his body”.145

ﻻﻳﻜﻮﻥﻋﻠﻰﻛﻤﺎﻝﺍﻟﻮﺛﺎﻕﻭﻗﺪﻗﻄﻊﻋﻼﻳﻖﺍﻟﺠﺴﻤﻴﺔﻋﻤﺎﺑﻴﻨﻪﻭﺑﻴﻦﻣﺎﺳﻮﺍﻩﻭﺗﺮﻙﺍﻟﻨﺸﺒﺚﺑﺎﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﺎﺕﻋﻨﻪﻭﻻﻳﻜﻮﻥ

ﻣﺴﺘﺄﻫﻼﻟﻠﺨﻼﺹﻻﻥﻧﻔﺴﻪﻣﻊﺍﻟﺒﺪﻥ

(Ritter 1956: 170.,ll. 7–9)

In this passage, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ referred to astate that is similar to, but not identical

with, final liberation. The very brief Sanskrit expression “like in separation”

143 See above, p. 320.

144 See above, p. 321.

145 Trans. Pines &Gelblum 1966: 314.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 327

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

(yatha¯ kaivalye), if interpreted with sufficient backgroundknowledge of Yoga

soteriology, can be understood to contain asimilar content. Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’saddition

wasanappropriate translational device, because aliteral translation of this

phrase would not havebeen comprehensible for his target audience.

Twofurthercases of translational additions that were motivated by al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’s

need to provide culture specific information were discussed aboveinsections

2.3.2 and 2.5.1. In the first case, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ informed his audience that Nandı¯ s´vara

gained adivine body in consequence of venerating the god S

´iva.146 In the second

case, al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ supplemented his work by providing Ayurvedic information that

he thought necessary for understanding how and why the human body consists of

the bodilyelements that are listedinPYS

´3.29.147

3.3. Results

The aboveinvestigation showed that in composing his work, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ applied

twotypes of transformation to his main source. The first type consists of the three

transformations that he mentioned in the introduction of his work. Twoofthese

modifications, i. e. ,combiningdifferent layers of text and creating adialogue,

concern the structure and the form of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’swork. On the basis of acom-

parison of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, we could show that

these twotransformations further develop characteristic features of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ s

source. The third transformation, i. e.,omitting linguistic explanations that

would havebeen incomprehensible for the reader, did not lead to astructural or

formal modification of the source. Because these explanations are in any case

quite rare in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra, their omission did not havealarge impact

on the comprehensibility of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork. By providing examples of these

modifications, we could show that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ actuallyput his programmatic

statementinto practice.

The second type of transformationresults from al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’smoreorless

conscious application of different translational strategies, of which there are,

according to Ivir, seven. On the basis of our comparison of selected passages from

the Sanskrit and the Arabic works, it becomes evident that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ used five of

these strategiesfrequently, i.e.,defining the elements of culture,literal trans-

lation, substitution, omission and addition, whereas he rarely resorted to bor-

rowing and did not at all use lexical creations.

146 See above, p. 299.

147 See above, p. 304.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon328

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

4. Conclusion

After having criticallysurveyed previous attempts to identifythe Sanskrit source

of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al, we arrived at the conclusion that at the present state of

research the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra is the most likely candidate for being the main

source of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’swork. Apparently, al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ supplemented his main source

with different additional sources that were partly written and partly oral. Besides

this, the cultural knowledge that he acquired naturally during his stays in South

Asia will havecontributed to the wayinwhich he composed his work.

The identification of this hypotheticalmainsource provided us with astan-

dard of comparison that we used for further analyses of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’swork. We

identified twomain types of transformation that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ applied to his source

when he rendered it into Arabic.148 The first of these mainly consists of structural

and formal transformations.The second one consists in the application of dif-

ferent translational strategies. Moreover, we could see throughout our study that

al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ handled his source in afree and creativemanner. He selected the topics

that appeared to be most relevant and leftout topics that he considered in-

comprehensible or irrelevant for his audience. In other cases, the scholar sub-

stituted unfamiliar South Asian concepts with ideas that he directly drew from

his Islamic background. This creativeprocess is the third and probably most

important type of transformation that al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ applied, because it transferred a

Sanskrit yoga work of approximately the fourth century into the culture of me-

dieval Islam.

