Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhist Abhidharma on the Sources of Extraordinary Accomplishments (siddhi and ṛddhi): The Constructed Mind (nirmāṇacitta) as a Framework for Understanding Religious and Psychedelic Experience (original) (raw)
ABSTRACT
Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhist Abhidharma on the Sources of Extraordinary Accomplishments
(siddhi and rddhi): The Constructed Mind (nirmannacitta) as a Framework for
Understanding Religious and Psychedelic Experience
STUART RAY SARBACKER
The intimate relationship between Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhist contemplative traditions has attracted considerable interest in the study of Indian religion and philosophy. This is evident in the work of generations of scholars from Émile Senart and Louis de La Vallée Poussin to the present. This paper continues this comparative project with a deeper examination of the parallels and discontinuities between the representation of spiritual accomplishments or perfections (siddhi and rddhi) in the Yogasūtra and Abhidharmakośa and their commentaries. In particular, I examine Pātañjalayogaśāstra 4.1 in comparison to Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 7.53. These exhibit a parallel set of conceptions of siddhi and rddhi, framed within the respective Sāṃkhya-Yoga and Abhidharma (Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika) philosophical contexts. The larger discussion of rddhi in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya makes otherwise opaque passages in the Pātañjalayogaśāstra transparent, particularly with respect to the notion of the constructed mind (nirmannacitta). These verses indicate that both Pātañjala Yoga and the ‘Classical Śramaṇa’ traditions of Buddhism were concerned with a range of techniques of mind-body discipline (yoga) that emerged during the earlier period of Brāhmaṇical Asceticism and Śramaṇa traditions. These factors lead to the discussion of larger comparative and contemporary issues regarding asceticism, contemplation, and the use of psychoactive substances in India and beyond.
Introduction
Notably, and appropriately, global attention has been riveted in recent years by massive geopolitical shifts, including the rise of nationalism and antidemocratic forces throughout Europe and the Americas and the tremendous suffering and disruptions brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Those who had imagined that cultural and political battles against fascism and racism were primarily a subject of historical interest have had to face stark realities that have emerged over the past several years, from the rise of alt-right militias to the increasing visibility and awareness of police violence towards people of colour in the United States. The ascendance of social media as a driving force in an increasingly globalized culture has added fuel to these conflagrations and has contributed to a ‘knowledge crisis’ in which mainstream media, scientific
- 1 Stuart Ray Sarbacker is an Associate Professor of Comparative Religion and Indian Philosophy in the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion at Oregon State University (USA). He is the co-founder of the Yoga in Theory and Practice Unit of the American Academy of Religion. His most recent monograph is Tracing the Path of Yoga: The History and Philosophy of Indian Mind-Body Discipline (SUNY Press, 2021). ↩︎
consensus, and academic study have all been called into question by people of power and influence. It is perhaps not surprising, then, that another significant, if not tectonic, cultural shift that is currently in process has not captured global attention in the ways that might be expected. This shift is the so-called ‘Psychedelic Renaissance’ or the ‘Second Wave Psychedelic Movement’ sweeping through Europe and the Americas, promising to transform the nature of psychotherapeutic practice, and, perhaps, spiritual and religious life in the new millennium. It is interesting to note that the ‘First Wave’ psychedelic movement, typically seen to have reached its apogee in the countercultural movement of the 1960s, also emerged at a time of great social unrest in Europe and North America, and came to an end as the war in Vietnam neared its conclusion and a new war-the so-called ‘War on Drugs’-began.
The architects of the Psychedelic Renaissance, especially those within the scientific community, have learned a number of lessons from the failures of the first-wave movement. Advocates have pursued political means to carve out spaces for the decriminalization and legalization of psychedelics, including and especially psilocybin, the active ingredient in so-called ‘magic mushrooms’ and ‘truffles,’ for the purpose of therapeutic use. But, as in the first-wave movement, the spiritual and religious uses, and effects, of these substances remain of great import and consequence to practitioners and scholars. Undoubtedly, the countercultural movement of the 1950s-1960s with its strong psychedelic component provided a foundation for the rise of Asianinspired spirituality to flourish in Europe and America (Fuller 2000, 53-89; Osto 2016, 21-53). Experiences with psychedelics led logically, in many cases, to experimentation with yoga, meditation, and other Asian mind-body practices as ways of making sense of, or ‘integrating,’ such experiences. In some cases, it also reflected a move towards an approach to self-transformation that relied more on sober self-discipline than upon psychedelic substances, which had increasing social and legal stigma, diminishing efficacy, and undesirable side effects (Osto 2016, 79-119). In the 1970s, Agehananda Bharati suggested that the countercultural movement was drawing a new generation of students to the academic study of Indian religion, spirituality, and philosophy, in part due to their ecstatic, visionary, and hedonistic experiences in the hippie subculture. 2{ }^{2} In recent years, practitioners of Buddhist meditation in the context of formal practice lineages and within
- 2 Though it should be noted that Bharati was particularly frustrated by what he saw as a superficial interest among the college-age generation of the time, in particular decrying the lack of commitment to the study of Sanskrit and other primary source material (Bharati 1982, 187-89). ↩︎
the realms of Transhumanism and biohacking have been reflecting on the integration of psychedelics, whether micro-, meso-, or macrodosing, into meditation practice (Sarbacker 2020; Osto 2016, 139-74; Davis 2020). Orthodox practitioners have raised questions as to whether the fifth ethical precept of Buddhism, which prohibits the use of intoxicants, stands against the use of psychedelics and whether the ‘superstructures’ of Buddhist doctrine can and should be stripped away to render it ‘secular’ or ‘scientific’ (Osto 2016, 121-38; Sarbacker 2005, 47-48). Contemporary yoga communities in Europe and America have often overlapped with psychedelic culture and drug experimentation, as is evident in the increasingly global culture of the ‘yoga festival’ and in ecstatically focused expatriate communities in India and other parts of the globe (Lucia 2020; Bizzell 2008). Even within the context of the medical and therapeutic applications of psilocybin, tensions have begun to manifest regarding ‘spiritual’ contents, as is evident in arguments of some advocates that the best therapeutic outcomes are correlated with mystical experiences, and of others that scientists should avoid spiritual or religious contextualizing of psychedelic therapy and aim for strictly secular interventions, using the so-called ‘white room approach’ (Griffiths et al. 2018; Johnson 2020). These examples only scratch the surface of a much larger and complex set of discussions about the role of so-called ‘psychedelic chaplains’ and the ways in which psychedelic experiences can reify, challenge, or transform religious and spiritual identity (Phelps 2017). What contemporary advocates have in common, whether religious or therapeutic, is the notion that these substances evoke profoundly transformative experiences that have implications for the human condition and potentially for the welfare of both the individual and society as a whole.
