The difference is worth noticing
The Hatha Yoga Pradipika’s description involves the hands supporting the body and a movement of the seated body while the breath is restrained. Sivananda also includes that movement. In the Gheranda Samhita passage translated by Mallinson, Mahavedha is instead described through Mahabandha and retention with Uddiyana. The descriptions are not identical.
Why the comparison belongs here
A short modern list can make this look like just another hand mudra. Reading the two accounts shows how misleading that would be. It also explains why this collection supplies references rather than a single supposedly universal illustration of the complete technique.
Follow the textual links
The relationship to Mahamudra and Mahabandha is explicit in the source material. The related-page links let you compare that group without constructing a practice sequence. No impact movement, breath-hold schedule, or combined lock is demonstrated here. The text’s language of overcoming age and death is kept within its traditional context.
Sources and scope
Main edition
Hatha Yoga Pradipika, chapter 3
Passage for this reading
- Hatha Yoga Pradipika, chapter 3
Sanskrit verses 3.26–31.
Svātmārāma; Sanskrit and Pancham Sinh’s 1914 translation. English paragraph numbering sometimes diverges from the Sanskrit verses.
- Gheranda Samhita, James Mallinson (2004)
3.17–20, printed pp. 67–68; SanskritDocuments 3.21–24.
YogaVidya.com publisher excerpt, introduction and chapter 3, printed pp. 60–71. This is a sample, not the entire book.
- Kundalini Yoga
“Mudras and Bandhas: 6. Maha Vedha”.
Swami Sivananda; Divine Life Society, tenth edition 1994, authorized web edition 1999. Traditional teaching, not clinical evidence.
What this edition covers
An original reference essay comparing the traditional descriptions. It is not a translation of the entire source chapter.
Limits and differences
The prose above identifies material differences. Traditional explanations and promised attainments are attributed to their sources; they are not clinical evidence. Review date: September 11, 2026.