The Yogapradīpa in Two Voices: Textual Variations, Editorial Choices, and Authenticity in Jain Yoga

The Yogapradīpa is a Jain yoga text that survives in two distinct recensions: a shorter version of 90 verses and a longer version preserved in 142 and 143 verses. These versions differ not only in length but also in their conceptual framework, particularly in their presentation of yoga as either a strictly Jain ascetic practice or as something more aligned with broader Indian yoga traditions. The existence of these two versions raises questions about textual transmission, editorial choices, and the construction of authenticity in Jain yoga traditions. While it is not yet clear which recension is older, the differences between them suggest that ideas about what constitutes “authentic” Jain yoga were not static but subject to revision over time.

A comparison of the two recensions shows key ideological shifts. The shorter version presents a fourfold path of yoga practice that is more explicitly tied to Jain monastic ideals, emphasizing asceticism and non-attachment. In contrast, the longer version includes an eightfold path reminiscent of Patañjali’s Yogaśāstra, which seems to introduce a framework that resonates more with broader Indian yoga discourse. This raises the question of whether the eightfold path was added later to make the text more accessible or legitimate within a wider intellectual landscape, or whether the shorter recension represents a more restrictive sectarian tradition that sought to distance itself from non-Jain influences.

The role of printed editions further complicates the question of authenticity. The longer recension, in both 142- and 143-verse versions, was ultimately selected for a 1960 printed edition that included a Gujarati translation and commentary. This edition explicitly confirms 143 verses, suggesting that, by the mid-20th century, the longer version was considered the more authoritative or complete representation of the Yogapradīpa. However, the 1911 printed edition, which acknowledged the existence of the shorter version, indicates that an alternative textual tradition was also circulating. Interestingly, this edition references 143 verses, yet the text itself skips from verse 66 to 100, suggesting that a significant section was omitted. This raises important questions: Were these verses deliberately removed, or were they simply absent in the manuscripts used for this edition? Did the editors consider them less authoritative, or was this an attempt to streamline the text for a Hindi-reading audience?

In addition to the 1911 and 1960 editions, a third printed version presents the Yogapradīpa as part of a multi-text compilation, where it ends definitively at verse 90. This confirms that the short recension was also circulating in print and raises further questions about why the longer recension was not included in this compilation. Moreover, two 16th-century manuscripts containing bālāvabodha (vernacular) commentaries also preserve only the short recension, suggesting that this version may have played a distinct role in educational and monastic settings.

These variations in textual transmission and editorial choices provide a valuable case study for exploring how authenticity is constructed within religious traditions. Rather than treating authenticityas a fixed attribute, the history of the Yogapradīpa suggests that it is shaped by shifting priorities, whether those of scribes, commentators, or later editors. This is not unique to Jainism; throughout South Asian religious history, texts have been copied, expanded, and reformulated, often in response to changing intellectual, doctrinal, or practical needs. In this case, the differences between the two recensions of the Yogapradīpa may reflect evolving ideas about what constitutes legitimate yoga practice within Jainism, but also reveal broader concerns about aligning Jain yoga with or distinguishing it from other Indian yoga traditions.

Situating these textual variations within a broader discussion of yoga authenticity, the Yogapradīpa offers an opportunity to consider parallels between historical manuscript traditions and modern debates about what constitutes “real” yoga. Just as the two recensions of the text reflect competing priorities—one more aligned with Jain ascetic ideals, the other incorporating elements more familiar from Patañjali’s system—contemporary yoga discourse is similarly shaped by tensions between exclusivity and inclusion, innovation and tradition. The study of textual differences in the Yogapradīpa may therefore provide insight not only into historical Jain thought but also into the ongoing process of negotiating authenticity in religious and philosophical traditions.

By examining the textual variations between these two recensions, this paper aims to explore how different versions of a text can reflect competing notions of religious authority and legitimacy. Through an analysis of which verses were added or omitted, it considers whether the longer version represents an expansion to accommodate external influences, or whether the shorter version is a deliberate attempt to preserve a more restrictive, ascetic interpretation of yoga. These questions remain open, but they highlight the dynamic process by which texts are shaped, interpreted, and validated within religious traditions. In doing so, this study contributes to broader discussions on the nature of textual authenticity, both in historical Jain contexts and in contemporary global yoga discourse.