In this paper, in order to deepen our understanding of the historical role of psychoactive substances in traditional Indic contexts, I will examine the ways in which ‘classical’ philosophical traditions of yoga and Buddhism reflect on the use of herbs (osadhi) and other means to achieve extraordinary accomplishments or perfections (siddhi/rddhi) within the context of contemplative practice. This will contribute to an emerging body of scholarship that is bringing new focus to the role that psychoactive substances have had in the Indic religious and philosophical context, from the Vedic usage of soma and viṣa through the ‘classical’ contexts of auṣadhi and rasāyana, as well as the use of datura, cannabis, and other substances within renouncer and tantric traditions
(Sarbacker 2013; Maas 2017; Wujastyk 2021; Clark 2017; 2021; McHugh 2021). 3{ }^{3} In particular, I will examine how the Patañjalayogaśāstra (PYŚ) and Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (AKBh) provide parallel, and undoubtedly philosophically and textually related, understandings of how such perfections arise, how they function, and what purposes they serve. 4{ }^{4} At the centre of this discussion will be the shared concept of constructed minds (nirmannacitta), the larger subject of the relevant passages in both texts. Drawing upon this comparison, I will argue three principal theses: 1) that a comparison of PYŚ 4.1 and AKBh 7.53 and their larger textual contexts provides considerable insight into the relationship between these two texts and the nature of siddhi and rddhi in the classical Indian philosophical context; 2) that this parallelism indicates a variety of approaches to achieving extraordinary states of action and perception within the locus of yogic discipline in the cultural contexts in which these systems were developed; and 3) that notions of siddhi/rddhi and nirmannacitta established in these texts provide a provocative framework for understanding the value and effects of various means of transforming the mind, including the use of psychoactive herbs (oṣadhi), shedding light on contemporary discussions of such substances and their therapeutic, if not spiritual, effects. In particular, I will argue that the notion of the nirmannacitta suggests that there are distinct ‘minds’ created through ascetic discipline, meditation, and the use of psychoactive substances that have a unique temporal duration and experiential quality, offering a provocative interpretive schema for thinking about the nature of a variety of cognitive states brought about through internal (endogenous) and external (exogenous) methods.
Background of the Comparison of Yoga Philosophy and Buddhism
The topic of the relationship between Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhism has long fascinated Indologists and scholars of religion. Early notable examples of scholarly work include that of Émile Senart and Louis de La Vallée Poussin, who illustrated numerous textual and terminological relationships between Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhist materials, questioning both the ‘directionality’ of the common concepts and practices-i.e. who borrowed from whom-and also the question of whether there might be a ‘Yoga pur,’ or ‘pure yoga,’ that was adapted to fit sectarian contexts (Senart 1900; La Vallée Poussin 1937). Significant advancements in understanding were
- 3 A useful survey of contemporary scholarship on cannabis and datura use in the South Asian context, and especially within Buddhist tantra, can be found in Parker and Lux (2008).
4 Pātañjalayogaśāstra = Yogasūtra (sūtrapātha) + bhāṣya, and Abhidharmakośābhāṣya = Abhidharmakośakārikā + bhāṣya. ↩︎
forwarded in the late-twentieth-century work of Gerald Larson (1989), who focused on the relationships between Sāṃkhya-Yoga cosmology and practice and Abhidharma and Yogācāra sources, as well as in the work of Johannes Bronkhorst (1993), who provided insights into the relationships between Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain traditions of asceticism and meditation. Larson’s Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy volume on Yoga further developed his theories regarding the development of Sāṃkhya-Yoga, forwarding a theory that Sāṃkhya philosophers, such as Vindhyavāsin, were in dialogue and debate with Buddhist Abhidharma philosophers, seeking to make Sāṃkhya relevant to contemporary audiences and competitive with bauddha discourses of the time (Larson and Bhattacharya 2008: 21-45; Larson et al. 2018: 1-27). This is consistent with the larger argument that brāhmaṇa traditions during the early centuries of the Common Era were increasingly consolidating Vedic and emergent classical Hindu models with Buddhist and Jain doctrines and practices to establish discursive authority and to appeal for patronage from an increasingly brāhmaṇa-friendly nobility such as the Guptas (Sarbacker 2021: 89-90). This synthesis was accomplished, in part, through the adoption of several Buddhist philosophical theories, such as that of change (pariñāma), a process that Philipp Maas (2020) has documented in a recent essay on the adaptation of Sarvāstivāda thought within the context of the framework of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra. In addition, Lance Cousins (1992) provided additional insight into the relationship between Pāli Buddhist meditative schemata involving samādhi and those of the Pātañjala Yoga tradition, and Koichi Yamashita’s work (1994) further documents the relationship between the PYŚ and Buddhist Abhidharma philosophy. More recently, the work of Karen O’Brien-Kop (2017; 2020), Pradeep Gokhale (2020), and Dominik Wujastyk (2018), as well as my own (Sarbacker 2005: 75-109; 2021: 89-96), has helped bring further reflection on the intimate relationships between Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhism in terms of both Abhidharma and Yogācāra thought, bringing additional clarity to the shared lexicon of concepts in the two traditions, such as the concept of dharmamegha, and the frameworks of mind-body discipline they establish.
I have elsewhere examined some of the larger philosophical and cultural implications of the framework for the numinous powers established in PYŚ 4.1, which states that yogic accomplishments (siddhi) arise from five principal sources, namely birth (janma), herbs (oṣadhi), incantation (mantra), austerity (tapas), and contemplation (samādhi) (Sarbacker 2013). What I would argue here is that these concepts provide a fruitful opportunity to explore the relationships between conceptions of power (as siddhi/rddhi) in Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhist Abhidharma, as
the list of sources of siddhi in YS 4.1 and its commentaries parallels a similar list in AKBh 7.53, as noted by La Vallée Poussin (1937) and revisited by Wujastyk (2018, 26-27). This parallelism is part of a framework for understanding the nature of siddhityiddhi represented in these texts, one that revolves around the notion of the constructed mind (nirmannacitta). When read in tandem, these verses 5{ }^{5} and their larger textual context shed considerable light on the relationship between Pātañjala Yoga and Buddhist Abhidharma.
