Tantra

From the middle of the first millennium CE, South Asia Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli,
TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT

saw the emergence and rise of Tantrism within all of
its major religious traditions: Śaivism, the Vais. nava
. and Vincent Eltschinger (Eds.)
Pāñcarātra, the Buddhist Mantrayāna, and Jainism.
Despite the fact that Tantrism grew to become such
an integral part of the religious landscape, our
TANTRIC
understanding of how early Tantric initiatory groups
were actually organized and how they positioned
COMMUNITIES
themselves in society is still limited. This collection of
articles by leading scholars on early Tantra offers new
IN CONTEXT
insights into fundamental questions regarding the
socio-religious history of Tantric traditions by examining
questions of community formation, boundaries and
identities, all factors that needed to be negotiated in
the Tantric interactions with the wider society.
TANTRIC
Nina MIRNIG is a research fellow at the Institute for
the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia at
and Vincent Eltschinger (Eds.)

Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli,
the Austrian Academy of Sciences
Marion RASTELLI is a senior researcher at the Institute
COMMUNITIES
for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia at the
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Vincent ELTSCHINGER is Professor for Indian

Buddhism at the École Pratique des Hautes Études,
PSL Research University, Paris
IN CONTEXT
ISBN 978-3-7001-8378-5
SBph
Made in Europe 899
NINA MIRNIG, MARION RASTELLI,
AND VINCENT ELTSCHINGER (EDS.)
TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT

ÖSTERREICHISCHE AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
PHILOSOPHISCH-HISTORISCHE KLASSE
SITZUNGSBERICHTE, 899. BAND
BEITRÄGE ZUR KULTUR- UND
GEISTESGESCHICHTE ASIENS, NR. 99
HERAUSGEGEBEN VOM INSTITUT

FÜR KULTUR- UND GEISTESGESCHICHTE ASIENS
UNTER DER LEITUNG VON BIRGIT KELLNER
Tantric Communities
in Context
Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli,
and Vincent Eltschinger (Eds.)
Angenommen durch die Publikationskommission der philosophisch-
historischen Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften:
Accepted by the publication committee of the Division of Humanities
and Social Sciences of the Austrian Academy of Sciences by:
Michael Alram, Bert G. Fragner, Andre Gingrich, Hermann Hunger,
Sigrid Jalkotzy-Deger, Renate Pillinger, Franz Rainer, Oliver Jens Schmitt,
Danuta Shanzer, Peter Wiesinger, Waldemar Zacharasiewicz
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung aus dem Holzhausen-Legat

der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
Printed with support from the Holzhausen-Legat
of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
Diese Publikation wurde einem anonymen,

internationalen Begutachtungsverfahren unterzogen.
This publication was subject to international
and anonymous peer review.
Peer review is an essential part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
evaluation process. Before any book can be accepted for publication,
it is assessed by international specialists and ultimately must be approved
by the Austrian Academy of Sciences Publication Committee.
Die verwendete Papiersorte in dieser Publikation ist DIN EN ISO 9706

zertifiziert und erfüllt die Voraussetzung für eine dauerhafte Archivierung
von schriftlichem Kulturgut.
The paper used in this publication is DIN EN ISO 9706 certified and meets
the requirements for permanent archiving of written cultural property.
Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-3-7001-8378-5
Copyright © 2019 by
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna
Druck/Printed: Prime Rate, Budapest
https://epub.oeaw.ac.at/8378-5
https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at
Made in Europe

Table of Contents
Preface .............................................................................................. vii

Introduction ........................................................................................ ix
ALEXIS SANDERSON: How public was Śaivism?................................. 1
TANTRIC IDENTITIES
SHAMAN HATLEY: Sisters and consorts, adepts and goddesses:
Representations of women in the Brahmayāmala ............................ 49
CSABA KISS: The Bhasmāṅkura in Śaiva texts ................................. 83
ROBERT LEACH: Renegotiating ritual identities:
Blurred boundaries between Pāñcarātra ritual communities
in South India .................................................................................. 107
KLAUS-DIETER MATHES: *Sahajavajra’s integration of
Tantra into mainstream Buddhism: An analysis of his
*Tattvadaśakaṭīkā and *Sthitisamāsa ............................................. 137
CHRISTIAN FERSTL: Bāṇa’s literary representation
of a South Indian Śaivite ................................................................. 171
TANTRIC RITUAL COMMUNITIES

JUDIT TÖRZSÖK: Whose dharma? Śaiva and Śākta
community rules and Dharmaśāstric prescriptions ......................... 205
ELLEN GOUGH: Tantric ritual components in the initiation
of a Digambara Jain ........................................................................ 233
PÉTER-DÁNIEL SZÁNTÓ: Minor Vajrayāna texts V:
The Gaṇacakravidhi attributed to Ratnākaraśānti .......................... 275
RYUGEN TANEMURA: The recipient of the Tantric
Buddhist funeral .............................................................................. 315
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

MARION RASTELLI: Narratives as a medium for appealing
to the royal court: A look into the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā ................ 335
FRANCESCO BIANCHINI: In case of emergency: Addressing
rulers in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā ................................................... 363
DOMINIC GOODALL: Damanotsava: On love in spring,
on what Jñānaśambhu wrote, and on the spread of public
festivals into the Mantramārga. ...................................................... 385
GUDRUN BÜHNEMANN: Hanumān worship under the
kings of the late Malla period in Nepal........................................... 425
BEYOND TANTRIC COMMUNITIES:

THE INTERFACE WITH LAY COMMUNITIES
NINA MIRNIG: “Rudras on Earth” on the eve of the
Tantric Age: The Śivadharmaśāstra and the making of
Śaiva lay and initiatory communities.............................................. 471
PETER BISSCHOP: Inclusivism revisited: The worship of
other gods in the Śivadharmaśāstra, the Skandapurāṇa, and
the Niśvāsamukha ........................................................................... 511
S.A.S. SARMA: Mātṛtantra texts of South India with
special reference to the worship of Rurujit in Kerala and
to three different communities associated with this worship .......... 539
GERGELY HIDAS: Further Mahāpratisarā fragments
from Gilgit ...................................................................................... 571
Index ............................................................................................... 587

Preface
The present volume on the socio-religious history of Tantric communities in

the early medieval Indic world is an outcome of research activities conducted
at the Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia (IKGA) of the
Austrian Academy of Sciences (OEAW), in the context of the large-scale in-
terdisciplinary research project “Visions of Community” (VISCOM), a “Spe-
cial Research Programme” (Sonderforschungsbereich, SFB) funded by the
Austrian Science Fund (FWF, F 42). Over two four-year periods (2011–2015,
2015–2019), the project was carried out in collaboration with the Institute for
Medieval Research and the Institute for Social Anthropology at the Austrian
Academy of Sciences (OEAW), as well as the Department of History and the
Institute for Eastern European History at the University of Vienna. The mission
of VISCOM was to investigate, from a comparative perspective, ethnicity,
region, and empire throughout medieval Eurasia, extending from Christian
Europe to Buddhist Tibet via the Islamic Arabic peninsula. A central concern
of the project was how Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam impacted the con-
ceptions of religious and political communities in the medieval world, and how
these were negotiated in discourses on the formation and legitimation of par-
ticular communities constructed around various religious, ethnic, or political
interests. VISCOM was meant to go beyond a static comparison in the sense of
a mere contrastive analysis of pre-interpreted social, cultural, and historical
constructs; it sought, rather, to actively create comparative objects by fostering,
on a regular basis, the collaboration of researchers of diverse disciplinary ap-
proaches – socio-historical, micro-historical, socio-anthropological, historical-
philological, etc. – and to critically examine culturally-loaded, descriptive con-
cepts that were too often employed uncritically.
While the IKGA’s contribution to VISCOM initially focused solely on
imperial Tibet, the research context was subsequently broadened to also
include the Tantric traditions of early medieval and medieval India. This
turn toward the Indian Tantric traditions was prompted by the following
considerations: First, in their Buddhist versions, these traditions had played
viii PREFACE
a central role in shaping Tibetan religious identities, beliefs, and practices

from the ninth and especially the eleventh century onwards. Second, while
competing for royal patronage, the Indian Tantric traditions had developed
close ties to political power, a major concern for VISCOM. And third, ma-
jor advances in the field of Tantric studies in the last decades have led to
the emergence of new data from manuscript sources and inscriptions, which
open up the opportunity to investigate questions of community formation,
boundaries, and identities at play as Tantric circles increasingly engaged
with wider society. Rooted in this research context, the present volume
aims to comprehensively investigate these trajectories by considering
sources from the various Tantric schools active in the premodern Indic
world. For this purpose, leading experts of the field were invited to contrib-
ute to this volume, based on papers and discussions held at the international
symposium “Tantric Communities in Context: Sacred Secrets and Public
Rituals,” held at the IKGA, February 5–7, 2015.
We have adopted various conventions to present the material as consist-
ently as possible. The Sanskrit spelling has generally been normalised,
unless diplomatic editions are presented. Each of the Sanskrit passages is
also translated into English. In order to ensure readability, abbreviations
have been kept to a minimum; only if Sanskrit text titles are mentioned
frequently within a chapter, abbreviations are used after the first mention of
the text. The following introduction to this volume provides a brief over-
view of the broader research context as well as of the specific topics dis-
cussed in each contribution.
In publishing this volume, we are most grateful to the Holzhausen-Legat
for providing financial support to cover the production costs. We would
also like to express our thanks to Birgit Kellner, the series editor, and the
publication commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences for having
accepted the manuscript to be included in the series “Beiträge zur Kultur-
und Geistesgeschichte Asiens”. Thanks also go to the staff at the Austrian
Academy Press for their support in the production process. We also thank
Dennis Johnson for proof-reading the volume, and Csaba Kiss for produc-
ing the index and providing some technical support. Last but not least, we
are extremely grateful to the contributors of this volume for their excellent
chapters and their patience during the production process.

Introduction
Starting with the middle of the first millennium, South Asia saw the emer-
gence and rise of Tantrism within all major religious traditions, a develop-
ment that resulted in the production of a rich textual corpus expounding the
ritual and philosophical systems of Śaivism, the Vaiṣṇava Pāñcarātra, the
Buddhist Mantrayāna, and Jaina Tantra. Despite the fact that Tantric tradi-
tions grew to become such an integral part of the religious landscape of
early medieval South, South-East, and East Asia, the social reality of how
these initiatory groups were organised on the ground and concretely inter-
faced with the wider community of non-initiates or with competing tradi-
tions during this period is still little understood. This is partly due to the
fact that the surviving Tantric textual sources are prescriptive in nature,
propagating an idealistic vision of their position in society and rarely ad-
dressing questions of social relevance.
In order to address the resulting methodological challenge of using the-
se sources for reconstructing the underlying social reality, specialists of the
textual traditions and practices of pre-modern Tantric traditions were invit-
ed to investigate these largely normative texts for elements that inadvert-
ently reveal aspects of the underlying social reality or larger political agen-
das at play. Departing from the notion of a religious community, that is to
say, a community defined through a shared ritual repertoire and socio-
religious visions, the contributors pursue a range of guiding questions that
are at the heart of the VISCOM research project, such as: How does a
community define itself and what binds it together? How is a sense of be-
longing expressed? Can we identify networks of relationships through con-
crete interactions such as collective activities and habitual practices?
Which religio-political strategies may be at play in shaping community
identity; or to what extent do religious propagators create new religious
identities in order to appeal to the royal elite or reach out to mainstream
communities? How are deeply embedded social identity norms related to
x TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT
birth status – the caste and class system in South Asia – negotiated in the
context of emerging religious movements that essentially challenge these
existing socio-religious structures? And how do religious communities that
have developed around esoteric Tantric cults appeal to mainstream com-
munities?
Applying these research questions to ancient texts, often only preserved
in unpublished manuscripts, the contributors trace aspects of the socio-
religious history of the emergence and institutionalisation of these tradi-
tions in different literary genres, including Tantric scriptures, ritual manu-
als, philosophical treatises, and commentaries as well as non-Tantric
sources that contain representations of Tantric communities such as the
Purāṇas, early sectarian Dharma literature, and belletristic works. In addi-
tion, some contributions complement text-based approaches with field
studies and art historical analyses. The themes of this volume include the
development of Tantric rituals and symbols in relation to the political
sphere, the domain of social ritual as an indicator of the various degrees to
which Tantric communities were socially integrated at a given place or
time, specific points of interface between initiatory and lay communities,
and the modalities of the construction of broad as well as specific “confes-
sional” Tantric identities.
Structure of the volume

The volume opens with a keynote article by Alexis Sanderson, based on a
lecture he delivered at the Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History
of Asia at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna on February 5,
2015. In his contribution, Sanderson outlines the possibilities and ground-
breaking advances in tracing the socio-religious history of South Asian
Tantric traditions, based on his long-standing expertise and research expe-
rience with Śaivism also in interaction with other Tantric traditions, includ-
ing the Vaiṣṇava Pāñcarātra and Buddhist as well as Jaina Tantra. In many
ways, Sanderson’s ground-breaking research on the historical development
of early Tantric traditions in South Asia and beyond has fundamentally
shaped and influenced the field of Tantric studies.
INTRODUCTION xi
Following the opening contribution, the book is divided into four parts.
The first contains contributions investigating textual sources that detail
certain “Tantric identities.” These chapters offer insights into how various
Tantric communities – or groups within a Tantric community – were con-
ceptualised in a range of sources, including those inside and outside the
Tantric textual genre.
Shaman Hatley examines the representation of female practitioners and
the divinisation of women in the Brahmayāmala or Picumata. This volu-
minous Tantric Śākta-Śaiva text affords an unusually detailed (as well as
early) window into women’s participation in Tantric ritual. On the one
hand, this includes their role as female consorts – called dūtīs – in the coi-
tal rituals performed for the sādhaka practitioner’s purposes of attaining
supernatural powers (siddhi). On the other, Hatley also points to passages
that intimate independent female adepts in representations of yoginīs, a
category which intrinsically blurs boundaries between women and god-
desses. In doing so, he engages with the methodological challenge of deriv-
ing social-historical data from literary representations in this genre of Tan-
tric literature.
Csaba Kiss presents a diachronic investigation into the term
bhasmāṅkura, a term used to describe a social group defined as “the off-
spring of a fallen Śaiva ascetic and a Śūdra prostitute” in the well-known
fifteenth-century Brahmanical, non-Tantric Jātiviveka, a treatment of the
various castes and classes. Tracing references to this term in Śaiva Tantric
literature, including Saiddhāntika ritual manuals as well as the Śaiva schol-
ar Abhinavagupta’s famous work Tantrāloka, Kiss locates the origins of
this terminology and explores what these passages reveal about the social
setting of certain Tantric communities at various times. He shows how the
position of the Bhasmāṅkura as the son of a Śaiva ascetic was highly prob-
lematic in the Śaiva Tantric socio-ritual world and often condemned. At the
same time, he draws attention to the extent to which these insider accounts
differ from Brahmanical sources, in which the Bhasmāṅkura is at times
associated with Devalakas, who are defined as temple priests that live of
the offerings made to idols and thus considered of low status.
Robert Leach’s paper deals with two important sub-traditions within the
Vaiṣṇava tradition of Pāñcarātra – the Āgamasiddhānta and the Mantra-

xii TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT
siddhānta – in South India in the early centuries of the second millennium

CE. He examines their relation to each other as well as the possible reasons
why the Āgamasiddhānta has ceased to exist as a separate tradition in the
thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. Leach shows how the textual evidence
suggests that these traditions were in competition with each other for the
control of public temples and the right to perform rituals for fee-paying
clients. In this process, the followers of the Āgamasiddhānta characterised
themselves as exclusively seeking liberation from rebirth and as worship-
ping Viṣṇu to the exclusion of all other deities. According to
Āgamasiddhānta scriptural testimony, these two characteristics set them
apart from other Pāñcarātrikas, and there are several passages in
Āgamasiddhānta texts wherein the worship of God for mundane and heav-
enly rewards as well as the worship of gods other than Viṣṇu are roundly
condemned. At the same time, there are a number of indications that at
least some Ekāyanas modified their positions on both of these issues.
Klaus-Dieter Mathes depicts an example of how Buddhist monastic
communities integrated Tantric elements, such as sexual yoga during em-
powerment (abhiṣeka) and subsequent practices that were considered prob-
lematic from the point of view of mainstream Buddhism. On the basis of
thorough text analyses of works of Indian and Tibetan teachers, such as
Maitrīpa (986–1063), his disciple *Sahajavajra, ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu
dpal (1392–1481), and Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal (1511–1587), he
shows how the so-called mahāmudrā teachings were embedded into
Madhyamaka philosophy concepts and thus Tantric and Sūtric methods
were syncretically combined into a single system for liberation.
Christian Ferstl turns his attention to the value of Sanskrit poetry as a
source for clues about the perceptions and representations of Tantric com-
munities outside the body of Tantric prescriptive literature. Focusing on the
Kādambarī, a work of the sixth-century court poet Bāṇabhaṭṭa, he exam-
ines the portrayal of an elderly Dravidian – often referred to as holy man
(dhārmika) – living in a goddess temple near Ujjayinī. Identifying features
that associate this holy man with practices and works of certain Śaiva initi-
atory groups, such as the Pāśupatas, Kālamukhas, or Tantric practitioners
of the Bhairava branch, Ferstl attempts to trace the religious milieu and
associated values envisaged by the poet in the seventh century.
INTRODUCTION xiii
The second part of the volume gathers contributions presenting sources that
show how Tantric communities construct identities through rituals that
draw boundaries to the non-initiated world by appealing to the exclusitivity
of the respective Tantric circle.
Judit Törzsök explores the way in which Tantric communities saw
themselves within a larger context by analysing their treatments of sama-
yas, that is to say, the rules a Tantric Śaiva or Śākta neophyte is to follow
after he is introduced into his new community and has received an initia-
tion name, thus essentially constituting part of what defines the Śaiva or
Śākta Śaiva Tantric community. Investigating three different types of sa-
maya sets, namely those of the Siddhānta, the heterogeneous lists of early
Śākta scriptures, and the strictly “nondualist” rules of later Śāktas, she
demonstrates to what extent they, on the one hand, relate to Brahmanical
rules of the Dharmaśāstras, and, on the other, carefully demarcate various
Śaiva and Śākta groups. Further, the author presents some material on lay
Śaiva practitioners, showing that in spite of their overall conformity to
traditional Brahmanical prescriptions, they also saw themselves as follow-
ing a different set of laws and rules.
Ellen Gough, one of the rare scholars who studies Tantric aspects of the
Jaina traditions, presents the history of the Digambara Jaina ritual of men-
dicant initiation (dīkṣā). This ritual that features Tantric elements, such as
maṇḍalas and mantras, was introduced into the Digambara tradition in the
twentieth century. Modern Digambaras claim that this practice is a return
to “ancient,” that is, pre-sixteenth-century times. Investigating evidence for
this statement, Gough tracks the historical development of this ritual from
the first half of the first millennium to the sixteenth century based on thor-
ough textual studies of relevant Jaina works. Thanks to her fieldwork un-
tertaken in Rajasthan in 2013, she also vividly provides insight into the
present-day practice and shows that Tantric ritual components have also
been used to create Jaina communities.
Péter Szántó provides rare insights into the early history of the
gaṇacakra, a ritualised communal feast as celebrated by followers of the
Vajrayāna, i.e., Tantric Buddhist communities. The earliest Buddhist evi-
dence for this ritual, which was probably originally designed by imitating a
Śaiva ritual, dates to the early eighth century or possibly slightly earlier.

xiv TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT
While several Buddhist works from this time onwards describe or refer to
the gaṇacakra ritual, there are only two known complete, self-standing
manuals surviving in Sanskrit, as Szántó demonstrates. One is found in the
so-called Ngor Hevajrasādhana collection, the other one, the Gaṇa-
cakravidhi attributed to Ratnākaraśānti and transmitted in a Nepalese man-
uscript, is presented here. Szántó delivers an annotated diplomatic edition
of this work, which is supplemented by a – because of several difficulties
of the text – tentative translation and a detailed explanation in order to
make the content of this fascinating document accessible also to non-
Sanskritists.
Turning to the sphere of Buddhist Tantric rituals for the public domain,
Ryugen Tanemura examines surviving pre-modern ritual manuals and exe-
getical works on Buddhist Tantric death rites and explores how they may
inform us about the potential clientele served by Buddhist Tantric priests.
Having identified the relevant textual sources – all of which were edited by
the author for the first time – he focuses in particular on the Mṛtasugatini-
yojana, a manual of the funeral rite by Śūnyasamādhivajra, the final sec-
tion (Antasthitikarmoddeśa) of Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā, and the
final chapter (Nirvṛtavajrācāryāntyeṣṭilakṣaṇavidhi) of Jagaddarpaṇa’s
Caryākriyāsamuccaya. In his analysis, he principally concentrates on pas-
sages that indicate which kind of Tantric practitioner is intended as the
recipient of a Tantric funeral, which, in turn, offers clues about the scope of
Tantric community envisaged by the sources.
The third part of the volume consists of contributions that collect and dis-
cuss sources that provide insights into how certain Tantric communities
construct a public identity, negotiated through apotropaic empowering
rituals for the royal sphere or public rituals and festivals.
Marion Rastelli describes a specific strategy pursued by Tantric offici-
ants of the Vaiṣṇava tradition of Pāñcarātra to convince rulers to employ
their services. The Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, a South Indian work probably
from the thirteenth century, expounds the ritual worship of Sudarśana, the
discus of Viṣṇu. This worship mainly serves the purposes of kings, includ-
ing, for instance, military purposes. These rituals are usually not performed
by the king himself but by his personal priest (purohita, purodhas). Rastelli
INTRODUCTION xv
demonstrates how it is a great concern of the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā to show

the importance of a personal priest and his relation to the king, which is
why it also presents several narratives. These narratives mostly follow a
similar pattern: a particular king is in a certain form of distress and finally
reaches a solution to his problem with the help of a purohita, namely, the
sudarśanamantra and its ritual worship. While the primary purpose of
these narratives is evident, they also throw light on the background of the
redactor of the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā as well as its target audience, that is,
kings and their specific needs.
Francesco Bianchini provides yet further insights into the Ahirbudh-
nyasaṃhitā by highlighting passages that exhibit the ruling elite’s concerns
and the services that Tantric officiants could supply, thereby adding to our
understanding of how Tantric traditions advanced and spread in society
through affecting and gaining support by the rulers. Among the issues that
he addresses are the association of specific Tantric theological tenets with
offices and concepts of the royal court, the methodological problem of
identifying different classes of officiants on the basis of the kind of infor-
mation given by the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, the main goals of the rulers, and
the repertoire of rituals that the Tantric priest as described in the
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā offered in comparison to that of a traditional Athar-
vavedic officiant.
Dominic Goodall examines the emergence and development of festivals
(mahotsava) in Śaiva Tantric communities, i.e., the Śaiva Mantramārga.
While such religious processions are commonplace in several South Indian
Tantric scriptures, Goodall observes that these are never mentioned in pre-
twelfth-century Tantric authoritative scriptures. First, he traces the earliest
sources on Śaiva religious processions, namely the sixth/seventh century
non-Tantric Śivadharmaśāstra. Second, he provides an in-depth analysis of
the damanotsava, a festival in which Śiva is worshipped with the various
parts of the Damana plant (Artemisia indica). His treatment demonstrates
how Śaiva Tantric priests adopted a popular annual festival associated with
spring and with love, transforming it into a Śaiva reparatory ritual with
soteriological function, and he explores the socio-religious reasons that
may have driven such changes in the Tantric ritual repertoire. In his analy-
sis, he also includes critical observations on the transmission history of the

xvi TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT
famous South Indian twelfth-century Saiddhāntika ritual manual Jñāna-

ratnāvalī.
Gudrun Bühnemann deals with the worship of the monkey deity
Hanumān under royal patronage in mid-seventeenth- to mid-eighteenth-
century Nepal. Presenting rich sources including texts, such as inscriptions,
accounts in chronicles (vaṃśāvalī), and ritual works, and both published
and hitherto unpublished images of sculptures, paintings, and line draw-
ings, she provides new insight into how the kings of the late Malla period
promoted the worship of Hanumān in the Kathmandu Valley and what
goals they wished to attain through the worship of both the public exoteric
and the specifically esoteric, Tantric manifestations of the guardian deity.
The fourth part of the volume presents contributions that engage with the
role of lay communities and examines how their shared community prac-
tices and self-representations relate to the emerging Tantric traditions.
Nina Mirnig turns to the sixth/seventh-century Śaiva text Śivadhar-
maśāstra, the earliest extant normative work to promote an entire Śaiva
social order, which has proven pivotal for understanding the emergence of
Śaivism and the Tantric traditions in the early medieval period. Against the
historical backdrop of the religious milieu at the time – including the prom-
inence of Vaiṣṇava devotional movements, Buddhism, and Śaiva ascetic
traditions – Mirnig discusses the novel ways in which community identity
is constructed in the Śivadharmaśāstra by promoting Śaiva devotees as
divine beings on earth, granting them a superior spiritual status independ-
ent of the existing socio-religious system defined through caste and class,
thereby also opening the system up to lower social classes. Identifying the
various social and ritual implications initiated by this new conceptualisa-
tion, this contribution also traces the ritual and conceptual continuities into
the Śaiva Tantric sphere, whose propagators build on the kind of socio-
religious structures expounded upon in the Śivadharmaśāstra.
Peter Bisschop analyses the ways in which the earliest extant Śaiva
texts of the sixth and seventh centuries deal with the worship of other gods
than Śiva, thereby investigating how emerging Śaiva communities promot-
ed their religion as superior to their competitors. Building on Paul Hacker’s
theory of inclusivism as “a specifically Indian way of thinking” and a
INTRODUCTION xvii
means of inclusion by subordination, Bisschop investigates three works

that were practically unknown at Hacker’s time but provide important case
studies for tracing this phenomenon in early medieval South Asia: the sixth
chapter of the Śivadharmaśāstra, which contains a lengthy mantra of paci-
fication (śāntimantra) invoking all deities for protection; Skandapurāṇa
chapters 27–28, which are related in content to the teachings of the
Śivadharma; and the third chapter of the Niśvāsamukha, which deals with
mundane religion and has a lengthy section on the worship of different
gods. In his investigation, he presents the varying degrees of “inclusivism”
suggested by these early sources, a strategy that also reflects the socio-
religious setting in which these newly emerging Śaiva communities had to
secure their position among the dominant religious traditions of the time.
S.A.S. Sarma deals with the ritual worship of the female deities collec-
tively known as the Seven Mothers (saptamātṛ) with Bhadrakālī as the
principal deity. He investigates how these rites bind together certain Tan-
tric ritual communities, presenting hitherto unpublished Mātṛtantras com-
posed in South India and sharing his vast knowledge about the communi-
ties and temples associated with this worship. The first part of his paper
describes important works devoted to the worship of the Seven Mothers,
namely, two texts labelled Brahmayāmala and associated with the Kolā-
rammā Temple of Kōlār, the Mātṛsadbhāva, composed in Kerala before the
fifteenth century, three chapters of the Śeṣasamuccaya attributed to Śaṅka-
ra, and several texts on the rare cult of the goddess Rurujit, a specific form
of Bhadrakālī. The second part of the paper then deals with the Keralese
communities associated with the worship of Bhadrakālī and especially
Rurujit. These include the Nampūtiri Brahmins, who are the officiating
priests in Bhadrakālī temples, as well as three particular non-Nampūtiri
communities, namely, the Mūssads, the Piṭāras, and the Aṭikaḷ. Finally,
Sarma depicts illustrative examples of rituals in concrete South Indian
temples that also address the multifarious interactions of various communi-
ties of South Indian society.
Gergely Hidas turns to the earliest extant manuscript sources on Bud-
dhist dhāraṇī, a popular practice centered on spells. Focusing on the
Mahāpratisarā-Mahāvidyārājñī, a magical-ritualistic scripture of Dhāraṇī
literature that has likely emerged in North India between the third and sixth

xviii TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT
centuries, he presents and examines newly identified fragments in the

Gilgit collection and places them within the whole Mahāpratisarā corpus.
His treatment also pursues the question why so many copies of the same
scripture were likely to be kept in one collection and what this could tell us
about the ritual practices of the Buddhist community in the area as well as
its relation to esoteric Buddhism.