In order to estimatethe creativedimension of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ swork, as well as his

ability (and limits) to understand his source, acomparison of the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al

with its hypothetical main source wastherefore only anecessary first step.Un-

derstanding al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’smotives for deviating from his source as well as de-

termining otherreasons for differencesbetween the Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and its

sources then led to afuller picture of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sliterary activity and creativity. In

this way, the present chapter shows that al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ saspiration wasnot onlyto

provide atranslation that is faithfultoits source, but also to make the spiritual

dimension of yoga accessible to his Muslim readership. It appearsthat al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯

understood that “[t]ranslation is away of establishing contacts between

cultures”,149 or, one may add, religionsand philosophies.

Future research in the hermeneutics of al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ requires further con-

textualisations of his work within the frame of the intellectual history of South

148 See also Verdon 2015 (ch. 4–6) for amore detailed discussion of why al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ may haveused

which translational strategies when he composed his Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al and his Kita¯ bSa¯ nk.

149 Ivir 1987:35.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 329

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Asia as well as with that of the Arab world. Providing abasis for such research was

one of the aimsofthe present chapter.150

References

Sanskrit Manuscripts

AdPalm leaf manuscript of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in Devanagari script kept at the

La¯ lbhaı¯ Dalpatbhaı¯ Bha¯ ratı¯ ya Vidya¯ mandir, Ahmedabad. Ms. no. La¯ .Da. Ta¯ d˙.34(1).

JdPalm leaf manuscript of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in Devanagari script, ms. no. 395/2 in

the Jinabhadrasu¯ ri ta¯ d

˙apatrı¯ ya gram

˙th bham

˙d

˙a¯ r-jaisalmer durg in Jambuvijaya 2000.

TvyPalm leaf manuscript of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra in Malayalam script kept at the

Oriental Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram. Ms. no. 662. Described as no. 21 in

Maas 2006: §2.2.8.

Primary Sources

¯ga¯ s´e, K. S

´.(Ed.). (1904). Va¯ caspatimis

´raviracitat

˙ı¯ k a¯ sam

˙valitaVya¯ sabha¯ s˙yasameta¯ ni Pa¯ -

tañjalayogasu¯ tra¯ n

˙itatha¯ BhojadevaviracitaRa¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a¯ bhidhavr

˙ttisameta¯ ni Pa¯ tañ-

jalayogasu¯ tra¯ n

˙i. A

¯nanda¯ s´ramasam

˙skr

˙tagrantha¯ valih

˙47. Pun

˙ya¯ khyapattana: A

¯nanda¯ -

s´ ramamudran

˙a¯ laya.

Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ,Abu

¯l-Rayh

˙a¯ nMuh

ammad bin Ah

˙mad (1958). Fı¯ tah

˙qı¯ qma¯ li-l-Hind min

maqu¯ la maqbu¯ la fı¯ l-ʿaql aw mard

¯u¯ la. Hyderabad: Da’irat al-Ma’arif il-Osmania Pub-

lications.

Azkaei, P. (2001). Al-a¯ t¯ a¯ ral-ba¯ qiya ‘an al-quru¯ nal-k

¯a¯ liya. Teheran: Mira¯ t¯ -e Maktub.

Bhoja, Ra¯ jama¯ rtan

˙d

˙a

see A

¯ga¯ s´e1904.

Lin

˙gapura¯ n

˙a

Lin

˙gamaha¯ pura¯ n

˙am: With Sanskrit Commentary S

´ivatos

˙inı¯ of Gan

˙es

´aNa¯ tu. Delhi: Nag

Publishers, 1989.

Maas, Ph. A. (2006). Sama¯ dhipa¯ da: Das erste Kapitel des Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra zum ersten

Mal kritisch ediert =The First Chapter of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra for the First Time

Critically Edited. Studia Indologica UniversitatisHalensis.GeisteskulturIndiens. Texte

und Studien 9. Aachen: Shaker.

Maha¯ bha¯ rata

The Maha¯ bha¯ rata, ed. V. S. Sukthankar et al. 20 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental

Research Institute, 1933(1927)–1966.