Siddhi, Rddhi, and Nirmannacitta in the Context of the PYŚ and the AKBh
The terms siddhi and rddhi are roughly equivalent, meaning ‘accomplishment’ or ‘perfection,’ and serving to indicate extraordinary powers or capacities, in Hindu and Buddhist contexts respectively. They are derived from the respective Sanskrit roots \sqrt{ } sidh and rdh\sqrt{ } r d h, and both denote perfection, accomplishment, success, and prosperity (Fiordalis 2011b: 103). In the context of the sūtrapātha of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra, the term siddhi appears four times, in YS 2.43, 2.45, 3.37, 4.1. In the first two cases, siddhi refers to the perfection of the body and senses (kāyendriya) through austerity (tapas), and the perfection of samādhi through dedication to the lord [of yoga] (īsvarapraṇidhāna). In the third case, YS 3, 37, it refers to perfections of manifestation (vyutthāna), which could alternately be interpreted as either obstacles or signs (upasarga) of the achievement of samādhi. The last reference, YS 4.1, discusses five principal modes of achieving siddhi. YS 3.45 uses the expression ‘beginning with aṇiman’ (animādi), a common phrase referring to the so-called ‘eight accomplishments’ (aṣtasiddhi), typically described as including smallness (animan), lightness (laghiman), obtaining (prāpti), irresistible will (prākāmya), greatness (mahiman), lordship (vasitva), mastery (i̇sitva), and suppression of desire (kāmāvasāyitva) (Sarbacker 2021: 19). This reference appeals to a list of eight types of accomplishment (siddhi) that is found in a variety of classical and tantric textual contexts, and perhaps the most well-known and widely disseminated representation of siddhi in Indian literature. It should be noted, however, that the concept of accomplishment or perfection is not, by any means, limited to ‘powers’ (vibhūti) achieved through samādhi as such; rather, the whole framework of aṣtāngayoga, including yama, niyama, āsana, etc., is predicated on the notion that the mastery of each limb or element of a limb confers a perfection that supports the further development of
- 5{ }^{5} I refer to individual sūtra units as ‘verses’, to avoid the singular/plural issue (and confusion with pluralizing the Yogasūtra itself). ↩︎
practice-from ahimsa leading to the creation of an aura of peace around the practitioner to the development of prānāyāma leading to mental luminosity and the ability to fix and withdraw the mind. Similarly, we might even look at the development of kriyāyoga in YS 2.1 as a means of obtaining perfection of body (kāya), speech (vāc), and mind (citta) through yogic discipline (Sarbacker 2021: 97-98). Additionally, the third pāda of the YS, the ‘Section on Powers’ (vibhūtipāda), might be said to be a comprehensive list of the forms of siddhi that arise out of samyama, or yogic mastery, on various objects used in meditation.
In the Pātañjala yoga system, the nature of a nirmannacitta appears as a topic of discussion in PYŚ 1.25, most notably in the bhāṣya, where the Lord (īsvara) of yoga is represented as taking on physical form (presumably as the Sāṃkhya sage Kapila) to instruct his disciple Āsuri (White 2009: 180; Maas 2017: 46-47). A later commentator, Vijñānabhikṣu, identifies Īśvara in PYŚ 1.25 with Viṣṇu specifically, a deity strongly associated with the theological principles of the descent (avatāra) and manifestation (vyūha), in which a deity takes on various physical forms (Rukmani 1981: 153-54). Similarly, in his commentary to PYŚ 4.4, which describes the dynamics of the nirmannacitta, Vijñānabhikṣu quotes a verse, paralleling passages from the Vāyu and Kūrma Purāṇas, describing how İśvara is able to take on manifold bodies and have a variety of different experiences, and to ultimately withdraw them like the sun drawing in its rays (Rukmani 1989: 13). White notes that both māy aˉ\bar{a} and nirmāna are constructed from the same verbal root ( v′maˉv^{\prime} m \bar{a}, ‘to make’ or ‘to measure’), noting the commonalities in conceptions regarding divine and yogic manifestation, and pointing to Indra’s use of māyā to assume multiple forms as an early example of the former (White 2009: 179).
In Buddhist literature, rddhi (Pāli iddhi) is represented as one of the six ‘higher knowledges’ (abhijña aˉ\bar{a} ), which include, along with rddhi, the divine eye (divyacakṣuṣ), the divine ear (divyaśrotra), reading others’ minds (paracittajñanna), knowledge of former lives (pūrvanivāsānusmrti), and knowledge of the destruction of outflows (āsravakṣayajñāna) (Sarbacker 2021: 84-85) The bases of rddhi (rddhipāda) are typically enumerated as fourfold, specifically zeal (chanda), vigour (vīrya), mind (citta), and examination (mīmāṃsā). A common formal list of rddhi powers includes multiplication of the body, flying, moving through walls, moving through the earth, walking on water, becoming visible or invisible, travelling to the heavens, and touching the sun and moon, though a number of variant lists appear in Buddhist literature (Fiordalis 2011b: 103-4; Clough 2011). In the AKBh, rddhi appear in several contexts.
Vasubandhu notes how samādhi is sometimes said to be equivalent to rddhipāda or even rddhi itself in the bhāṣya to AKK 6.69. AKK 7.48 states ‘rddhi is samādhi’ (rddhih samādhih), an identification that seems intriguingly similar in the simplicity of its framing to the bhāṣya to Yogasūtra 1.1, in which Vyāsa states that yoga is equivalent to samādhi (yogah samādhih) (Fiordalis 2011b: 103; Vasubandhu and La Vallée Poussin 1988: 1081 n. 435-36). The rddhi are described in AKBh 7.48-56 as having two principal forms, movement (gamana) and manifestation (nirmāna), which refer to the ability to travel and to transform and create objects (Vasubandhu and La Vallée Poussin 1988, 1208 n. 239). They are associated closely with the concept of a constructed mind (nirmannacitta), a term that is likely genealogically related to a Pāli term for ‘mind-made-bodies’ (manomayakāya), both being derived in parallel ways from iddhi/rddhi (Fiordalis 2011b: 104; Xing 2005: 136). These core conceptions were expanded within the Pāli and Sanskrit literature to encompass the creation of one or multiple bodies, up to the cosmic-scale manifestations of Mahāyāna Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and the development of concepts of the ‘constructed body’ nirmānakāya within the ‘three body’ (trikāya) understanding of Buddhahood in Yogācāra Buddhism (145). It should be noted that the various forms of manifestation of Buddhas and other powerful beings, including the nirmannacitta and nirmānakāya, include taking on the appearance of divine beings (such as Nāgas, Devas, or other Buddhas) or a form that skillfully serves an audience, paralleling the Hindu conceptions discussed above (Xing 2005: 137-146; Radich 2010: 162-63).
Overall, the term rddhi appears frequently in the Abhidharmakośa and bhāṣya, particularly in relation to meditative attainments associated with dhyāna, bhāvanā, and samādhi, and frequently in association with the five powers (pañcendriya) of śraddhā, vīrya, smrti, samādhi, and prajñā, a framework shared with PYŚ 1.20. Given the frequency in which these concepts intersect in the text, it is difficult to overstate how intimately rddhi is associated with samādhi within the context of the AKBh, and the import of the larger framing concept of the nirmannacitta.