How public was Śaivism?
Alexis Sanderson
Introduction
The study of Śaivism in its many forms is certainly one of the areas within
Indology that invites and benefits from a sociological perspective. Howev-
er, in its infancy the subject suffered from the myopia that has hampered
progress in many other areas in the study of Indian religion. I refer to the
tendency to read texts with insufficient attention to their human context,
avoiding questions that should be at the forefront of any attempt to under-
stand their meaning, questions such as: What can the body of prescription
and interpretation that make up this text or group of texts tell us about the
position and aspirations of the authors and their audiences in the larger
pattern of Indian society at that time? How far were these aspirations real-
ised? How widespread were the practices that they prescribe? What impact
did these forms of religion have on the adherents of other traditions? How
were these traditions established and propagated? To what extent did they
engage with and influence religion in the public and civic domains? What
do these texts tell us about how the various groups that produced them saw
each other?
It is easy to understand why such questions tended to be overlooked.
The principal reason is that the texts do not foreground these issues, since
awareness of them could be taken for granted when the texts were com-
posed. Though this unstated lived context was a large part of the texts’
meaning, the perception of this fact was further hindered, if not completely
blocked, by the tendency of scholars to limit their interest to a single tradi-
tion and often to one strand of one tradition in one region of the Indian
subcontinent. We had specialists of what was called the Śaivism of South
India or the Śaivism of Kashmir, and their interest tended to be focused on
2 TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT
ritual or devotion in the former case and on esoteric mysticism or philoso-

phy in the latter. There was little consciousness of the need to question the
integrity of such disciplinary and regional divisions, to seek a larger picture
of the historical processes that led to the two clusters of learned Śaiva liter-
ature and practice stranded in modern times at opposite ends of the subcon-
tinent; and this hindered the development of a sociological perspective,
because it was largely when one looked at the nature of the coexistence of
these traditions and their views of each other that such issues tended to
come more sharply into focus, prompting one to go back to the texts to see
if there were not material relevant to these issues that one had been over-
looking.
In my own work I have tried to find this larger picture. I started in the
1970s with precisely the limitations I have described. After studying San-
skrit I spent several years in Kashmir reading the texts of what I knew as
Kashmir Śaivism and meeting regularly with Swami Lakshman Joo
(Rājānaka Lakṣmaṇa), the last surviving exponent of that tradition, to put
to him the questions that this reading was constantly throwing up. In this
way, with his more than generous assistance, I came to see the system from
the inside as it was understood then.
This was an immensely valuable start, but as I progressed, I began to
formulate more and more questions that could not be answered from the
surviving knowledge base and so realised the need to go beyond it.
In the first stage of my further endeavours I was mostly focused on
searching for manuscripts of scriptural sources that the Kashmirian authors
had drawn upon in constructing their system of doctrine and practice but
which had ceased to be copied in later centuries and had therefore disap-
peared, it seemed, without trace. By this time I was familiar enough with
the system to have located several of its exegetical fault lines and to have
seen that most of these were at points at which it seemed that elements of
diverse origin had been welded together into a supposedly seamless whole.
I hoped that by gaining access to texts that contained these elements prior
to their Kashmirian systematisation or independently of it I would gain
insights into how the systematisation had proceeded, to catch it in the act,
as it were, and thereby achieve a better understanding of the Kashmirian
authors’ intentions, much of which surely resided in seeing how they were
ALEXIS SANDERSON 3
using these sources, sometimes no doubt simply incorporating their testi-

mony but at other times redirecting it to serve purposes that only the con-
frontation of source and interpretation would reveal. Moreover, in the
magnum opus of the Kashmirian tradition, the Tantrāloka of Abhinavagup-
ta, these scriptural materials were mostly presented in the form of para-
phrases and these were often ambiguous for modern readers, since we,
unlike Abhinavagupta’s target audience, were unable to read these para-
phrases with their sources in our memories or at least accessible.
So my work shifted its focus eastwards along the Himalayas to the
Kathmandu valley, a stronghold of Tantric Śaivism from early times, with
an abundance of early palm-leaf manuscripts of Nepalese and East Indian
Śaiva texts, many of them dating from before or around the time of the
Kashmirian authors, mostly preserved in Nepalese collections but also in
libraries in India and Europe. My efforts were rewarded by the discovery
of a good number of scriptural texts that had been lost in Kashmir and the
realisation of the relevance of others that were known to exist but had not
been read in depth or read at all. Many gaps still remain, but the materials I
was able to assemble over the years have thrown a flood of light on the
nature of the Kashmirian Śaiva project and at the same time opened to
view a much more diverse panorama of Śaiva traditions, leading to many
new questions about their history and distribution, and the nature of their
coexistence. Kashmirian Śaivism of the kind that had attracted my initial
interest was now beginning to be contextualised as one element in a much
larger picture.
Once this process had begun it was natural, if not inevitable, that I
should also start considering the question of the relations between the
largely Śākta-oriented Śaiva traditions of my Kashmirian, Nepalese, and
East Indian sources and the rich non-Śākta Saiddhāntika Śaiva tradition
that had survived in the Tamil-speaking South. Here too early Nepalese
manuscripts played an important role. It soon became apparent that though
the two Śaiva traditions I had encountered at the beginning of my research
at opposite ends of the subcontinent, the Śākta Śaivism of Kashmir and the
non-Śākta Śaivism of the South, seemed to occupy different universes in
modern times, they had in earlier centuries been intimately connected. In
short it soon became clear that South Indian Saiddhāntika Śaivism, though

greatly enriched and diversified in its South Indian setting, was rooted in a
tradition that had been dominant in much of the subcontinent, including
Kashmir, and had spread beyond it into large parts of mainland and mari-
time South East Asia, in the centuries before and during the production of
the Kashmirian Śākta Śaiva literature. It also became clear that it was nec-
essary to understand the latter as attempting to synthesise its Śākta-oriented
traditions with this established Śaiva mainstream in a multitiered hierarchy
within which all levels of Śaivism were accepted as valid, the hierarchy
residing in the belief that while the mainstream Siddhānta constituted the
public, institutionalised face of Śaivism, the more Śākta systems offered
private, more powerful methods of transcendence and supernatural effect.
It also became evident that both of these forms of Śaivism were much
more than methods followed for personal salvation. Both were sustained by
predominantly royal patrons who looked to enhance their power, the
Siddhānta predominantly through the legitimation and sacralisation of roy-
al authority and the Śākta Śaiva traditions by offering rituals of state pro-
tection particularly in times of danger. It is this service to patrons that ex-
plains the emphasis that we find in most of the practice-oriented Śaiva
literature on rituals that aim to bring about such supernatural effects (sid-
dhiḥ) as the warding off of dangers present or predicted (śāntiḥ), the resto-
ration of vitality (puṣṭiḥ), the blocking, routing, or destruction of enemies
(abhicāraḥ), and the control of rainfall.
To be beginning to understand the internal dynamics of Śaivism in such
ways was definite progress; but this commitment to contextualisation could
not proceed solely within the boundaries of the Śaiva traditions. It was
necessary also to seek to understand how the Śaivas had understood and
negotiated the relationship between their Śaiva obligations and those of
mainstream Brahmanical religion and the extent to which the latter had
accepted or rejected its claims. As one would expect, it became clear that
this relationship was subject to change and was far from constant across the
range of the Śaiva traditions in different regions and periods and that the
history of Śaivism was in important respects the history of this unstable
relationship.
Nor was the picture complete with the Śaiva traditions that I have men-
tioned so far. On the one hand there were also earlier Śaiva systems that
ALEXIS SANDERSON 5
had left traces in the record, whose connections with the better documented
traditions that followed them remained to be understood; and on the other
there was a vast mass of literature articulating what we may call the lay
Śaivism of the general population as opposed to the systems developed by
religious specialists that had been engaging my attention. How should we
understand the relationship between this Śaivism and those systems? Were
the latter the source of this literature of lay devotion? Or should we rather
see the Śaivism reflected in that literature as an independent phenomenon
on which the more publicly engaged of the systems that I had been study-
ing were dependent, even parasitic? I now incline to the latter view.
Finally there were questions concerning the relationship between the
non-lay Śaiva systems and those of their principal rivals for patronage: the
Buddhists, Vaiṣṇavas, and Jains. My work in that domain has, I believe,
demonstrated that the Śaiva systems exerted a powerful influence on all
three of these religious groups, causing them to develop ritual systems
along Tantric lines derived from Śaiva models.
The picture that has been emerging is based primarily on textual
sources, but these are not just the works of high learning and the scriptural
texts that they interpret. There are also many much humbler and often
anonymous works, mostly unpublished, that set out ritual procedures for
the guidance of Śaiva officiants and other initiates. The great value of these
materials is that they are as close as written prescriptions can be to a record
of actual practice in specific communities. They therefore enable us to see
which systems have been prevalent or left their mark. The elevated works
of scholarship, such as the Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta, present a wealth
of information concerning this or that Śaiva system, but they do not enable
us to know how widely these systems were adopted. By locating and exam-
ining materials of this humbler variety in the regions of the subcontinent in
which they have survived we can hope that a differentiated pan-Indian
history of Śaivism will emerge.
Nor is it sufficient to study the kinds of sources that I have mentioned
so far. I have learned much that I could not learn from these prescriptive
texts by reading inscriptions that record grants to religious officiants and
foundations. These enable us to build up a picture of the patronage of the
religion and its dissemination through the subcontinent; and in conjunction

with the study of material evidence in the form of temples or their remains
and religious images they give us some idea of the strength of Śaivism in
specific regions over time in relation to its rivals. They also provide on
occasion a corrective to the tendency of the texts to idealise, revealing, for
example, a degree of routinisation and mundane motivation that the texts
tend not to acknowledge. Finally, there is much to be learned from modern
ethnographic accounts of surviving religious practice and institutions. The
Kathmandu valley and the Tamil South, where Śaiva traditions of both
Śākta Śaiva and Saiddhāntika have survived, have much to teach us in this
regard. One cannot simply read the present or recent past back into the
early centuries of these traditions; but ethnographic data can prompt us to
interrogate the textual evidence of the past in ways that might otherwise be
overlooked.
The main constituents of Śaivism

In what follows I shall touch on all four of the divisions that in my present
understanding make up the territory of the religion: lay Śaivism, the
Atimārga, the Mantramārga, and the Kulamārga.
There is a primary dichotomy here between lay Śaivism and the other
three, which we may distinguish from it as forms of initiatory Śaivism that
demanded a much deeper commitment and promised much more. While
lay Śaivism offered its observant adherents temporary translation at death
to the paradise of Śiva (śivalokaḥ, rudralokaḥ, śivapuram), the systems
within the Atimārga, Mantramārga, and Kulamārga promised their initiates
the attainment of final liberation, either at death or in the case of the Śākta-
oriented systems even in the midst of life, and, in addition, in the Man-
tramārga and the Kulamārga, the means of bringing about the supernatural
effects already mentioned and of attaining before final liberation entry into
paradises far more elevated than that of the laity.
The terms Atimārga and Mantramārga are taken by me from the litera-
ture of the latter. The Atimārga in that testimony covers certain forms of
Śaiva ascetic discipline that predate the emergence of the Mantramārga and
coexisted with it. In our earliest testimony it comprises two systems: the
Pāñcārthika Pāśupata and the Lākula, also called Kālamukha. While the
ALEXIS SANDERSON 7
Pāñcārthika Pāśupata Atimārga and the Mantramārga seem radically differ-

ent in many respects, what we now know of the Lākula tradition has shown
that many of the key features that set the Mantramārga apart from the
Pāñcārthika Atimārga were already present in the Lākula Atimārga, reveal-
ing the earliest Śaivism of the Mantramārga to have developed out of it.
Later doxography adds a third division of the Atimārga, that of the
Kāpālika followers of a system known as the Somasiddhānta. My current
view of this addition is that it evidences a Lākula tradition that incorpo-
rated into the Atimārgic framework radically new forms of Śākta worship
that would have a lasting impact on the non-Saiddhāntika Mantramārga
and Kulamārga by being carried forward into those traditions.
The Mantramārga comprises the Saiddhāntika Śaiva tradition and
Śākta-oriented ritual systems primarily focused on the propitiation of vari-
ous goddesses and Bhairava. While the former was more publicly engaged
and generally stayed within the boundaries dictated by Brahmanical criteria
of ritual purity, the non-Saiddhāntika Mantramārga drew its power from
ritual transgression of these boundaries.
The same applies to the Kulamārga, which inherited the Śākta traditions
that had entered the Atimārga with the Kāpālika development, stressing
collective orgiastic worship, initiation through possession, the ritual con-
sumption of meat and alcoholic liquor, and sexual contact with women
regardless of caste.
Many of these Kaula elements are also to be found in texts of the Śākta-
oriented Mantramārga. This lack of a clear boundary is not unique to the
relation between the Mantramārga and the Kulamārga. The labels attached
by our texts to the various traditions are used by them as though they apply
to quite distinct unchanging entities. But in reality, the boundaries between
the various branches of the Śaiva tradition were contested and shifting as
the ascetic groups and householder communities that adhered to them
worked to elevate their status in relation to each other or to achieve greater
acceptance in Brahmanical society. We may never be able to see even the
majority of these shifts, but we should remain alert to the fact that our texts
are snapshots of an ever-changing situation. Moreover, while the learned
exegetes tended to stress the separation between their own traditions and
the others, we should not let this close our minds to evidence of a greater

degree of interaction, cofunctionalty, and hybridisation than reading the

works of the learned systematisers leads us to expect. Here the humble
manuals are revealing, since they show precisely the blurring of boundaries
that the learned condemn.1
I turn now to the topic indicated by the title of my lecture: ‘‘How public
was Śaivism?’’. Evidently one cannot claim to have a realistic picture of a
religion if one does not have some sense of where the boundary lies be-
tween the private and the public, of how far the activities of adherents of
the religion are publicly visible or at least publicly significant. For even
rituals considered secret and conducted away from the public gaze may
nonetheless be designed to have an impact in the public domain, not
through being witnessed but through being known to have occurred. Thus,
for example, in the case of the king, a status-enhancing Tantric ritual con-
ducted in private may become a very public event by being framed by mili-
tary parades and marked by a public holiday. Our sources tend to be parsi-
monious in revealing this civic dimension of the religion. One can read
much without encountering it since the texts are focused on what the soli-
tary individual initiate should do. But evidence is nonetheless present. I
shall be drawing attention to some of it in what follows.
Lay Śaivism: joint agency and civic spectacle

I begin with the distinction between lay Śaivism and initiatory Śaivism,
that is to say, between a Śaivism open to lay people (upāsakāḥ), who by
adopting it were not thought to have radically changed their position in
relation to orthodox Brahmanism, who were not considered to have taken
on a religious identity that challenged the reach of Brahmanical authority,
and who did not claim to have done so, and the Śaivism of other groups
whose members by taking a personal initiation (dīkṣā) did consider them-
selves to have risen above the domain of religious efficacity proper to the
mainstream religion and to have gained access to a personal liberation not
accessible in their view to the followers of Brahmanism or its non-
initiatory Śaiva inflections.

1
For a detailed review of these traditions and their literatures, see SANDERSON
2014.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 9
The literature for initiates in the Mantramārga distinguishes two catego-

ries of lay Śaivas: (1) those who enacted their devotion to Śiva following
orthodox Brahmanical authorities, either (1a) liturgies addressed to the
Vedic Rudra, such as the lost Rudrakalpa of the Kaṭhas, or (1b) forms of
worship of Śiva taught in the Purāṇas, thus either Śrauta (1a) and Smārta
(1b), and (2) those who opted for what appears to have been an intensified
form of lay commitment by following the injunctions of scriptures that we
may call the Śivadharma texts, principally the Śivadharma and the
Śivadharmottara, which instruct lay Śaivas on the forms of personal ob-
servance appropriate to them and exhort them to dedicate a considerable
part of their wealth to the support of the religion.2
For some time, before I had given these texts a more than cursory ex-
amination, I assumed that this Śivadharma literature must have emanated
from within the community of the initiated as a means of securing lay sup-

2
For this distinction between the modalities of lay Śaivism, see, e.g., Bhaṭṭa
Rāmakaṇṭha, Mataṅgavṛtti on Vidyāpāda 4.49–50: upāsakair anugrahasādhana-
prāptinimittaṃ mataṅgamunineva pūrvaṃ śrutyādivihitena (em. with the Kashmiri-
an mss.: śrutau vihitena ed.) śivadharmoditena vā vidhineśvaropāsanaiva kāryā.
“Lay devotees must, like the sage Mataṅga, first worship Śiva with the procedure
ordained in Śruti or with that taught in the Śivadharma texts as the means of recei-
ving the means of [Śiva’s] grace.” See also Kiraṇavṛtti on Vidyāpāda 6.22d–12:
tarhi kiṃ tair nityam anuṣṭheyam. laukikena rūpeṇa śivadharmoditena vā yathāśakti
devagurutadbhaktaparicaraṇādikam eva svataḥ putrabhṛtyādipreṣaṇena vā. “So
what is the religious duty of these people [who are exonerated from the post-
initiatory duties]? It is such activities as serving Śiva, the guru, and their devotees to
the extent of their ability, either themselves or [if that is not possible] by sending
their sons or servants [as proxies], either in the mundane modality or in that taught in
the Śivadharma texts.” Mataṅgavṛtti on Vidyāpāda 26.58–59b defines the mundane
modality of observance as such activities as chanting hymns, singing, and bowing
down to an image of Śiva, either a liṅga or anthropomorphic. I have preferred the
reading śrutyādivihitena seen in the Kashmirian mss., not because they are generally
more reliable than the South Indian witnesses used by the editor Bhatt, though they
are, but because the reading śrutau vihitena that he has adopted is less satisfactory.
For it is implausible that Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha would have restricted the non-
Śivadharma option to Śrauta worship. For the Śrauta forms of worship envisaged by
the Kashmirian Saiddhāntikas, see Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, Mṛgendravṛtti on
Vidyāpāda 1.6. These include the lost Rudrakalpa of the Kaṭhas (p. 16, ll. 7–8: tathā
hi *kāṭhake sūtrapariśiṣṭīye rudrakalpe, “in the Kāṭhaka Rudrakalpa that is a supp-
lementary text of the [Kaṭhas’ Yajña] sūtra).”

port. I have rejected that perspective now. My view is that these texts cannot
plausibly be attributed to teachers of any of the initiatory systems. Although
they show awareness of the Atimārga or the Mantramārga or both, they cer-
tainly cannot be read as teaching watered-down versions for the laity of ei-
ther of these initiatory Śaivisms. There are too many discontinuities for that
to be plausible. One can imagine that if gurus of the Atimārga or Man-
tramārga were to create a system for the laity, they might have omitted refer-
ence to the higher levels accessible to initiates, but not that they would have
put forward a worldview such as we see in these texts which shows little
continuity with the doctrines of either the Atimārga or the Mantramārga. I
now consider that this literature represents a mainstream tradition within the
Śaiva community on which the much smaller communities of initiates were
parasitic, that they latched on to these traditions and imposed their authority
on them, usually with royal patronage, becoming in this way the officiants of
various Śaiva institutions which had their own independent histories. A
strong indication of the proposed independence of this tradition can be seen
in the program of deities installed in Śaiva temples, for this is quite distinct
from the programs ordained for worship in the initiatory systems and re-
mained largely unchanged when control of these foundations passed from
the Atimārga to the Mantramārga.3
Many features set the Śaivism of the Śivadharma corpus apart from that
of the initiatory traditions, but that which is most striking in the present
context concerns the beneficiaries of the pious activities that are advocated.
In initiatory Śaivism those who perform the rituals prescribed are acting as
individuals for their own personal benefit or that of named clients. But in
the Śivadharma corpus, the person performing the activity or having it
performed, commonly the king, is considered to be acting not only in his
own right but also as the representative of the community that he heads, so
that the rewards of his piety are shared. Here, then, ritual is not a purely
private and personal affair but has a strong social and civic dimension.
I shall give two examples of this concept of action for the group. The
first speaks of the benefits of what it calls the ṣaḍaṅgavidhiḥ (“the six-
element rite”), a simple form of liṅga worship requiring the offering of six

3
SANDERSON 2003–2004: 435–444.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 11
products of the cow to be performed by the king and by extension by others

that is the subject of the first chapter of the Śivadharmottara. The relevant
passage is as follows:
Through this six-element rite the deity becomes propitious. In both

this world and the next he bestows all that one desires. So a king
who is a devotee of Śiva should worship Śiva with this rite. He will
rescue twenty-one generations [of his patriline]. Establishing them in
heaven, he will ascend himself [above that level] to the eternal abode
of Śiva. Moreover, every honest minister who has been employed in
the king’s service will proceed together with him to that great and il-
lustrious paradise (śivapuram). After he has enjoyed endless pleas-
ures [there] together with all his staff, he will in due course return to
this world and become a universal sovereign who will rule the whole
earth.4
The second passage concerns a ceremony taught in the second chapter of

the same text in which the king is to have a sacred text copied and then
donate it to a guru:
The donor will dwell in the paradise of Śiva for as many thousands of
aeons as there are syllables in the manuscript of the scripture of Śiva
[that he has donated]. Having rescued ten generations of his patrilineal
ancestors and the ten that will follow him,5 he will establish them, his

4
Śivadharmottara 1.87c–91: anena vidhinā devaḥ ṣaḍaṅgena prasīdati || 88 || iha
loke pare caiva sarvān kāmān prayacchati | ṣaḍaṅgavidhinā tasmān nṛpatiḥ pūjayec
chivam || 89 || śivabhaktaḥ samuttārya kulānām ekaviṃśatim | svarge sthāpya sva-
yaṃ gacched aiśvaraṃ padam avyayam || 90 || aśaṭhāḥ sarvabhṛtyāś ca devakārya-
niyojitāḥ | prayānti svāminā sārdhaṃ śrīmac chivapuraṃ mahat || 91 || bhuktvā
bhogān sa vipulān bhṛtyavargasamanvitaḥ | kālāt punar ihāyātaḥ pṛthivyām ekarāḍ
bhavet ||.
5
Similar promises are found in mainstream Brahmanical sources. See, for exa-
mple, Manusmṛti 3.37: daśa pūrvān parān vaṃśyān ātmānam ekaviṃśakam |
brāhmīputraḥ sukṛtakṛn mocayaty enasaḥ pitṝn. “When a son by a woman married
by the Brāhma rite (brāhmīputraḥ) performs a meritorious action, he frees from sin
the ten heads of his patriline before him, the ten after him, and himself as twenty-
first.” Commenting on this, Medhātithi allows the claim that future generations can

mother, his father, and his chief wife in heaven and then go on to Śiva.
He will go to Śiva’s world by virtue of this gift of knowledge attended
by his harem and accompanied by all his ministers.6
But the light that this body of texts for the laity sheds on the transpersonal

be freed from sin is mere arthavādaḥ, that is to say, a promotional statement that is
not to be taken literally. But he accepts the principle that a pious act can free one’s
predecessors from sin, since to deny this would be to deny that śrāddha ceremonies
performed for one’s ancestors are efficacious. I am not aware of any place in the
Śivadharma literature in which this issue of the rites of the living benefitting unborn
descendants has been addressed directly. But it can be argued that it has been cover-
ed by the claim that none of Śiva’s statements are arthavādaḥ, that all are to be un-
derstood as literally true and that this should be kept in mind especially with regard
to what the texts have to say about the consequences of meritorious and sinful ac-
tions. See Śivadharmottara 1.39–42, 44abv: vidhivākyam idaṃ śaivaṃ nārthavādaḥ
śivātmakaḥ | lokānugrahakartā yaḥ sa mṛṣārthaṃ kathaṃ vadet || 40 sarvajñaḥ
paripūrṇatvād anyathā kena hetunā | brūyād vākyaṃ śivaḥ śāntaḥ sarvadoṣavi-
varjitaḥ || 41 yad yathāvasthitaṃ vastu guṇadoṣaiḥ svabhāvataḥ | yāvat phalaṃ ca
puṇyaṃ ca sarvajñas tat tathā vadet || … 44 tasmād īśvaravākyāni śraddheyāni
vipaścitā | yathārthaṃ puṇyapāpeṣu tadaśraddho vrajed adhaḥ. “This teaching of
Śiva consists [entirely] of literally true statements (vidhivākyam). There is no Śaiva
arthavādaḥ. How could [Śiva], the saviour of all beings, utter a falsehood? For what
reason would Śiva lie, he who is omniscient because he embraces the whole of the
real, who is at peace in his transcendence, and free of all defects? Being omniscient
he must relate every thing as it is by nature, with its virtues and defects, including the
[actions that he advocates as] virtuous and the rewards [he promises to those who do
them]. … Therefore the learned should put their trust in [all] the statements of Śiva
concerning meritorious and sinful actions as corresponding to reality. If one lacks
that trust, one will descend [into the hells].” See also Tantrāloka 4.232ab:
nārthavādādiśaṅkā ca vākye māheśvare bhavet, “One should entertain no doubts
about the teachings of Śiva, suspecting, for example, that they are arthavādaḥ;” and
Tantrāloka thereon: yad uktaṃ “vidhivākyam idaṃ tantraṃ nārthavādaḥ kadācana |
jhaṭiti pratyavāyeṣu satkriyāṇāṃ phaleṣv api” iti | tathā: … nārthavādaḥ śivāgamaḥ.
“As has been stated [by Śiva himself]: ‘This teaching (tantram) consists [entirely] of
statements of fact. It is never arthavādaḥ particularly [in its statements] with refe-
rence to sin and the rewards of pious actions;’ and ‘The scriptures of Śiva are not
arthavādaḥ.’”
6
Śivadharmottara 2.78c–81: yāvadakṣarasaṃkhyānaṃ śivajñānasya pustake || 79 ||
tāvad kalpasahasrāṇi dātā śivapure vaset | daśa pūrvān samuddhṛtya daśa vaṃśyāṃś
ca paścimān || 80 || mātāpitṛdharmapatnīḥ svarge sthāpya śivaṃ vrajet | sāntaḥpura-
parīvāraḥ sarvabhṛtyasamanvitaḥ || 81 || rājā śivapuraṃ gacched vidyādānapra-
bhāvataḥ |.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 13
aspect of religious action is not limited to what may be inferred from its
belief that pious activity benefits the group lead by the individual who car-
ries out or commissions that activity. One of the severe limitations imposed
on our understanding by most accounts of ritual in the texts of the initiatory
forms of Śaivism is that they are generally concerned only with what a
single individual, initiate, or officiant is having to do and say. They very
seldom pull back to show us what is happening around this officiant that
might involve other agents and even extend into the civic space. This is
less so with the Śivadharma literature. For the Śivadharmottara, concerned
as it is with forms of ritual that involve and benefit groups, does offer some
intriguing views of this wider picture, opening a window on to the exten-
sion of ritual action into the civic domain. Its account of this ritual of text
donation is rich in this regard. After describing how the new copy of the
scripture should be prepared, the text tells us that after its completion a
pūjā should be performed and the night passed in festivities. Then:
śivavidyāvimānaṃ ca kuryāt prātaḥ suśobhanam

47 pañcāṇḍakaṃ tribhaumaṃ ca dāruvaṃśādinirmitam
vicitravastrasaṃchannaṃ sarvaśobhāsamanvitam
48 vidyāsanasthaṃ tanmadhye śivajñānasya pustakam
hemaratnacitaṃ divyam athavā dantaśobhitam
49 vicitracitrayuktaṃ vā bahirutkīrṇakambikam
pārśve carmasamāyuktaṃ dṛḍhasūtranibandhanam
50 saṃpūjya gandhapuṣpādyaiḥ pūrvoktavidhinā budhaḥ
samutkṣipyānayed bhaktyā tad vimānaṃ śivāśramam
51 susthitaṃ rathamukhyena puruṣair vā balānvitaiḥ
chatradhvajapatākādyair vimānais tūryanisvanaiḥ
52 maṅgalair vedaghoṣādyaiḥ sadhūpaiḥ kalaśaiḥ sitaiḥ
cāraṇair vandibhir vādyaiḥ strīsaṃgītair vibhūṣitam
53 cārucāmarahastābhiś citradaṇḍaiś ca darpaṇaiḥ
mahatā janasaṅghena purataś ca mahīpatiḥ
54 dharmavṛddhyai svayaṃ gacchet sarvaśobhāsamanvitaḥ
athavā hastiyānasthaṃ kṛtvā pustakam ānayet
55 rājamārgeṇa mahatā nagarāntaḥ pradakṣiṇam
sarvāyatanapūjāṃ ca svadhanaiḥ kārayen nṛpaḥ

56 daśa dikṣu baliṃ dadyān nagarasya samantataḥ

mārge ’pi purato gacchan baliṃ dadyān nirantaram
57 gandhapuṣpākṣatonmiśram udakaṃ ca tadānugam
gaccheyur yatayaś cātra sarvāyatanavāsinaḥ
58 purataḥ śivavidyāyāḥ śivamantram anusmaret
śuklāmbaradharāḥ sarve bhaveyuḥ puravāsinaḥ
59 ucchrayeyuḥ patākāś ca janās taddeśavāsinaḥ
gṛhadevāṃś ca saṃpūjya kāryaś cāpy utsavo gṛhe
60 brāhmaṇān bhojayeyuś ca gṛheṣu gṛhamedhinaḥ
annapānair janapadā yātrāṃ kuryuḥ śivāśrame
61 acchedyās taravaḥ kāryāḥ sarvahiṃsāṃ nivārayet
bandhanasthāś ca moktavyā varjyāḥ krodhādiśatravaḥ
62 akālakaumudīṃ kuryād divasadvayam īśvare
śivāyatanam āsādya vimānasthaṃ tam arghayet
63 puṇyāhajayaśabdaiś ca mahatā tumulena ca
sthāne susaṃskṛte ramye śivasya purataḥ śanaiḥ
64 sthāpayitvā guror bhaktyā tat praṇamya nivedayet
śāntyartham ekam adhyāyaṃ gobrāhmaṇamahībhṛtām
65 rāṣṭrīyanagarāṇāṃ ca vācayed vācakottamaḥ
chandolakṣaṇatattvajñaḥ satkavir madhurasvaraḥ
66 gāndharvavid vidagdhaś ca śreṣṭhaḥ pustakavācakaḥ
śāntitoyena rājānaṃ samutthāya gurus tataḥ
67 śirasy abhyukṣayed īṣat tatrasthaṃ ca janaṃ tataḥ
avadhārya jagacchāntiṃ punar ante nṛpasya ca
68 ācāryabhojanaṃ cātra nṛpaḥ kuryāt sadakṣiṇam
svayam atraiva bhuñjīta sāntaḥpuraparicchadaḥ
69 kāryā ca bahudhā prekṣā bhuktavatsu janeṣu ca
evaṃ kṛte mahāśāntir nṛpasya nagarasya ca
70 deśasya ca samastasya jāyate nātra saṃśayaḥ
ītayaś ca praśāmyanti na ca mārī pravartate
71 śāmyanti sarvaghorāṇi praśamanti bhayāni ca
unmūlyante grahāḥ sarve praṇaśyanti ca śatravaḥ
72 upasargāḥ pralīyante na durbhikṣabhayaṃ bhavet
vināyakāś ca naśyanti saubhāgyaṃ paramaṃ bhavet
ALEXIS SANDERSON 15
73 rājyavṛddhiś ca vipulā nityaṃ ca vijayī nṛpaḥ

vardhate putrapautraiś ca matir dharme ca vardhate
74 vidyādānaprasādena nṛpasya ca janasya ca
Śivadharmottara 2.46c–74. A = University Library, Cambridge, ms. Add.