Mitra, R. (1883). The Yoga Aphorisms of Patan

¯jali, With the commentary of Bhoja and an

English Translation. Bibliotheca Indica 93. Calcutta: BaptistMission Press.

150 For amore comprehensivescholarly treatment of al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’ sinterpretationofIndian phi-

losophies, see Verdon 2015.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon330

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stravivaran

˙a

Harimoto, K. (1999). ACritical Edition of the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stravivaran

˙a: FirstPa¯ da,

Sama¯ dhipa¯ da: With an Introduction. UnpublishedDoctoral Thesis. University of

Pennsylvania.

PYS

Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra. For ch. 1see Maas 2006, for ch. 2–4see A

¯ga¯ s´ e1904.

Ritter, H. (Ed.). (1956). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯n ı¯ ’ sÜbersetzung des Yoga-Su

¯tra des Patañjali. Oriens, 9(2),

165–200.

Yogasu¯ tra in PYS

´.

Secondary Sources

Acri, A. (2011). DharmaPa¯ tañjala: A S

´aivaScripture from Ancient Java. Studiedinthe Light

of Related Old Javanese and Sanskrit Texts. Gonda Indological Studies 16. Groningen:

Egbert Forsten.

Ali, M. A. (1992). Translations of Sanskrit Wo rks at Akbar’sCourt. Social Scientist,20(9),

38–45.

Boilot, J.-D. (1955). L’oeuvre d’al-Beruni: essai bibliographique. Mideo (Mélanges de l’In-

stitutdominicain d’études orientales du Caire), 2, 161–256.

Calverley, E. E. &Netton, I. R. (2012). Nafs. In P. Bearman et al. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of

Islam. 2nd ed. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0833. Accessed 30

May 2017.

Colebrooke, H. Th. (1827).Onthe Philosophy of the Hindus. Part 1: Sánkhya. Transactions

of the RoyalAsiatic Society, 1, 19–43.

Daiber, H. (2012). Islamic Thought in the DialogueofCultures: AHistorical and Biblio-

graphical Survey. ThemesinIslamic Studies 7. Leiden: Brill.

Dasgupta, S. N. (1930). Yoga PhilosophyinRelationtoOther Systems of Indian Thought.

Calcutta:University of Calcutta (repr.Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1974).

Ernst, C. W. (2003). Muslim Studies of Hinduism?AReconsiderationofArabicand Persian

Translations from Indian Languages. Iranian Studies,36(2), 173–195.

Ernst, C. W. (2010). Fayzi’sIlluminationist InterpretationofVedanta: The Shariq al-

ma‘rifa. ComparativeStudiesofSouth Asia,Africa and the Middle East,30(3), 356–364.

Funayama, T. (1995). Arcat

˙a, S

´a¯ ntaraks

˙ita, Jinendrabuddhi, and Kamalas

´ı¯ la on the Aim of

aTreatise (prayojana). Wiener Zeitschriftfür die Kunde Südasiens, 39, 181–201.

Garbe,R.(1894). Die Sâm

˙khya-Philosophie: Eine Darstellung des indischen Rationalismus.

Leipzig: Haessel.

Garbe,R.(1896). Sa¯ m

˙khya und Yoga. Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Alter-

tumskunde3.4. Strassburg: Trübner.

Garbe, R. (1917). Die Sâm

˙khya-Philosophie: Eine Darstellung des indischen Rationalismus.

2nd ed. Leipzig: Haessel.

Gardet, L. &Vadet, J.-C. (2012). K

˙alb. In P. Bearman et al. (Eds.), EncyclopaediaofIslam.

2nd ed. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573–3912_islam_COM_0424. Accessed 30 May 2017.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 331

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Gelblum, T. (2008). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ,‘Book of Patañjali’.InR.S.Bhattacharya &G. J. Larson

(Eds.), Yoga: India’sPhilosophy of Meditation (pp. 261–270). Encyclopedia of Indian

Philosophies XII. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Halbfass,W.(1990). India and Europe: An Essay in Philosophical Understanding. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass.