Siddhi in the Context of PYŚ 4.1-7
A discussion of five principal sources of siddhi in the Yogasūtra appears within the last of the four sections of the sūtrapātha text, which is referred to as the ‘Section on Liberation’ (kaivalyapāda). It is interesting to note that there has been considerable scholarly controversy over the question of whether the kaivalyapāda might be a late addition to the text. This is, in part, based upon two
observations: first, that the previous section, vibhūtipāda, ends with a description of the attainment of kaivalya, the goal of yoga; and second, that discussions regarding the nature of citta (especially in relation to PYŚ 4.16) and other topics, such as notions of spiritual obstructions (āvaraṇa) in PYŚ 4.31, may have a polemical and/or dialogic relationship to Buddhist Yogācāra philosophy. However, the apparent relationship between the kaivalyapāda and the AKBh, or perhaps earlier abhidharma texts such as the Mahāvibhāṣā, provides an argument for a larger scope of reference. In addition, if the kaivalya of YS 3.55 is viewed as a ‘moment’ of liberation that requires consolidation or perfection to reach its full conclusion, the discussion of the kaivalyapāda would seem coherent with the larger philosophical arc of the text. However, such an interpretation appears at odds with the bhāsya to the text, though it might be included among a number of points that potentially provide evidence of philosophical distinctions between the views of the author and those of the compiler-commentator. 6{ }^{6} Larson, in line with Hauer, Feuerstein, Dasgupta, and Frauwallner, and consistent with the ‘composite text’ view, argues that the placement of sütras 4.1-7 is ‘not quite right,’ whether they be more accurately considered part of the previous section (pāda), an inserted addition, or part of a later addition of kaivalyapāda (Larson et al. 2018: 841). The fact that, as Larson acknowledges, commentators such as Vyāsa and Vācaspatimiśra do not articulate similar ideas about the kaivalyapāda as an ‘addition,’ seems a bit at odds with such an interpretation, especially to the degree to which Vyāsa is either identified as the author or compiler of the Pātañjalayogaśāstra. Perhaps, instead, it might be inferred that it situates the PYŚ in the timeline of the period in which abhidharma theory and texts were in wide circulation, and schools such as Yogācāra were emerging, if not already well-established. 7{ }^{7} This is supported by the much deeper conceptual relationships between Yogācāra and Pātañjala yoga documented in O’BrienKop’s work referenced above. Larson also suggests that the verses following YS 4.1 may be a theory of mind, rather than a commentary on the ability of yogins to assume various minds and bodies, following similar assertions by Feuerstein and Hauer (Larson et al. 2018: 842). The Buddhist context, as we will see, would suggest otherwise, providing further evidence that Patañjali was in conversation with the AKBh or cognate texts regarding constructed minds
- 6 The bhāsya appeals to the completeness of the state of kaivalya here, intimating discussions of that state that appear in the final verses of the YS, such as 4.32-4.34. Textual coherence is one thing; philosophical another. 7 See, for example, the discussion of Vasubandhu’s role in Buddhist-Sāṃkhya debates in Anacker (2005: 20-21). ↩︎
(nirmannacitta). PYŚ 4.1-7 and its commentarial literature give us more than ample material for fruitful comparison with abhidharma materials, shedding light on otherwise opaque passages.
In YS 4.1, we see the foundation for understanding the arising of siddhi in the Pātañjala framework, namely the five sources that give rise to extraordinary attainments: 8{ }^{8}
janmauṣadhimantratapaḥsamādhijāh siddhayaḥ // YS 4.1
‘Accomplishments (siddhi) arise from birth (janman), herbs (oṣadhi), incantation (mantra), austerity (tapas), and contemplation (samādhi).’
The bhāṣya to YS 4.1 discusses these sources in revealing ways. In birth (janmn), siddhi arise from inside (antar) the body (deha), and herbs (oṣadhi) that give rise to siddhi are referred to as elixirs (rasāyana) and so forth (ityevamādi) and are associated with asura-realms (asurabhavana). 9{ }^{9} Mantra is described as a way to obtain the powers of flight (ākāśagamana) and the eight siddhi beginning with aṇima (animādi). 10{ }^{10} Tapas is explained as perfecting (siddhi) intentionality (saṃkalpa) and results in the obtaining of desired forms (kāmarūpin) and the freedom of movement to go anywhere (kāmaga). Vyāsa simply notes that the siddhi arising from samādhi have been explained already, presumably referring to the vibhūtipāda. This passage in the bhāṣya situates the siddhi of the sūtrapāṭha within the larger brāhmaṇa yogic-ascetic framework, whether it be stories of extraordinary births, rasāyana in the asura-realms, magico-religious incantations, ascetic power, or the fruits of contemplative practice.
The verses following YS 4.1 include a number of important discussions that frame the nature and operation of siddhi. YS 4.2 addresses the process of change that causes a new birth (jātyantara), through the ‘flooding’ of the natural principle, prakrti. YS 4.3 expands on this, noting that causality in this case is a process of the removal of obstructions to growth, as in the efforts of
- 8 Texts consulted for the following translations from the YS and PYŚ include Patañjali: Yogasūtra 2020; Patañjali: Yogasūtra with Bhāṣya 2020.
9 I have translated rasa here as “elixir.” Maas (2017: 80) argues that the later Āyurveda conception of rasāyana as a ‘way of invigoration,’ i.e. rasa as an ‘invigorant,’ may not be satisfactory as an umbrella definition, given its varied historical usage. On PYŚ 4.1, Larson suggests that the reference to the asurabhavana may indicate that oṣadhi refers to ‘hallucinogenic or narcotic medications’ (Larson et al. 2018, 844). See also YS/PYŚ 3.51 regarding the notion of rasāyana as a ‘temptation’ offered to the yogin by the established (sthānin) devas to overcome old age and death (jarāmrtyu).
10 See also YS 3.44-45, in which achievement of the eight siddhis (animādi) is secured through yogic mastery (saṃyama) associated with the elements (bhūta), distinguishing between the nature of the gross (sthūla) and subtle (sūkṣma). ↩︎
a farmer. The bhāṣya describes this process in detail, noting how a farmer ‘breaks open the barriers so that waters flow naturally to another field,’ and ‘removes wild growth’ (Larson et al. 2018: 851). YS 4.4 expands the scope, turning to the topic of constructed minds (nirmannacitta), stating that they are constructed by means of egoity (asmitā) alone (mātra), and endowed with mental activity. YS 4.5 and its bhāsya suggest that the one ‘principal’ mind (citta) is the cause of the distinct activities of the others (i.e., the nirmannacitta is not an independent agent). YS 4.6 and 4.7 address the karmic implications of nirmannacitta, stating that what is arisen or produced by meditation (dhyānaja) is without [karmic] residue (anāśaya), and that the activity of the yogin is neither-black-nor-white (karmāśuklākṛṣna), as opposed to threefold (trividha) for others, suggesting that an advanced yogin’s meditative mastery transforms their karmic potentiality. Vyāsa suggests this is, in part, due to renouncers (saṃnyāsin) having destroyed their afflictions (kleśa) and being in their final body (caramadeha), free from attachment to the fruits of their actions. In sum, the verses from YS 4.2 to YS 4.7 provide a larger context for understanding the nature and sources of siddhi and how they can be understood within the context of constructed minds (nirmannacitta), as well as the unique nature of siddhi as arisen from dhyāna/samādhi and its role in the unique karmic ‘footprint’—or lack thereof-of the yogin. 11{ }^{11}
Rddhi in the Context of AKBh 7.47-7.56
It is interesting to note that this key section of the AKBh on rddhi emerges from a discussion of higher knowledge (abhijñā) within the context of conversion ‘miracles’ (prātihārya) (Vasubandhu and La Vallée Poussin 1988: 1166; Fiordalis 2011a: 389-90). 12{ }^{12} Conversion through the demonstration of rddhi is ranked, along with conversion via mind-reading (ādeśanāprātihārya), below conversion through teaching (anuśāsanīprātihārya) given its postulated relative lack of efficacy for sustained transformation in the person who is the object of prātihārya (Vasubandhu and La Vallée Poussin 1988: 1167). Nonetheless, it is important to note that the discussion of rddhi that follows presumes that a nirmannacitta provides powers that can serve the compassionate activity of a Buddha or other spiritually advanced being. As discussed by Wujastyk (2018) and by
- 11 Which again goes to the idea that kaivalya at the end of the third pāda is embodied liberation, while in the fourth pāda it is disembodied.