1694, f. 47r4–; B = Add. 1645, ff. 42r4–; C = Bodleian Library, Oxford,
ms: Or. B 125, ff. 55v2–; D = National Archives, Kathmandu, m. 3–393
(NGMPP A 1082/3), Śivadharmottara ff. 5v3–; E = National Archives,
Kathmandu, ms. 6–7 (NGMPP A 1028/4).
47a tribhaumaṃ ca ACE : tribhūmaṃ ca B : tribhūmaṃ vā D 49a vicitrac-

itrayuktaṃ vā BD : vicitravastrayugmam vā A : vicitracitravastraṃ vā C :
vicitracitramvā E 49c pārśve carmasamāyuktaṃ BD : pārśvenaścar-
masaṃyuktaṃ A : pārśve carmasusaṃyuktaṃ C : pārśvacarmasusaṃyu-
ktan E 50b budhaḥ ACE : punaḥ BD 50d śivāśramam ABDE : śivāśrame
C 51a rathamukhyena ABD: rathamukhena C : rathamukhyai E 52b sitaiḥ
BCDE : śubhaiḥ A 52dstrīsaṃgītair vibhūṣitam BE : strīsaṃgītaiḥ sub-
hūṣitaiḥ CD : strīsaṃgītair anekadhā A 54a dharmavṛddhyai ADE :
dharmmavṛddhaiḥ BC 54b sarvaśobhāsamanvitaḥ ABE : sarvaśobhāsa-
manvitaiḥ C : sarvaśobhāsamanvitaṃ D 55b nagarāntaḥ CE : nagarāntaṃ
BD : nagarānta A 55d nṛpaḥ ABD : budhaḥ CE 56b nagarasya saman-
tataḥ ABDE : nagarasyāsamantataḥ C : nagarāntaḥ pradakṣiṇam E 56c
gacchan BD : gacched ACE 57b tadānugam ABCE : tadānugaḥ D 57c
gaccheyur yatayaś cātra A : gacchet pūrvaṃ tataḥ paścāt BD : gaccheyus
tatparā sarvve C : gaccheyus tatpuraṃ paścāt E 58b anusmaret BE :
anusmaran ACD 59c gṛhadevāṃś ca saṃpūjya ABDE : gṛhadevā svayaṃ
pūjyā C 61b sarvahiṃsāṃ BCDE : satvahiṃsāṃ A 62b īśvare ABDE :
īśvaraṃ C 63b tumulena BCDE : maṅgalena A 63d śivasya purataḥ
śanaiḥ AC : purataḥ śanaiḥ śanaiḥ B 64a guror AE : guruṃ BCD 64b tat
AE : taṃ BCD ● nivedayet ABD : nivesayet CE 65d madhurasvaraḥ
ABCD : madhurasvanaḥ E 66d samutthāya gurus tataḥ ABD : samutthāya
punar gurum E : saṃsnāpya ca punar gurum C : samutthāpya punar guruḥ
E 67a abhyukṣayed īṣat CE : abhyukṣayet tena A : abhyukṣayed īśaṃ B
69a bahudhā prekṣā B : bahudhā pekṣā A : vividhāprekṣā E 70c praśām-
yanti ACDE : praṇaśyante B 71a sarvaghorāṇi BCDE : sarvarogāś ca A
73d vardhate ABCD : varttate E

Early next morning [the king] should prepare a beautiful shrine for
the scripture of Śiva. It should have five spires and three stories, and
be made of materials such as wood and bamboo. It should be draped
with lengths of cloth of many colours and provided with every
adornment. In it [he should place] the manuscript of Śiva’s teaching
on a text-throne. It should be splendid in appearance, inlaid with
gold and precious stones or adorned with ivory, or it should be beau-
tified with a charming painting, or have [two] boards that are en-
graved on their outer faces.7 It should be bound in leather and have a
strong cord to secure it. After making offerings to it of scented pow-
ders, flowers, and the rest following the aforesaid procedure, the
wise [monarch] should lift that shrine and with devotion bring it to
the Śaiva monastery (śivāśramam) firmly secured on a superior ve-
hicle or [carried] by strong men [on their shoulders], beautified with
parasols, flags, and banners, palanquins (vimānaiḥ),8 and the sound
of musical instruments, with such auspicious sounds as the chanting
of the Vedas, with burning incense, and fine vases, with singers and
bards, with instrumental music, with singing by women, [with wom-
en] holding beautiful fly whisks, with mirrors with elegant handles.
To promote the faith, the king himself should lead the procession
decked out with every adornment together with a large crowd. Alter-
natively he may conduct the manuscript [to the hermitage] after
placing it provided with every adornment in a howdah on an ele-
phant (hastiyānasthaṃ). Following the great royal highway the king
should proceed in a clockwise direction within the [boundaries of

7
My translation “or have [two] boards that are engraved on their outer faces” is
no better than a guess, because the word kambikā in the Bahuvrīhi compound
bahirutkīrṇakambikam is unknown to me in any relevant sense. My guess is
guided by the fact that the text speaks of the kambikā- being engraved on the outs-
ide. I note, stepping outside my competence, that KITTEL’s dictionary of Kannaḍa
gives as one of the meanings of kambi “a plate with holes for drawing wire” (1894:
368a7–8). Boards used for manuscripts commonly have holes through which the
binding cord can pass; see, for example, the illustrations in FOGG 1996: 48, 119,
121, 127, 132, and 137.
8
vimānaiḥ. I am uncertain of the meaning intended here. The word vimānam me-
ans a vehicle of various kinds, terrestrial or aerial, a bier, a palanquin or sedan, a
palace, a temple, or a shrine. My decision to take it to refer to a palanquin is a guess.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 17
the] capital, and he should have offerings made at every temple at

his personal expense. He should make bali offerings in the ten direc-
tions all around the city, and as he proceeds make such offerings
continuously along the route, following these with water mixed with
scented powders, flowers, and unhusked rice grains. With him here
should go the ascetics that live in all the temples. [As he walks] in
front of the [manuscript of] Śiva’s scripture he should meditate on
Śiva’s [six-syllable] mantra [oṃ namaḥ śivāya]. All the inhabitants
of the capital should be dressed in white and those that dwell in the
region (taddeśavāsinaḥ) should erect banners. After making offer-
ings to their house gods, people should hold festivities in their
homes. The married heads of households should feed Brahmins in
their houses with food and drink. The populace should go on pil-
grimage to the hermitage [attached to the temple] of Śiva. The king
should enact a ban of the cutting down of trees, forbid all harm [to
living beings], release those being held in prison, avoid the [six] en-
emies beginning with anger, and arrange for an extra-calendrical
kaumudī festival (akālakaumudī) for two days in honour of Śiva
(īśvare).9 When he has reached the [main] Śiva temple, he should

9
The term kaumudī refers to a joyful festival celebrated on the full-moon day of
the months of Kārttika. An akālakaumudī is an extra-calendrical (akāla-) festival of
the same kind decreed to mark some auspicious occasion such as a king’s victory in
war. The Ur-Skandapurāṇa, a text of the sixth or seventh century, describes such a
non-calendrical kaumudī festival in some detail (75.11–47). It is decreed by
Hiraṇyākṣa, leader of the Asuras, to be held for eight consecutive days and seven
nights in honour of Śiva to celebrate his victory over the gods. A proclamation is
made in every square and assembly hall in his city. Guests are invited from far and
wide. The streets are to be cleaned and annointed. The citizens are to bathe with full
submersion and put on previously unworn clothes and flower-garlands. Singers and
dancers are to perform. Banners must be raised in every private home, in the streets,
and in the markets. Houses must be annointed. Flowers must be strewn in them and
garlands draped. Brahmins should be fed and text-recitations staged. The Vedas
should be chanted and “auspicious day” declared throughout the city. At night oil
lamps must be kept fuelled and burning on the royal highway and in every home.
Young men should stroll about in the company of young women, enjoying themsel-
ves, laughing, singing, and dancing. There should be performances of drumming and
the wives of the Asuras must dance. Offerings of all kinds must be made to Śiva.
Domestic animals should be slaughtered and the best of Brahmins fed. Whoever

prostrate before the god and make an offering of guest-water to him

in the shrine. Then with shouts of “auspicious day” and “victory”
and amid great noise he should slowly set down [the shrine] in a
pleasing and ritually well-prepared place in front of Śiva and then
donate that [manuscript] to the guru after bowing before him with
devotion. An excellent cantor should then recite one adhyāya of the
text for the warding off of dangers from cows, Brahmins, the king,
and the inhabitants of the country and capital. The cantor should be
of the finest quality. He should be a scholar who has a thorough un-
derstanding of the metres and he should be a fine poet, with a melo-
dious voice and a knowledge of music. The guru should then rise
and wet the king on his head with a little of the water prepared for
the warding off of danger (śāntitoyena), and then all the people as-
sembled there. Having asserted the removal of danger from all
(avadhārya jagacchāntim), he should end the ceremony by doing the

does not obey will receive corporal punishment. On each day of the festival,
Hiraṇyākṣa bathes [a liṅga of] Śiva with the five products of the cow and pure,
fragrant oil, pouring over it vessels filled with milk, ghee, yoghurt, and other liquids,
flowers, fruits, seeds, jewels, scented ash, and water, a thousand vessels of each. He
then feeds Brahmins, and honours them with gifts. The other Asuras do the same.
The festival is clearly non-calendrical though the text refers to it only as kaumudī
rather than as an akālakaumudī. However, that expression is used to describe the
revelries with which the Asuras Sunda and Upasunda celebrated their having been
granted a boon from Brahmā (Mahābhārata 1.201.29: akālakaumudīṃ caiva cakra-
tuḥ sārvakāmikām | daityendrau paramaprītau tayoś caiva suhṛjjanaḥ).
The element of compulsion to which this mythological narrative refers no doubt
reflects historical reality. The extent to which religious observance in early medieval
India was not a matter of personal choice is an issue that has received insufficient
attention. Considering the ability of the king to mobilise the citizenry for an event
such as this narrative assumes, one can readily understand the emphasis that the
Śivadharmottara places on converting the king to the religion of Śiva. For, it says, if
he is converted, the rest of the population will follow, out of respect for his authority
and out of fear: jagaddhitāya nṛpatiṃ śivadharme *niyojayet (B : nivedayet A) || tan-
niyogād ayaṃ lokaḥ śuciḥ syād dharmatatparaḥ | yaṃ yaṃ dharmaṃ naraśreṣṭhaḥ
samācarati bhaktitaḥ || taṃ tam ācarate lokas tatprāmāṇyād bhayena ca (A f. 43v3–4;
B f. 39v1–2). “For the good of all, [the guru] should establish the king in the Śiva-
dharma. If the king commands it, these people will be pure and devoted to religion.
Whatever religion the king follows with devotion the people follow, because they
consider him authoritative and fear [his displeasure].”
ALEXIS SANDERSON 19
same for the king. The king should then feed the guru and give him a
fee. He should eat there himself in the company of his harem. When
the people have eaten, he should mount spectacles of many kinds
[for their entertainment]. When all this has been done in the manner
stated, there will follow without a doubt a warding off of all ills
(mahāśāntiḥ) from the king, the capital, and the cities of the [whole]
realm. Calamities will cease. Plague will not take hold. All horrors
will disappear along with all dangers. All possessing spirits will be
rooted out. Enemies will perish. Natural disasters will fade away.
There will be no danger of famine. Impeding spirits will be de-
stroyed. The greatest good fortune will prevail. There will be a vast
expansion of the realm and whenever the king goes to war, he will
be victorious. He will have ever more sons and sons of his sons; and
by grace of this donation of knowledge both the king’s and the peo-
ple’s respect for the faith will grow.
So here we are shown a ceremony of a very public kind, one which dis-
plays to the inhabitants of the capital in unambiguous terms an enactment
of the king’s empowerment by his Śaiva guru. Here there is no Tantric
secrecy. All could witness the king’s progress with the enthroned text
round his capital in the company of the Śaiva ascetics who reside in its
temples,10 see the king’s meeting with the guru at the latter’s residence,
hear the recitation of the text, see the guru blessing the king with the water
to ward off ills, and, if they were fortunate enough to be within range, feel
drops of this liquid being scattered over themselves. One imagines an eager
even ecstatic crowd pressing forward for this privilege. There is no indica-
tion here of anything happening behind closed doors. On the contrary, the
public is obliged to turn out to participate in this civic event; and the bene-
ficiaries are not only the king himself but all his subjects. As we shall see,
sources of the Mantramārga mention the king’s going to meet his guru in
full military parade and returning to his palace in the same way, mounted

10
That is to say, ascetics who reside in maṭhas, also called śivāśramas, attached
to these temples, and perform or supervise the performance of the rituals that take
place in those temples. The Śivadharmottara gives a detailed description of the de-
sign of a śivāśrama (2.137–162).

on an elephant, with the citizenry lining the route. Perhaps we should imag-
ine a similar arrival and return in this case too.
Initiatory Śaivism: sādhakas and ācāryas in the Atimārga

I turn now to initiatory Śaivism and, within that, to the Atimārga. To what
extent were the forms of Śaivism so classified engaged in the public do-
main? If we look at the literature of the first of the strata of the Atimārga,
the Pāñcārthika Pāśupata tradition, and look only at the earliest of our
sources, namely the Pañcārthabhāṣya, the commentary of Bhagavat
Kauṇḍinya on the Pañcārtha, otherwise known as the Pāśupatasūtra, we
get a picture of ascetics seeking complete detachment from the world of
Brahmanical values, openly courting abuse by apparent rejection of those
values in order to intensify their separation from that world. Yet we have
evidence from inscriptions of Pāñcārthika ascetics who appear to be power-
ful and well-integrated members of society. One might take this as evi-
dence that the religion attested in these epigraphical records has fallen from
its textual ideals, losing its original vitality in a process of domestication.
But this inference requires the assumption that Kauṇḍinya’s account of
Pāñcārthika practice is comprehensive. It certainly seems to be. It recog-
nises two kinds of practitioner, whom it terms sādhakas and ācāryas. It
outlines the ascetic practices required of the sādhaka and tells us little
about the ācārya other than his role as teacher and initiator; but one may be
forgiven for assuming that since the ācārya or guru is the sādhaka’s supe-
rior and no alternative discipline is prescribed for him, he would be a per-
son who had gone through the sādhaka’s discipline and then been elevated
to the office of ācārya in recognition of his superior spiritual attainments.
However, there is an obvious flaw in this reasoning. For the sādhaka’s
discipline is described as one of progressive isolation, culminating in his
ending his life in a cremation ground by means of a meditation technique
in which he was to cut the connection between his soul and his body. It
follows that the ācārya could not be a person who had completed the disci-
pline of the sādhaka but rather one who had perhaps begun it but had
turned aside from it at some point in order to take up the role of teacher and
initiator. Nothing to this effect is found in the Pañcārthabhāṣya. But this is
ALEXIS SANDERSON 21
not the only authoritative text of the Pāñcārthikas that has reached us. We
also have the Gaṇakārikā and a commentary on it (-ratnaṭīkā) attributed to
a certain Bhāsarvajña; and this commentary contains a passage, presented
as a dialogue between teacher and disciple, that clarifies the difference
between the sādhaka and the ācārya and does so in terms that remove the
need to assume that the inscriptions, which are referring to ācāryas rather
than sādhakas, testify to a decline in the rigorousness of the Pāñcārthika
ascetic discipline:
O Lord, is the observance of all the injunctions of the Pañcārtha the

only means of attaining the end of suffering? No, that is not the only
means. It is also possible for a person to attain it even though he
does not have the capacity to put all those injunctions into practice,
if [as a holder of the office of ācārya] he properly favours [through
initiation and the rest] such outstanding Brahmins as approach him
as candidates. Why? Because he is [thereby] safeguarding the tradi-
tion. For by doing so he enables many who seek to attain the end of
suffering through the power of that tradition to achieve their goal.
By this means he accumulates merit that will bestow infinite reward.
It is through this [merit] that he will attain union [with Rudra] and
thence, through [Rudra’s] favour, the end of suffering.11
The ācārya, then, is declared here to be a person who lacks the capacity to
follow the ascetic discipline. His role is rather to maintain the tradition by
enabling others to follow it. He is nonetheless promised the liberation that
the sādhaka achieves by adopting and completing that discipline through
the argument that by executing his duties he will achieve infinite merit,
merit, that is, that will somehow transcend the limitation of religious merit

11
Gaṇakārikāratnaṭīkā p. 2, ll. 7–12: kiṃ nu bhagavan pañcārthasamastaniyo-
gānupālanād eva duḥkhāntaḥ prāpyata iti. ucyate. na kevalaṃ tataḥ kiṃ tu samasta-
niyogānuṣṭhānaśaktivikalenāpi brāhmaṇaviśeṣāṇāṃ śiṣyatvenopagatānāṃ samyag-
anugrahakaraṇād api duḥkhāntaḥ prāpyate. kasmāt. saṃpradāyarakṣaṇāt.
saṃpradāyaṃ pālayatā hi tatsaṃpradāyasāmarthyena duḥkhāntaṃ gamiṣyatāṃ
bahūnām api duḥkhāntaḥ saṃpādito bhavati. tato ’nantaphalapuṇyopacayaḥ. tato
yogaprāptau prasādād duḥkhānta iti.

as generally understood in India, namely that however great it may be it is

finite and can bestow only a finite reward. The ācārya is revealed, then, as
a figure standing at the interface between the world of the inner community
of liberation-bent ascetic sādhakas and the outer community of merit-
accumulating lay devotees; and this is underlined by a passage in this text
which is more specific about how the ācārya is to accumulate the infinite
merit that will carry him to the sādhaka’s goal. He is to achieve this not
only by initiating and instructing would-be sādhakas but also by being the
public face of the tradition, making himself available to lay devotees, con-
versing with them (saṃbhāṣanam), or simply granting them the sight of his
person (darśanam).
Ratnaṭīkā on Gaṇakārikā 1cd, p. 3, ll. 6 and 12–14: suparīkṣitaṃ

brāhmaṇaṃ dīkṣāviśeṣeṇa pañcārthajñānaviśeṣeṇa ca śiṣyaṃ saṃs-
kurvan saṃskartā ity ucyate. sa ca tajjñair mukhyata eva gurur
ucyate. gurur ācāryaḥ śraddhāvatām āśramiṇāṃ darśanasambhāṣa-
ṇādibhir api pāpaghnaḥ puṇyātiśayakārī cety arthaḥ.
[The guru] is one who prepares a Brahmin [for the path], after thor-
oughly examining him, by bestowing on him the superior initiation
[of this tradition] and, once he has become his pupil [through initia-
tion], prepares him by imparting the superior knowledge contained
in the Pañcārtha. This is the primary sense in which the learned use
this word. But the guru or ācārya also destroys sin and generates su-
perior merit by such means as showing his person to those members
of the community of householders who have faith [in Śaivism] and
conversing with them.
There is therefore no reason to read the inscriptions as evidence of a de-

cline. For the followers of the Atimārga that they reveal to us are not
sādhakas. They are ācāryas.
The contrast between the world of the sādhaka and that of the ācārya at the
interface with the laity is even more striking in the Lākula and Kāpālika
forms of the Atimārga, since Śaiva textual sources reveal that the obser-
ALEXIS SANDERSON 23
vances of their ascetics were more extreme, involving such practices as

using a human skull as a begging bowl, carrying a staff topped by a human
skull, living in cremation grounds, wearing a sacred thread made from
twisted hair gathered from corpses, and rejecting all Brahmanical re-
strictions on food and drink.12 We can see this contrast clearly in the case
of the Lākulas, also called Kālamukhas, followers of the Lākula division of
the Atimārga, since they are recorded in an extensive body of inscriptions
in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra. The stark contrast between their
epigraphic and textual representations has been noted, in reliance for the
latter on a brief characterisation found in the South Indian Vaiṣṇava au-
thors Yāmuna and Rāmānuja, and has been explained away by the hypoth-
esis that these influential theologians were attempting to discredit their
Kālamukha rivals by attributing to them the extreme practices that charac-
terised the Kāpālikas.13 We also have a number of statues of Kālamukha
ascetics from this region that confirm the contrast. These Kālamukhas have
the appearance of Śaiva ascetics, but with no sign of skull begging bowls,
skull staffs, ornaments made from human bone, or sacred threads made of
twisted human hair taken from corpses.
In the light of the evidence of the commentary on the Gaṇakārikā, we
can now read this contrast not as evidence of expurgation but rather as
evidence that we are looking here not at sādhakas but at ācāryas at the
tradition’s interface with Brahmanical society. It may well be the case that
Kālamukha sādhakas or some division of them had moderated their ascetic
discipline. But we cannot infer this from the appearance of their ācāryas.
This laxity of the ācārya in comparison with the sādhaka is much more
than a matter of external appearance. Inscriptions show us ācāryas of the
Atimārga as owners of property – and this is as early as the fourth century
CE – with the funds that enable them to make endowments of their own.
Moreover, we find endowments for religious foundations that are not strict-
ly within their own tradition. If ācāryas were bound by the restrictions that
apply to sādhakas this would be highly irregular. For when a person took

12
SANDERSON 2006: 163–166.
13
LORENZEN 21991: 4–6. GHURYE too noted the discrepancy (21964: 128) but in-
terpreted it as evidence that by the twelfth century, the date of his evidence, the sect
had purged itself of the objectionable practices mentioned by Yāmuna and Rāmānuja.

initiation to begin the Pāñcārthika discipline, he was required to own noth-

ing thereafter other than the basic accoutrements required for his ascetic
observance, and he was required to undertake to discontinue the worship of
his ancestors and all other gods. Indeed he was required in the course of the
ceremony to request their pardon for abandoning them now that he would
be offering worship to Rudra alone. But in our epigraphical evidence, and
in its earliest period, we find Pāñcārthika ācāryas founding shrines for the
worship of the Mother-goddesses, deities who lie very much outside the
focus of the tradition as recorded in our prescriptive sources.14 In later
times, when epigraphic evidence is more plentiful, we also find them mar-
ried, passing on office through hereditary lines to their sons. In the thir-
teenth century in the west of Saurashtra at Somnath Patan, a major
Pāñcārthika stronghold, we see king-like ācāryas in charge of the sacred
city, with the means of establishing new foundations, engaging in major
building projects, and building fortifications.15 These are very far from the
ideal of the sādhaka presented in the prescriptive texts.
I have mentioned the ācārya’s contact with the laity. Naturally this ex-
tended to interactions with the monarch, such as we have seen in the pas-
sage of the Śivadharmottara presented above. Here too we see a major
departure from the ascetic discipline of the sādhaka, who is expressly for-
bidden to have any dealings with the court.16

14
This epigraphical evidence is found in seven copper-plate grants of Mahārāja
Bhuluṇḍa of Valkhā (modern Bagh in the Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh), part of
a hoard of 27 plates discovered there in 1982 and published in 1990. The seven were
issued in years 50 to 59 of an unstated era. This might be the Kalacuri, in which case
the dates would correspond to 299–308 CE. But on palaeographic grounds it is more
probable that it is the Gupta, in which case the years covered by these grants are
370–379 CE. They refer to unnamed Pāśupatas as being among those with rights to
enjoy, cultivate, and inhabit the temple lands granted; and one issued in year 56 (376
CE) records a gift of land made by the Mahārāja to support the worship of the
Mothers in a temple of those deities (mātṛsthānadevakulam) that, we are told, had
been established by a Pāśupata officiant or teacher (pāśupatācārya) called Bhagavat
Lokodadhi. For the inscription, see RAMESH & TEWARI 1990: 21–22 (no. 10);
SANDERSON 2009: 52, n. 28.
15
See the Somnāthpattan Praśasti of 1169 CE (OZHÂ & BÜHLER 1889) and the
Cintra Praśasti (ed. BÜHLER, EPIGRAPHIA INDICA 1: 32).
16
Pañcārthabhāṣya, p. 22, ll. 14–15: ato ’trāsaṃvyavahāras tantre siddhaḥ.
saṃvyavahāraś ca dvividhaḥ. tad yathā krayavikrayasaṃvyavahāro rājakula-
ALEXIS SANDERSON 25
Ascetics and householder initiates in the Mantramārga

The learned literature of the Mantramārga or Tantric Śaivism encourages
the impression that this division of the Śaiva religion, unlike the traditions
of the Atimārga, was Śaivism brought from the domain of ascetics into the
domain of those in the midst of the social world, a Śaivism designed to
accommodate them. There is much truth in this perception. It is certainly
the case that unlike the Atimārga the Mantramārga was open to men in the
world. They could receive initiation without having to abandon their
Brahmanical obligations, merely adding above these a new and more ex-
acting layer of Śaiva observances; and they could aspire as initiates to be-
comes gurus by receiving the ācārya consecration (ācāryābhiṣekaḥ).
However, this did not entail the exclusion of ascetics from the Man-
tramārga’s forms of the religion. The Śaiva asceticism of the Atimārga was
carried over into the Mantramārga, and although the doctrinal apparatus
and rituals underwent fundamental changes in this process, ascetic guru
lineages continued to flourish. This is not apparent from the works of such
learned authors as Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, Ab-
hinavagupta, and Kṣemarāja, the Kashmirian giants of the Śaiva exegetical
traditions both Saiddhāntika and Śākta Śaiva. For these were evidently
writing for an audience consisting largely if not exclusively of household-
ers. But the epigraphical record enables us to see that the alliance of other-
worldy asceticism and royal power exemplified in the passage cited above
from the Śivadharmottara remained central to the Mantramārga’s public
self-presentation. For it is ascetic gurus of the Saiddhāntika tradition that
appear repeatedly in our inscriptions in the role of the royal preceptor
(rājaguruḥ) who empowers the king through Śaiva initiation; and it ap-
pears to have been believed that the more unworldly the ascetic the greater
the empowerment that the king could expect. The ideal, therefore, would
be to induce an illustrious hermit to agree to be enthroned as the royal pre-
ceptor in a maṭha in the king’s capital. Whether such a transformation was
ever achieved cannot be determined now. But it was certainly believed to

saṃvyavahāraś ceti. “Therefore it is established in this teaching that practitioners
should not engage in transactions. These are of two kinds: buying and selling and
having dealings with the royal palace.”

have occurred, as we can see from the account of the ninth-century Guru
Purandara, the royal preceptor of a king Avantivarman and founder of two
major Saiddhāntika monasteries, at Mattamayūra and Araṇipadra in the old
princely state of Gwalior, given in an inscription found in the remains of
the second of these monasteries, composed to commemorate works under-
taken there by a certain Vyomaśiva, a spiritual successor of Purandara four
preceptorial generations later:
Then came the Guru Purandara,17 befitted a guru had the gravity that
comes from the highest wisdom, whose teachings concerning the du-
ties [of Śaiva initiates] are never to this day contradicted by scholars
learned in the way of discipline, whom the glorious and virtuous
king Avanti[varman] made efforts to bring to this land, because he
desired to receive [Śaiva] initiation and had heard from one of his
agents that there was a certain holy ascetic in the vicinity of Ut-
tamaśikhara shining in unimaginable glory, shedding his radiance
like the sun. Avantivarman then went to [Purandara], who was prac-
tising austerities in Upendrapura, and having striven to win his fa-
vour succeeded in bringing him back to sanctify his kingdom.18

17
Saiddhāntika ascetics have initiation names, generally ending in -śiva or, in our
earliest evidence, also -jyotis. So Purandara might seem not to be an initiation name.
However, I propose that, since Purandara is a name of the deity Indra, it is a familiar
substitute for the initiation name Indraśiva that is attested elsewhere in Saiddhāntika
records. The Bangarh Praśasti of Mūrtiśiva reports that a Saiddhāntika guru of this
name was given a monastery (maṭha) near Koṭivarṣa in Northern Bengal by the Pāla
king Mahīpāla (r. ca. 977–1027) (v. 9: śrīmān indraśivaḥ … samabhavac chiṣyo sya
puṇyātmanaḥ | yasmai … -maṭhan dadāv iha mahīpālo nṛpas tattvavit (SIRCAR
1983). An Indraśiva is anthologised in Saduktikarṇāmṛta 742; and another Indraśiva
is reported as a royal preceptor (rājaguru) in an inscription in the Dharwar District
(SOUTH-INDIAN INSCRIPTIONS 11: 156). It appears from the first of the verses I have
cited here, v. 10, that this guru was the author of a ritual manual, a Paddhati, for the
guidance of initiates. But I am not aware of any other reference to it.
18
The identity of Upendrapura is not known to me, but it is probable that it was
in Mālava, since EPIGRAPHIA INDICA 20: 11, an inscription of 1110 CE issued by
Naravarman, the Paramāra ruling that region, speaks of the village of Kadambapad-
raka in the Mandāraka Pratijāgaraṇaka in the Upendrapura District (ll. 5–6: upen-
drapuramaṇḍale mandāraka pratijāgaraṇake mahāmaṇḍalīkaśrīrājyadevabhujya-
mānakadambapadrakagrāme). It is likely that it was founded by the early Paramāra
ALEXIS SANDERSON 27
Then, having served him with devotion he duly received Śaiva initia-
tion [from him]. The wise king then presented him with the best part
of the wealth of his kingdom as guru’s fee and so brought his human
birth to fulfilment. In the splendid town of Mattamayūra the sage
then caused a richly endowed Meru-like monastery to be built, a
treasury of jewel-like ascetics, the fame of which has reached
[throughout the continent] to the oceans. This foremost of sages,
himself unmatched in his virtues, built and richly endowed a second
and most splendid monastery, [this] hermitage of Araṇipadra.19
Initiating the monarch and the spread of

the Saiddhāntika Mantramārga
The often very large amounts of revenue that kings would make over to
their royal preceptors as payment for initiation must have been a more than

king Upendra to bear his name (svanāmnā). In the account of the Paramāra lineage
given by Padmagupta in the Navasāhasāṅkacarita, Upendra is the first historical
king mentioned in the lineage after the “Ādirāja” Paramāra (11.76–80). His founda-
tional status in this dynasty is suggested by the tradition reported there by Pad-
magupta that he sanctified the land with golden yūpas commemorating his Śrauta
sacrifices (11.78: akāri yajvanā yena hemayūpāṅkitā mahī). Uttamaśikhara is other-
wise unknown, as is this king Avantivarman.
19
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA 1: 41 (the Ranod inscription, ed. F. Kielhorn), vv. 10–15:
10 tasmāt purandaragurur guruvad garimṇaḥ
prajñātirekajanitasya babhūva bhūmiḥ
yasyādhunāpi vibudhair itikṛtyaśaṃsi
vyāhanyate na vacanaṃ nayamārgavidbhiḥ
11 vandyaḥ ko ’pi cakāsty acintyamahimā tulyaṃ munir bhāsvatā
rājann uttamaśabdapūrvaśikharābhyarṇam prakīrṇadyutiḥ
dīkṣārthīti vaco niśamya sukṛtī cāroktam urvīpatir
yasyehānayanāya yatnam akaroc chrīmān avantiḥ purā
12 gatvā tapasyantam upendrapūrve pure tadā śrīmadavantivarmā
bhṛśaṃ samārādhya tam ātmabhūmiṃ kathañcid ānīya cakāra pūtām
13 athopasadyāpya ca samyag aiśīṃ dīkṣāṃ sa dakṣo gurudakṣiṇārtham
nivedya yasmai nijarājyasāraṃ svajanmasāphalyam avāpa bhūpaḥ
14 sa kārayām āsa samṛddhibhājaṃ munir maṭhaṃ sanmuniratnabhūmim
prasiddham āvāridhi merukalpaṃ śrīmatpure mattamayūranāmni
15 punar dvitīyaṃ svayam advitīyo guṇair mmunīndro ’raṇipadrasaṃjñam
tapovanaṃ śreṣṭhamaṭhaṃ vidhāya preṣṭhaḥ pratiṣṭhāṃ paramāṃ nināya.

sufficient inducement to surrender an ascetic’s tranquillity for this publicly

conspicuous role. With the funds thus acquired, the Saiddhāntikas were
quickly able to expand their power across the subcontinent, founding new
monasteries and installing their disciples in them as guru abbots who
would repeat the process, creating a far-reaching network of branch-
organisations.20 In this way there arose major gurus whom inscriptions report
to have been the dīkṣāgurus, the initiating preceptors, of not one but numer-
ous kings spanning the Indian subcontinent, exercising in this way a reli-
gious authority that spread far beyond the borders of a single kingdom.21
The initiating of kings became, then, the principal motor of the spread of
the Saiddhāntika Mantramārga. However, to accomplish this required a ma-
jor adjustment to the institution of Śaiva initiation. The benefit promised to
all initiates was that the ceremony would destroy the bonds of the soul on a
subliminal level in such a way that one would achieve liberation at death.
But until death came the initiate was obliged to adhere to a new life of regu-
lar and time-consuming ritual obligations added to the Brahmanical. Such a
life of intensified observance was evidently incompatible with the duties of a
ruling monarch. So the Mantramārga circumvented this obstacle on the back
of the doctrine that it is initiation itself that frees the soul rather than a partic-
ular lifelong routine of post-initiatory duties. This enabled them to claim that
only those who were able to take on the usual post-initiatory duties need be
required to do so and that those who were unable to take them on, notably
the monarch, could be freed of them yet still reap the reward of initiation. It
was enough according to the Saiddhāntikas that such a king should continue
to observe the much less-demanding duties of a lay Śaiva monarch as pre-
scribed in the Śivadharma literature, the essence of which was to support the
faith and its institutions.22 Kings, then, were offered the benefit of initiation
without the inconvenience of a regular initiate’s lifelong routine. Moreover,
as though in admission that the promise of liberation at death might not pro-
vide a sufficient incentive, we find inscriptions praising royal initiation as a
means of enhancing the king’s prestige and military might.23