Hauer, J. W. (1930). Das neugefundene arabische Manuskript vonal-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ sÜbersetzung

des Pa¯ tañjala (Ein vorläufiger Bericht). OrientalistischeLiteraturzeitung, 33(4), 273–

282.

Hermelink, H. (1977). Zur Bestimmung vonBiruni’sTodestag. Sudhoffs Archiv, 61(3), 298–

300.

Ivir, V. (1987). Proceduresand Strategies for the Translation of Culture. IndianJournal of

AppliedLinguistics, 13(2), 35–46.

Jambuvijaya, M. (2000). ACatalogue of Manuscripts in the JaisalmerJain Bhandaras /

Jaisalmer ke pra¯ cı¯ njain gram

˙thbham

˙d

˙a¯ rom

˙kı¯ su¯ cı¯ .Delhi &Jaisalmer: Motilal Ba-

narsidass &Parshvanath Jain Shwetambar Trust.

Jha, G. (1907). The Yoga-Dars

´ana: The Su¯ tras of Patañjali with the Bha¯ s˙ya of Vya¯ sa.

Translated into English with Notes from Vâchaspati Mis

´ras Tattvavais

´âradî, Vijnána

Bhiksu’sYogavârtika and Bhoja’sRâjamârtan

˙da. Bombay: Bombay Theosophical

PublicationFund.

Jolly, J. (1901). Medicin. Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 3.10.

Strassburg:Trübner.

Kennedy, St. E. (1970).Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ .InC.C.Gillispie (Ed.), Dictionary of ScientificBiography.

Vol. 2(pp. 147–158). New York: Charles Scribner’sSons.

Kirfel, W. (1920). Die Kosmographie der Inder:Nach den Quellen dargestellt. Bonn: Kurt

Schröder.

Klaus, K. (1986). Die altindische Kosmologie: Nach den Bra¯ hman

˙as dargestellt. Indicaet

Tibetica 9. Bonn: IndicaetTibetica.

Koetschet, P. (2011). La philosophie arabe: IXe–XIVesiècle. Textes choisisetprésentés.

Lonrai: Points Essais.

Kozah, M. (2015). The Birth of Indology as an Islamic Science: Al-Biruni’sTreatise on Yoga

Psychology. Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science: Text and Studies. Boston:Brill.

Maas,Ph. A. (2008a). The Concepts of the Human Bodyand DiseaseinClassical Yoga and

¯yurveda. Wiener Zeitschriftfür die Kunde Südasiens, 51, 125–162.

Maas,Ph. A. (2008b). “Descent With Modification”:The Openingofthe Pa¯ tañjalayoga-

´a¯ stra.InW.Slaje (Ed.), S

´a¯ stra¯ rambha: Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit (pp. 97–

120).Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 57. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Maas,Ph. A. (2009). The So-called Yoga of Suppression in the Pa¯ tañjalayogas

´a¯ stra. In E.

Franco in collaboration with D. Eigner (Eds.), Yogic Perception, Meditation,and Altered

States of Consciousness (pp. 263–282). Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,

Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Klasse 794 =Beiträge zur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte

Asiens 64. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Maas, Ph. A. (2013). AConcise HistoriographyofClassicalYoga Philosophy. In E. Franco

(Ed.), Historiographyand Periodization of Indian Philosophy (pp. 53–90). Publications

of the de NobiliResearch Library 37. Vienna: Verein “SammlungdeNobili –Arbeits-

gemeinschaftfür Indologie und Religionsforschung”.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon332

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Maas,Ph. A. (2017). From Theory to Poetry: The Reuse of Patañjali’sYogas

´a¯ stra in Ma¯ -

gha’sS

´is

´upa¯ lavadha.InE.Freschi &Ph. A. Maas(Eds.), AdaptiveReuse: Aspects of

Creativity in South AsianCulturalHistory (pp. 27–60). Abhandlungen für die Kunde des

Morgenlandes 101. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Meulenbeld,G.J.(1999–2002). AHistory of Indian Medical Literature. 3vols. (in 5parts).

Groningen Oriental Studies 15. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

Minkowski, Ch. (2008). Why Should We Read the Man

˙gala Verses?InW.Slaje (Ed.),

´a¯ stra¯ rambha: Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit (pp. 1–24). Abhandlungen für die

Kundedes Morgenlandes 62. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Orelskaya, M. V. (1997). Nandikes

´vara in Hindu Mythology. Annals of the Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute,78, 233–248.