12 The issue of śraddhā raises a larger issue regarding the nature of powers in a literary/philosophical context-are they primarily a means of instilling faith, or a hyperbolic ‘hook’ that serves to attract devotees? For a larger discussion of the interpretation of yogic powers, see Sarbacker 2011. ↩︎
Maas (2017: 67n.6), a foundational verse and commentary for comparison of the sources of rddhi with the sources of siddhi is AKBh 7.53 cd , in which the parallel to the PYŚ 4.1 is quite evident:
rddhir mantrāusadhābhyāṃ ca karmajā ceti pañcadhā //AKK 7.53cd
‘Rddhi is, indeed, fivefold [in origination], via mantra and oṣadhi, as well as arisen from karman.’
The bhāṣya goes on to enumerate the five sources of rddhi (pañcavidha), namely as the fruit of meditation (bhāvanāphala), obtained through birth (upapattilābha), born of mantra (mantraja), born of herbs (auṣadhaja), and born of karman (karmaja), clearly paralleling the factors of samādhi, janman, mantra, oṣadhi, and tapas in PYŚ 4.1. 13{ }^{13} The AKK verse that is the object of the commentary implies that the three mentioned are to be added to the subjects of the previous two segments (i.e. 7.53 ab ), and when we look at them, the comparison only deepens further.
avyākṛtam bhāvanājaṃ trividhaṃ tūpapatījam // AKK 7.53ab
‘Born of [meditative] cultivation (bhāvanā) it is indeterminate (avyākṛta); arisen from birth (upapatti), indeed it is threefold (trividha).’
This section is quite revealing on several fronts. It is prefaced in the bhāṣya with the question of whether all nirmāṇacittas are morally neutral (avyākṛta), as opposed to skillful (kuśala) or unskillful (akuśala). It can be noted that the notion that the nirmāṇacitta that is arisen from bhāvanā is indeterminate or neutral (avyākṛta) closely parallels PYŚ 4.6, in which the nirmāṇacitta arisen from dhyāna is without residue (anāśaya). But if combined with the second assertion - that arisen from birth, it is threefold (trividha)—we can see another direct parallel, this time with PYŚ 4.7, which asserts the neutrality or indeterminacy of the karman of the yogin (karmāśuklākṛ̣̣na) and indicates that for others it is threefold (trividha). If we interpret this passage in the YS in terms of the AKBh framing, it refers specifically to the moral implications of a nirmāṇacitta, not generally to the moral behaviour of yogins and non-yogins. This is at odds, arguably, with the
- 13 Discussed in Wujastyk 2018, 26-27. Note that the use of karman in AKK 7.53 is linked in AKBh to the story of Māndhātar, an important and well-known Buddhist Jātaka parable on virtue, power, and greed. This might be compared and/or contrasted with the stories of Nandīśvara and Nahuṣa, whose virtue and vice transformed them into a deva and a serpent (ajagara) respectively, in the bhāṣya to YS 2.12 and YS 4.3. ↩︎
bhāsya to YS 4.7, which appears to speak on a more general behavioural level, but not with the bhāsya to YS 4.6, which suggests that the purified mind of the yogin doesn’t produce effects the way that other minds do. The bhāsya to AKK 7.53 uses the examples of created deva, nāga, and piśāca forms as exhibiting helpfulness and harmfulness. This should indicate to us that these sūtras in the PYŚ can be fruitfully understood within a larger Indic conversation about nirmannacitta, if not as adding further support for the thesis that Patañjali and/or Vyāsa was actively adapting passages from the AKBh or other abhidharma texts.
The larger context of the discussion of nirmannacitta in the AKBh provides several additional points of comparison. In AKK 7.48, the rddhi of movement (gamana) is qualified in the case of the Buddha, who is identified as a śāstrin, as possessing swiftness of thought (manojava), paralleling the capacity of a yogin in PYŚ 3.48 who has mastered the sense powers (indriya), namely manojavitva. But more telling are the discussions of nirmannacitta in AKK 7.49 forward, which detail how minds in successively deeper states of concentration create subordinate minds hierarchically, and the different levels of facility of practitioners. First, minds are created via meditative absorption (dhyāna), with two, three, four and five minds being created, respectively by the attainment of the first through the fourth dhyāna states (Vasubandhu and La Vallée Poussin 1988: 1170-71). In AKK 7.51-52, it is suggested that the skill of the practitioner determines their capacity in terms of the number of minds they can fabricate; and likewise, the agency of the nirmannacitta, specifically with respect to speech, is discussed (Vasubandhu and La Vallée Poussin 1988: 1173-74). This may relate, obliquely, to the contents of PYŚ 4.4, in which the activity of the multiple nirmannacitta entities is seen as rooted in egoity (asmitā) alone (mātra). If we understand asmitā as referring to the state of samprajñāta samādhi, it might suggest that it is in the state of attainment or unification of asmitā that such construction becomes possible. However, Vyāsa interprets it to mean that asmitā is the ‘ur-mind’ that is the agent of all the constructed minds. In both cases, we have a hierarchical notion of mental creation, in which meditative prowess results in the ability to create separate minds and/or physical forms. PYŚ 4.5 states:
pravṛttibhede prayojakaṃ cittam ekam anekeṣām // YS 4.5
‘The one mind is the instigator of the many in [their] distinct activities.’
bahūnāṃ cittānāṃ katham ekacittābhiprāyapurāhsarā pravṛttir iti sarvacittānāṃ prayojakaṃ cittam ekaṃ nirmimite tatah pravṛttibhedah // YBh 4.5
‘How is it that the activity of many minds is preceded by the intentions of one mind? The instigating mind is the creator of the many minds, [and] thus [of] distinct activities.’
In comparison, AKBh 7.52cd states:
aˉdaˉv\bar{a} d \bar{a} v ekam anekena jitāyāṃ tu viparyayāt // AKK 7.52cd
‘In the beginning, there is creation of one from many; having mastery, indeed, from the reverse.’
ādita ekaṃ nirmitam anekena nirmāṇacittena nirmiṇoti jitāyāṃ tv abhijñāyām ekena cittenānekaṃ nirmiṇoti yāvan nirmātum iṣtam bhavati // AKBh 7.52
‘In the beginning, he creates one manifestation by means of many nirmāṇacitta; having mastered the higher knowledges (abhij n~aˉ\tilde{n} \bar{a} ), with one mind he creates many, whenever he desires to be a creator.’