20
SANDERSON 2009: 263–268.
21
SANDERSON 2009: 267–268.
22
See here n. 2.
23
SANDERSON 2009: 258–259.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 29
Consecrating the monarch in the

Saiddhāntika Mantramārga
By the tenth century at the latest, the practice of bestowing Śaiva initiation
on monarchs was extended through the creation of a Śaiva version of the
Brahmanical royal consecration ceremony (rājyābhiṣekaḥ) for an initiated
king and his chief queen. We have a rich description, unfortunately some-
what lacunose, of this new ceremony in our earliest surviving ritual manual
for the use of officiants of the Saiddhāntika tradition, the Naimittika-
kriyānusaṃdhāna of Brahmaśambhu, completed in Śaka 860 (937/8 CE).
I wish to draw attention to two features of this ceremony. The first is its
hybrid character. Properly Śaiva and Brahmanical elements are combined
and the royal weapons, royal standards, and royal armour are added to the
recipients of worship, embedding the power of the esoteric Śaiva elements
in an exoteric, more public context. Moreover, although the ceremony is
added to the Saiddhāntika repertoire as a variant of the consecration of a
guru (ācāryābhiṣekaḥ) or sādhaka (sādhakābhiṣekaḥ), the stated purpose
of the ritual remains that of the Brahmanical ritual, namely to consecrate
the monarch to his non-Śaiva office as the person responsible for the
preservation of the Brahmanical order of the caste-classes and religious
disciplines,24 and for this purpose the consecration mantra is not Śaiva at
all. Rather it is the Brahmanical text prescribed for this purpose.25
The second feature I wish to bring to your attention is the fact that this
account, like that of royal text donation in the Śivadharmottara, gives us a
rare glimpse of the impressive public setting of what we might otherwise

24
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna, f. 74v1, 4.118: varṇānām āśramāṇāṃ ca guru-
bhāvāya bhūpateḥ | yo ’bhiṣekavidhiḥ sopi procyate dīkṣitātmanaḥ. “I shall now also
teach that [form of the] ritual of consecration whose purpose is to empower the king,
once he has been initiated, to be the guru of the caste-classes and religious disciplines.”
25
This is the mantra for periodic royal reconsecration, beginning with the words
surās tvām abhiṣiñcantu, that is given by the sixth-century Varāhamihira in 47.55–
70 of the Bṛhatsaṃhitā, the well-known classic on divination. He reports there that
he is basing his account of this ritual on that of the Elder Garga (47.2), who received
it from Bhāguri. He refers, I presume, to the Gargasaṃhitā, a huge treatise on divi-
nation whose first version, according to PINGREE (1981: 69), was composed during
the first century BCE or CE. I am unable at present to ascertain whether or not this
royal consecration text is found in that work.

have taken to be a purely private event. I give here a brief synopsis of the
account.
In a large pavilion constructed for the ceremony equipped with various

altar platforms, the ācārya should worship the Lokapālas and their weap-
ons in vases filled with river water. Then he should worship Śiva, Agni, the
[royal] weapons, and the [royal] banners on the altar-platforms. He should
summon, gratify, and worship the eight Śaiva Cakravartins from Ananta to
Śikhaṇḍin,26 in vases set up on another platform, and, in vases below it, the
Rudras, Mātṛs, Gaṇas, Yakṣas, Grahas, Asuras, Rākṣasas, and Nāgarājas.27
In the Śivāgni, a sacrificial fire consecrated through the transformation
of the deity Fire (agniḥ) into Śiva, he should make 108 oblations to each of
the deities and put out bali offerings for the various classes of supernaturals
in each of the directions.28 This ends the preparatory rites.
The king should be brought into the pavilion accompanied by his [chief]
minister (mantrī) and his chaplain (purohitaḥ) and then the chief queen
(devī) accompanied by an elderly female companion (vṛddhasakhī). When
they have been made to offer worship to Śiva, the Fire, the [royal] weapons

26
These are the deities more commonly called the Vidyeśvaras. See, e.g.,
Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha 2.9–13; Mataṅgapārameśvara, Vidyāpāda 5.5–16, Svac-
chanda 10.1103c–1104, Tantrāloka 8.342–343. In Saiddhāntika scriptural texts, they
are commonly required to be worshipped surrounding the core mantra-group
(garbhāvaraṇam) consisting of Śiva and his ancillaries, with the Lokapālas and the
Lokapālas’ weapons forming two outer circuits, as in Niśvāsamūla 4.4c–5: pūrvok-
tena vidhānena madhye devaṃ tu pūjayet || vidyeśvarān dvitīye tu lokapālāṃs
tṛtīyake | caturthe pūjaye ’strāṇi gandhapuṣpair yathākramam. “Following the afo-
resaid procedure, he should worship in the [proper] order Śiva in the centre, the
Vidyeśvaras in the second [circuit], the Lokapālas in the third, and the weapons in
the fourth.”
27
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna 4.129–133: sravantīvāripūrṇeṣu yathālaṃkāra-
hāriṣu | ghaṭeṣv abhyarcya lokeśān sāstrān *indrapuraḥsarān (corr. : indrapura-
sarān cod.) || 130 śivam agniñ ca hetīś ca *ketūṃś (conj. : ketuś cod.) ceśādivediṣu |
saṃnidhīkṛtya saṃtarpya pūjayec cakravartinaḥ || 131 udagvediśiraḥstheṣu kalaśe-
ṣūktalakṣmasu | *anantādiśikhaṇḍyantān antān (corr. : antā cod.) digvidikṣu yathā-
kramam || 132 tasyās tadvad *adhaḥstheṣu (corr. : adhastheṣu cod.) rudramātṛ-
gaṇārthadān | *grahāsurapalāśākhyān palāśākhyān (conj. : palāsākhya cod.) bho-
ginām adhipān api.
28
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna 4.137: śatam aṣṭottaraṃ hutvā pratyekaṃ ca
śivānale | digbhūtagaṇasaṅghebhyo dattvā dikṣu bahirbalim.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 31
and the [royal] banners, the ācārya has them spend the night sleeping in the
pavilion. He says a prayer that an auspicious dream may be seen by the
king, his queen, their companions, or himself.29
After sleeping there himself, the next morning he examines the dreams
and counters with oblations any that are inauspicious. He then summons
the deities that are the guardians of the hall of sacrifice and worships them
as before. He pours oblations to Śiva, to the royal weapons, the royal ban-
ners, and the king’s armour (kaṅkaṭāni). He makes offerings to the Vid-
yeśvaras on their platform as before and to the Rudras and the others in the
vases. Then he spreads the skins of a fighting bull and a cat on each of the
platforms.30 A lacuna of one folio follows. But the missing action was no
doubt to prepare the platforms to receive the king and queen for their con-
secration, since such skins are required in Brahmanical sources to cover the
platform before the king sits on it to receive the consecration to his office
(rājyābhiṣekaḥ).31

29
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna 4.138–146: tatas tam avanīnātham anāhāram
anākulam | snātaṃ candanaliptāṅgaṃ sitrasragvastrabhūṣaṇam || 39 praveśya
dvāramārgeṇa dakṣiṇena pracetasaḥ | sārdhaṃ mantripurodhābhyāṃ śivam arcā-
payet kramāt || 140 devīṃ *vṛddhasakhīñ cāsyāḥ (em. : vṛddhasakhī cāsya cod.)
saumyenaivāmbhasaḥ pateḥ || praveśya pātayec chambhor niyamasthāṃ padābjayoḥ
|| 141 śivāgnihetiketūnāṃ kāritābhyām athārcanam | pañcagavyaṃ caruṃ tābhyāṃ
dattvā ca dvijaśodhanam || 142 sthāpayitvā tu tau tatra sarakṣau vedikādvaye |
*pṛthak (corr. : pṛtha cod.) prākśirasau mahyāṃ saṃyatau kṣaumaśayyayoḥ || 143
yad vā tatpratimau viprau śivabhaktāv upoṣitau | śubhasvapnāvabodhāya tayor
vaṃśakramāgatau | 144 *samabhyarcyāpi (conj. : samabhyarccepi cod.) saṃhṛtya
śivaṃ sthaṇḍilato nale | tatra hutvā ca carvādi doṣāṇām upaśāntaye || 145
nṛpasyāmuṣya devyā vā tadāptānāṃ mamāthavā | svapnaṃ śubhāśubhaprāptihāni-
liṅgaṃ pradarśaya || 146 ity adhyeṣya praṇamyāpi pūjayitvā prarocya ca | tatraiva
rodhayed yāvac caturthāhābhiṣeca*nam (corr. : na cod.).
30
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna 4.147–152: athādhvaraśraman tasmin nirasya
niśi nidrayā | prātar nityavidher ante sādhusvapnān niśamya ca || 148 samāvarjita-
sarvāṅgaṃ gośakṛddi + + + + | nṛpābhiṣecanāyālam adhitiṣṭhed gurus tataḥ | 149
tatra *yajñasadaḥpālān yajña (corr. : yajnaḥ cod.) āmantryeṣṭvā ca pūrvavat |
kāraṇaṃ kāraṇānāñ ca tarpayi[tvā + + + ]kam | 150 hetīn astreṇa ketūṃś ca
varmaṇā kaṅkaṭāny api | sugandhapuṣpadhūpādyair naivedyāntaiḥ prapūjya ca ||
151 anantādīṃś ca ved + + + + + vedyāś ca pūrvavat || rudrādīṃś ca ghaṭeṣv iṣṭvā
vedyor ūrdhvam athāstaret || 152 bṛhadukṣṇo ’tiśūrasya vṛṣadaṃśasya carma ca |
caturṇāṃ aśu. With this f. 76v ends.
31
Bṛhatsaṃhitā 47.43--44: ādāv anaḍuhaś carma jarayā saṃhṛtāyuṣaḥ | praśasta-

When the text returns, the king is being consecrated with the liquid
from the vases, and Brahmins are being made to chant the consecration
benedictions (abhiṣekāśiṣaḥ) “known in mundane usage (loke) and in the
Veda” and [then] “the verses taught by the Ṛṣis.” The last are then given in
full and they are the Brahmanical royal consecration mantra taught for this
purpose by Varāhamihira in his Bṛhatsaṃhitā.32
After his consecration, the king is to give the pavilion and its ritual
equipment to the officiants, make large donations of money to the Brah-
mins and of mounts to the bards. There follows an account of the spectacle
of the king’s return. He is to come out of the pavilion with his queen,
mount a fine elephant or white horse and, shaded by a white parasol with a
golden handle and fanned with white chowries, set forth to return to his
palace in a procession with his army of elephants, chariots, cavalry, and
infantry (caturaṅgabalopetaḥ), all obstacles removed by the row of war
banners (ketumālayā) that precedes him fluttering in a favouring breeze,
and acknowledging his being showered with parched grain by women of
good family positioned on platforms on the tops of their whitewashed man-
sions. He should reenter the palace “worshipped by the citizens with their
long eyes wide in wonder that surpass the beauty of blue lilies.” The heir-
apparent should be consecrated to his office in the same way.33

lakṣaṇabhṛtaḥ prācīnagrīvam āstaret || tato vṛṣasya yodhasya carma rohitam akṣatam |
siṃhasyātha tṛtīyaṃ syād vyāghrasya ca tataḥ param. “First he should spread the hide
of an ox that possesses auspicious characteristics, that has died of old age, with the
neck to the west, then the undamaged red hide of a fighting bull (vṛṣasya yodhasya).
That of a lion should be third and that of a tiger should follow.”
32
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna 4.167–168: + + + + + + + + + [ā]dibhir
alaṃkṛtaiḥ | satkriyānantaraṃ bhūyaḥ kalaśair abhiṣecayet | 168 loke vede prasi-
ddhāś ca viprān etarhi pāṭhayet | abhiṣek*āśiṣaḥ (em. : āsikhaḥ cod.) ślokān
ṛṣi*proktāṃś (corr. : proktāś cod.) ca tad yathā. The verses of the consecration text
follow (4.169–181).
33
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna, f. [84?]r1–5, 4.269c–276b: + + + + + + + + + + +
mbarabhūṣaṇaḥ || 270 deśikebhyaḥ sayajñāṅgaṃ dattvā taṃ yajñamaṇḍapam |
prabhūtaṃ vasu viprebhyo vāhanāni ca vandinām || 271 pūrvadvāreṇa niḥkramya
svamahiṣyā samanvitaḥ | ārūḍho bhadramātaṅgam athavā vājinaṃ sitam || 272
ātapatreṇa śubhreṇa hemadaṇḍena copari | nigṛhītātapaḥ śvetair vījyamānaś ca
*cāmaraiḥ (em. : cāparaiḥ A) || 273 caturaṅgabalopetaḥ purataḥ ketumālayā |
astavighno ’nukūlena dhūtayā mātariśvanā || 274 saudhāgravedikāsthābhiḥ kula-
patnībhir ādarāt | prayuktaṃ lājavarṣaṃ ca manyamāno *bahu (conj. : vaha cod.)
ALEXIS SANDERSON 33
That the king should appear in a full military parade shows the extent to
which the Śaivism of the Mantramārga had succeeded in spite of its Tantric
and therefore esoteric character in making itself visible in the public do-
main. Though the ceremony of consecration takes place within a closed
pavilion, the whole population of the city is mobilised to witness that the
ceremony has occurred; and the impact on the populace is magnified by the
king’s processing back to his palace in a full military parade.
That this was the norm in the case of royal Tantric ceremonies is indi-
cated by similar prescriptions found in other sources. A guide for the initia-
tion of the Amṛteśa form of Śiva based on the Netratantra, which has come
down to us in a Nepalese manuscript, rules as follows:
Then [on the day] after [his initiation] the pupil should [go] with a
joyful heart accompanied by his wives and sons, with his ministers,
soldiers, and mounts [and] offer himself before his guru in thought,
speech, and, above all, in deed.34
There can be no doubt that the initiand envisaged in this guide is the king,
since the compound sabhṛtyabalavāhanaḥ, which I have translated “with
his ministers, soldiers, and mounts,” can have no other reference and is in
any case a stock epithet in metrical descriptions of monarchs.35
There is further evidence in the account of rites concluding the initiation
ceremony prescribed by the Saiddhāntika scripture Bṛhatkālottara. For that
states that the guru should close the initiation by sprinkling with the water
from the vase of the weapon-mantra (astrakalaśaḥ), one of the two main
vases prepared in the course of the ceremony, the horses, elephants, chari-
ots, and soldiers of the army “in order to remove all obstacles and to ensure

priyam || 275 praviśet svapuraṃ paurair arcyamāno vikāsibhiḥ | nīlanīraruha-
cchāyātaskarair āyatekṣaṇaiḥ || 276 anenaiva vidhānena yuvarājābhiṣecanam.
34
Viśveśvara, Amṛteśadīkṣāvidhi, f. 16v6, vv. 44–45b: 44 sabhāryaḥ sasutaḥ
paścāt sabhṛtyabalavāhanaḥ | śiṣyaḥ prahṛṣṭamanasā guror agre nivedayet || 45
ātmānaṃ manasā vācā karmaṇā ca viśeṣataḥ |. 45a ātmānaṃ em. : ātmanā cod.
35
See, e.g., Mahābhārata 1.63.14; 3.82.63; 3.195.10; 7.123.15.

victory in battle.”36 Evidently the initiation being described here is that of a

monarch; and it seems reasonable in the light of the other passages cited to
understand from this remark that the king would have come for the cere-
mony in a full military parade.
The Mantramārga, then, in spite of its Tantric emphasis on secrecy, had
found ways of ensuring that the rites with which it empowered the monarch
were fully public events of the kind that occasioned national holidays. In-
deed the very secrecy of its rituals must have heightened the impression
made by these events on the populace, who could believe that their mon-
arch had emerged having received an empowerment of such intensity that
the ceremony itself, unlike the Brahmanical royal consecration, had to be
concealed from the uninitiated, that his power and consequently their secu-
rity had been enhanced to a degree not possible by more exoteric means.
The Śaiva-Brahmanical social order

I have said that the Śaiva adaptation of the royal consecration ritual pre-
scribed by Brahmaśambhu in his Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna served the
Brahmanical purpose of consecrating an initiated Śaiva monarch in his
traditional role as the varṇāśramaguruḥ, the guardian of the Brahmanical
order of caste-classes and religious disciplines. But it should be understood
that what is envisaged here, indeed what is enacted by the ritual, is not a
purely Brahmanical social order but a two-tiered Śaiva-Brahmanical hier-
archy within which the monarch’s duty is not only to maintain the bounda-
ries that separate the castes and disciplines but also to ensure that Śaivism
is maintained as a higher level of religious observance above the Brahman-
ical, one that does nothing to destabilise the Brahmanical social order but
which offers members of that social order a means of transcendence not
available through its religious practices. This obligation is no more than
implicit in the Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna; but it is fully expressed in the
following passage of the Mohacūḍottara, a Saiddhāntika scripture whose
specialised subject matter is pratiṣṭhā, the design and consecration of tem-

36
Bṛhatkālottara f. 45v2–3 (22.24c–25b): *hastyaśvarathayodhānāṃ yodhānāṃ
(em. : yodhyānā cod.) secanam astravāriṇā | kartavyaṃ vighnaśamanaṃ saṃgrāme
jayakāraṇam.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 35
ples, monasteries, images, royal palaces, and new settlements. Indeed we

are told that if he maintains the Brahmanical social order in this modified
form his kingdom will prosper. The unstated corollary is that if he does not
it will not:
4.275 prajāpālaḥ smṛto rājā tasmān nyāyyaṃ tu rakṣaṇam

varṇānām anupūrveṇa dharmaṃ deśāpayen nṛpaḥ
276 śrutismṛtipurāṇāni āgamā dharmadeśakāḥ
etair yo vartate rājā sa rājyaṃ bhuñjate ciram
277 purāṇaṃ bādhyate vedair āgamaiś ca taduktayaḥ
sāmānyaṃ ca viśeṣaṃ ca śaivaṃ vaiśeṣikaṃ vacaḥ
278 bādhyabādhakabhāvena no vikalpyaṃ vicakṣaṇaiḥ
yad yathāvasthitaṃ vastu sarvajñas tat tathā vadet
279 āgamānāṃ bahutve tu yatra vākyadvayaṃ bhavet
kiṃ pramāṇaṃ tadā grāhyaṃ pramāṇaṃ śāṃkaraṃ vacaḥ
280 †granthād granthāntaraṃ ṭīkā† sāpekṣanirapekṣayoḥ
samādhānaṃ tayoḥ kāryam arthāpattyādisādhanaiḥ
281 evaṃ jñātvā surādhyakṣa nirvṛtiṃ paramāṃ vraja
evaṃ dharmānvite rājñi svarāṣṭre sarvadā śivam
Mohacūḍottara, ff. 21v6–22r2
278b vikalpyaṃ conj. : vikalpaṃ cod. 278d tat tathā conj. : tat tadā cod.
Tradition declares that the king is the protector of his subjects.37

Therefore it is right that he should protect the caste communities and
ensure that they are instructed in their duties, each according to its
station. The sources that convey these duties are Śruti, Smṛti,
Purāṇa, and the [Śaiva] scriptures (āgamāḥ). If the king abides by
these, he enjoys a long reign. [The correct order of authority in
which they should be applied is as follows.] The Vedas [comprising
both Śruti and Smṛti] take precedence over the Purāṇas, and the
[Śaiva] scriptures take precedence over the teachings of the Vedas.

37
See the Brahmanical sources given in SANDERSON 2009: 244, n. 594.

There is the common [Brahmanical authority of Śruti, Smṛti, and

Purāṇa] (sāmānyam), and then there is the special (viśeṣam). The Śai-
va [scriptures] (śaivam) are the latter (vaiśeṣikaṃ vacaḥ). [So] the
learned should not doubt their authority when they find that they con-
flict with [a Brahmanical injunction]. Being omniscient, [Śiva] can
only state everything just as it is.38 Given the plurality of scriptural au-
thorities, whenever there is a question as to which of two [conflicting]
statements takes precedence, he should adopt that which has been
taught by Śiva. He should reconcile the two, whether self-sufficient or
depending for the understanding of its meaning on [examination in the
light of] other sources of the same kind, related sources, and, [where
they fail], learned exegesis, by applying such modes of reasoning as
presumption (arthāpattiḥ). Understand this, O Indra, and thereby at-
tain the ultimate bliss. When the king understands the duties of reli-
gion in this way his realm will always prosper.
Public engagement in the non-Saiddhāntika

Mantramārgic ritual systems
In comparison with the Saiddhāntika Mantramārga, the Mantramārga’s
non-Saiddhāntika cults seem to have been rather less engaged in activities
in the public domain. Saiddhāntika gurus, for example, appear to have
dominated officiation in the Mantramārga’s very public and prolonged
rituals for the consecration of temples and fixed substrates of worship,
notably the consecration of the major temple and its liṅga that any Śaiva
king worthy of the name would establish in his name to mark his reign.39 In

38
My emendation of tat tadā to tat tathā restores proper syntax by balancing the
yad yathā of the subordinate clause. But it also has the support of a close parallel in
Śivadharmottara 1.41: yad yathāvasthitaṃ vastu guṇadoṣaiḥ svabhāvataḥ | yāvat
phalaṃ ca puṇyaṃ ca sarvajñas tat tathā vadet. The parallel also supports the opta-
tive vadet. It might otherwise be tempting to emend tathā vadet to tadāvadat, ma-
king this a statement that Śiva has taught things exactly as they are.
39
A Śiva installed in a fixed liṅga was given a two-part compound name whose
first half would generally be that of the founder and whose second half would be -
īśvara. Thus, for example a Śiva founded by an Avantivarman would be named
Avantīśvara. If the deity were a Viṣṇu then the name would be Avantisvāmin. The
purpose of such naming was not merely to immortalise the founder. It also served a
ALEXIS SANDERSON 37
marked contrast, Abhinavagupta, speaking for the non-Saiddhāntika Man-

tramārga in his Tantrāloka, insists that the mantras of his tradition must
never be installed in fixed images, which is to say, in the relatively public
environment of the temple, where their worship would be the responsibility
of no one individual. They may be installed only in small, mobile sub-
strates for the personal cult of an individual initiate:
2 eteṣām ūrdhvaśāstroktamantrāṇāṃ na pratiṣṭhitim

bahiṣ kuryād yato hy ete rahasyatvena siddhidāḥ
3 svavīryānandamāhātmyapraveśavaśaśālinīm
ye siddhiṃ dadate teṣāṃ bāhyatvaṃ rūpavicyutiḥ
4 kiṃ ca śāktasamāveśapūrṇo bhoktrātmakaḥ śivaḥ
bhogalāmpaṭyabhāg bhogavicchede nigrahātmakaḥ
5 śāntatvanyakkriyodbhūtajighatsābṛṃhitaṃ vapuḥ
svayaṃ pratiṣṭhitaṃ yena so ’syābhoge vinaśyati
6 uktaṃ jñānottarāyāṃ ca tad etat parameśinā
śivo yāgapriyo yasmād viśeṣān mātṛmadhyagaḥ
7 tasmād rahasyaśāstreṣu ye mantrās tān budho bahiḥ
na pratiṣṭhāpayej jātu viśeṣād vyaktarūpiṇaḥ
8 ata eva mṛtasyārthe pratiṣṭhānyatra yoditā
sātra śāstreṣu no kāryā kāryā sādhāraṇī punaḥ
Abhinavagupta, Tantrāloka 27.2–8
2b pratiṣṭhitim em. : pratiṣṭhitam WZYN 2c kuryād yato hy ete WN :

kuryāt tato hy ete Z KED 4a kiṃ ca Z KED : kintu WNY ● śāktasamāveśa W :
śāktapadāveśa NY : coktaṃ samāveśa Z KED

legal purpose. Giving a personal name to the deity installed in the principal idol of a
temple enabled it to be the locus of the foundation’s juristic personality. It was then
possible to appoint officials who could, when necessary, go to court to defend its
legal rights, notably its right to whatever properties and revenues had been gifted to
it by the founder, and any later donors, to fund its activities.

He should not install in the public domain (bahiḥ) these mantras that
have been taught in the higher scriptures, because it is by their re-
maining hidden that they grant success. The success that they bestow
abounds in the power that comes from [their] ability to lead one into
the vastness of the bliss that is their inner vigour. For such mantras
to be installed externally [in fixed substrates] is for them to fall from
their nature. Moreover, when Śiva is fully expanded [as Bhairava]
through immersion in Śakti he tastes the offerings of food and drink
with much greater eagerness to devour them, and if his pleasure is
ever interrupted [through omission] he will be eager to punish. If a
person installs a deity form that is energised by this urge to devour
that arises from rising above the tranquil transcendence [of the
Saiddhāntika mantras], he must feed it without fail. If he does not do
so he will be lost. It is this that the Supreme Lord refers to in the
Jñānottara[saṃhit]ā in the words:
Śiva is all the more attached to his offerings when [as Bhairava] he
is the midst of the Mothers. For this reason, an initiate should never
install the mantras [taught] in the esoteric scriptures outside his pri-
vate cult, particularly not with anthropomorphic form.
This is why the installation [of a Bhairava] on behalf of the deceased

that has been taught elsewhere must not be done with [the mantras
of] these [non-Saiddhāntika] scriptures. It should be done instead
with one of the exoteric mantras.40

40
Seven such mantras, termed universal (sādhāraṇāḥ), are listed by Abhina-
vagupta in Tantrāloka 22.20: praṇavo mātṛkā māyā vyomavyāpī ṣaḍakṣaraḥ |
bahu-rūpo ’tha netrākhyaḥ sapta sādhāraṇāḥ amī. “The following are the univer-
sal mantras: OṂ, the syllabary, HRĪṂ, [the 81-unit)] Vyomavyāpimantra, OṂ
NAMAḤ ŚIVĀYA (ṣaḍakṣaraḥ), Bahurūpa (the 32-syllable Yajurvedic Aghoraman-
tra), and OṂ JUṂ SAḤ (Netra, Mṛtyuñjaya).” The Saiddhāntika Vidyākaṇṭha also
lists seven but with the Prāsāda in place of the Netra in Bhāvacūḍāmaṇi, f. 4v16-
5r2, quoting an unidentified source: sādhāraṇena mantreṇeti. sādhāraṇā mantrāḥ
sapta. yad uktaṃ saṃhitāntare “praṇavo mātṛkā <māyā> vyomavyāpī ṣaḍakṣaraḥ |
*prāsādo (corr. : prasādo cod.) bahurūpaś ca sapta sādhāraṇāḥ smṛtā” iti. The
Prāsādamantra is HAUŪṂ, the seed-syllable of Śiva in the Saiddhāntika system of
the Kālottara recensions. See Sārdhatriśatikālottara 1.11 and Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha
ALEXIS SANDERSON 39
The last verse of this passage establishes that the mantras of “the higher
scriptures” that should not be installed in fixed, non-private substrates of
worship are not just those of the Trika, the Śākta system being expounded
in the Tantrāloka. For the scriptural source to which Abhinavagupta is
referring here without naming it is Netra 18.120–121, which enjoins the
installation of a Bhairava image accompanied by two, four, or eight Śaktis
in the cremation ground on behalf of a deceased and cremated initiate. The
mantras that should not be installed in this case are not those of the Trika
but those of the worship of Bhairava taught in texts of the Mantrapīṭha.
From this we can infer that the prohibition was intended to apply to the
whole range of non-Saiddhāntika mantras.
How strictly observed, one is bound to ask, was this boundary between
the outer world of public installations, recognised as the domain of the
Saiddhāntika Mantramārga or of non-Saiddhāntika officiants using
Saiddhāntika procedures, and this strictly private world of non-Saiddhāntika
practice? After all, the separation between the two is presented to us through
a prohibition; and a prohibition is more likely to be designed to stop a prac-
tice that was current than to prevent a practice that was not.
I am aware of one major case in which this prohibition was not ob-
served, and I suspect that there are others that further work with ritual
manuals, inscriptions, and ethnographic data may bring to light. The case
to which I refer to is that of the South Indian Brahmayāmala tradition. For
that has its roots in the non-Saiddhāntika cult of the goddess Aghorī and
her Śaktis taught in the Picumata/Brahmayāmala but has the nature of a
temple-based cult in the hands of non-Brahmin officiants whose primarily
purpose was state protection.41
Other cases that may well be of this kind are the cults of the royal god-
desses Siddhalakṣmī, Guhyakālī, and Kubjikā, who have several inaccessi-
ble but conspicuous temples in the Kathmandu valley.42 If these Tantric
cults among the Śaiva Newars of the Kathmandu valley did cross the line
drawn by Abhinavagupta, then they no doubt did so as elements of a

thereon, giving HAUŪṂ; also Trilocanaśiva, Siddhāntasārāvali, vv. 33 and 36. Kṣe-
marāja recognises all eight as sādhāraṇā mantrāḥ in Netroddyota vol. 2, p. 10, ll. 9–17.
41
SANDERSON 2007: 277–278 and 2014: 30–32, 40–42, and 50-52.
42
SANDERSON 2003–2004: 366–372.

broader process that is widely attested, namely the co-opting of non-

Saiddhāntika Śaiva cults by royal patrons for the protection of their persons
and the state.
I have drawn attention to a number of such cults in previous publica-
tions, notably the state cult of the goddess sisters Jayā Vijayā, Jayantī, and
Aparājitā and their brother Tumburu[bhairava] that was established in the
Khmer realm early in the ninth century to guarantee the state’s enduring
independence;43 the cult of Svacchandabhairava incorporated in the Ut-
tarabhāga of the Liṅgapurāṇa as a means of warding off danger from the
king and restoring him to health;44 the elaborate ritual of consecration for
victory (jayābhiṣekaḥ) that co-opts the goddess pantheon of the Ku-
bjikāmata, which is taught in the same Purāṇic source;45 and the cult of
Bhadrakālī practised by the Paippalādin Atharvavedin officiants of Orissa
to enhance the power of kings and protect them when they go into battle,
which has co-opted the mantras of the Kaula Kālīkula tradition.46
The Kulamārga and the state

With the examples of the application of non-Saiddhāntika cults to the em-
powerment of the monarch and protection of the monarch, I have crossed
from the Mantramārga into the Kulamārga, since that is the territory of the
Kālīkula and the cult of Kubjikā. Here more than in any other area of Śaiva
practice, the reader of the learned literature might expect to find worship
operating in an entirely private world cut off from and indeed concealed
from mainstream religion. For these were extreme cults that involved orgi-
astic celebrations, contact with women of low caste, the consumption of
meat, alcohol, and other impure substances,47 and they surely needed to
keep their heads down if they were to avoid the hostile intervention of state
authorities. There certainly was a degree of hostility; but as the examples
cited indicate this may have been stronger in the case of mainstream Brah-