Pines, Sh. &Gelblum, T. (1966). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sArabic Version of Patañjali’sYogasu

¯tra.

Bulletin of the School of Orientaland African Studies, 29(2), 302–325.

Pines, Sh. &Gelblum,T.(1977). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯ni’sArabic Version of Patañjali’sYogasu

¯tra: A

Translation of the Second Chapter and aComparison with Related Texts. Bulletin of the

School of Oriental and African Studies, 40(3), 522–549.

Pines, Sh. &Gelblum, T. (1983). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sArabicVersion of Patañjali’sYogasu

¯tra: A

Translation of the Third Chapter and aComparison with Related Texts. Bulletin of the

School of Oriental and African Studies, 46(2), 258–304.

Pines, Sh. &Gelblum, T. (1989). Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ ’sArabic Version of Patañjali’sYogasu

¯tra: A

Translation of the Fourth Chapter and aComparison with Related Texts. Bulletin of the

School of Oriental and African Studies, 52(2), 265–305.

Pingree, D. E. (1981). Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit. Series A, Vo l. 4. Memoirs of

the AmericanPhilosophical Society 146. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

Pingree, D. E. (1983). Brahmagupta, Balabhadra, Pr

˙thu

¯daka and Al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ .Journal of the

American Oriental Society,103(2), 353–360.

Prasa¯ da, R. (1910). Patanjali’sYoga Sutras With the CommentaryofVyâsa and the Glossof

Vâchaspati Mis

´ra. Translated by Râma Prasâda […]With an Introductionfrom Rai

Bahadur S

´rı¯ s´ aChandra Va su. Sacred Books of the Hindus 4.7–9. Allahabad: Panini

Office (2nd ed. =repr. Delhi: Oriental BooksReprint Corporation, 1978).

Renou, L. &Filliozat, J. (Eds.). (1953). L’Inde classique: manuel des études indiennes. Paris:

Imprimerie nationale.

Sachau, C. E. (1879). The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arabic

Text of the Athâr-ul-bâkiya of Albîrûnî or “Ve stiges of the Past”.London: W. H. Allen.

Sachau, C. E. (1888). Alberuni’sIndia: An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature,

Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India about1030.

An English Edition with Notes and Indices. 2vols. London: Kegan Paul, Trench &

Trübner (repr. Delhi: Low Price Publications, 2003).

Shamsi, F. A. (1979). Abu

¯al-Raih

˙a¯ nMuh

˙ammad Ibn Ah

˙mad al-Bayru

¯nı¯ .362, 973 –CA. 443,

1051. In M. H. Said (Ed.), Al-Bı¯ ru¯ n ı¯ CommemorativeVolume: Proceedings of the In-

ternational Congress HeldinPakistan on the Occasion of Millenary of Abu¯ al-Ra¯ i h˙a¯ n

Muh

˙ammad Ibn Ah

˙mad al-Bayru¯ nı¯ (973 –ca 1051 A.D.). November 26, 1973 thru

December 12, 1973 (pp. 260–288). Karachi: Hamdard Academy.

Shastri, A. M. (1975). Sanskrit Literature Known to al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ .Indian Journal of History of

Science, 10, 111–138.

On al-Bı¯ r u¯ nı¯ ’sKita

¯bPa

tang

˘al and the Pa

¯tañjalayogas

´a

¯stra 333

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Söhnen, R. (1991).Indra and Wo men. Bulletin of the School of Orientaland African Studies,

University of London, 54(1), 68–74.

Sörensen,S.(1904–1925). An Index to the Names in the Maha¯ bha¯ rata With Short Ex-

planations and aConcordance to the Bombay and Calcutta Editions and P. C. Roy’s

Translation. London: Williams &Norgate.

Touati, H. (2000). Islam et voyage au moyen âge. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Vadet, J. C. (2012). K

˙alb. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. http://referenceworks.brillonline.

com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/k-alb-COM_0424. Accessed 12 September 2014.