As such, it considerably weakens the case, mentioned earlier, that PYŚ 4.1-7 is an explanation of the way in which citta emerges from the evolution of prakrti. It seems quite clear that PYŚ 4.1-7 is appealing to a larger, and perhaps widely disseminated, discourse on the nature of meditative or yogic accomplishments, specifically within the rubric of the nirmāṇacitta. The proximity of the language of the two texts is telling, and it is unreasonable to imagine that this is simply a coincidence. The question raised by Johannes Bronkhorst (1993) of whether simplicity precedes complexity in the dissemination of ideas and practices is a provocative one here-does one privilege the more basic understandings over the more sophisticated ones in determining their genealogy? One constructive approach for dealing with this uncertainty is to look for fully developed textual witnesses of relevant concepts within earlier historical and literary contexts, as has been done with respect to dharmamegha, as noted above. Whether we determine the direction of the influence here or not, this comparison clearly provides insight into the larger philosophical framework shared by both texts, as well as the idiosyncrasies of the Sāṃkhya-Yoga and Buddhist abhidharma philosophical contexts.
Larger Comparative Implications: Siddhi, Rddhi, and Nirmānacitta
The two textual milieus examined here share a common understanding of the power of yogicascetic practice to yield extraordinary modes of knowledge and action. Within the at least relatively conservative contexts of brāhmaṇa and Buddhist Abhidharma scholarship of the era of ‘Classical Yoga’ and ‘Classical Śramaṇa’ or śāstra-era scholarship, a consensus was in place regarding the nature and context of the development of siddhi and rddhi. The recognition of birth (jāti, upapatti) as a source of extraordinary capacities-including the form of those of the gods (deva, devī)-is consistent with a larger saṃsāra-based ethos, in which the saṃskāra-residue from a previous life gives rise to the scope of capacity in a present one. The use of herbs (oṣadhi) resonates with a larger Indic theme of the role of psychoactive substances in the cultivation of visionary experiences and as a ‘glue’ for social and ritual bonding (Sarbacker 2021: 26, 53-55, 170, 177), though explicit criticism is found in Buddhist sources of substances like datura due to their intoxicating, if not disturbing, effects (Bouthillette 2020: 56-57). 14{ }^{14} Matthew Clark’s pioneering work in uncovering the role of various herbal agents or ‘complex plant formulas’ in Indic religion and medicine is quite instructive here. Clark (2017) makes a compelling case that it is likely that further research, both textual and ethnobotanical, will substantively expand our understanding of the role and import of psychoactive plants in the history of Indic traditions, and especially with respect to asceticism, yoga, and tantra. The use of mantra, similarly, represents a practice that extends throughout the history of Indian contemplative and ritual traditions, the power of speech being uniquely efficacious within a range of traditions that stretches from the Vedas, through both Theravāda and Mahāyāna Buddhism (in the form of paritta, vidyā, and dhāraṇī), to the tāntrika traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Self-discipline, especially the practice of austerity (tapas), or simply action (karma), is viewed as particularly potent, if not soteriologically efficacious,
- 14 On the topic of the relationship between drugs and Buddhist ethics, a modern Theravāda teacher, Bhikkhu Bodhi, writes: ‘The fifth precept reads: “Suramerayamajjapamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.” The word meraya means fermented liquors, sura liquors which have been distilled to increase their strength and flavor. The world majja, meaning an intoxicant, can be related to the rest of the passage either as qualified by surameraya or as additional to them. In the former case the whole phrase means fermented and distilled liquors which are intoxicants, in the latter it means fermented and distilled liquors and other intoxicants. If this second reading is adopted the precept would explicitly include intoxicating drugs used non-medicinally, such as the opiates, hemp, and psychedelics. But even on the first reading the precept implicitly proscribes these drugs by way of its guiding purpose, which is to prevent heedlessness caused by the taking of intoxicating substances’ (Bodhi 2013). Contemporary discussions of this issue can be found in Osto (2019); Redmond (2004); and Lefferts (2018). ↩︎
throughout Indic narrative and philosophical traditions as well. Both the Pātañjala Yoga system and Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya postulate meditative cultivation (bhāvanā/dhyāna) or contemplation (samādhi) as having a distinct value and unique karmic ‘signature’ that set it apart from the other sources. This is, in part, due to the notion that the citta that produces additional nirmāṇacitta through bhāvanā/samādhi has gone through the purifying process of meditative absorption which other minds have not, as Vyāsa indicates in the bhāṣya of PYŚ 4.6. 15{ }^{15} This might be further tied to the notion that the process of samādhi involves a process of self-discipline that front-loads the karmic ‘cost’ of the accomplishment (i.e. there is less ‘tapping in’ to existing psychophysical resources) (Sarbacker 2013). Overall, these sources represent a range of endogenous and exogenous means for cultivating extraordinary capacities and/or constructed minds (nirmāṇacitta) that, presumably, were in circulation in the early centuries of the Common Era in India, and likely part of a standard yogic-ascetic set of practices. Perhaps this should make it all the less surprising that contemporary traditions associated with yoga and with Buddhism intersect in so many ways with the use of psychedelic substances, music, and ‘body culture,’ as well as meditation. It might be argued that the yogins and yoginīs of India were some of the first formal ‘biohackers’ or ‘psychonauts’ in world history, and that it is no surprise that their methods continue to be relevant to the human condition (Sarbacker 2020).
Another potentially fruitful direction for this discussion is towards a consideration of the notion of nirmāṇacitta as a phenomenology of mind that might bring conceptual light to extraordinary capacities in their classical and modern contexts. This would be to look at a nirmāṇacitta as a particular type of neuropsychological state that has a distinct set of causes, effects, and duration. To use one example relevant to the contemporary context, we might view the experience of a particular psychoactive substance, such as psilocybin, as providing the causal impetus for certain neuropsychological effects, with a particular timeline. If we follow PYŚ 4.1-3, the active component removes a restriction or inhibition of the mind (citta), a notion theorized in contemporary research in terms of a self-limiting ‘default mode network’ or other processes (ColeTurner 2015). This, in turn, leads to particular physical and psychological effects and experiences characteristic of this distinct created mind (nirmāṇacitta) arising from the transformation. That transformation has a limited duration in time, before the arisen nirmāṇacitta reaches a state of dissolution and ordinary awareness is restored. This view might be seen as an alternative to the
- 15 The mind arisen from dhyāna is said to be free from rāgādi, i.e. attachment and so forth. ↩︎
model in which substances such as psilocybin are theorized, as psychedelics, to ‘reveal the mind’ or ‘reveal the workings of the mind’—a view critiqued recently by Johnson-instead suggesting that the mind within these states has a particular ‘neuropsychological signature,’ and thus unique properties and capacities (Johnson 2020). But, if we take the term ‘psychedelic,’ as some would suggest, to mean something more akin to ‘mind-manifesting,’ we are remarkably close to the terminology of nirmannacitta, in its constructive conception.
