About Maṇipūra-cakra term

The first time I’ve ever found a mention of maṇipūra-cakra was in one of the Patañjali’s sūtras, and the most interesting thing is that it is called ‘cakra’ there, no matter the popular belief that the cakra system came to exist much later than Patañjali. However in regard to cakras as energy centres, there is only a mention of the navel cakra there. And of course, it is not as detailed as a description of cakras in tantric or reflecting them yogic texts (like nātha’s etc.):

नाभिचक्रे कायव्यूहज्ञानम्॥२९॥
nābhicakre kāyavyūhajñānam ||29||

[By saṃyama] on the navel cakra (nābhicakre) the knowledge of a structure of a body is gained.

As I understand, that is due to the fact that all energy channels which are spreading to all parts of a body are connected in this centre. And Patañjali also mentions nāḍīs in another sutra. Obviously, the knowledge of channels existed in that times, it just that there is no detailed description of them in the sutras.

As for the definition of the term मणि maṇi and पूर pūra, however, it is there in the texts. Regarding पूर pūra, it’s more or less obvious – it is ‘area or abode’, as for मणि maṇi – I didn’t find any detailed explanation in English sources. But they are there in Sanskrit texts, for instance, in the Śrīmad‌bhāgavata Purāṇa (37). Also there are copies of that text in other sources, for example, in the Gautamīya Tantra (Ch. 12, śloka 47), it is also quoted in the Bṛhattantrasāraḥ (Ch. 5):

मेघाभं विद्युदाभञ्च बहुतेजोमयन्ततः ।
तत्पद्मं मणिवद्भिन्नं मणिपूरं तथोच्यते ॥

meghābhaṃ vidyudābhañca bahutejomayantataḥ ।
tatpadmaṃ maṇivadbhinnaṃ maṇipūraṃ tathocyate ॥

This lotus (chakra) is of cloud color and full of brilliant radiance.
That lotus is like the shine of a gem, that is why it is called maṇipūra.

I.e. there is a clear indication here on the ability of a gem to glow – तेजस् tejas. Also, in many tantras, gems, apart from their value, symbolise many other qualities, such as hardness and indestructibility, which metaphorically mean the certain states of high level consciousness. In some tantras, those are psychophysical fluids and substances, which are also associated with very high and deep states of consciousness, as the essence of all forms. If we look at this centre from a physiological point of view, then it is an area of the digestive fire, but in Hindu metaphysics Jaṭharāgni and Vaiśvānara still have a universal meaning. Vaiśvānara permeates the universe, that is why He is the fire and life within all things. Accordingly, through this centre, we perceive the essence that shines in every person in the state of self-sacrifice. That essence is all of us, however, it exists within everyone. As human beings, we all have the same hands, legs, heads and other body structures, because we are all programmed, coded in that way from somewhere above. By meditating on this center and comprehending this particular substance, we discover the universal code for ourselves and gain knowledge about the human body – exactly what Patañjali says.


I have repeatedly mentioned the Nātha’s principle, which is used in many Nātha texts, as well as in A. K. Banerjee’s books – it is dvaitādvaita-vivarjita.

There are many who call themselves tantrikas. They say that Gorakśanāth and nāthas are not oriented towards the same principles as Kashmir Shaivism, etc. In general, I have already said that I do not consider those tantrikas to be experts in tantrism. It is better I quote a śloka from the famous kaula text of ūrdhvāmnāyaKulārṇava-tantra (ullāsa I, śloka 110).

अद्वैतं केचिदिच्छन्ति द्वैतमिच्छन्ति चापरे |
मम तत्त्वं न जानन्ति द्वैताद्वैत विवर्जितम् ||

advaitaṃ kecidicchanti dvaitamicchanti cāpare |
mama tattvaṃ na jānanti dvaitādvaita vivarjitam ||

Someone prefers non-duality, someone – duality, none of them knows the essence that is beyond duality and non-duality (dvaitādvaita vivarjitam).

These are absolutely the same reference points as in the Nātha-sampradaya, sometimes the same terms and ideas can be found in tantric sources, but under different names (advaitadvayta-vilakśana, advaya, pratyakśa-advaita, etc.).

The nature of nātha is divya (divine)

Today I was looking through the Shaktisaṅgama Tantra and there is a description of different sampradayas there, such as kaśmira, kerala, gauḍa. Likewise bhavas (such as pāśa, vīra and divya) are described as three sampradayas. And here is what it says about the Divya-sampradaya in Sundarīkhaṇḍa (paṭala I, ślokas 153-154).

आनन्दः प्रथमः प्रोक्तो द्वितीयो नाथ एव तु |
मुख्यस्तवानन्दनाथः स्यात् प्रकाशस्तदनन्तरम् || १५३ ||
स्वरूपस्तु ततः प्रोक्तश्चैतन्यस्तु तदुत्त्रम् |
आराध्याचार्यकश्चैव विद्याधिक्यात् प्रकीर्त्तितः || १५४ ||

ānandaḥ prathamaḥ prokto dvitīyo nātha eva tu |
mukhyastavānandanāthaḥ syāt prakāśastadanantaram || 153 ||
svarūpastu tataḥ proktaścaitanyastu taduttram |
ārādhyācāryakaścaiva vidyādhikyāt prakīrttitaḥ || 154 ||

[Divya-sampradaya] is divided into seven parts. The first is called ānanda, the second is nātha, [the third is] ānandanātha is the main one, the fourth is prakāśa, then the fifth is svarūpa, the sixth is caitanya and the seventh is ārādhyācāryaka. That knowledge is especially respected.

The second branch of the divya-sampradaya is called nātha. What is interesting is the fact that such authoritative Tantras associate nāthas with divya-bhava. Logically, divya is even higher than vīra, and even more so than the pāśa category.

It is just that people who are strongly attached to hedonism, praise only vāmācāra and for this very reason are trying to reduce the significance of nāthas. Their argumentation is about the same as if they said that dzogchen is the level of the kyerim stage of generation, therefore the dzogrim with signs (the stage of completion) is higher. It is just like saying that karmamudrā is higher than mahāmudrā or śambhava is lower than śaktopāya or that śambhava really is āṇavopāya. If we relate the level nātha yogis are dealing with, to the ācāras of śaktism, then it will be at least the level of divyācāra.