43
SANDERSON 2003–2004: 355–358; 2005b: 236–238.
44
SANDERSON 2005b: 235.
45
SANDERSON 2005b: 236.
46
SANDERSON 2007: 255–298.
47
On these substances, see SANDERSON 2005a: 110–114, n. 63.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 41
manical thinking than it was among actual and potential royal patrons. The
notion that the transgressive cult of the Mothers was an effective source of
state protection is well illustrated in the South Indian Brahmayāmala tradi-
tion and in the cults of the royal lineage goddesses of the Kathmandu val-
ley. Indeed this view is made explicit in the treatment of Kaula worship
given in the Kashmirian Netratantra, a text devoted to the rituals to be
performed by a variety of Śaiva officiants who had moved into the territory
traditionally reserved for the king’s Brahmanical chaplain (rājapurohitaḥ):
The [Mothers] should be worshipped with abundant offerings for the

warding off of danger from all living beings by one desiring power
in accordance with his particular aim. As for the gurus of kings, O
goddess, they should worship them with special lavishness. For it is
by their favour alone that any king on this earth enjoys sovereignty
in good fortune, with all his enemies destroyed.48
Thus while it appears that it was Saiddhāntika officiants that were the pub-
lic, institutional face of the Mantramārga, interacting in a manner visible to
the public with royal and other patrons in the context of such ceremonies as
initiation, royal consecration, and the installation of fixed images in royal
and other temples, presenting themselves as protectors of the Brahmanical

48
Netra, f. 30v3–4 (KED 12.6c–8): sarveṣāṃ caiva śāntyarthaṃ prāṇināṃ bhūtim
icchatā || 7 || bhūriyāgena yaṣṭavyā yathākāmānurūpataḥ | viśeṣeṇa tu yaṣṭavyā
bhūbhṛtānāṃ tu daiśikaiḥ || 8 || āsām eva prasādena rājyaṃ nihatakaṇṭakam | bhu-
ñjate sarvarājānaḥ subhagā hy avanītale ||. 6c sarveṣām caiva N : sarveṣām eva KED
7b yathākāmānurūpataḥ KED : yathākarmānurūpataḥ N 7c viśeṣeṇa tu yaṣṭavyā N :
viśeṣād devi yaṣṭavyā KED 7d bhūbhṛtānāṃ tu N : bhūbhṛtām api KED.
I have edited the text here on the basis of a Nepalese palm-leaf ms. of 1200 CE,
which transmits the text as it was prior to the expurgation of most of its non-Paninian
forms that we see in the Kashmirian mss. that are the basis of KED. For my reasons
for judging that this is a Kashmirian text and one that was composed between about
700 and 850 CE, probably towards the end of that period, see SANDERSON 2005:
273–294. The colophon of the ms. reports that the ms. was penned by a Paṇḍita
Kīrtidhara who was commissioned to do so by Viśveśvara (f. 89r4–5: saṃvat 320
caitra śu di 9 śanidine viśveśvareṇa likhāpitam idaṃ pustakaṃ || paṃḍitakīrtti-
dhar<eṇ>a likhitaṃ mayā). It is probable that the commissioner was the Viśveśvara
to whom we owe the Amṛteśadīkṣāvidhi.

social order, it was by no means the case that the non-Saiddhāntika Śākta-
oriented cults of the Mantramārga and Kulamārga were entirely domains of
private spiritual practice. For learned Kashmirian authorities such as Ab-
hinavagupta and Kṣemarāja this may seem to have been the case, because
they place such stress on these cults as means of liberation. But they do not
suppress evidence that these cults were also engaged in rituals designed to
protect the king, the royal family, and indeed their subjects from all forms
of misfortune. What is known of the role of Tantric ritual in the Kathman-
du valley strongly supports the notion that while such ceremonies were no
doubt carried out away from the public gaze, the populace was not unaware
of their occurrence, especially when they were embedded in calendrically
fixed ritual complexes in which the whole populace participated in the
manner exemplified by Brahmaśambhu’s account of royal consecration.
Indeed in Newar society, in which Tantric rituals have played a vital role
down to modern times, major calamities such as the massacre of the Nepa-
lese royal family in 2001 have been attributed by traditionalists to failure to
perform or perform correctly some Tantric ritual considered vital to their
welfare and that of the whole community. As we have seen, Abhinavagup-
ta warns of the danger of neglecting the worship of such deities. Where the
cult is entirely private, as it is in the context in which Abhinavagupta refers
to it, the only person endangered is the individual who has committed him-
self to it. Where the cult is for the benefit of all, the welfare of all, from the
king down, is jeopardised.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Amṛteśadīkṣāvidhi of Viśveśvara
NAK ms. 5-4867, NGMPP A 231/17. Paper; modern Devanāgarī transcript.
Kiraṇavṛtti
Bhaṭṭarāmakaṇṭhaviracitā Kiraṇavṛttih. Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Com-
mentary on the Kiraṇatantra. Vol. 1, ch. 1-6, critical edition and anno-
tated translation by D. Goodall. Pondichéry: IFP/EFEO 1998.
ALEXIS SANDERSON 43
Gaṇakārikā attributed to Bhāsarvajña

Gaṇakārikā. Ed. C.D. Dalal. Baroda: Central Library, 1920.
Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta
The Tantrāloka of Abhinava-Gupta, with Commentary by Rājānaka
Jayaratha. 12 vols. Ed. M.R. Shāstrī (vol. 1), Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī
(vols. 2–12). Allahabad, Bombay: Indian Press, 1918–1938. (KED) Mss::
N = Jammu, Raghunath Temple Library, 5913; W = Oriental Research
Library, Srinagar, 1054–iii; Y = Bhandarkar Oriental Research Library,
Pune, 451 of 1875–76; Z = Oriental Research Library, Srinagar, 1792.
Navasāhasāṅkacarita of Padmagupta
Navasāhasāṅkacarita of Padmagupta alias Parimala. Ed. Vāmanaśāstrī
Islāmapurakara. Bombay: Education Society Press, 1895.
Niśvāsamūla
The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra. Volume
1. A Critical Edition & Annotated Translation of the Mūlasūtra, Ut-
tarasūtra & Nayasūtra. Ed. D. Goodall in collaboration with A. Sander-
son & H. Isaacson with contributions of N. Kafle, D. Acharya & others.
Pondichéry, Hamburg: Institut français d’Indologie, École française
d’Extrême-Orient, Asien-Afrika-Institut, Universität Hamburg, 2015.
Netratantra
The Netra Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja. Ed. by M.K.
Shāstrī. 2 vols. Bombay: Tatva Vivechaka Press, 1926-1939. (KED).
M.s: National Archives, Kathmandu, 1-285 (NGMPP Reel no. B 25/5)
(Amṛteśatantra). Palm-leaf; Nepalese variant of proto-Bengali script;
1200 CE.
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna of Brahmaśambhu
Calcutta, Asiatic Society of Bengal, ms. G 4767. Palm-leaf; Newari
script; incomplete; undated but probably of the eleventh century CE.
Pañcārthabhāṣya of Kauṇḍinya
Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Ed. by R. An-
anthakrishna Sastri. Trivandrum: University of Travancore, 1940.
Bṛhatkālottara
National Archives, Kathmandu, ms. 4-139 (NGMPP Reel no. A 43/1).
Palm-leaf; Pāla script; dated in 1161 CE.

Bṛhatsaṃhitā of Varāhamihira
Bṛhatsaṃhitā of Varāhamihira, with the commentary of Bhaṭṭotpala.
Ed. S. Dvivedī. 2 parts. Benares: Lazarus, 1895.
Bhāvacūḍāmaṇi of Bhaṭṭa Vidyākaṇṭha
Bhāvacūḍāmaṇi, the commentary of Bhaṭṭa Vidyākaṇṭha on the Ma-
yasaṃgraha, Raghunath Temple Mss. Library, Jammu, ms. no. 5291;
paper; Kashmirian Devanāgarī.
Mataṅgapārameśvara
Mataṅgapārameśvara-āgama, avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāma-
kaṇṭha. Éd. critique par N.R. Bhatt. Vol. 1: Vidyāpāda. Pondichéry:
IFP, 1977–1982.
Mahābhārata
Mahābhārata. For the first time crit. ed. by V.S. Sukthankar et al. 19
volumes. Poona: BORI, 1927–1959.
Mṛgendravṛtti of Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha
The Śrī Mṛgendra Tantram (Vidyāpāda & Yogapāda), with the Com-
mentary of Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. Ed. M.K. Shāstrī. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar
Press 1930.
Mṛgendrāgama (Kriyāpāda et Caryāpāda), avec le commentaire de
Bhaṭṭa-Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha. Éd. critique par N.R. Bhatt. Pondichéry: IFI,
1962.
Mohacūḍottara
National Archives, Kathmandu, ms. 5-1977 (NGMPPo. A182/2). Paper;
Devanāgarī script; copied from a palm-leaf manuscript of [Valabhī era,
year] 806 (= 1125/6 CE).
Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha
Published in vol. 1 of Rauravāgama.
Rauravāgama
Rauravāgama. Éd. critique par N.R. Bhatt. 3 vols. Pondichéry: IFI
1961–1988.
Śivadharmottara
A = University Library, Cambridge, Add. 1694, f. 47r4–48r1; B = Uni-
versity Library, Cambridge, Add. 1645; C = Bodleian, Oxford, B 125;
D = National Archives, Kathmandu, 3–393 (NGMPP A 1082/3); E =
National Archives, Kathmandu, 6–7 (NGMPP A 1028/4).
ALEXIS SANDERSON 45
Saduktikarṇāmṛta compiled by Śrīdharadāsa

Saduktikarṇāmṛta, compiled by Śrīdharadāsa. Ed. S.Ch. Banerji. Cal-
cutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1965.
Sārdhatriśatikālottara
Sārdhatriśatikālottarāgama, avec le commentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāma-
kaṇṭha. Éd. critique par N.R. Bhatt. Pondichéry: IFP, 1979
Siddhāntasārāvali of Trilocanaśiva
Siddhāntasārāvali of Trilocanaśiva with the commentary (-vyākhyā) of
Anantaśiva (/Anantaśambhu). Ed. A. A. Ramanathan et al. Bulletin of the
Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, Vol. xvii, 1 (1965),
pp. 1–48 (vv. 1–32); xviii, 1 (1968), pp. 1–68 (vv. 33–59); xviii, 2 (1968),
pp. 1–64 (vv. 60–109); xix, 1 (1969), pp. 53–84 (vv. 110–130); xix, 2
(1972), pp. 1–48 (vv. 131–150); xx, 2 (1972), pp. 49–71 (vv. 151–169).
Skandapurāṇa (Ur-Skandapurāṇa)
Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ. Ed. Kṛṣṇaprasād Bhaṭṭarāī. Kath-
mandu: Mahendrasaṃskṛtaviśvavidyālaya, 1988.
Svacchanda
The Svacchanda Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja. Ed. M.K.
Shāstrī. 6 vols. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press, 1921–1935.
Secondary Sources and Epigraphical Series
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA. 1892–1992 (vols. 1–42), 2011 (vol. 43, part 1). Cal-
cutta/Delhi: ASI.
FOGG, S. 1996. Manuscripts from the Himalayas and the Indian Subconti-
nent. Catalogue. London: Sam Fogg.
GHURYE, G.S. with the collaboration of L.N. Chapekar. 1953, 21964. Indi-
an Sādhus. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
LORENZEN, D.N. 21991. The Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas. Two Lost Śaivite
Sects. New Delhi: Thomson.
OZHÂ, V.G. & BÜHLER, G. 1889. The Somanāthpattan Praśasti of Bhāva
Bṛhaspati. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 3, pp. 1–19.
PINGREE, D. 1981. Jyotiḥśāstra. Astral and Mathematical Literature.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
RAMESH, K.V. & TEWARI, S.P. 1990. A Copper-plate Hoard of the Gupta

Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: ASI.

SANDERSON, A. 2003–2004. The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part
1). Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient 90–91 (2003-2004),
pp. 349–462.
2005a. A Commentary on the Opening Verses of the Tantrasāra of Ab-
hinavagupta. In: S. Das and E. Fürlinger (eds.), Sāmarasya. Studies in
Indian Arts, Philosophy, and Interreligious Dialogue. New Delhi: D.K.
Printworld, pp. 89–148.
2005b. Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the
Brahmanical Royal Chaplain with an Appendix on the Provenance and
Date of the Netratantra. Indo-Iranian Journal 47, pp. 229–300.
2006. The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate Between
Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism. Indian Philosophical An-
nual 26, pp. 143–217.
2007. The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir. In: D. Goodall and A. Padoux
(eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d'Hélène Brunner / Tantric
Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Pondicherry: IFI / EFEO, pp.
231–442 and (bibliography) pp. 551–582.
2009. The Śaiva Age: An Explanation of the Rise and Dominance of
Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period. In: Sh. Einoo (ed.), Genesis
and Development of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture,
University of Tokyo, pp. 41–349.
2014. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies 24 & 25 (2012–
2013 [2014]), pp. 1–113.
SIRCAR, D.C. 1983. Mūrtiśiva’s Bangarh Praśasti of the Time of Nayapāla.
Journal of Ancient Indian History 13/1–2 (1980–1982 [1983]), pp. 34–56.
SOUTH-INDIAN INSCRIPTIONS. Madras/Delhi: ASI, 1890–.

TANTRIC IDENTITIES

Sisters and consorts, adepts and goddesses:

Representations of women in the Brahmayāmala
Shaman Hatley1
Women, revelation, and esoteric community
In the study of early-medieval India’s Tantric traditions, we face enormous

difficulty recovering substantive glimpses of historical women. The pro-
spects for meaningful recovery of women’s own voices seem particularly
discouraging.2 Nonetheless, discourse on women abounds in Tantric litera-
ture and may afford scope for reconstructing at least limited aspects of their
participation in some early Tantric traditions. One of the richest potential
sources is the Brahmayāmala or Picumata, a voluminous Śaiva Bhairava-
tantra of the goddess-centred Vidyāpīṭha division which may date in some

1
I would like to thank Vincent Eltschinger, Nina Mirnig, and Marion Rastelli for
inviting this contribution and for organising such a stimulating symposium. This essay
was initially drafted prior to publication of TÖRZSÖK’s (2014) insightful article, “Wo-
men in Early Śākta Tantras: Dūtī, Yoginī and Sādhakī.” Though her aims are broader,
these overlap in subject matter and in some of the particular evidence analysed. I am
grateful that she has nonetheless encouraged me to complete and publish my essay,
noting that our emphases have in many respects differed. In revising, I have tried to
place these essays in conversation and to curtail the degree of overlap, though some
inevitably remains (especially the discussion of Brahmayāmala, chapter 24). I am
grateful to Alberta Ferrario, Ayesha Irani, Csaba Kiss, and the volume’s editors for
their comments on drafts of this essay. Quotations from the Brahmayāmala are from
the editions of HATLEY (2007 and 2018) and KISS (2015), for published chapters, and
otherwise from my draft editions based on the principal manuscript (siglum “A” in the
critical edition; see the bibliography). Passages adduced from the Brahmayāmala gene-
rally follow the orthography of this Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript, as discussed in the
introduction to HATLEY (2018). The language of the Brahmayāmala is highly non-
standard; for a detailed discussion, see KISS (2015: 73–85).
2
Notwithstanding the controversial claims of SHAW (1994). For a striking excep-
tion to the relative absence of women’s voices, albeit from early twentieth-century
Tibet, note the case of Sera Khandro, admirably studied by JACOBY (2014).
form to the mid-seventh to early-eighth centuries.3 Spanning more than

12,000 verses, the Brahmayāmala (hereafter “BraYā”) affords a compara-
tively broad as well as early window into women’s involvement in a Śākta-
Śaiva cultic context, tinted though this is by preoccupation with the virtuo-
so male sādhaka and his quest for supernatural attainment (siddhi).4
While the sādhaka’s rites frequently demand solitude, the BraYā none-
theless intimates the existence of an esoteric community structured around
the institution and person of the guru. Initiates contravene conventional
social identities, entering into new modes of relationality based on initiatory
lineages and hierarchies. Practitioners also enter into “kinship” with the
deities, a bond established by entry into particular deity clans (kula) during
initiation. Unfortunately, the social dimension and corporate ritual of the
BraYā’s cult receive minimal elaboration and must to a large degree be
inferred through scattered remarks.5 Despite their disinterest in codifying
or describing social religion, the redactors nonetheless articulate a detailed,
if highly idealised vision of the BraYā’s textual community.
In the revelation narrative of chapter (paṭala) 1, the BraYā portrays its
redaction as a cosmogonic process, narrating the “descent” (avatāra) of the
primordial scriptural wisdom (jñāna) into the world in the bounded form of
text. This narrative simultaneously articulates a social vision by delineating
the scripture’s lineage of redactors, a metacommunity spanning levels of
the cosmos (tattva) and cycles of time. More than 25 persons find mention,
in the majority of cases with specification of caste identity and region of
origin.6 Details such as affiliations with Vedic schools (śākhā), pre-
initiatory names, native villages, or even the name of a parent flesh out
some of the descriptions. Mirroring revelation’s vast temporal and cosmo-
logical framework, the narrative invokes an expansive Indic geography:
individuals involved in the BraYā’s transmission span from Oḍradeśa in
the east to Sindh (sindhuviṣaya) and the Swat Valley (oḍḍiyāna) in the
northwest, and Kashmir (kaśmīra) and Lampā in the far north. Two facets

3
For an overview of Tantric Śaivism’s branches and literatures, see SANDERSON
1988 and 2014. On the Brahmayāmala, see HATLEY 2007 and 2018, and KISS 2015.
4
The rites of the sādhaka form the focus of volume II of the BraYā, published by
KISS 2015.
5
Note, for instance, passing reference to a communal meal in the guru’s home, in
BraYā 45.227–230; and to a feast involving non-initiates following the rite of image-
installation (pratiṣṭhā), in BraYā 4.707–709 (quoted in n. 92 below).
6
Cf. the discussions of SANDERSON (2009: 296, n. 703) and HATLEY (2007:
228–234).
SHAMAN HATLEY 51
concerning the persons described stand out: the prominence of male Brah-
mins in the production and transmission of scripture, and the simultaneous
inclusion of a spectrum of other castes. 11 Brahmin males figure among the
individuals named, representing a variety of regions and Vedic śākhās. The
lineage features two Kṣatriyas and two Śūdras and includes two members of
the “tribal” mātaṅga community as well; the remaining individuals belong to
unspecified castes. This inclusive metacommunity may reflect the actual
diversity of participants in the BraYā’s cult, for caste and gender, in princi-
ple, do not determine eligibility for initiation. The lineage of the text’s redac-
tors also intimates the reality that textual production and the status of offici-
ant were likely domains in which male Brahmins predominated.
From the outset, the BraYā articulates a vision of its readership com-
munity, its idealised community of practice, that explicitly incorporates
women. In the opening chapter, Bhairava prophesies, “‘In home after
home, O great goddess, whether they be men fit for siddhi, or women fit
for siddhi, [the Brahmayāmala] shall spread to all of their homes. But those
unfit for siddhi, whether a man or women, shall not attain even the mere
vidyā-mantra, O great queen.’ Thus did speak Bhairava.”7 This is not iso-
lated rhetoric, for references to initiated women abound in the text, and two
women figure prominently in the revelation narrative. One of these partici-
pates directly in the text’s transmission. She is in fact the goddess Bhairavī
or Aghorī herself, the divine interlocutor whose questions to Bhairava
structure the text. Incarnate in the world in response to a curse, she was
born as the girl Sattikā8 in a village near Prayāga to a Brahmin named Me-
ghadatta and is said to possess intellect (buddhi) and the marks of auspi-
ciousness (lakṣaṇānvitā). Worshipping the liṅga perpetually with great
devotion, at the age of thirteen she attained perfection (siddhā) through the
grace of the supreme śakti,9 thence ascending into the skies where she re-

7
BraYā 1.116c–118 (edition of HATLEY 2018): gṛhe gṛhe mahādevi ye punsāḥ
siddhibhājanāḥ || 116 || striyo vā siddhibhāginyas teṣām api gṛheṣv atha | praca-
riṣyati deveśi evam vai bhairavo ’bravīt || 117 || asiddhibhājanā ye tu puruṣo ’tha
striyo ’tha vā | vidyāmātram apiś caiva na prāpsyanti mahādhipe || 118 ||.
8
The name appears only once in the BraYā’s old manuscript, where the ortho-
graphy is ambiguous: both santikā and sattikā are possible. I consider the latter more
probable and interpret this as the Prakrit equivalent of Sanskrit śaktikā.
9
BraYā (HATLEY 2007) 1.24–30: tatas tvām vihvalān dṛṣṭvā gṛhītaḥ karuṇayā hy
aham | evam uktāsi kāruṇyān mahāmanyubhṛtena tu || 24 || bhūrlokaṃ gaccha de-
veśe avatāraṃ kuruṣva ’tha | brāhmaṇasya gṛhe deham aparaṃ gṛhṇa suvrate || 25 ||
tatrasthāyās tatas tubhyaṃ bhaktyāhaṃ saṃpracoditaḥ | anugrahaṃ kariṣyāmi

gained her consort, Bhairava, and the divine name Aghorī. This sets the
stage for Bhairava once again to reveal to her the BraYā, which Śrīkaṇṭha
had earlier imparted to him, setting in motion the process by which the
scripture once more reaches the world in redactions of various length.
One other woman participates in revelation, though indirectly: Deikā of
Ujjayinī. After numerous miscarriages, she bathed and approached the
Mother-goddesses, praying for a son; impelled by the śakti, the Mothers
placed in her womb a failed sādhaka named “Without a Mantra”
(Amantrin), an initiate who in a previous birth had broken the initiatory
pledges (samaya).10 Belying this ignominy, Amantrin’s combination of
Tantric initiation and breach of the initiatory pledges in a past life defines
the exalted type of sādhaka known as the tālaka, whose virtuoso transgres-

tavāhaṃ śakti-r-ājñayā | mayā sārddham punas tv aikyan tat sarvvam prāpsyasi
priye || 26 || tato ’vatīrṇṇā madvākyāt prayāgasya samīpataḥ | kaṇavīre mahāgrāme
meghadattagṛhe śubhe || 27 || chandogasya mahādevi utpannā lakṣaṇānvitā | sattikā
tatra saṃjātā tava nāman na saṃśayaḥ || 28 || tato mahā tvayā bhaktyā buddhisam-
pannayā hy aham | ārādhito mahādevi satataṃ liṅgapūjayā || 29 || tatra trayodaśe
varṣe siddhā tvaṃ śaktyanugrahāt | khecaratvam avāpnoṣi saṃprāptā ca mamānti-
kam || 30 ||. (“[24] After this, seeing you agitated, I was overcome by compassion. I
spoke to you thus – out of compassion but filled with great anger: [25] ‘Go to the
mundane world (bhūrloka), O queen of the gods; incarnate yourself. Take on another
body in the house of a Brahmin, O pious lady. [26] Then, impelled by your devotion
while you dwell there, I shall bestow my grace upon you, by command of the śakti.
Oneness with me again – you will obtain all this, my dear.’ [27] Then, by my order,
you took incarnation near Prayāga in the large village of Kaṇavīra, in the good home
of Meghadatta. [28] O great goddess, you were begotten of chāndogya [Brahmins]
and possessed the marks of auspiciousness. Born there, undoubtedly, your name was
Sattikā. [29] Then, endowed with intelligence, you paid reverence to me through
constant liṅga worship, with great devotion. [30] There, in [your] thirteenth year,
you attained siddhi by the grace of the śakti. You attained the state of a Sky-traveller
and reached my proximity.”).
10
The narrative concerning Amantrin or Svacchandabhairava and his disciples,
spanning two Kaliyugas, comprises BraYā 1.78c–118 (published in HATLEY 2018).
See especially BraYā 1.81–86b: ujjainyāyān tu saṃjāto viprajo †ukaputrakaḥ† |
deikā tasya vai mātā bahugarbhaprasāritā || 81 || snātācāmati mātṝṇāṃ purataḥ
putrakāṅkṣiṇī | japtavidyo mahāvīryaḥ samayalaṅghaprabhāvataḥ || 82 || kṣipiṣyanti
hy asiddhatvān mātarāḥ śakticoditāḥ | tasyā garbhe mahābhāge amantrīnāmakas
tathā || 83 || tatas tasya mahādevi tāsāṃ caiva prabhāvataḥ | vidyāṃ prāpya japaṃ
kṛtvā tataḥ śāstraṃ sa vetsyati || 84 || tato nibaddhagranthaś ca divyasaṅgānu-
bhāvataḥ | daśasāhasrakenārtham aśeṣaṃ kathayiṣyati || 85 || tatas tenaiva jñānena
paścāt siddhiṃ sa lapsyati |.
SHAMAN HATLEY 53
sive rituals are among the BraYā’s paramount concerns.11 Reborn,

Amantrin regains the BraYā’s vidyā-mantra “by the power of the Mother-
goddesses” and attains siddhi. Consecrated as Svacchandabhairava, he
learns a redaction of the BraYā from Krodhabhairava, the primordial disci-
ple of the goddess. His own disciples preside over ever-diminishing redac-
tions of the scripture at the twilight of the cosmic cycle, at the end of which
goddesses known as yoginīs hide away the teachings altogether.
Of contrasting pedigree and attainment, the women of this narrative
share in more than having vernacular, Prakrit names: both appear to lack
Tantric initiation, engaging in lay devotional worship which ultimately
bears fruit by divine grace. This is particularly striking in the case of
Sattikā, who in effect recovers her former, forgotten divinity through devo-
tional worship (liṅgapūjā) alone rather than Tantric methods. Given the
abundant evidence in the text for female initiation, this invites questions
concerning the nature of women’s roles in the religion.
Terms for women, terms for goddesses

Discourse concerning women occurs primarily in the BraYā’s descriptions
of ritual, whose paradigmatic agent is the male sādhaka or mantrin (less
frequently, yogin). Initiation binds him to the demanding ascetic and ritual
regimens delineated over the course of this twelve-thousand verse scrip-
ture, above all in chapter 45, recently edited and studied by KISS (2015). In
addition to the sādhaka, who is of three grades,12 the text envisions two
other categories of initiated practitioner: the neophyte, called the samayin
or pledge-holder; and the ācārya (also deśika or guru), the Tantric officiant
who is entitled to confer initiation.13 Supernatural attainment (siddhi) is the
predominant ritual aim, and in contrast to the mainstream of the Man-
tramārga, the BraYā does not envision a category of liberation-seeking
practitioner distinct from the sādhaka (known in other sources as the pu-

11
On the tālaka, whose ritual program is a key topic of BraYā 45, see KISS
2015: 35–55.
12
See KISS (ibid.). The grades of sādhaka are the transgressive tālaka, the
miśraka of “mixed” purity, and the vegetarian, celibate carubhojin. A somewhat
different fourfold typology of sādhakas appears in the latter chapters of the BraYā
(paṭalas 91–94).
13
Initiation (dīkṣā) and consecration (abhiṣeka) are mainly treated in a cycle of
seven voluminous chapters, paṭalas 32–38.

traka, “son [of the guru]”).14 A number of rituals also require the participa-
tion of one or more individuals referred to as “assistant sādhaka” (ut-
tarasādhaka) or “friend/companion” (sakhāya), presumed male. These
expressions indicate a ritual function rather than grade of initiation, though
the uttarasādhaka may typically have been a neophyte.15
A distinct and more nebulous vocabulary applies to the women in-
volved in ritual. Multiple words may refer to female practitioners, termi-
nology which TÖRZSÖK (2014) has fruitfully analysed in the contexts of
the BraYā and the closely-related Siddhayogeśvarīmata. Generic Sanskrit
words for women occur throughout the BraYā, such as strī, vanitā, nārī,
and abalā. In some cases, these may apply to female practitioners; in par-
ticular, TÖRZSÖK (2014: 358–364) highlights the frequent occurrence of
abalā (“powerless,” a member of the “weaker sex”), suggesting that this
usage contrasts the “powerless” condition of womanhood with the possibil-
ity of apotheosis through Tantric ritual: a transformation from abalā to a
state of divine power and autonomy. More often, the BraYā employs terms
which specifically intimate a woman’s status as an initiated practitioner,
principally śakti, dūtī, and yoginī (or yogeśī), and secondarily bhaginī,
bhairavī, and adhikāriṇī. In contrast to the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, the term
sādhakī, feminine of sādhaka, does not occur in the BraYā, nor does
sādhikā, a term appearing in numerous much later sources.16
Notably, each of the BraYā’s main terms for female practitioners pos-
sesses a double sense, potentially designating female initiates, but in other
contexts referring to female divinities. In contrast, few terms for male prac-
titioners apply also to deities (one of these exceptions being vīra, “hero”).
This distinction may reflect the emphasis on female divinisation prevalent
in Śākta-Śaiva traditions. These two levels of meaning obtain even with
lesser-used designations for initiated women, namely bhaginī (“sister”),
which also designates the cult goddesses of the vāmasrotas (the “leftward

14
The possibility that a sādhaka might seek liberation alone is intimated in BraYā
25.342cd: “These three pantheons are taught for the sādhaka who desires liberation”
(etad yāgatrayaṃ proktaṃ mumukṣo[ḥ] sādhakasya tu).
15
sakhāya is a variant stem of the irregular Sanskrit sakhi (“companion”); see
EDGERTON (1953, vol. I: §10.8). On the desired qualities of the uttarasādhaka,
which include knowledge of the initiatory pledges (samaya), see BraYā 21.51–54
(KISS 2015).
16
Concerning sādhakī, which occurs in chapter 10 of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata,
see TÖRZSÖK 2014. sādhikā seems mainly to occur in late-medieval East Indian
Śākta Tantras, for instance Kaulāvalīnirṇaya 9.94.
SHAMAN HATLEY 55
stream” of scriptural revelation); and bhairavī, a common name for the

supreme goddess herself. An exception to the double valence of terms for
women is the descriptor adhikāriṇī, “authorised/entitled,” which the
BraYā uses occasionally in the sense of “woman entitled to the teachings
[by initiation].”17
To a large degree, context dictates the use of terms for women. While
the expressions śakti and dūtī appear almost exclusively to designate a
female participant in sexual rites, the BraYā avoids the expressions yoginī
and bhaginī in this context. These two pairs of terms thus correlate with
strikingly divergent representations of women.
dūtī, “female messenger/go-between,” in this literature has the sense of
“female companion,” i.e., ritual consort. Applied to deities, dūtī designates
four of the eight goddesses who comprise the core retinue of
Kapālīśabhairava, the BraYā’s principal male deity. Known also as “the
handmaidens” (kiṅkarī), their status is secondary to the tetrad of devīs or
guhyakās. All eight goddesses serve as dūtīs of Kapālīśabhairava, who, in
the BraYā’s opening verse, is said to sport as a liṅgam in their lotuses with
unexcelled pleasure.18 Applied to women, in the BraYā dūtī refers exclu-
sively to female participants in sexual ritual, in alternation with śakti.
Though similarly restricted to the context of sexual ritual, śakti is in fact
the most widely occurring term for initiated women in the BraYā. This
accords with the fact that -śakti is appended to female initiation names,
much as male names end with -bhairava. Doctrinally, śakti denotes the
power (gendered female) of the (male) supreme deity, both in its totality
and as differentiated into various aspects, such as Śiva’s powers of
knowledge, action, volition, and grace. Personified as the singular supreme
goddess, śakti also pervades the cosmos as the myriad female deities who
are her rays (raśmi, gabhasti, etc.). These embodiments include the flesh-
and-blood śaktis who serve in ritual as conduits to this transcendent power.
In contrast, the category yoginī may designate women as autonomous
ritualists or even living goddesses beyond the context of sexual ritual. Inte-
gral to the category yoginī (synonym yogeśī) is its blurring of boundaries
between the divine and human, for this category of divine female repre-