Such an analysis might be further tied to Indic cosmological and ontological principles, such as Abhidharma notions of the Three Realms (triloka) and the Sāṃkhya-Yoga notions of the emergence (vyutthāna) and involution (pratiprasava) of nature (prakrti). For example, a user of DMT (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine) experiences a state of profound withdrawal from bodily proprioception, sense perception, and ego-based awareness, which may be catalyzed by a perceived experience of physical death or ‘ego death’ (Timmermann et al. 2018). 16{ }^{16} Here, one might view this as the development of a constructed mind (nirmannacitta) that has entered into higher cosmological realms (such as higher levels of the kāmaloka, or entry into the rūpaloka and arūpaloka) in the Abhidharma system, or as having entered into a more subtle level, perhaps even up to the unmarked (alinga) state of materiality (prakrti) in the Yoga philosophy system. This would parallel the notion that minds in various states of contemplation (samādhi) can be correlated with these higher cosmological and ontological levels, as well as the experience of perceptual transformations and the experiences of bliss and so forth. It also brings us into the realm of socalled ‘altered states of consciousness’, which are in some cases argued to be at the root of religious visions and, by extension, new religious movements (Osto 2018). We might compare such activities to the experience of a trained astronaut versus an untrained civilian who undergoes a trip into the outer atmosphere or space-undoubtedly it would be qualitatively different, both in terms of the resulting experience and the degree of agency within it (Griffiths et al. 2018). The untrained civilian might expect to experience considerably greater adverse after-effects of such an undertaking. But that is perhaps again where the experienced meditator meets the seasoned psychonaut-each stakes a claim to facility within the sphere of a particular range of non-ordinary states of mind.
- 16 The action of isolated DMT or 5-MEO DMT is perhaps to be contrasted with the functioning of DMT in ayahuasca, which has a longer duration and less intensity due to the presence of an MAOI-inhibitor in the plant formula. There is a greater vertical versus horizonal extension in the isolated DMT, suggesting that each offers a different nirmāṇacitta (of capacity and duration). ↩︎
More broadly, we might use the concept of nirmannacitta to contemplate the various types of ‘constructed minds’ that arise out of practices of self-discipline. The state of mind, especially in performance, of the athlete, musical performer, writer/researcher, and teacher, among others, arise out of disciplined effort to cultivate distinct functions and capacities. To be ‘in the zone’’ and perform at an elite level means the ability to become fully absorbed in an activity, in which the obstacles to the ‘flow state’ have been removed. The Indic tradition as represented in the PYŚ and AKBh would suggest that such deep states of absorption are a gateway to extraordinary experiences and capacities. If nothing else, the phenomenologies of mind that are associated with these classical Indian systems might provide useful interpretive tools for thinking about extraordinary states of mind in the contemporary context.
Conclusion
The relationship between Sāṃkhya-Yoga and Buddhist Abhidharma continues to be a fruitful area of research for scholars of Indic philosophy and religion. The nature and role of siddhi and rddhir d d h i in these respective traditions, in concert with their relationship to the concept of the constructed mind (nirmannacitta), provides insight into their relationship and the larger religious and philosophical context of the early centuries of the Common Era. Reading PYŚ 4.1-7 in light of AKBh 7.47-7.56 yields significant insight into the common ground conceptually and linguistically that the two traditions share, with light being shed on the larger Indic context in which these materials are situated. Of particular significance is the parallelism between the various sources of siddhi and rddhir d d h i, including birth (jāti, upapatti), herbs (oṣadhi), incantation (mantra), austerity or action (tapas, karma), and contemplation, meditation, or [meditative] cultivation (samādhi, dhyāna, bhāvanā), as well as the means of their action and their karmic implications. Central to this context are discussions regarding the nature of the constructed mind (nirmannacitta) and its operation, a conception that frames the way that the achievement of siddhi and rddhi are attained and operated in both Pātañjala yoga and Vasubandhu’s Abhidharma. These notions speak in interesting ways to both the therapeutic and the spiritual uses of psychoactive substances in the contemporary context, both as a theory of mind and as a discourse on the tools available within the scope of mind-body discipline (yoga). They also point in interesting ways at contemporary theories and understandings regarding extraordinary performativity, whether that be conceived of
in terms of ‘being in the zone,’ ‘flow states,’ or ‘altered states of consciousness,’ within contexts ranging from spiritual exploration to athletic performance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of my colleague, mentor, and friend, Gerald James Larson (1938-2019), a luminary in the field of Yoga Studies and a generous and kind man, who will be greatly missed by all in our scholarly community. I would also like to thank the anonymous readers for Religions of South Asia, who provided helpful constructive criticism and feedback on the essay.
ABBREVIATIONS
| AK | Abhidharmakośa |
|---|---|
| AKK | Abhidharmakośakārikā |
| AKBh | Abhidharmakośabhāṣya |
| PYŚ | Patañjalayogaśāstra |
| YS | Yogasūtra |
| YBh | Yogabhāṣya |
REFERENCES
Anacker, Stefan. 2005. Seven Works of Vasubandhu: The Buddhist Psychological Doctor. Revised Edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Bharati, Agehananda. 1982. The Light at the Center: Context and Pretext of Modern Mysticism. Santa Barbara: Ross-Erikson.
Bizzell, Victoria. 2008. ‘“Ancient + Future = Now”: Goa Gil and Transnational Neo-Tribalism in Global Rave Culture.’ Comparative American Studies An International Journal 6 (3): 281-94.
Bodhi, Bhikku. 2013. 'Going for Refuge & Taking the Precepts.'Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), December, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html
Bronkhorst, Johannes. 1993. The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Clark, Matthew James. 2017. The Tawny One: Soma, Haoma, and Ayahuasca. New York: Muswell Hill Press.
—_. 2021. Botanical Ecstasies: Psychoactive Plant Formulas in India and Beyond. #: Psychedelic Press.
Clough, Bradley S. 2011. ‘The Cultivation of Yogic Powers in the Pāli Path Manuals of Theravāda Buddhism.’ In Yoga Powers: Extraordinary Capacities Attained Through Meditation and Concentration, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen, 77-95. Leiden: Brill.
Cole-Turner, Ron. 2015. ‘Spiritual Enhancement.’ In Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement, edited by Tracy J. Trothen and Calvin Mercer, 369-83. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Cousins, L.S. 1992. ‘Vitakka/Vitarka and Vicāra: The Stages of Samādhi in Buddhism and Yoga.’ Indo-Iranian Journal 35 (2-3): 137-55.
Davis, Mark. 2020. ‘Nondual Psychedelic Integration: Psychedelics as a Catalyst for Nondual Awakening and Abiding.’ Nothing Conference. Online conference presentation, 20th 20^{\text {th }} September 2020. Paper copy supplied by the presenter.
Dundas, Paul. 2012. ‘A Digambara Jain Prescription of the Yogic Path to Deliverance.’ In Yoga in Practice, edited by David Gordon White, 143-61. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fiordalis, David V. 2011a. ‘Miracles in Indian Buddhist Narratives and Doctrines.’ Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 33 (1-2): 381-408.
—_. 2011b. ‘The Wondrous Display of Superhuman Power in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa: Miracle or Marvel?’ In Yoga Powers: Extraordinary Capacities Attained Through Meditation and Concentration, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen, 97-125. Leiden: Brill.
Fuller, Robert C. 2000. Stairways to Heaven: Drugs in American Religious History. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.
Gokhale, Pradeep P. 2020. The Yogasūtra of Patañjali: A New Introduction to the Buddhist Roots of Yoga. London and New York: Routledge.