Verdon, N. (2015). Al-Bı¯ ru¯ n ı¯ ’ sKita¯ bSa¯ nk and Kita¯ bPa¯ tang

˘al: AHistorical and Textual

Study. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Lausanne. https://serval.unil.ch/re-

source/serval:BIB_779D64E820E1.P001/REF. Accessed23February 2017.

Wisnovsky, R. et al. (2011). Introduction. Vehicles of Transmission,Translation, and

Transformation in Medieval Textual Culture. In R. Wisnovskyetal. (Eds.), Vehicles of

Transmission, Translation and Transformation in Medieval Textual Culture (pp. 1–22).

CursorMundi: Viator Studies of the Medievaland Early Modern Wo rld 4. Turnhout:

Brepols.

Woods, J. H. (Trans.). (1914). The Yoga-System of Patañjali, Or the Ancient Hindu Doctrine

of Concentration of Mind, Embracingthe Mnemonic Rules, Called Yoga-Su¯ tras, of

Patañjali and the Comment, Called Yoga-Bha¯ shya, Attributed to Veda-Vya¯ sa, and the

Explanation, Called Tattva-Vaiça¯ radı¯ ,ofVa¯ chaspati-Miçra. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard

University Press (repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1992).

Yano, M. (2013). al-Bı¯ ru

¯nı¯ .Encyclopaedia of Islam. 3rd ed. Brill Online, 2014. http://

referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/al-bi-ru-ni-COM_25

350.Accessed 12 September 2014.

Zadeh, T. (2011). Mapping Frontiers Across Medieval Islam: Geography,Translation, and

the ‘Abba¯ sid Empire. London: I. B. Tauris.

Philipp A. Maas /Noémie Verdon334

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Chapter8

Tibetan Yoga:Somatic Practice in Vajraya

¯na Buddhism and

Dzogchen

Ian A. Baker

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

ISBN Print: 9783847108627 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737008624

Contents

1. Vajraya¯ na Buddhism 337

2. Tsa Uma: The Axis of Awareness 341

3. Trulkhor: Yoga of Breath and Movement 344

4. Nyingthik: Heart Essence of Tibetan Yoga 355

5. Korde Rushen: Yoga of Spontaneous Presence 364

6. Tögal: Yoga of ActivePerception 370

7. Conclusion 377

List of Figures 379

References 380

336

Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-SA 4.0

Al-Bīrūnī’s Indian Philosophy: The Kitāb Sānk and the Kitāb Pātanǧal (Korean)

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

This paper aims to introduce the background information and previous scholarship on al-Bīrūnī’s Kitāb Sānk (the Book of Sānk) and Kitāb Pātanǧal (the Book of Pātanǧal ) to Korean academia. It first sketches the political and intellectual contexts in which al-Bīrūnī produced his scholarly works. Emphasizing the intellectual exchanges between al-Bīrūnī and Indian scholars, it characterizes the Kitāb Sānk and the Kitāb Pātanǧal as the result of al-Bīrūnī’s understanding and interpretation of the Sāṅkhyakārikā (with a commentary) and the Pātañjalayogaśāstra. As it concludes, the paper overviews possible topics for future researches on al-Bīrūnī’s indological project.

Entwicklungspfade des Posturalyoga zwischen Lebensmächtemaximierung und kollektivem Sitzstellungssport

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2020

Thomas K. Gugler

Al-Bīrūnī’s India, Chapter 14: An Account of Indian Astronomical, Mathematical and Other Literature

Article

Full-text available

May 2020

This article provides an updated English translation of Chapter 14 of al-Bīrūnī's Kitāb taḥqīq mā li-l-Hind, in which he lists and describes numerous Sanskrit works related to astronomy, astrology and mathematics, and a few books belonging to other genres. Chapter 14 of Kitāb taḥqīq mā li-l-Hind highlights several types of literature accessed by al-Bīrūnī in the north-west of the Subcontinent in the early eleventh century CE. Whenever possible the English translation is supplemented with annotations on the works mentioned by al-Bīrūnī, and the Appendix offers a comparison of the table of contents of the Brāhmasphutasiddhānta as reported by al-Bīrūnī (in Arabic) and that given in the edition by Dvivedin of the Sanskrit text.