17
This term occurs in BraYā 45.575a and thrice in paṭala 24, which uses the ex-
pressions anadhikāriṇī (“a woman not authorised,” 24.74a), pūrvādhikāriṇī (“previ-
ously [but no longer?] authorised,” 24.75a), and guptādhikāriṇī (“secretly authori-
sed,” 24.85d).
18
BraYā 1.1b: dūtīnāṃ padmaṣaṇḍe ’samasukhavilasal liṅgarūpaṃ bibharti |.

sents a state of being women seek to attain through ritual perfection.19 Ap-
plied to goddesses, yoginī (“female yogi” or “possessed of yogic power”)
designates flying, shapeshifting deities central to Vidyāpīṭha cults such as
the BraYā’s, goddesses with whom sādhakas sought visionary, power-
bestowing encounters (melaka). A sextet of yoginīs belongs to the BraYā’s
core deity pantheon, and its extended pantheon incorporates multiple simi-
lar sets. Applied to women, the BraYā uses yoginī in a sense close to “fe-
male sādhaka” (/mantrin or yogin), as illustrated by these terms’ occasion-
al pairing. Note, for instance, BraYā 22.72cd, which promises, “A sādhaka
or yoginī [becomes] perfected [through this worship system (yajana)],
without a doubt, O goddess” (siddhas tu sādhako devi yoginī vā na
saṃśayaḥ).20 Strikingly, in the BraYā this usage mainly occurs in ritual
contexts of a non-sexual nature. In other words, unlike the terms śakti and
dūtī, the BraYā avoids using yoginī in the sense of “ritual consort.” It is
thus ironic that WHITE’s (2003) monographic treatment of Tantric sexual
ritual revolves so squarely around the figure of the yoginī, whom he con-
flates with the Tantric ritual dūtī or śakti, counter to the usage prevalent in
many, if not most, early Tantric Śaiva sources. If the term śakti suggests a
view of female practitioners as necessary complements to the male, con-
duits to the ultimate source of power – Śiva’s śakti – yoginī reflects a vi-
sion of female practitioners as independent and powerful, as actual or po-
tential goddesses. Even in a rare instance where yoginī describes a woman
potentially engaging in sex with a sādhaka, she is represented as instigating
the encounter herself, stirred by the supreme śakti.21 As I will argue subse-
quently, in the yoginī we glimpse the possibility of women as autonomous
ritualists who act to attain their own objectives rather than facilitating the
aims of men.
A similar possibility underlies the term bhaginī or “sister.” This occurs
sparsely in the BraYā, but is notable for suggesting, as TÖRZSÖK (2014:
360) observes, a non-sexual relationship based upon initiatory kinship:
bhaginī occurs mainly in explanations of the verbal and non-verbal codes
(chomma) used to identify and communicate with other initiates – the

19
For analysis of the category yoginī, see TÖRZSÖK 2009 and HATLEY 2013.
20
See also the introduction to paṭala 14, cited below in n. 96.
21
BraYā 24.75c–76b: āsām madhye kadā cit syād yoginī śakticoditā [em.;
°coditaḥ ms.] || 75 || icchate sādhakaṃ devi bhoktavyā -m- aviśaṅkite [em.; avaśaṅ-
kite ms.] |. (“If a yoginī among those women at some point desires the sādhaka,
impelled by the śakti, she may be enjoyed without hesitation, O goddess.”).
SHAMAN HATLEY 57
sādhaka or bhrātṛ (“brother”) and yoginī or bhaginī (“sister”).22 This cate-

gory of women receives meagre attention, perhaps on account of lacking
immediate relevance to the male sādhaka’s ritual life – the text’s predomi-
nant concern.
It should be emphasised that the contextual, relational nature of these
terms for women leaves open the possibility of significant overlap. A woman
represented in one context as a śakti or dūtī could be viewed in another as a
yoginī or bhaginī.23 Nonetheless, I will argue that the BraYā’s divergent
ways of representing female practitioners point toward women of diverse
status and accomplishment, and not merely a multiplicity of ritual roles.
Women as ritual consorts
The BraYā’s most extensive references to women occur in the context of

rituals involving coitus, where dūtī and śakti serve as their main designa-
tions. Descriptions of the dūtī or śakti in sexual ritual provide a vivid,
though entirely one-sided window into women’s ritual roles. Much data
derives from the BraYā’s sādhakādhikārapaṭala, chapter 45, a treatise of
674 verses on the disciplines of sādhakas published by KISS (2015). Of the
three grades of sādhaka, who is unambiguously male, only the disciplines
of the tālaka or “pure” (śuddha) sādhaka mandate ritual coitus. While the
tālaka’s demanding disciplinary regimen is delineated with abundant de-
tail, the dūtī with whom he consorts finds mention only when she features
in his ritual. Her religious life is little expanded upon beyond her role in the
tālaka’s practices.24 Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that the BraYā
envisioned ritual consorts as initiated practitioners.
Delineating the characteristics desirable in a consort, a passage in chap-
ter 45 of the BraYā (vv. 186–189b) depicts the ideal dūtī as an accom-
plished ritualist. Beauty appears among her desired qualities (186d), but
this is not expressed in particularly erotic terms. On the other hand, her
capacity for asceticism and meditation, devotion, learning, and her under-
standing of nondualism (advaita) are key. The ideal female partner, in oth-
er words, is an accomplished Tantric adept:25

22
See BraYā 56.98c–102, quoted in n. 123 below.
23
Cf. TÖRZSÖK’s (2014: 341–342) cogent remarks on the fluidity of the catego-
ries of women she identifies in early Śākta-Śaiva works.
24
This omission is not entirely determined by gender; a similar silence surrounds
the sādhaka’s male assistant (the uttarasādhaka).
25
Text as constituted by KISS 2015, except as noted; translation mine. This pas-

guru-m-ādeśasamprāptā śobhanā lakṣaṇānvitā || 186 ||

jitāsanā mahāsattvā tantrasadbhāvabhāvitā |
gurudevapatibhaktā kṣutpipāsājitaśramā || 187 ||
advaitavāsitā nityaṃ nirvikalpā hy alolupā |
samādhijñātha yogajñā jñānajñā saṃśitavratā26 || 188 ||
tām avāpya mahāprājñaḥ27 kalpoktaṃ tu samācaret |
[186c–87] Obtained by the command of the guru, lovely, possessing

the marks of auspiciousness, who has mastered the sitting postures
(jitāsanā), possessing great spirit, purified by the true essence of the
Tantras, devoted to the guru, the deity, and her husband (pati), unfa-
tigued by hunger and thirst, [188–89b] ever steeped in nonduality,
free of discriminative thoughts and lust, well-versed in trance
(samādhi), yoga, and scriptural wisdom (jñāna), steadfast in the ob-
servances (vrata): after obtaining [a woman like] her, a man of great
wisdom should practice what is taught in his ritual manual (kalpa).
Despite this emphasis on her skill and virtue, the dūtī or śakti is represented
as having minimal ritual agency, and the BraYā expands little upon her
religious life beyond her sexual role. She enters into action in chapter 45
after nearly 200 verses dedicated to the male sādhaka and his preparatory
rituals. “Firm in her resolve” and with hair unbound, she is naked but for
the Five Insignia (mudrāpañcaka) fashioned of human bone. The sādhaka
worships her vulva and prepares a bed. They copulate and then consume
the mixed sexual fluids “joyfully.”28 Their alternating patterns of worship,
coitus, mantra incantation, and fire sacrifice have numerous inflections, as

sage is also discussed by TÖRZSÖK 2014: 343.
26
saṃśita° ] em.; saṃśṛta° ms.; saṃśrita° ed.
27
°prājñaḥ ] em.; °prājñoḥ ms., ed.
28
BraYā 45.198–202 (edited by KISS 2015): agrataḥ śaktim āropya ūrdhva-
rūpāṃ digāmbarām | mudrāpañcakasaṃyuktaṃ muktakeśī dṛḍhavratām || 198 ||
pīṭhaṃ tu-m-ārcayet tasyā astrodakasamanvitām | vilepayitvā gandhais tu āsanaṃ
tatra kalpayet || 199 || yāgaṃ pūrvavidhānena aśeṣaṃ tatra vinyaset | bhūmyāṃ
tathāsanaṃ kṛtvā svalpaprastaraṇāntikam || 200 || upaviśyāpayet tatra cumbanā-
dyāvagūhanam | kṛtvā kṣobhaṃ samārabhya pavitraṃ gṛhya sādhakaḥ || 201 ||
prāśayitvā tu tau hṛṣṭau yāgadravyāṇi prokṣayet | arcanaṃ hi tataḥ kṛtvā naivedyāni
tu dāpayet || 202 ||.
SHAMAN HATLEY 59
do their costumes and sexual positions.29 Throughout the performance, the

sādhaka is the principal ritual agent. She stands, sits, lays down, or is en-
tered into as the ritual demands. Along with the maṇḍala and fire, her vul-
va serves as a primary locus for installation (nyāsa) and worship of the
mantra-deities. Her role is passive to such an extent that she is repeatedly
instructed not to rise from the bed while the sādhaka performs worship
(yāga) or fire sacrifice (homa).30 Indeed, at least in this chapter, it is un-
clear whether she actively engages in worship with the sādhaka at all be-
tween bouts of coitus. A passage from another chapter (30) epitomises the
consort’s lack of ritual agency: the tālaka, in the absence of a flesh-and-
blood śakti, is instructed to create a substitute made of clay or kuśa-grass.31
The degree to which the BraYā’s sexual rituals are framed in terms of
the sādhaka’s religious aspirations is illustrated by the rites for seeing his
past lives.32 A rather unique “Tantric community” obtains in these virtuoso
sexual performances. These rites are a form of ritual diagnostics: through
them, an unsuccessful sādhaka seeks a vision of his past lives to identify
obstacles impeding his quest for siddhi. Playing on the double meaning of
yoni, the premise is to use a woman’s womb (yoni) to see one’s past births
(yoni). To have knowledge of three lives, the sādhaka’s own consort will
suffice, but a vision of seven lives requires the participation of seven initiated

29
KISS (2015: 47–48) summarises the pattern of worship as follows: “The basic
ritual ... includes ritual bathing (snāna), mantric installation (nyāsa), him entering the
ritual site (devāgāra) and the performance of worship (pūjā). The sādhaka should
perform pantheon worship (yāga) and fire rituals (homa), facing south, his hair dis-
hevelled, naked, his body covered in ashes. His female partner should be standing,
naked, her pīṭha, i.e., her genitals, are to be worshipped, and the installation of the
pantheon (nyāsa) should be performed on them. She then sits down, he kisses and
embraces her, he brings her to orgasm, collects the sexual fluids, and they eat these
sexual fluids together. Homa is performed again with transgressive substances such
as cow flesh. He inserts his liṅga in her pīṭha, and finally homa of meat is perfor-
med.” This basic pattern is inflected for different ritual aims, for details of which see
the edition and translation.
30
See BraYā 45.278cd, 282, 309, 312, etc.
31
BraYā 30.218–219b: naktabhojī mahāvīraḥ śaktiyuktas tu tālakaḥ | śaktyālābhe
mahādevi mṛnmayīṃ [em.; mṛnmayī ms.] kārayed budhaḥ || 218 || kuśamayīṃ vāpi
deveśi śaktihīno na kārayet |. (“The greatly heroic tālaka should eat by night, together
with the śakti. In the absence of a śakti, O great goddess, a wise man should fashion
[an effigy of one] out of clay or kuśa-grass. He should not perform [the ritual] without
a śakti, O queen of the gods” [understanding kārayet as non-causative in sense]).
32
BraYā 45.529c–636.

women. Led by his consort, the women sit in a row, dressed in red. Over a
period of seven days, the sādhaka copulates with each in turn in the course
of the daily rites. During interludes, they are instructed to pass the time in
song and other pleasant diversions (vinoda).33 The most elaborate version
of the rite requires eight women, performed while sequestered in an earthen
hut or cave (bhūgṛha) for a period of six months. The women recruited
should be “led by one’s consort, lovingly devoted, full of faith, initiated,
and free of shame and aversion.”34 They enter the dark chamber with hair
unbound, naked but for a yoga-cloth, or else wearing red garments.35 Ar-
rayed like goddesses in the eight directions around the Bhairava-like sādha-
ka, he copulates with them in turn in the daily rites. No reward is promised to
the women for their trouble, while the sādhaka may attain mastery over all
mantras and omniscient vision.36 One is left to imagine the claims and incen-
tives motivating women’s participation, on which the text is silent.
Who served as Tantric consorts, and under what circumstances? What
kinds of relationships obtained outside of ritual? In general, the prescrip-
tive literature affords meagre insight into such questions. Some useful data
nonetheless emerges from the study of chapter 24 of the BraYā and a sec-
tion of chapter 22, which concern the “secret nectars” (guhyāmṛta).37 These
include alcoholic drinks, for which the text provides numerous recipes
(āsavalakṣaṇa, BraYā 24.129c–189). Its principal concern, however, is
with sexual and menstrual fluids. In this context the consort’s role is like a
milch cow prised for her ritual-sustaining fluids and her mantra-
empowered vulva.38 One remarkable rite even uses her body as catalyst for
producing magical pills (guḍikā), which are made from a pulverised dildo

33
BraYā 45.540c–542b.
34
BraYā 45.597c–98b (KISS 2015): nāryaṣṭaka samāhṛtya śaktyādyā bhakti-
vatsalā || 597 || śraddadhānādhikārī ca nirlajjā nighṛṇās tathā |.
35
BraYā 45.608c–609 (KISS 2015): yogapaṭṭakṛtāṅgābhi digvāsābhis tathaiva ca ||
608 || raktavāsottarīyābhir muktakeśābhir āvṛtāḥ | praviśet sādhako dhīras tādṛgbhūto
na saṃśayaḥ || 609 ||.
36
BraYā 45.649 (KISS 2015): aṇimādiguṇaiśvaryaṃ tadā tasya prajāyate | ma-
ntrā kiṅkaratāṃ yānti tadā devi na saṃśayaḥ || 649 ||.
37
Both of these chapters were read, in part, in the Second International Workshop
on Early Tantra of 2009, in a session led by Alexis Sanderson. My understanding of
the material has benefitted considerably from this. Emendations not my own have
been noted as such.
38
For a detailed account of the BraYā’s rites of the “secret nectars,” see TÖRZSÖK
2014: 343–344.
SHAMAN HATLEY 61
fashioned of various impurities, including beef and faeces, after it has been
churned in her yoni.39
This discourse on fluids furnishes valuable detail concerning the
tālaka’s sexual regulations and the women he consorts with. We learn, for
instance, that a tālaka may either be “wedded to a single consort” (ekaśak-
tiparigrāhin) or consort with multiple women. The path of committing to a
single śakti bestows rapid success; yet, as the BraYā twice asserts, such
monogamy is “difficult, even for Bhairava.”40 A monogamous sādhaka
must avoid intercourse with all other women,41 even if divine yoginīs per-
fected in yoga hanker after him.42 Comparative ease marks the path of the
tālaka having multiple consorts, but his ritual bears fruit more gradually. A
polygamous sādhaka “resorts” to his consorts alternately in the daily rites
(āhnika),43 apparently maintaining ritual relationships with multiple wom-
en concurrently, in addition to his actual wife or wives (who may or may
not be Tantric consorts).
How a tālaka meets and enters into relations with potential consorts re-
ceives scattered attention. One passage speaks of him taking as consort a
woman he identifies as a secret initiate.44 Most of the BraYā’s discussions,
however, characterise the dūtī using kinship terms: “Mother, sister, daugh-
ter, and wife are indeed held to be consorts.”45 Problems attend interpreta-

39
The recipe for these magical dildo pills appears in BraYā 22.153–155: dra-
vyaprāsya[ṃ] purā kṛtvā gomānsaṃ kiñcisaṃyutaṃ | surāṣṭhinā samāyuktaṃ piṣṭaṃ
piṇḍīkṛtan tathā || 153 || kṣobhadravyeṇa saṃmardya liṅgākāran tu kārayet | pra-
kṣiped yonimadhye tu nimiṣaṃ cālya pīḍayet || 154 || mantram uccārayen mantrī
saṃkhyāyāṣṭasatan tathā | karṣayitvā tu taṃ liṅgaṃ guḍikāṃ kārayet tataḥ || 155 ||.
In this passage and elsewhere in the BraYā, kiñci/kiṃcit (“a little [something]”?) can
refer to faeces, oddly enough; the meaning of surāṣṭhi is uncertain.
40
BraYā 24.110: ekaśaktiparigrāhī āśu [corr.; āśuḥ ms.] sidhyati tālakaḥ | duśca-
raṃ bhairavasyāpi ekaśaktiparigraham || 110 || (110cd is repeated in 114cd).
41
Presumably the ekaśaktiparigrāhin is either unmarried or else married to his
ritual consort, but this is not clarified.
42
BraYā 24.111c–112: manasāpi hi deveśi ekaśaktiparigrahe || 111 || yoginyo yo-
gasiddhās tu yadā tā icchayanti hi | tābhiḥ sārddhan na karttavyaṃ saṅgo vai si-
ddhim icchatā || 112 || (understanding karttavyaṃ as agreeing with saṅgo).
43
BraYā 24.115–117b: bahuśaktiparigrāhī sidhyate kālagocarāt | sukhopāya-
prakāreṇa [em.; °opāyā A] nānāśaktivijṛmbhakaḥ || 115 || īpsitāṃ [em.; ipsitāṃ ms.]
labhate siddhiṃ samayāpālanatatparaḥ | bahavaḥ śaktayo yasya paripāṭyā samāca-
ret || 116 || kṣobhaṃ tālakamārgge tu āhṇike cāhṇike tathā |.
44
BraYā 24.85c–87b, quoted below, p. 63.
45
BraYā 24.32cd, quoted below.

tion of these terms; as TÖRZSÖK (2014: 345) observes, it is unclear

“whether they express the relationship of the dūtī with the sādhaka, or the
status of these women, or denote certain conventional types of dūtīs de-
fined by the tradition itself.” Some statements imply that kinship terms
express modes of relationship rather than blood kinship. Take for instance
BraYā 24.32c–35b, which has multiple difficulties:
mātā ca bhaginī putrī bhāryā vai dūtayaḥ smṛtāḥ46 || 32 ||

dātavyan tantrasadbhāvaṃ nānyathā tu kadācana47 |
svaśaktiḥ48 sādhakasyātha adhikārapade sthitā49 || 33 ||
avikalpakarā nityaṃ jñānatatvārthabhāvitā |
nānyaṃ †vai taraṇe†50 caiva svāmivat sarvvabhāvataḥ || 34 ||
bhrātaraṃ pitaraṃ putraṃ patim vā paśyate sadā |
[32c–33] Mother, sister, daughter, and wife are indeed held to be

consorts. The essence of the Tantras should be given [to them], but
never otherwise. The sādhaka’s own śakti then has entitlement [to
perform ritual] (adhikārapade sthitā). [34–35b] Always free from
discriminating thought (vikalpa), purified by the essential meaning
of the scriptural wisdom (jñānatattvārtha), †she truly …[serves
him?]…†51 and no other as master, with all her heart. She ever looks
upon him as brother, father, son, or husband.
The verb paśyate implies an affective relationship: she “sees,” i.e., looks
upon the sādhaka as brother, father, etc., a choice perhaps dictated by age
difference or the nature of their interactions outside of ritual, including
actual kinship. Another point of interest is the suggestion, in 33ab, that a
sādhaka may himself initiate a woman as a śakti, giving her “the essence of
the Tantras” and becoming, in effect, her guru, despite lacking formal con-
secration as an officiant (ācāryābhiṣeka).52

46
smṛtāḥ ] em.; smṛtā ms.
47
kadācana ] em.; kadācanaḥ ms.
48
svaśaktiḥ ] corr.; svaśakti ms. (unmetrical)
49
sthitā ] em.; sthitāḥ ms.
50
patim ] em.; patis ms.
51
I am unable to interpret taraṇe and suspect that a finite verb such as sevate un-
derlies this. Csaba Kiss suggests the possibility of tarpayet, on a diagnostic basis.
52
This is consistent with indications in chapter 38 that a sādhaka – and not only the ācārya
– may bestow the initiation for neophytes (samayīkaraṇa), an issue meriting closer study.
SHAMAN HATLEY 63
Subsequent passages both enrich and complicate this picture. BraYā

24.49–61 seems relatively unambiguous in envisioning actual kinswomen
as consorts:
mātā siddhipradā proktā bhaginī ca tathaiva ca |

putrī caiva nijā śaktiḥ53 sarvvasiddhipradāyikā54 || 59 ||
tatkālavyatirekeṇa punar lobhā55 na saṃbhajet |
garbhiṇīṃ56 naiva kṣobhīta dravyārthaṃ sādhakottamaḥ || 60 ||
bhāryām āhṇikavarjyā57 tu garbhiṇīm api kṣobhayet |
bhaginīṃ vātha putrīṃ vā na kuryā58 kurute yadā || 61 ||
[59] Mother, sister, and likewise daughter are said to bestow siddhi;
one’s own consort (nijā śakti) bestows all siddhis. [60] Aside from
the time [of ritual], one should not copulate with them out of lust.
The excellent sādhaka must not sexually stimulate a pregnant wom-
an to procure substance (dravya). [61] Excluding the daily rites, he
may [however] sexually stimulate his wife, even if she is pregnant.
He should not do so to sister or daughter; when he does do so …
There follows a rite of reparation by which the inappropriately-bedded

“sister” or “daughter” becomes fit (yogyā) again for ritual. In restricting
coitus with consorts to ritual, prohibiting ritual coitus with pregnant wom-
en, and allowing for non-ritual coitus with one’s wife, even if pregnant,
this passage evokes a realistic domestic milieu. The distinction made be-
tween “one’s own consort” (nijā śaktiḥ) and “mother, sister, and daughter”
could also suggest that in addition to his principal consort (his wife?), a
sādhaka might have various auxiliary consorts drawn from among kins-
women. There is little to suggest that terms such as “sister” here refer to
affective relations or consort types rather than actual kinship relationships.
A subsequent passage reinforces this impression, delineating a large num-

53
śaktiḥ ] corr.; śakti ms.
54
°pradāyikā ] ms. (after correction); °pradāyikāḥ ms. (before correction)
55
lobhā ] em. (Cs. Kiss; understand as ablative, with loss of the final consonant);
llobho ms.
56
garbhiṇīṃ ] em.; garbhiṇī ms.
57
Understand as ablative (°varjyāt), or perhaps emend to the accusative.
58
Understand kuryā as optative in sense, with loss of the final consonant.

ber of familial relationships and ending with the statement, “One should
take these and other women as consorts.”59
Although sexual fidelity is expected of a śakti,60 a sādhaka may appar-
ently lend or transfer her services to someone else. A problematic section
on this subject (24.91c–96b) merits quoting in full. Depending upon how
one resolves a textual problem in the initial verse quarter (91c), this pas-
sage may address both the circumstances in which a sādhaka lends or
transfers his consort as well as what to do when he wishes to end his rela-
tionship with her:
utsṛṣṭā tu61 sadā deyā svaśaktyā62 sādhakena tu || 91 ||

abhyāgatasya63 deveśi devakarmaratasya ca |
prārthitena svayam vāpi yāgakāle na saṃśayaḥ || 92 ||
sāmānyasyāpi dātavyā srotaśuddhiprapālanāt64 |

59
BraYā 24.68–72b: bhaginī putriṇī bhāryā yāgakāle [conj.; ādyākāle] vidhiḥ
smṛtaḥ | mātāmahī pitāmahī tathā mātṛṣvasā [corr.; °svasā ms.] -m- api || 68 || pitṛ-
bhrātus [em.; °bhātṛs ms.] tathā bhāryā bhrātur [em.; bhrātu ms.] bhāryā [em.; bhā-
ryās ms.] tathaiva ca | bhāgneyī tu snuṣā caiva pautrīdohitṛkās [em.; °pautṛdo-
hitṛkān ms.] tathā || 69 || mātulasya tathā pitṛmātṛṣvasā [corr.; °svasā ms.] tathā
†pitṝn | bhrātā tathā pitā vāpi putrṝm bhrātaras tathāpi vā† || 70 || evamādi tathā
cānyā[ḥ] śaktayaś caiva kārayet | mātuḥ sapatnī [em.; svapatnī ms.] †māte vā† śa-
ktyā vā [conj.; vai ms.] kārayed budhaḥ || 71 || anyathā kurute mohāt prāyaścittaṃ
samācaret |. (“[68–69b] At the time of worship, [this] is said to be the procedure:
sister, daughter, wife; or else maternal grandmother, paternal grandmother, mother’s
sister, paternal uncle’s wife, brother’s wife, [69c–70] sister’s daughter (bhāgneyī),
daughter-in-law (snuṣā), granddaughters and daughters of one’s maternal uncle,
one’s maternal or paternal aunt (pitṛmātṛsvasā), † and … or else one’s brother’s
daughters†. [71–72b] One may take these and other women as consorts. Otherwise, a
wise man should take as a consort the co-wife of one’s mother † … †. One who does
otherwise, due to infatuation, should perform expiation.”). The interpretation of this
problematic passage is somewhat conjectural. In 71d, śaktyā is accusative singular in
sense, though formally nominative, śaktyā being a non-standard alternative stem of
śakti. Cf. the stem devyā (for devī), which occurs throughout the BraYā. On the
accusative for nominative in –ā stems, see EDGERTON (1953, vol. I: §9.20–22).
60
BraYā 45.89cd: “A wise man should take as consort a woman who does not
give sexual company to other men” (nānyasaṅgamasañcārāṃ śaktiṃ kuryād vi-
cakṣaṇaḥ).
61
utsṛṣṭā tu ] conj.; utkṛṣṭas tu ms. (see the discussion below)
62
Understanding svaśaktyā as nominative (with the irregular stem -yā).
63
abhyāgatasya ] em.; ābhyāgatasya ms.
64
°prapālanāt ] em.; °prapālanā ms. (otherwise understand as ablative in sense,
SHAMAN HATLEY 65
svaśiṣyasyāpi65 dātavyā ācāryeṇa mahāyaśe || 93 ||

svayāge śiṣyayāge vā nirvvikalpena cetasā |
svatantrasamayo hy eṣa bhairaveṇa prabhāṣitam || 94 ||
karttavyo66 siddhikāmena67 īrṣāyā varjitena tu |
tatkālāt68 tu mahādevi pralobhaṃ naiva kārayet || 95 ||
yasya śakti samarppīta tena devi na saṃśayaḥ |
[91c–92] O queen of the gods, when she has been released (? utsṛṣṭā),
a sādhaka should undoubtedly always give over his consort to a vis-
iting [sādhaka] who is devoted to deity worship, at the time of pan-
theon worship (yāga), either on request or of his own accord.69
[93ab] She may also be given to someone of the same lineage
(sāmānyasya) in order to guard the purity of [one’s] stream of
transmission (?). [93c–94b] An ācārya may also give her to his own
disciple, O woman of renown, with a mind free of conceptualisation,
whether in his own pantheon worship or his disciple’s. [94c–95b]
For this is the autonomous convention declared by Bhairava. It is to
be done by one desiring siddhi, but devoid of jealousy. [95c–96b] O
great goddess, one who has offered over his śakti must not, undoubt-
edly, lust for her afterwards (?).70
A number of questions arise: Does the entire passage concern the śakti
whom a sādhaka releases? Do some cases of transfer apply only for the
duration of ritual? Were consorts economically or socially dependent in
ways that warranted assignation to another sādhaka – a kind of “remar-

with Middle-Indic loss of final -t).
65
svaśiṣyasyāpi ] em.; svaṃ siṣyāpi ms. Alternatively, read svaśiṣye ’pi, as con-
jectured by Alexis Sanderson (in the Pondicherry Early Tantra workshop).
66
karttavyo ] em.; karttavyā ms.
67
°kāmena ] corr.; °kāmeṇa ms.
68
tatkālāt ] em. (Cs. Kiss, personal communication); tatkālan ms.
69
This interpretation depends on the conjecture of utsṛṣṭā tu (“[a woman] let
go/dismissed) in 91a for the ms.’s phonetically similar and contextually unintelligible
utkṛṣṭas tu (“[an] eminent [man]”). While the emendation is conjectural, the reading of
the ms. seems implausible here. I had initially conjectured utkṛṣṭasya instead, in which
case 91c–92b could be understood thus: “O queen of the gods, to a visiting [sādhaka]
who is distinguished (utkṛṣṭasya) and devoted to deity worship, a sādhaka should
undoubtedly give over his own consort, either on request or of his own accord.”
70
The construction in 24.95c–96b is grammatically flawed, and the interpretation
somewhat speculative.

riage” – if abandoned? Was continued alliance with a sādhaka integral to a

woman’s belonging and status in the esoteric community? Less ambiguous is
the presumption of a sādhaka’s control over his consort, to the extent of
exclusive power to transfer his ritual “conjugal” rights. (An early twentieth-
century Tibetan woman, Sera Khandro, writes of precisely this experience:
being transferred from the custody of one Lama to another without consulta-
tion.71) This śakti-sharing finds justification in “ritual nondualism:” the tran-
scendence of discriminative, dualist conceptualisation (vikalpa), based most
fundamentally on the false dichotomy of “pure” and “impure.”72
A somewhat different picture emerges from a contrasting passage
(BraYā 24.85c–87b), which may speak of male and female initiates form-
ing temporary, voluntary relationships:
ādiṣṭo vātha nādiṣṭo73 jñātvā guptādhikāriṇīṃ || 85 ||

śaktyā tu kārayed devi nityam eva hi sādhakaḥ |
pakṣam māsaṃ ritum vāpi ṣaṭmāsam abdam eva vā || 86 ||
āgantūnām74 vidhi hy eṣā śaktīnāṃ tālakasya tu |
If he comes to know that a woman is secretly an initiate, whether he is

instructed to or not, a sādhaka should always make a consort of her,75
O goddess – for a fortnight, month, season, six months, or year. This
is the procedure for the tālaka and for adventitious (āgantū) śaktis.
Qualifying śaktīnāṃ, the expression āgantūnāṃ could have the sense of

“unexpected visitors,”76 but I would suggest that it has a more technical
meaning. A classification of yoginīs in chapter 14 of the BraYā, discussed
in the next section of this essay, describes the āgantū as a woman who
attains the wisdom of yoginīs through her own ritual accomplishment
(14.266). While ambiguous, the passage seemingly intimates a scenario in
which a sādhaka recognises a woman as a secret initiate and approaches
her to enter into a temporary relationship (perhaps by recourse to secret