Griffiths, Roland R., Matthew W. Johnson, William A. Richards, Brian D. Richards, Robert Jesse, Katherine A. MacLean, Frederick S. Barrett, Mary P. Cosimano, and Maggie A. Klinedinst. 2018. ‘Psilocybin-Occasioned Mystical-Type Experience in Combination with Meditation and Other Spiritual Practices Produces Enduring Positive Changes in Psychological Functioning and in Trait Measures of Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors.’ Journal of Psychopharmacology 32 (1): 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881117731279.
Johnson, Matthew W. 2020. ‘Consciousness, Religion, and Gurus: Pitfalls of Psychedelic Medicine.’ ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science, December.
La Vallée Poussin, Louis de. 1937. ‘Le Bouddhisme et Le Yoga de Patañjali.’ Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhiques 5: 223-41.
Larson, Gerald James. 1989. ‘An Old Problem Revisited: The Relation between Samkhya, Yoga and Buddhism.’ Studien Zur Indologie Und Iranistik 15: 129-46.
Larson, Gerald James, and Ram Shankar Bhattacharya. 2008. Yoga: India’s Philosophy of Meditation. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Larson, Gerald James, Patañjali, Vyāsa, and Vācaspatimiśra. 2018. Classical Yoga Philosophy and the Legacy of Sāṃkhya: With Sanskrit Text and English Translation of Pātañjala Yogasūtra-s, Vyāsa Bhāṣya and Tattvavaiśāradī of Vācaspatimiśra. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Lefferts, Gabriel. 2018. ‘Psychedelics’ Buddhist Revival.’ Tricycle. July 27. https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/psychedelics-buddhist-revival/
Lucia, Amanda J. 2020. White Utopias: The Religious Exoticism of Transformational Festivals. Oakland: University of California Press.
Maas, Philipp A. 2020. ‘Sarvāstivāda Buddhist Theories of Temporality and the Pātañjala Yoga Theory of Transformation (Pariṇāma).’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 48 (5): 963-1003. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09450-1.
2017. ‘From Theory to Poetry: The Reuse of Patañjali’s Yogaśāstra in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha.’ In Adaptive Reuse: Aspects of Creativity in South Asian Cultural History, edited by Elisa Freschi and Philipp A. Maas. Weisbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
- ‘Rasāyana in Classical Yoga and Āyurveda.’ History of Science in South Asia, 5 (2): 66-84. https://doi.org/10.18732/hssa.v5i2.32.
McHugh, James. 2021. An Unholy Brew: Alcohol in Indian History and Religions. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Brien-Kop, Karen. 2017. ‘Classical Discourses of Liberation: Shared Botanical Metaphors in Sarvāstivāda Buddhism and the Yoga of Patañjali.’ Religions of South Asia 11 (2-3): 123-57.
—_. 2020. ‘Dharmamegha in Yoga and Yogācāra: The Revision of a Superlative Metaphor.’ Journal of Indian Philosophy 48: 605-35.
Osto, Douglas. 2016. Altered States: Buddhism and Psychedelic Spirituality in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
—_. 2018. ‘Altered States and the Origins of the Mahāyāna.’ In Setting out on the Great Way: Essays on Early Mahāyāna Buddhism, edited by Paul Harrison, 177-206. Bristol, CT: Equinox.
Parker, R.C. and Lux. 2008. ‘Psychoactive Plants in Tantric Buddhism.’ Erowid Extracts 14: 611 .
Patañjali: Yogasūtra. 2020. E-Text. Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages.
Patañjali: Yogasūtra with Bhāṣya. 2020. E-Text. Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages.
Phelps, Janis. 2017. ‘Developing Guidelines and Competencies for the Training of Psychedelic Therapists.’ Journal of Humanistic Psychology 57 (5): 450-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167817711304.
Radich, Michael. 2010. 'Embodiments of the Buddha in Sarvāstivāda Doctrine: With Special Reference to the @Mahāvibhāṣā. ARIRIAB XIII: 121-172.
Redmond, Geoffrey. 2004. ‘Are Psychedelics the True Dharma? A Review Essay of Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics.’ Journal of Buddhist Ethics 11: 94-113.
Rukmani, T.S. 1981. Yogavārttika of Vijñānabhikṣu: Text with English Translation and Critical Notes along with the Text and English Translation of the Pātañjala Yogasütras and Vyāsabhāṣya. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
—_. 1989. Yogavārttika of Vijñānabhikṣu: Text with English Translation and Critical Notes along with the Text and English Translation of the Pātañjala Yogasütras and Vyāsabhāṣya. Vol. 4. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Sarbacker, Stuart Ray. 2005. Samādhi: The Numinous and Cessative in Indo-Tibetan Yoga. SUNY Press.
—_. 2011. ‘Power and Meaning in the Yogasūtra of Patañjali.’ In Yoga Powers: Extraordinary Capacities Attained Through Meditation and Concentration, edited by Knut A Jacobsen, 195-222. Leiden: Brill.
—_. 2013. ‘Herbs (Auṣadhi) as a Means to Spiritual Accomplishments (Siddhi) in Patañjali’s Yogasūtra.’ International Journal of Hindu Studies 17 (1): 37-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11407-013-9137-3.
—_. 2020. ‘Buddhist Meditation and the Ethics of Human Augmentation.’ Journal of the Japanese Association for Digital Humanities 5 (2): 61-83. https://doi.org/10.17928/jjadh.5.2\_61.
—_. 2021. Tracing the Path of Yoga: The History and Philosophy of Indian Mind-Body Discipline. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Senart, Émile. 1900. ‘Bouddhisme et Yoga.’ Revue de l’histoire Des Religions 42: 345-64.
Timmermann, Christopher, Leor Roseman, Luke Williams, David Erritzoe, Charlotte Martial, Héléna Cassol, Steven Laureys, David Nutt, and Robin Carhart-Harris. 2018. ‘DMT Models the Near-Death Experience.’ Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01424.
Vasubandhu, and Louis de La Vallée Poussin. 1988. Abhidharmakośabhāsyam. Translated by Leo Pruden. Berkeley (Calif.): Asian Humanities Press.
White, David Gordon. 2009. Sinister Yogis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wujastyk, Dagmar. 2021. ‘On Attaining Special Powers through Rasāyana Therapies in Sanskrit Medical Literature.’ In Body and Cosmos: Studies in Early Indian Medical and Astral Sciences in Honor of Kenneth G. Zysk, edited by Toke Lindegaard Knudsen, Jacob Schmidt-Madsen, and Sara Speyer, 140-65. Leiden: Brill.
Wujastyk, Dominik. 2018. ‘Some Problematic Yoga Sutras and Their Buddhist Background.’ In Yoga in Transformation, edited by Philipp A. Maas and Karin Preisendanz, 23-47. Vienna: Vienna University Press.
Xing, Guang. 2005. The Concept of the Buddha: Its Evolution from Early Buddhism to the Trikāya Theory. London and New York: Routledge.
Yamashita, Koichi. 1994. Pātañjala Yoga Philosophy with Reference to Buddhism. Calcutta: Firma KLM Private Limited.