On the Sāṃkhyakārikā and its Commentarial Tradition: the Suvarṇasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, and Gauḍapādabhāṣya

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2019

Noémie Verdon

Five of the extant commentaries on the Sāṃkhyakārikā bear strong resemblances to each other. These are the Suvarṇasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, Gauḍapādabhāṣya, Sāṃkhyasaptativṛtti, and Māṭharavṛtti. Therefore, they are generally considered to share a common origin. These commentaries on the Sāṃkhyakārikā, however, also significantly diverge from each other. This article explores the peculiar connections among the Suvarṇasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, and Gauḍapādabhāṣya. By focusing on passages that feature metaphors, this article discusses how and why the authors of the Suvarṇasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, and Gauḍapādabhāṣya may have appropriated portions of their texts or to the contrary dissociated from each other.

Annäherungen an das Unaussprechliche Ästhetische Erfahrung in kollektiven religiösen Praktiken

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2020

Gemeinschaftliche und individuelle Erfahrungen in den Bereichen der Kunst und der Religion werden oft als »unaussprechlich« erlebt und beschrieben, als unmittelbar und gleichzeitig, als schwankend und flüchtig. Sie überschreiten die Ordnung von Raum und Zeit – und sind doch bedingt durch die konkreten rituellen Dimensionen der Auf- und Ausführungen und des sinnlichen (aisthetischen) Erlebens. Die interdisziplinären Beiträge des Bandes widmen sich diesen Erfahrungen und ihren Repräsentationen in verschiedenen Medien wie z.B. Tanz, Musik und Film und fragen besonders nach transkulturellen Dimensionen. Zentrales Beispiel ist dabei die Schnittstelle zwischen Deutschland und Südasien.

The Concepts of the Human Body and Disease in Classical Yoga and Āyurveda

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2009

Philipp A. Maas

Introduction. Vehicles of Transmission, Translation, and Transformation in Medieval Textual Culture

Chapter

Sep 2012

The Birth of Indology as an Islamic Science: Al-Bīrūnī’s Treatise on Yoga Psychology

Book

Jan 2016

Mario Kozah

Book Reviews.

Article

Mar 1956

GEORGE A. TALLAND

Islamic thought in the dialogue of cultures: A historical and bibliographical survey

Article

Jan 2012

Hans Daiber

Translations of Sanskrit Works at Akbar's Court

Article

Sep 1992

M. Athar Ali

Al-Biruni's Übersetzung des Yoga-sutra des Patañjali

Article

Dec 1956

Hellmut Ritter

Brahmagupta, Balabhadra, Pṛthūdaka and Al-Bīrūnī

Article

Apr 1983
J Am Orient Soc

David Pingree

It is demonstrated in this paper that Pṛthūdakasvāmin in the 860s, Utpala in the 960s, and al-Bīrūnī in the 1030s all used a now lost commentary on Brahmagupta's Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta that was composed by Balabhadra in the eighth century, probably at Kānyakubja under Yaśovarman. Balabhadra's commentary was important for two reasons: its attention to physical arguments in support of astronomical theory, and its citations from the lost siddhāntas of Lāṭadeva and Viṣṇucandra as well as from Āryabhaṭa's Āryabhaṭīya and Varāhamihira's Pañcasiddhāntikā. It is further shown that al-Bīrūnī has distorted Balabhadra's physical arguments by interpreting them according to Peripatetic notions. The surviving verses quoted from Balabhadra's commentary by Utpala and by Pṛthūdaka are edited in the footnotes.

India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding

Article

Apr 1991

Alberuni's India : An Account of the Religion, Philosophy Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India About A.D. 1030

Article

Jan 1996

Edward C. Sachau

Chapter 7: On al-Bīrūnī’s Kitāb Pātanğal and the Pātañjalayogaśāstra: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

Recommended publications

Atlasul Digital al României v4.02, RO.A.D.2012.20

Book review: Timothy R. Vogt. Denazification in Soviet-Occupied Germany: Brandenburg, 1945–1948. (Ha...

Preservation of national identity as one of UNESCO’s roles

Advancements in research on creativity and giftedness in mathematics education: introduction to the...