71
JACOBY 2014.
72
On “ritual nondualism” in early Śākta Tantras, see TÖRZSÖK 2013.
73
vātha nādiṣṭo ] em.; nātha vādiṣṭo ms.
74
āgantūnām ] corr.; agantūnām ms.
75
In 86a, śaktyā appears to be accusative singular in sense, though ostensibly a
nominative formed on the extended stem śaktyā (for śakti); see n. 59 above. One
might instead emend to śaktyāṃ.
76
Cf. the reference to visiting (abhyāgata) sādhakas in BraYā 24.92, quoted above.
SHAMAN HATLEY 67
signs, chomma). As with the subsequently-discussed descriptions of hidden

yoginīs, the female practitioner envisioned here seems to have a degree of
autonomy.
On the whole, the BraYā’s representations of sexual ritual ascribe min-
imal agency to women, treat them as subordinate to the male practitioner, if
not as chattel, and largely ignore the question of whether and how they
might derive spiritual or temporal benefit. While the sādhaka’s goals, ritual
actions, and subjective states are delineated minutely, few such instructions
are directed toward the consort. There are, for instance, no indications that
she should meditate or incant mantras during copulation. In these respects
her subjectivity is virtually ignored; yet in contrast, female desire, pleasure,
and sexual agency do sometimes feature as concerns.77 This may seem
incongruous with the emphasis on ascetic and religious virtues as precondi-
tions for a consort’s selection but accords entirely with the rites’ emphasis
on the flow of the “secret nectar” (guhyāmṛta).
Did the BraYā envision all women involved in sexual ritual as initiated
practitioners? Two cases might suggest otherwise: those of the coital ritual
known as the asidhārāvrata (“sword’s edge observance”) and the sexual
rites of the miśraka, the sādhaka of “mixed” purity. In the asidhārāvrata,
the subject of chapter 40, the description of the ideal consort contrasts
sharply with that of chapter 45. In this case her erotic appeal receives
overwhelming emphasis (40.2–8b):
[2–3b] [One should find] a woman desirous of lovemaking who pos-

sesses the aforementioned qualities (pūrvalakṣaṇasaṃyuktā), en-
dowed with surpassing beauty, proud of her pristine youth; [3c–4]
flirting with humour and amorous dance, making coquettish gestures
and so forth, possessing [fine] garments and jewellery, adorned with
all [kinds of] ornaments – endowed with necklaces, armlets, rubies,
and strings of pearls – or obtained to the extent of one’s means, even
if she has very little adornment. [5-6b] Smeared with perfumes and
lac (?), ever marked with sandalwood paste, possessing plump,
raised breasts very round in girth; her nipples are beautified by flow-
er strands, and her breasts firm. [6c–8b] Devoted and loving, [hav-
ing] superlative bangles (?), endowed by nature with good conduct,
clever and flirtatious, either a Kṣatriya woman, or a woman belong-

77
On women’s sexual agency, note for instance BraYā 24.75c–76b, quoted
above in n. 21.

ing to another caste; and he should adorn himself with apparel of the
same kind.78
I would suggest that this emphasis on the consort’s beauty and concupis-
cence is a departure reflecting the distinctive history and aims of the
asidhārāvrata. This observance has roots in an orthodox ascetic discipline
of the same name by which men strove to attain self-restraint in the face of
extreme temptation. As I argue elsewhere (HATLEY 2018), earlier Tantric
versions of the observance emphasise the erotic appeal desired of a consort
but do not envision her as initiated. The BraYā’s version of the asidhārā-
vrata maintains the emphasis on erotic beauty but departs in envisioning
the consort as an initiate. This is intimated, in particular, by the fact that
following the evening meal, the consort and sādhaka perform worship
together.79 Her erotic appeal serves to augment the vrata’s difficulty and
potential efficacy, and it is a stipulation additional to the dūtī’s usual quali-
fications. This is signalled by the statement that she should, first of all,
possess “the aforementioned qualities” (pūrvalakṣaṇasaṃyuktā, 2a) – in all
likelihood a reference to the list of virtues cited above from chapter 45.80 In
other words, the consort’s dazzling sexiness in the BraYā’s asidhārāvrata
is merely an inflection of ritual syntax, of the same order as variations in
garb, gesture, paraphernalia, and mantra. She must still be an initiated dūtī.
In contrast, the rites of the “mixed” (miśraka), middle-grade sādhaka
more clearly evince the possibility of non-initiated women’s participation.
His disciplines in most respects mirror those of the tālaka or “pure” sādha-
ka, yet, as a general rule, exclude coitus.81 As an exception to his ritual

78
Text and translation from HATLEY (2018); see the latter for discussion of the
passage’s numerous problems of text and interpretation. BraYā 40.2–8b: pūrvva-
lakṣaṇasaṃyuktāṃ yoṣitāṃ suratocchukām | atīvarūpasaṃpannāṃ navayauvanada-
rppitām || 2 || hāsyalāsyavilāsinyāṃ vibhramādividhānakām | vastrālaṅkārasaṃpa-
nnāṃ sarvvābharaṇabhūṣitām || 3 || hārakeyūramāṇikyamuktāvalisusaṃsthitām |
yathāvibhavasaṃprāptāṃ svalpabhūṣaṇakāpi vā || 4 || sugandhamālyā kālā tu ga-
ndhapaṅkāṅkitā sadā | pīnonnatastanopetām ābhogaparimaṇḍalām || 5 || cūcukā sra-
gdāmaśobhā saghanā tu payodharā | bhaktāñ caivānuraktāñ ca valayām uttamo-
ttamā || 6 || prakṛtyā śīlasampannāṃ vidagdhāṃ ca vilāsinīm | rājānayoṣitām vāpi
anyavarṇṇagatām api || 7 || tādṛgvidhopabhogaiś ca ātmānaṃ samalaṅkaret |.
79
BraYā 40.18cd: nityavrataṃ tu niṣkramya tayā sārddhaṃ samācaret |.
80
That a passage from chapter 45 is referred to as “earlier” (pūrva) suggests that
the chapters were reordered at some point; see HATLEY 2018: 70.
81
On the miśraka’s chastity, note, e.g., BraYā 45.435a, “He is always engaged in
celibacy” (brahmacaryarato nityaṃ); and 447cd, “And he should not have intercour-
SHAMAN HATLEY 69
chastity, he may perform coital ritual by command of the guru (ādeśena),

but only if he succeeds in magically summoning a female being, whether
human or divine.82 It seems that any which female one magically attracts
becomes a suitable consort, with no stipulations or restrictions concerning
initiation. He must in fact accept whomever appears, at the pain of expia-
tion.83 Minimal detail concerning women emerges from these passages,
beyond vague indications that celestial maidens (divyakanyā) were the
preferred targets of magical summoning (ākarṣaṇa).84 Nonetheless, an
encounter with an initiated, flesh-and-blood woman is key to the curious
circumstance by which a miśraka takes up the tālaka’s path (tālakamārga),
as a somewhat doubtful passage describes (BraYā 45.523c–526b):85
ādeśaṃ tu vijānīyād yadāsau lakṣaṇānvitā86 || 523 ||

upatiṣṭhe svayaṃ śaktiḥ ādiṣṭā śakticoditā |
puṣpakāle bhaven nityaṃ phalaṃ yasya87 na saṃśayaḥ || 524 ||

se with women” (strīsaṅgaṃ ca na kurvīta).
82
The circumstances permitting coitus are first addressed in BraYā 45.439: “By
command, O great goddess, [the miśraka] may attract and enjoy [a woman]; conjoi-
ned with [this] consort, he may accomplish all rites.” (ādeśena mahādevi
ākrṣyākrṣya bhuñjayet | sādhayet sarvakarmāṇi śaktiyuktas tu miśrakaḥ ||). This
accords with a discussion of the miśraka in BraYā 24.100c–101.
83
BraYā 45.505–508 (ed. KISS 2015; translation mine): “Having repeatedly magi-
cally attracted a beautiful divine maiden, he [the miśraka] should enjoy her. Together
with them [i.e., her], the mantrin should again observe what is stipulated in his ritual
manual, in due sequence. The miśraka sādhaka should without hesitation take a wo-
man attracted by mantras as his consort, undoubtedly. Otherwise, the miśraka should
always observe celibacy. Without a doubt, he attains siddhi while situated in a sacred
field – not otherwise. But he must not [in this case] enjoy a [woman who is] attracted;
[if so,] the miśraka must perform expiation of 12,000 mantra recitations.” (ākrṣyākrṣya
bhuñjīta divyakanyāṃ manoramām | tābhi sārdhaṃ caren mantrī kalpoktāni punaḥ
kramāt || 505 || ākrṣṭā ya bhaven mantrai sa śaktiṃ nātra saṃśayaḥ | kartavyaṃ miśra-
kenaiva sādhakenāviśaṅkinā || 506 || athavā brahmacaryeṇa vartayen miśrakaḥ sadāḥ |
sidhyate hy avicāreṇa kṣetram āśritya nānyathā || 507 || ākrṣṭāṃ na tu bhuñjīta
prāyaścittaṃ samācaret | daśasāhasrikaṃ jāpyaṃ kartavyaṃ miśrakena tu || 508 ||).
84
Note for instance BraYā 45.532ab: ākrṣyākrṣya mantrais tu divyakanyāṃ ma-
noramām |.
85
Text as per Kiss 2015, except as noted; my translation departs in a few respects
and is somewhat conjectural.
86
lakṣaṇānvitā ] em.; lakṣaṇānvitaḥ ms., ed.
87
Perhaps emend to phalaṃ yasyā: “[a woman] from/of whom there are results,”
i.e., who enables the fruition (siddhi) of the sādhaka’s ritual.

samayī bhaktisampannā yadā tasya prajāyate |

tadā devi vijānīyād ādeśo mama nānyathā || 525 ||
yogibhir kathito ’py evaṃ tadā mantrī vilakṣayet |
[523c–24] He should recognise [my] command [to become a tālaka]

when a consort possessing the auspicious marks would spontaneously
approach him, by [divine] command, impelled by the [cosmic] śakti.
In all cases she would be in her menses, which undoubtedly give re-
sults [in ritual] (?). [525–26b] When a female neophyte endowed
with devotion appears to him, then, O goddess, he should recognise
my command;88 not otherwise. A mantrin should likewise discern
[my command] when it is spoken by yoginīs.89
As will be elaborated further below, ritual imbues a sādhaka’s encounters

with female beings with meaning, whether nocturnal visions of airborne
goddesses, sightings of villagers, or chance encounters with a solitary
woman. In the miśraka’s case, an auditory exchange with goddesses or
fortuitous meeting with a menstruating female initiate serves as the sign to
embark on the tālaka’s discipline, which requires a qualified consort. Unu-
sually, here her initiatory status is stated explicitly: that of the neophyte
(samayī, an irregular feminine for samayinī).
Beyond the magically summoned consorts of miśrakas, non-initiated
women are largely peripheral to the BraYā’s ritual. To some extent the
cultic focus on goddesses translates into ritualised reverence for women.
Respectful behaviour is mandated for those undertaking ascetic observanc-
es (vrata): a sādhaka, for instance, must address women he encounters as

88
In 525d, ādeśo should be understood as accusative in sense; cf. EDGERTON
(1953, vol. I: §8.36).
89
As KISS (2015) notes, yogibhiḥ (526a) is non-standard, occurring for the femi-
nine yoginībhiḥ. I have interpreted this line somewhat differently, primarily in light
of BraYā 45.184–185ab. The latter passage seems to state that one commences the
tālaka path either by command of the guru or of the yoginīs, as received in melaka, a
visionary encounter: eva[ṃ] melakam āpanno ādiṣṭaṃ tair varānane | tālamārga[ṃ]
tadā kuryād yadā śuddhas tu sādhakaḥ || 184 || gurvādeśena vā kuryād yogibhiś ca
samarpitaḥ |. (“Having thus attained a visionary encounter, he is commanded by
them [the yoginīs], O fair woman. He should undertake the path of the tālaka when
he becomes pure. He should do so either by the command of the guru or when offe-
red over [?] by the yoginīs.”).
SHAMAN HATLEY 71
“mother” or “sister,” and never display anger.90 Sexual violence is prohib-

ited emphatically.91 Reverence for women is also a formal element of a
ritual involving the wider, non-initiated community. Following pratiṣṭhā,
the rite by which an officiant empowers a religious image, rendering it fit
for worship, one is to feed the leftover food offerings (naivedya) to maid-
ens and women, including those of the lowest social status (antyajā),
alongside the more usual suspects – Śaiva ascetics and Brahmins.92 Despite
such ritualisation of respect for women, their erotic conquest remains one
of the BraYā’s most widely advertised magical attainments (siddhi). An
accomplished sādhaka “becomes like the god of love, bringing joy to the
hearts of women.”93
Women as ritualists, women as goddesses

A degree of ambiguity surrounds female initiation. The BraYā’s cycle of
chapters devoted to initiation (dīkṣā) and consecration (abhiṣeka), paṭalas
32–38, is largely silent on the subject. However, its instructions for the
assignation of initiatory names based upon the cast of a flower into the
maṇḍala (puṣpapāta) provide a naming convention for females.94 This
silence, punctuated by a note on women’s initiatory names, in all likeli-
hood reflects the matter-of-fact acceptance of female initiation at this level
of the tradition. As noted by TÖRZSÖK (2014: 355–361), the BraYā and

90
BraYā 21.24: striyo dṛṣṭvā namaskṛtya mātā ca bhaginīti ca | evaṃ saṃbhā-
ṣayen mantrī kroṣaṇan tu na kārayet ||.
91
E.g., BraYā 84.17cd: divyākṛṣya [em; °kṛṣyan ms.] tu bhuñjīta na ca strī sa-
balāt [em.; śabalā ms.] kvacit. “One may draw down a divine maiden (divyā) and
enjoy her, but must never [take] a woman by force.” (In 17c, divyā should be under-
stood as accusative in sense; cf. śaktyā, discussed above in n. 59.)
92
BraYā 4.707–709: pratiṣṭhāyāṃ na cāśnīyā naivedyaṃ sādhakottamaḥ | tato
niṣkramya deveśi samayi sādhu striyān tathā || 707 || kumāryo [em.; kumāryau ms.]
bhojayen mantrī antyajās tu striyo ’pi vā | vratīnāṃ brāhmaṇāṃ [em.; brāhmaṇā
ms.] caiva śivaśāsanadīkṣitām || 708 || bhojayitvā yathāśaktyā bhakṣabhojyādivista-
raiḥ | gandhapuṣpaṃ tato datvā kṣamāpya ca visarjayet [em.; visarjayat ms.] || 709 ||.
(One might emend vratīnāṃ to vratināṃ, but cf. EDGERTON 1953, vol. I: §10.201.)
93
BraYā 64.161ab: bhavate ’naṅgavat [em.; bhavete naṅgava ms.] strīṇāṃ hṛda-
yānandakārakaḥ |.
94
BraYā 34.199c–201b: nārīṇān [corr.; nārīnān ms.] tu yadā pātaḥ sthāneṣv
[corr.; sthānesv ms.] eteṣu jāyate || 199 || tena gotreṇa tan nāmaṃ śaktisaṃjñaṃ tadā
bhavet | yā yasmiṃ saṃsthitā gotre vīro vā yoginī pi vā || 200 || svagotraṃ rakṣa-
yantīha sādhakaś cābalā [em.; sādhakañ ca balā ms.] tathā |.

other Vidyāpīṭha and Kaula sources frequently refer to practitioners as

belonging to either gender, not only in the context of the initiation of neo-
phytes (samayadīkṣā), but in a broad range of ritual contexts. In its more
than 750 verses concerning initiation rites, the BraYā makes no allusion to
exclusions or modifications for women, and there are no grounds to assume
that the ritual differed in substance. In the narrative of the girl Sattikā’s
apotheosis and her role in transmitting revelation, the BraYā even tacitly
provides a model for female guruship.
Chapter 14 of the BraYā, the “chapter of the wheel of the sky-
travellers” (khecarīcakrapaṭala), stands out among early scriptural texts for
presenting a practice system designated specifically, though not exclusive-
ly, for initiated women.95 Demanding though it may be, this teaching is
framed as a concession to women’s supposed limitations. The goddess
complains that the process of worship Bhairava had taught earlier is too
elaborate. She characterises female initiates – here referred to as yoginīs –
as weak in both intellect (buddhi) and spirit (sattva), yet dedicated to their
husbands and full of devotion to the gurus. On this account, she requests an
easy means (sukhopāya) for them to attain siddhi.96 The system expounded
in response has as its basis an alphabetical diagram known as the “wheel of
the sky-travellers” or “wheel of the flying yoginīs” (khecarīcakra). From this
are formed three principal mantras: the samayavidyā or lower (aparā) ku-
lavidyā (“vidyā-mantra of the goddess clans”) for neophytes, the kulavidyā
proper, and the higher (parā) kulavidyā, also called “heart of the yoginīs”
(yoginīhṛdaya).97 Rites based on the khecarīcakra differ little in most re-
spects from those of the BraYā’s various other alphabetical circles (cakra),
such as the vidyācakra of chapter 17 or bhautikacakra of chapter 19. What
may somewhat set them apart is an emphasis on the aggressive magical acts

95
An edition of chapter 14 of the BraYā may be included in volume III of the
Brahmayāmala (currently in progress).
96
BraYā 14.1–5: devy uvāca || yoginyo svalpabuddhyās tu svalpacittālpasatvikāḥ |
bhartuḥ śuśrūṣaṇaparā gurubhaktisamanvitāḥ | tāsāṃ siddhir yathā deva tan me
brūhi samāsataḥ || 1 || evam vai pṛcchito bhaktyā saṃkṣepārthaṃ mayā purā | yāgan
tathaiva deveśa vistaraṃ kathitaṃ tvayā || 2 || saṃkṣepe yāgamārgeṇa sukhopāyena
caiva hi | kulakramañ ca vai tāsāṃ yena tāḥ siddhim āpnuyāt || 3 || deva uvāca ||
vistaraṃ kathitan devi sādhakānāṃ hitāya vai | adhunā sampravakṣyāmi yoginīnāṃ
mahodayam || 4 || yāgakramavidhiñ caiva tan me nigadataḥ śṛṇu | sadā karmaratā
yās tu yena siddhiṃ labhanti tāḥ || 5 ||.
97
Cf. the Siddhayogeśvarīmata’s mantra khphreṃ, the “heart of the yoginīs” (yo-
ginīhṛdaya), which, as TÖRZSÖK (2014: 361) points out, is described as particularly
efficacious for women.
SHAMAN HATLEY 73
sometimes associated with yoginīs, such as entry into another’s body

(parakāyapraveśa) and extraction of the vital fluids (amṛtākarṣaṇa).98
While chapter 14 of the BraYā ostensibly expounds practices for wom-
en, much of its content seems strikingly incongruous with this purpose.
Some material might more accurately be characterised as rites for a sādha-
ka to attain mastery over both divine and mortal females. One short pas-
sage, for instance, teaches the “technique for making [a woman] wet”
(kṣaraṇaprayoga), aimed at rendering her mad with desire for the sādha-
ka.99 The chapter also has a lengthy exposition of haṭhamelaka, techniques
for forcibly drawing down and mastering dangerous goddesses, in which
there is little ambiguity concerning the maleness of the ritual subject.100 As
a whole, the chapter appears oriented toward male mastery of ritual disci-
plines associated with yoginīs, practices envisioned as those women per-
form in their quest for divine apotheosis. Only in this limited sense does
the chapter concern women’s ritual. It seems implausible to conceive of
initiated women as the true intended audience; at most, one might envision
the chapter as a basis for oral instructions to female disciples.
The BraYā’s conceptions of “female” ritual practice receive further elu-
cidation in this chapter’s creative taxonomy of accomplished women. Ap-
pended to chapter 14 is a notable passage classifying the yoginīs who possess
mastery of the khecarīcakra (BraYā 14.260c–266). This threefold classifica-
tion differs in both premise and detail from the text’s threefold typology of
sādhakas. Among the three categories of yoginī, the āgantukā (“adventi-
tious” or “newcomer”) likely represents the normative female practitioner
who attains awakening through ritual means. In the other two cases, notable
by its absence is formal initiation: the jñānagarbhā (“wisdom-in-the-womb”)
yoginī and kulodbhavā (“clan-born”) yoginī both learn the kulavidyā mantra
directly from their mother, either in the womb or after birth, experiencing the
awakening of wisdom (jñāna) later in life. This transformative gnosis defines

98
See especially BraYā 14.193–260. Concerning these techniques, see nāḍyudāya,
pañcāmṛtākarṣaṇa, and parakāyapraveśa in TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA, vol. III.
99
BraYā 14.230–235; this is called kṣaraṇasya prayogaḥ in 235cd. Upon com-
pletion of the rite, the woman in question “being agitated, assuredly approaches and
follows after the sādhaka, afflicted with passion” (234d–235b: … kṣubhite ma-
danāturā || upaviśyati sāvaśyaṃ sādhakaṃ cānugacchati |; understand upaviśyati as
active in sense; cf. EDGERTON 1953, vol. I: §37.22–23).
100
haṭhamelaka is treated in BraYā 14.204–217. The maleness of the subject in
this section of the text is explicit in the aforementioned passage on “love magic,”
14.230–235.

them as yoginīs, a designation which slips here into its double-sense of both
female Tantric adept and Tantric goddess:
kauliko ’yaṃ vidhiḥ101 prokto yoginīkulanandanaḥ || 260 ||

yasyāś102 cakrasya saṃprāpti -m- avaśyaṃ tasya jāyate |
kulavidyā103 ca deveśi tāṃ śṛṇuṣva samāhitā104 || 261 ||
jñānagarbhā bhaved yā tu tathā caiva105 kulodbhavā |
āgantukā106 tu yogeśī107 prāpnuvanti na saṃśayaḥ || 262 ||
jñānī mātā pitā caiva jñānagarbheti kīrttitā |
garbhasthāyās tu vai mātā108 kulavidyāṃ109 samarpayet |
ardhatrayodaśe varṣe jñānaṃ110 prāpnoti sā dhruvam || 263 ||
parijñānavatī mātā nādhikārī pitā smṛtaḥ |
sā bhave tu kulotpannā mātā tasyās tu kārayet || 264 ||
karṇajāpan111 tu jātāyāḥ ṣaṇmāsaṃ112 kulavidyayā |
caturviṃśatime113 varṣe jñānaṃ tasyāḥ114 prajāyate || 265 ||
caruṇā yāgamārgeṇa115 amṛtasya tu prāśanāt116 |
yasyā jñānaṃ117 prajāyeta āgantuḥ118 sā prakīrtitā || 266 ||
anena kramayogena jñānakośa119suvistarāḥ120 |
siddhāḥ121 siddhiṃ gamiṣyanti yoginyo nātra saṃśayaḥ || 267 ||

101
vidhiḥ ] ms. B (paper); vidhi ms. A (palm-leaf)
102
yasyāś ] B; yasyā A
103
°vidyā ] °vidyāś AB
104
samāhitā ] em.; samāhitāḥ AB
105
caiva ] em.; caiva tu AB (unmetrical)
106
āgantukā ] em.; āgantukān
107
yogeśī ] B; yogesī A
108
mātā ] Bpc; mātāṃ ABac
109
°vidyāṃ ] em.; °vidyā AB
110
jñānaṃ ] Bpc; jñānāṃ ABac
111
karṇa° ] A; varṇa° B
112
°viṃśatime ] B; °viṅsatime A
113
tasyāḥ ] Apc; tasya Aac
114
yāga° ] A; yoga° B
115
prāśanāt ] cor.; prāsanāt A; prā(sa)nāt B (marked as error)
116
jñānaṃ ] B; jñāna A
117
āgantuḥ ] Bpc; āgantu ABac (unmetrical)
118
°kośa° ] B; °kosa° A
119
°vistarāḥ ] em.; °vistaraḥ AB
120
siddhāḥ ] B; siddhā A.
121
BraYā 1.29–30.
SHAMAN HATLEY 75
[260cd] This [aforementioned ritual] is called Rite of the Clans (kaulika

vidhi), [for it] gives delight to the clans of yoginīs. [261] She who ob-
tains the Wheel of the Clans ([kula]cakra) will assuredly gain [the man-
tra known as] the kulavidyā, O queen of the gods. [Now] hear of her,
being well-composed. [262] She who is [known as] “wisdom-in-the-
womb,” the one “born of a clan,” and the “newcomer yoginī” – [all of
them] obtain [the kulavidyā], undoubtedly. [263] [One whose] mother
and father both possess the wisdom, [and whose] mother would bestow
the kulavidyā to her while in the womb, is known as “wisdom-in-the-
womb.” At [the age of] half of thirty years she certainly obtains the
wisdom. [264–265] The mother fully possesses the wisdom, [but] the
father has no entitlement: she is122 [one] “born in a clan.” Her mother
would whisper the kulavidyā in her ear for six months when she is born.
After twenty-four years, the wisdom arises in her. [266] She in whom
the wisdom would arise through [consuming] the oblation gruel (caru),
through the path of deity worship (yāga), or through consuming the [se-
cret] nectars, is known as the “newcomer.” [267] The perfected yoginīs
shall attain siddhi in this order, without a doubt, possessing vast troves
of wisdom.
A remarkable view of female Tantric adepts emerges from this passage.

While males seek communion with the goddess clans (kulasāmānyatā), or
their mastery, women seek to awaken their identity as goddesses, or simply
come to manifest this spontaneously. This calls to mind the girl Sattikā of
the revelation narrative, who regained her lost divinity at age thirteen
through devotional worship. Apotheosis, either through ritual or by sudden
awakening, is thus a key theme in the representation of accomplished
women. As this passage indicates, their attainment may be congenital,
predicated on birth to initiates (either the mother alone or both parents) as
well as matrilineal transmission of the kulavidyā. This custom of informal,
matrilineal transmission points toward the possible existence of female
communities of practice only nominally aligned with the Tantric lineages
established through formal initiation.
The BraYā’s treatises on coded communication and “the characteristics
of yoginīs” (yoginīlakṣaṇa) (chapters 56 and 74) provide glimpses of wom-
en as initiated ritualists operating beyond the constraints of coital ritual,

122
bhave should be understood as optative, with loss of the final consonant (cf.
EDGERTON 1953, vol. I: §29.42).

though these representations are obscured by elements of visionary fantasy.

Here the focus lies not on the “sister” initiate, mentioned mainly in passing,
but on encounters with yoginīs secretly inhabiting the world (martya-
saṃgatāḥ, BraYā 74.40d).123 These living goddesses are represented as
potential sources of power and as guardians of esoteric knowledge, oral
“lineage teachings” (saṃpradāya) which men may learn only by their pro-
pitiation.124 This vision of Tantric wisdom laying hidden within the circles
of yoginīs, beyond direct access by sādhakas, undergirds a gendered ritual
logic by which men seek out encounters with accomplished female adepts
as well as goddesses. In this context the boundaries between women and
divine beings readily collapse. yoginīs assemble in the sacred fields (pīṭha,
kṣetra, etc.), but may also live inconspicuously in the village or town. In
chapters 56 and 74 the BraYā delineates taxonomies by which sādhakas
can recognise concealed yoginīs and identify their Mother-goddess clans
(mātṛkula), clans to which sādhakas themselves belong through initiation.
The distinguishing qualities (lakṣaṇa) by which one recognises yoginīs
span bodily appearance, comportment, food preferences, and the decorative

123
On the purpose of coded communication (chomma) and the distinction in this
context between “sister” initiates and semidivine “yoginīs,” note especially BraYā
56.98c–102: cchommakāḥ kīdṛśā deva kulānāṃ sādhakasya ca || 98 || prajñāyate
yathā bhrātā bhaginī vā viśeṣataḥ | caryāyuktasya deveśa yathā jñāsyanti yoginīḥ ||
99 || parasparañ ca vīrāṇām ekatantrasamāśrayām | ālāpārthe mahādeva katha-
yasva prabhāṣataḥ || 100 || bhairava uvāca || śṛṇu devi pravakṣyāmi cchomakānāṃ
tu lakṣaṇam | yena vijñāyate bhrātā bhaginī vā maheśvari || 101 || jñātvā ca yoginīṃ
mantrī śivecchācoditātmavān | sādhakas tu tato dadyād vācikaṃ mudralakṣaṇam ||
102 ||. (“[98c–100] ‘O god, what are the secret signs of the [goddess] clans and
sādhaka like, such that one may specifically recognise a brother or sister; such that
one carrying out the observances (caryā) recognises yoginīs, O lord of the gods; and
for the mutual conversation of heroes who follow the same Tantra? Tell [me this], O
great god, by way of explanation (? prabhāṣataḥ).’ Bhairava spoke: [101] ‘Listen, O
goddess; I shall teach the characteristics of secret signs, by which a brother or sister
is recognised, O Maheśvarī. [102] Having recognised a yoginī, himself propelled by
the will of Śiva, the mantra-bearing sādhaka should then give [her] a verbal message
characterised by mudrā [names].’” For a discussion of the interpretation of this pas-
sage, see HATLEY 2007: 378–379.
124
The idea of “attaining the lineage teachings” appears in the context of encoun-
ters with yoginīs in multiple sources, often expressed in similar terms; the phrase
saṃpradāyaṃ ca vindati occurs as Siddhayogeśvarīmata 27.16d and BraYā 3.230d,
45.295d, and 73.13b. Cf. saṃpradāyaṃ na vindati, BraYā 85.143b. Similar expres-
sions occur in the Tantrasadbhāva (e.g., dadante saṃpradāyakaṃ, 13.60b) and
Jayadrathayāmala (e.g., sampradāya[ṃ] prayacchanti, III, 28.21c).
SHAMAN HATLEY 77
emblems women draw on their homes. Take for instance the description of a
yoginī belonging to the clan of the Mother-goddess Vārāhī (BraYā 74.61–65):
[61] [A woman] with full lips and large eyes, whose frontal locks
have tawny ends, who is ever fond of the act of painting, skilful in
dance and music, [62] always fond of spirits and meat, lusty and de-
ceitful; she draws on her house the insignia of the fang, or else the
staff or chain, [63–64] and she likewise draws a snout, an angle, or a
cremation ground, a lotus, or pot. One should know her sacred day to
be the twelfth of both lunar fortnights, O fair woman; both Vārāhī
and Vaiṣṇavī are ever fond of the same sacred day. [65] She should
be recognised [thus] by the best of sādhakas, his mind suffused by
mantra. After one sees such characteristics, following the [appropri-
ate] response-mudrās, after one month she bestows siddhi upon the
mantrin carrying out the observances, O goddess. 125
This creative taxonomy reads the female body, comportment, and domestic
art as potential signifiers of membership in matriarchal esoteric lineages.
Though initiated into the same divine clans, which span levels of the cos-
mos, the sādhaka remains on the periphery by virtue of his gender and lack
of ritual accomplishment. His preparatory period of wandering asceticism
(vratacaryā) thus entails an almost voyeuristic fascination with women,
whom he carefully observes for signs of concealed divinity.
Recognised and duly propitiated, the living goddesses disguised as
women of the village or town may respond to sādhakas of their own initia-
tory clans. Exchanges of coded communication take the form of mudrā or
verbal utterance, or they may combine verbal and nonverbal codes. The

125
Text and translation from HATLEY (2007: 331, 412–413), with minor changes:
lamboṣṭhī ca viśālākṣī piṅgalāgrāgrakeśinī | citrakarmapriyā nityaṃ nṛtyagandha-
rvvapeśalā || 61 || māṃsāsavapriyā nityaṃ lolupā sarpasātvikā | svagṛhe daṃṣṭra-
mudrā draṇḍaśṛṅkhalam eva vā || 62 || likhate ca tathā ghoṇaṃ koṇaṃ vātha śma-
śānakam | padmam vā karpparañ caiva ubhe pakṣe tu parvvaṇī || 63 || dvādaśī tu
vijānīyāt tasyāḥ sā varavarṇṇini | vārāhī vaiṣṇavī caiva ekaparvvaratā sadā || 64 ||
jñātavyā sādhakendreṇa mantrāviṣṭena cetasā | īdṛśaṃ lakṣaṇaṃ dṛṣṭvā pratimu-
drānusāriṇā | māsaikāt siddhidā devi caryāyuktasya mantriṇaḥ || 65 ||. In 62b, I have
emended the unintelligible sarvasātvikā to sarpasātvikā. As TÖRZSÖK (2014: 349–
351) notes, highlighting the example of Kaumārī-clan yoginīs, descriptions of wo-
men belonging to the clans of Mother-goddesses are remarkably similar across
Vidyāpīṭha texts.

living yoginī may bless the sādhaka by prognosticating future occult at-
tainments, or enable a visionary, power-bestowing encounter with her di-
vine clan sisters. The following exemplifies the liminal encounter envi-
sioned between a sādhaka and concealed yoginī, who foretells his future
attainments through gesture (BraYā 56.132–135):
[132] When [she] puts her hands on the tip of the nose and moves
her head around, she in that way relates “[you shall attain] an en-
counter with the Nine [deities] in a vast forest.” [133] She who
would look down and begin to draw on the ground [with her toes in-
dicates], “[you shall have] an encounter with female beings of the
netherworlds in a temple of the Mother-goddesses.” [134] She who
gazes at her own tongue, and afterwards trembles, [fore]tells of an
encounter with female beings dwelling in the waters. [135] She who
shakes her hands from feet to head would indicate an encounter
[with the goddesses] at whichever level of the cosmos (tattva) she
abides, beginning with the śivatattva. 126
After receiving the prognostication, a sādhaka venerates the perfected

adepts (siddha) of the past and wanders forth until he attains a power-
bestowing, visionary encounter with the specified goddesses.127 The em-
bodied yoginī who dwells in the world, concealing her identity, hence
forms a vital link between the male aspirant and the goddesses whose di-
vine realms and powers he seeks. These encounters with worldly yoginīs
paint a picture of autonomous, powerful living goddesses who straddle the
female social world, communities based on initiatory kinship, and unseen
realms. These representations, no matter how stereotyped and suffused
with fantasy, may intimate the existence of female initiatory communities,
oral teachings, and ritual traditions existing at some remove from the more

126
BraYā 56.132–135 (HATLEY 2007: 320–321, 385–386, with minor modifica-
tions): nāsāgre tu yadā hastau kṛtvā cālayate śiram | navakasya tathākhyāti melakan
tu mahāvane || 132 || adhomukhī tu yā bhūtvā bhūmilekhanam ārabhet | pātālacāri-
ṇīnān tu melakaṃ mātṛmandire || 133 || svajihvālokanaṃ yā tu kṛtvā paścāt praka-
mpate | jalāntarvāsinīnāṃ tu melakaṃ kathate tu sā || 134 || ā pādān mūrddhaparya-
ntaṅ kṛtvā hastaprakampanam | yā sā śivāditatvasthā tatsthaṃ melakam ādiśet || 135 ||.
127
BraYā 56.136–137 (ibid.): so ’pi mudrāpatiḥ pūjya tathā manthānabhairavam |
bhaktyā paryaṭanaṃ kuryād yathātantraprabhāṣitam || 136 || namo ’stu digbhyo
devebhyaḥ pūrvvasiddhavināyakāṃ | datvārghaṃ parayā bhaktyā tato melāpakaṃ
bhavet | tatsāmānyaṃ mahādevi sarvvakalyāṇasampadam || 137 ||.
SHAMAN HATLEY 79
official, male-dominated Tantric lineages whose writings come down to us.

