In the late nineteenth and twentieth century, prominent Indian religious leaders such as Svåm⁄ Vivekånanda and Svåm⁄ Çivånanda developed systems of Yoga based on Patañjali's A‚ †å gayoga and called them Råjayoga. They have promoted the Yogas¨tra as the most authoritative source on Råjayoga. In contrast to this, there are modern Indian systems of Råjayoga which have very little to do with Påtañjalayoga, such as the one taught globally by the Brahma Kumaris. It is generally accepted that Råjayoga refers to types of Yoga which are based more on meditation than physical techniques such as postures (åsana), yet very little research has been done to explain why there are variations between modern systems of Råjayoga. Also, the term "råjayoga" (literally, "king-yoga") implies superiority, usually, over Ha †hayoga, but this raises the question of whether there was ever a justifiable basis for this claim of superiority, which I address here through examining the history of Råjayoga.The history of the term "råjayoga" reveals that it did not derive from Påtañjalayoga. Indeed, it was not until the sixteenth century that this term was used in a commentary on the Yogas¨tra. The earliest definition of Råjayoga is found in the twelfth century, Çaiva Yoga text called the Amanaska, which proclaimed Råjayoga to be superior to all other Yogas and soteriologies prevalent in India at that time. From the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries, Råjayoga was mainly used as a synonym for samådhi, yet after the sixteenth century, the textual evidence reveals many attempts to reinterpret the name and connect it with different systems of Yoga.

he Haṭhābhyāsapaddhati is a Sanskrit text on the practice of Haṭhayoga, probably composed in the eighteenth century in Maharashtra. This article discusses, among other things, the dating, authorship, sectarian affiliation, and unique features of the text, its relationship to other yoga texts, and its significance for the history of modern yoga. The most remarkable feature of this text is its section on āsana (yogic posture), which contains six groups of postures, many of which are unusual or unique among yoga texts. Another unique feature of this section is that the postures appear to be arranged into sequences intended to be practised in order. A manuscript of the text exists in the Mysore Palace; this (possibly along with other texts) was the basis for the illustrated āsana descriptions in Mysore's famous book, the Śrītattvanidhi. As we discuss, it is highly likely that the Haṭhābhyāsapaddhati was known to the most influential teacher of 'modern postural yoga,' T. Krishnamacharya, and therefore has a special significance for certain schools of transnational yoga.

The Amaraughaprabodha is a Sanskrit Ś aiva yoga text attributed by its colophons to Gorakṡanātha. It was published by Kalyani Devi Mallik in 1954 and has been discussed in various secondary sources. Most notably, Christian Bouy (1994, pp. 18-19) identified this work as a source text for the Haṭhapradīpikā of Svātmārāma (mid-fifteenth century). This article presents new manuscript evidence for a shorter recension of the Amaraughaprabodha than the one published by Mallik. Comparing the differences between the short and long recensions reveals that the structure of the shorter one is more cohesive and closer to the original design of the work. The close relationship of the Amaraughaprabodha's short recension with an eleventh-century Vajrayāna work on yoga called the Amṛtasiddhi provides unique insights into how early teachings on Hat˙hayoga were formulated. Although the practice of the physical techniques is largely the same in both texts, the author of the Amaraughaprabodha removed or obscured Vajrayāna terminology, added Ś aiva metaphysics and framed Hat˙hayoga as subordinate to a Ś aiva yoga known as Rājayoga. This article proposes that the Amaraughaprabodha's short recension is probably the earliest known work to combine Hat˙ha-with Rājayoga, on the basis of this recension's close relationship with the Amṛtasiddhi, its rudimentary nature and the likelihood that Svātmārāma used it, and not the long recension, for composing the Haṭhapradīpikā.