This is precisely the scenario the Siddhayogeśvarīmata intimates when it
ascribes the “heart of the yoginīs” to women’s oral tradition, a mantra never
before written down and only rarely mastered by men.128
Gender, text, and Tantric communities
Despite the BraYā’s large scale and detailed vision of its community of
readership, the text provides only a limited window into the social dimen-
sion of one somewhat marginal Tantric tradition. There are, moreover,
severe limitations to our knowledge of the text’s social and historical con-
texts and the kinds of community which coalesced around its cult. As the
preceding discussions have highlighted, the text nonetheless may have
much to contribute towards understanding women’s involvement in early
Tantric traditions.
In reviewing the BraYā’s discourse on women, two divergent kinds of
representation have come into view. These more or less map to the catego-
ries of dūtī and yoginī, and their respective ritual milieux: initiated women
functioning as consorts in coital ritual, on one hand, and comparatively
independent, potentially powerful women pursuing their own ritual aims,
on the other. Both play essential, albeit contrasting roles in the sādhaka’s
quest for supernatural attainment (siddhi). Depictions of coital ritual com-
bine lurid detail with near silence on women’s subjectivity and ritual agen-
cy. Whatever the social reality may have been, the BraYā envisions ritual
consorts (dūtī or śakti) as subordinate to the aims and authority of male
sādhakas, despite partaking of Tantric initiation. Contrasting representa-
tions of female practitioners emerge in discourse on yoginīs, who embody
the possibility of a religious life neither defined nor constrained by ritual
consortship.
These contrasting representations may of course obscure the real possi-
bility that yoginīs were sometimes dūtīs: such divergent images of women
are likely in some measure to be contextual. Much as the categories yoginī
and devī (“goddess”) may blend to the point of being indistinguishable,129
at the opposite end of its semantic field, yoginī overlaps with other desig-

128
Siddhayogeśvarīmata 28.41–42b: puruṣeṇādhikāro ’sti asmin strīvidhikarmaṇi |
striyāyāḥ siddhido hy eṣaḥ kadācit puruṣasya ca || vaktrād vaktragataṃ strīṇāṃ na ca
likhyati pustake | (see TÖRZSÖK 2014: 361 for a translation and some discussion).
129
Note also the overlap of yoginī with terms such as mātṛ, ḍākinī, etc.; see the
articles on these lexemes in the TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA.

nations for initiated women (dūtī, śakti, bhaginī, samayinī, adhikāriṇī,

sādhakī). Despite these convergences, the BraYā’s contrasting representa-
tions nonetheless seem likely to intimate women of varied status and cir-
cumstance, and not merely different ritual roles. While the data is limited,
the BraYā tends to portray consorts as belonging to the sādhaka’s immedi-
ate social world, if not family – women potentially under his own tutelage
whose religious commitment could in some cases be limited to ritual con-
sortship. In contrast, representations of yoginīs seemingly intimate inde-
pendent female adepts and matriarchal lines of transmission beyond the
sādhaka’s orbit and control. The extremes of these types – the kinswoman
consort and the yoginī as liminal, living goddess – may have disproportion-
ate prominence in the BraYā on account of their essential roles in the
sādhaka’s ritual life. In contrast, the text says little about the kind of initi-
ated woman referenced, usually in passing, by bhaginī – the “sister” initi-
ate who, valued neither as a source of sex nor of potent blessings, remains
somewhat peripheral.
An enigma presented by the BraYā is its explicit embrace of women in
its readership community and systems of ritual while simultaneously ne-
glecting to articulate their perspectives. Its myopic focus on the sādhaka
entails virtual silence on women’s ritual aims and motivations, particularly
in the context of sexual ritual. What were the respective roles of coercion
and the allure of sexual or emotional fulfilment, social status, and ritual
power (siddhi)? In chapter 14 – devoted, promisingly, to ritual for women
– this silence becomes particularly conspicuous, for the predominant con-
cern emerges as the revelation of yoginīs’ inner secrets for the benefit of
male sādhakas. Here the BraYā reveals itself as a text fundamentally about
women, both human and divine, but rarely for them. Despite the rhetoric of
female inclusion, the pretence of a mixed-gender community of readership,
and pervasive references to initiated women, male concerns dominate:
women feature primarily as vehicles for the sādhaka’s perfection. Nonethe-
less, in its narrative of the girl Sattikā’s ascent to divinity and her role in
revelation, in its matter-of-fact embrace of female initiation, in its teaching
of a mantra-pantheon (yāga) specifically for women, in its imaginative
anthropology of accomplished females, and in the very figure of the yoginī,
who straddles the human and divine, the BraYā provides glimpses of an
esoteric community in which women’s participation was both normative
and multiply enacted, and at least in some contexts not under male control.
SHAMAN HATLEY 81
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary sources
Kaulāvalīnirṇaya of Jñānānandaparamahamsa
Kaulāvalī-Nirṇayaḥ. (Jñānānandaparamahaṃsaviracitaḥ.) Ed. A. Ava-
lon. Calcutta: Āgamānusandhāna Samiti, 1927.
Jayadrathayāmala
Jayadrathayāmale Yoginīsaṃcāraprakaraṇam. Ed. A. Sanderson. Un-
published draft edition.
Tantrasadbhāva
Tantrasadbhāva. Ed. M. Dyczkowski. “Partially and provisionally edit-
ed” e-text available from the Digital Library of the Muktabodha In-
dological Research Institute.
http://www.muktabodhalib.org/digital\_library.htm (accessed in 2006).
Brahmayāmala (BraYā)
Brahmayāmala. (Siglum “A”). National Archives of Kathmandu manu-
script no. 3–370; Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project mi-
crofilm reel A42/6. (Siglum “B”). National Archives of Kathmandu
manuscript no. 5-1929; Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project
microfilm reel A165/14. See HATLEY 2007; HATLEY 2018; and KISS
2015.
Siddhayogeśvarīmata
“The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits.” Ed. J. Törzsök, A Critical
Edition of Selected Chapters of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata(tantra) with
Annotated Translation and Analysis. PhD thesis, The University of
Oxford, 2000.
Secondary sources
EDGERTON, F. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2

vols. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998.
HATLEY, S. 2007. The Brahmayāmalatantra and Early Śaiva Cult of Yo-
ginīs. PhD thesis, The University of Pennsylvania.
2013. What is a Yoginī? Towards a Polythetic Definition. In: I. Keul (ed.),
‘Yogini’ in South Asia: Interdisciplinary Approaches. London, New
York: Routledge, pp. 21–31.

2016. Erotic Asceticism: The Knife’s Edge Observance (asidhārāvrata)

and the Early History of Tantric Coital Ritual. Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies 79, 2: pp. 329–45.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X16000069
2018. The Brahmayāmala or Picumata, Volume I: Chapters 1-2, 39-40, &
83. Revelation, Ritual, and Material Culture in an Early Śaiva Tantra.
Pondichéry, Hamburg: Institut Français d’Indologie/École française
d’Extrême-Orient/Universität Hamburg.
JACOBY, S. 2014. Love and Liberation: Autobiographical Writings of the
Tibetan Buddhist Visionary Sera Khandro. New York: Columbia Uni-
versity Press.
KISS, Cs. 2015. The Brahmayāmalatantra or Picumata, volume II. The
Religious Observances and Sexual Rituals of the Tantric Practitioner:
Chapters 3, 21, and 45. Pondichéry, Hamburg: Institut Français
d’Indologie/École française d’Extrême-Orient/Universität Hamburg.
SANDERSON, A. 1988. Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions. In: S. Suther-
land et al. (ed.), The World’s Religions. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, pp. 660–704.
2009. The Śaiva Age. In: S. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tan-
trism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, pp.
41–350.
2014. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 & 25
(2012-2013 [2014]): pp. 1–113.
SHAW, M. 1994. Passionate Enlightenment: Women in Tantric Buddhism.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA. Vols. 1–2 ed. by H. Brunner, G. Oberhammer,
and A. Padoux. Vol. 3 ed. by D. Goodall and M. Rastelli. Vienna: Ver-
lag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2000, 2004,
2013.
TÖRZSÖK, J. 2009. Le shivaïsme et le culte des yoginīs dans l’Inde
classique. I. Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études, Section des
sciences religieuses 116 (2007–2008 [2009]), pp. 75–81.
2013. Nondualism in Early Śākta Tantras: Transgressive Rites and Their
Ontological Justification in a Historical Perspective. Journal of Indian
Philosophy 42/1, pp. 195–223.
2014. Women in Early Śākta Tantras: Dūtī, Yoginī and Sādhakī. Cracow
Indological Studies 16, pp. 339–367.
WHITE, D.G. 2003. Kiss of the Yoginī: “Tantric Sex” in its South Asian
Contexts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Bhasmāṅkura in Śaiva texts
Csaba Kiss1
This short article focuses on a fascinating but not very well-known catego-
ry of person in mediaeval India: the Bhasmāṅkura. After examining how
the Bhasmāṅkura appears in published and unpublished texts of the Jātivi-
veka genre, I will deal with earlier, Śaiva sources that are mainly in the
form of unpublished manuscripts to explore the origin and history of the
term. I will then try to raise some questions, rather than giving answers,
concerning the figure of the Bhasmāṅkura: What are the origins of the
Bhasmāṅkura? Why is he denied certain rights? And most importantly:
Can he tell us anything about the social setting of Śaivism in the Śaiva
Age?2 Indeed, to what extent can Śaiva texts in general help us in mapping
the actual social environment of mediaeval India? SANDERSON (2009: 298)
raises this question, and while addressing the extension of Śaivism beyond
the higher classes he also draws to attention the daunting problem of mak-
ing any definite statements concerning the socio-religious changes brought
about by Śaivism (italics mine):
Our sources reveal, then, that the Śaivas extended their recruitment
beyond the high-caste circles from which most of our evidence of
the religion derives. But, of course, they do not readily reveal the ex-
tent to which it was adopted outside these élites. The epigraphical

1
I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Prof. Alexis Sanderson for his valu-
able feedback, to Judit Törzsök, Shaman Hatley, and Gergely Hidas for their constant
help, to Prof. Rosalind O’Hanlon for sharing with me her manuscripts of the Jātivi-
veka genre, and to Prof. Vincent Eltschinger, Nina Mirnig, and Marion Rastelli for
inviting me to contribute to this volume. I gratefully acknowledge the financial sup-
port received from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) in the context of the SFP Pro-
ject “Visions of Community” (VISCOM).
2
I borrow the term “Śaiva Age” from Prof. Sanderson’s grandiose article publi-
shed in 2009: “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the
Early Medieval Period.” The period referred to is the fifth to eleventh centuries CE
(SANDERSON 2009: 41).
evidence is almost entirely restricted in this regard to records of the

pious activities of rulers and brahmins, and the Śaiva sources, being
largely prescriptive in their concerns, tell us much about what should
or could be done by or for various categories of person but give us
no sense of how widely these prescribed activities were adopted or
supported. One of the tasks of future research, then, should be to
gather data that will improve our ability to address this question.
That prescriptive texts are insufficient if we strive to understand to what

extent the prescribed activities were actually performed at a given time is a
chronic problem, and I am unable to offer any remedy for it. Rather, in
accordance with Sanderson’s piece of advice, here I will only attempt to
gather and display small pieces of data, in the hope that this may be useful
for further investigations.
The first time I became aware of the category “Bhasmāṅkura” was while
reading a manuscript of the Jātiviveka. This text, attributed to Gopīnātha,
was probably composed in the fifteenth century and discusses the complex
network of mixed castes (saṃkarajāti).3 It has never been published or trans-
lated properly4 but is relatively well-known. For instance, the work has been
used by Kane for his History of Dharmaśāstra, in which he paraphrases the
Jātiviveka’s definition of a Bhasmāṅkura as an offspring “from a Śaiva fallen
ascetic and a Śūdra prostitute” and confirms that the Bhasmāṅkura is also
“called Gurava by the Jātiviveka.” 5 More precisely, the Jātiviveka (2.126–
129) defines the Bhasmāṅkura as the offspring of a fallen (patita), i.e., out-
caste, Śaiva or Pāśupata ascetic and a Śūdra prostitute:6

3
For more information on the Jātiviveka and related texts, see O’HANLON &
HIDAS & KISS 2015.
4
Riccardo Nobile’s edition and translation of the Jātiviveka (“Jātivivecana,”
NOBILE 1910) is rather fragmentary and unreliable. Note also that a great number of
passages cited in the Bālambhaṭṭi ((1), pp. 294–305) are closely parallel with the
Jātiviveka.
5
In vol. 2, part 1, p. 102.
6
The following conventions for Sanskrit texts are used in this article: em. (X) =
emendation (by X), corr. = correction, acorr = ante correctionem (before correction),
pcorr = post correctionem (after correction), ms(s) = manuscript(s), fol. 2r = folio 2
recto side, fol. 2v = folio 2 verso side, cod. = codicum, ‘≈’ means ‘approximately,’
text in ()s should be eliminated from the Sanskrit text, ‘(?)’ after a letter or syllable in
italics means that its reading is uncertain, text in []s is supplied by the editor, text
cancelled (e.g. kuhāpoha) was cancelled by the Sanskrit scribe, ‘º’ indicates that the
lemma or variant is part of a longer compound or word, ‘●’ separates variants found
CSABA KISS 85
śaivāḥ pāśupatāś caiva tapodharmaparāyaṇāḥ |

ārūḍhapatitās te syuḥ śūdrapaṇyāṅganāratāḥ ||126||
tebhyas tābhyaś ca saṃjāto bhasmāṅkura iti smṛtaḥ |
sa jaṭābhasmadhārī ca śivaliṅgaṃ prapūjayet ||127||
tāṃbūlam akṣatā dravyaṃ gāvaḥ kṣetrāṇi śākinī |
śivāya prāṇibhir dattam anyat kim api bhaktitaḥ |
caṇḍāṃśaṃ tad iti khyātaṃ tena tasyeha vartanam ||128||
śaivāḥ pāśupatāś proktāḥ mahāvratadharās tathā |
turyāḥ kālāmukhāḥ proktāḥ bhedā ete tapasvinām ||129||
ya eva śivadharmāḥ śivabhaktānāṃ tāpasānāṃ ta eva bhasmāṅkurāṇām |
iti bhasmāṅkura gurava ||
Witnesses:
A = BORI no. 233 of the Viśrama (ii) collection, Paraśurāmapratāpa fol.
50v
B = 1638B, Eggeling Catalogue, British Library, Jātiviveka, fol. 13v
126a śaivāḥ ] A ; śevāḥ B 126b tapoº ] A ; naroº B ● ºparāyaṇāḥ ] em. ;

ºparāyaṇaḥ AB 126c ārūḍhaº ] A ; āroḍhyaº B 126d ºpaṇyāº ] A ;
ºpāṇyāº B 127b bhasmāṅkura ] em. ; bhasmāṅkuru AB 2.127d śival-
iṅgaṃ ] ABpcorr ; śi cavaliṃgaṃ Bacorr 128b śākinī ] A ; śālinī B 128c
prāṇibhir ] A ; pāṇibhir B 128d api ] A ; ami B 128e ; caṇḍāṃśaṃ ] B ;
caṇḍīśaṃ A (also Bṛhajjātiviveka, see n. 9, and Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi, see n.
11) ● tad ] A ; taṃ(?)d B 128d tena ] A ; tene B 129a pāśupatāś ] A ;
pāśumatāḥ B 129b ºdharās ] B ; ºcarās A 129c turyāḥ ] B ; kuryāt A
129d tapasvinām ] em. ; manīṣiṇaḥ A; tapaścinā B Prose after 129:
ya eva ... bhasmāṅkurāṇām ] omitted in A ● ya eva ] em. ; sa evaṃ(?) B ●
ºdharmāḥ ] em. ; ºdharmā B ● tāpasānāṃ ] em. ; tāpasāṃ B ● iti
bhasmāṅkura ] B ; nasmāṃkuru A ● gurava ] em. ; gurucu A ; gurova B
The Śaivas and Pāśupatas are devoted to asceticism. They fall from
their elevated status (i.e., they become outcastes) if they enjoy Śūdra
prostitutes. [The offspring] born from them (i.e., from Śaiva/Pāśupata

in the same pāda, ‘- - -’ indicate syllables marked as missing/illegible by the scribe,
IFP = Institut Français de Pondichéry/French Institute of Pondicherry, EFEO = Ecole
française d’Extrême-Orient, BORI = Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

males and Śūdra prostitutes) is called a Bhasmāṅkura. He wears twisted

locks of hair and [besmears his body with] ashes and worships the śiva-
liṅga. People offer betel, unhusked barley-corns, goods, cows, landed
properties, lands planted with vegetables, and many other things to Śiva
out of devotion. These [offerings] are called Caṇḍa’s share
(caṇḍāṃśa).7 He (i.e., the Bhasmāṅkura) makes a living from that in
this life. The classes of ascetics are taught to be these: Śaivas, Pāśu-
patas, the Mahāvratins, and fourthly the Kālāmukhas. The Bhasmāṅ-
kuras should follow the same Śaiva dharmas (regulations/rights/duties)
as devotees practising asceticism. This is [the definition of] the
Bhasmāṅkura, [also known as] the Gurava.
Just before the Jātiviveka concludes that the Bhasmāṅkura’s duties are the
same as those of Śaiva ascetics, in some recensions of the text extensive
quotations are inserted from the Śivadharmśāstra as well as from the Pura-
ścaryārṇava on the Śaiva’s rosary, on bathing in ashes, on the worship of
ashes, and on the nirmālya, the remains of a garland-offering to a deity (see
text in Appendix 1). This insertion probably serves to evoke the duties of
Śaiva ascetics, from which the duties of the Bhasmāṅkura, in the absence
of such prescriptions addressed exclusively to him, are to be deduced.
Later recensions of the Jātiviveka and texts that draw on it, or at least
resemble it, contain several variants of the definition found in the Jātivi-
veka: The Bṛhajjātiviveka repeats the Jātiviveka’s definition, together with
all the quotations from the Śivadharmśāstra.8 The probably sixteenth-
century Śatapraśnakalpalatā gives a prose paraphrase of the Jātiviveka’s
definition, omitting the remark on caṇḍāṃśa/caṇḍīśa and emphasising that

7
Note that some mss. read caṇḍīśa for caṇḍāṃśa. In both cases, the Bhasmāṅku-
ra may be associated with, or even represented as, (a human form of) Caṇḍeśa, “the
consumer of offerings that have been made to Śiva” (GOODALL 2009: 351).
8
The Bhasmāṅkura in the Bṛhajjātiviveka (fol. 22vff.): śaivā yāḥ pāśupatāś
[corr.; pāśupataś cod.] caiva mahāvrataparās tathā | turyā[ḥ] kalāmukh(y)āḥ pro-
ktā[s] tapo [em.; tayor cod.] dharmaparāyaṇāḥ [corr.; ºparāyaṇaḥ cod.] svakarma-
niratās te syuḥ śūdrapaṇyāṅganāratāḥ [corr.; -taḥ cod.] | tebhyaś ca tābhyaś ca jāto
bhasmāṅkura itīritaḥ | sa jaṭābhasmadhārī ca śivaliṅgaṃ prapūjayet | tāmbūlam
akṣatā dravyaṃ gāvaḥ kṣetrāṇi śākinī || śivāya prāṇibhir dattam anyat kim api bha-
ktitaḥ | caṇḍīśaṃ tad iti khyātaṃ tena tasyeha jīvanam || dhārayec chivanirmālyaṃ
bhaktyā lobhān na dhārayet | bhakṣaṇān narakaṃ gacchet bhūṣaṇā[c] caiva
mūḍhadhīḥ | nandikeśvaraṃ prati | śivadharmāna uvāca...
CSABA KISS 87
the Bhasmāṅkura collects the highly impure śivanirmālya.9 The

Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi does not omit the reference to caṇḍāṃśa/caṇḍīśa, but it
modifies the definition by stating that the mother of a Bhasmāṅkura is a
Śūdra wife (śūdrapatnī), not a prostitute as such.10 The same is true for the
seventeenth-century Śūdrakamalākara.11 The gloss by Bālambhaṭṭa on the
commentary Mitākṣara on the Yājñavalkyasmṛti in the eighteenth-century
also echoes the Jātiviveka’s definition.12 Bālambhaṭṭa classifies the
Bhasmāṅkura, quite logically, as an Anuloma, or permitted birth, in which
the father’s varṇa is higher or equal to that of the mother.13
Most of these sources add that a Bhasmāṅkura is called a Gurava in the
vernacular, more specifically in Marathi. The etymology of the term

9
The Śatapraśnakalpalatā’s prose paraphrase (fol. 68rff.): ye śūdrāḥ pāśupatās
tapodharmaparāyaṇās ta ārūḍhapatitāḥ [em.; ānūpatitā cod.] syus ta eva śūdra-
paṇyāṃganāratā[s] tebhyas tābhyaś ca saṃjāto yaḥ sa bhasmāṃkuraḥ sa(ṃ) bha-
smajaṭādhārī śivaliṅgaṃ prapūjayet | śivaliṅgasyākṣatāphalatāṃbūlavastradravya-
kṣetrādi śivāya datta[ṃ] tat sarvaṃ tenaiva śivanirmālyaṃ bhasmāṃkureṇa grā-
hyam (= prose paraphrase of Jātiviveka 2.126–128) | śivasvādhikārī sa eva bhasmā-
ṃkura bhedāḥ śaivāḥ pāśupatāḥ mahāvratadharā turyā kālamukhā jaṅgamādayo
nandikeśvareṇoktāḥ jñātavyāḥ | vistarabhayāt nātra [em.; tātra cod.] likhitāḥ | sarve
pi te bhasmarudrākṣadhārakā loke jaṭilādayaḥ kālau draṣṭavyāḥ | bhasmāṅkuro
[em.; smābhekuro cod.] loke guravasaṃjñaḥ ||39||.
10
Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi (16th c.?, p. 21): śaivaḥ pāśupataḥ kaścid ārūḍhaḥ patito
yadi | tasmāj jātaḥ śūdrapatnyāṃ putro bhasmāṅkuraḥ smṛtaḥ || śivārcanaṃ tu tat-
kāryaṃ śivadāyena jīvitam | sa jaṭābhasmadhārī ca śivaliṅgaṃ prapūjayet || tā-
mbūlam akṣatā dravya gāvaḥ kṣetrāṇi śakinī (śākinī?) | śivāya prāṇibhir dattam
anyat kim api bhaktitaḥ || caṇḍīśan tad iti khyātaṃ tena tasyeha jīvikāḥ |.
11
See Śūdrakamalākara, p. 284.
12
See n. 4 above.
13
This is Bālambhaṭṭa’s gloss on the Mitākṣara (18th c., in: The Sacred Books of the
Hindus, Volume XXI, p. 204; note that the remark in brackets in the translation stating
that the Bhasmāṅkura is “the priest of a Śiva temple” is not in the Sanskrit text of
Bālambhaṭṭa’s gloss.): “(22) Bhasmâṅkura. ‘The Śaivas, and the Pâśupatas following
the path of Yoga, when having attained a certain stage, fall down from it, and connect
themselves with Śūdra and other public women, they give rise to children called
‘Bhaṣmâṅkuras.’ [sic] A Bhaṣmâṅkura keeps matted hair and besmears the body with
ashes and worships the Śivaliṅga. (He is the priest of the Śiva temple) and maintains
himself with the offerings made by the pious to that temple.’ He is an Anuloma and is
called Gurava in the Mahâraṣṭra language.” Sanskrit text in Bâlambhatti. Book I. p.
297: śaivaḥ pāśupataḥ kaścid āsūtaḥ[→ ārūḍhaḥ] patito yadi | tasmāj jātaḥ śūdra-
patnyāṃ putro bhasmāṅkuraḥ smṛtaḥ || śivārcanaṃ tu tatkāryaṃ śivadāyena jīvitam |
sa jaṭābhasmadhārī ca śivaliṅgaṃ prapūjayet || tāmbūlam ityādijīvikety antam ity
anyatra | ayam anulomo gurava iti mahārāṣṭrabhāṣayā prasiddhaḥ.

Gurava is unclear. One could suggest that it stands for Sanskrit gaurava,
meaning “of the guru,” i.e., “the guru’s son,” but the Guravs/Guraos are
also a known jāti in Maharashtra, in parts of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh,
and Madhya Pradesh, and some of them insist on gurava being the plural
of Sanskrit guru (guravaḥ).14 Traditionally, they have been temple priests
as well as musicians. They even have their own Jātipurāṇas, composed at
the beginning of the twentieth century, to support their earlier claim to
Brahminhood. In one of these modern Jātipurāṇas, they are identified with
the Devalakas, or temple priests, in another one, a lustrous being called
Bhasmāṅkura(!) is born from the earth when the Śuddhaśaivas engage in
battle with the god Agni.15
Turning back to the Bhasmāṅkura, it is easy to see that the term has
managed to maintain a blossoming career up to modern times, from a ra-
ther low status Devalaka-type figure to a jāti claiming Brahminhood. An
examination of the Bhasmāṅkura as he appears in sources that predate the
Jātiviveka, i.e., those prior to the fifteenth century, could broaden our per-
spective even more. While I have been unable to find any occurrences of
the term in pre-Tantric texts, the Bhasmāṅkura does appear in Śaiva Tan-
tric texts: Chapter 23 of Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka, for example, para-
phrases certain prohibitions that are taught in Tantras and concern catego-
ries of men ineligible for consecration such as ācāryas. A citation from the
lost16 Devyāyāmala also mentions the Bhasmāṅkura next to the vratisuta
(“an ascetic’s son”) and the duḥśīlātanaya (“the offspring of a woman of ill
repute”). In Tantrāloka 23.9, the same two categories, vratisuta and
duḥśīlātanaya, seem to be distinct from and non-synonymous to the
Bhasmāṅkura, at least that is what tathā suggests.17 Or do they rather clari-

14
See SOUTH ASIAN FOLKLORE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 274 (with guru spelt gūṛū).
15
BAPAT 2001: 66. On the Guravas/Guravs/Guraos in general, see RUSSEL 1916:
175–181; BAPAT 1993 and 2001; PEOPLE OF INDIA: MAHARASHTRA. Part One. Vo-
lume XXX, pp. 768–777; SOUTH ASIAN FOLKLORE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 272–274.
Photos of Guravs can be found, e.g., in RUSSEL 1916: 176 and SOUTH ASIAN
FOLKLORE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 273.
16
See SANDERSON 2014: 41.
17
Tantrāloka 23.7cd and 9–10: samastaśivaśāstrārthaboddhā kāruṇiko guruḥ ||7||
(...) paśvātmanā svayambhūṣṇur nādhikārī sa kutracit | bhasmāṅkuro vratisuto
duḥśīlātanayas tathā ||9|| kuṇḍo golaś ca te duṣṭā uktaṃ devyākhyayāmale |
punarbhūś cānyaliṅgo yaḥ punaḥ śaive pratiṣṭhitaḥ ||10|| (…), “The guru should be
knowledgeable in the meaning of all Śaiva Śāstras and should be compassionate.
(…) The Svayambhūṣṇu is nowhere [held to be] entitled [to become an ācārya]
because he is a bound soul (paśu). The Bhasmāṅkura, the son of an ascetic, also the
CSABA KISS 89
fy the meaning of Bhasmāṅkura, stating that a Bhasmāṅkura is the son of

both a vratin and a woman of ill repute, so the Bhasmāṅkura is the son of a
Śaiva ascetic and probably a prostitute, just as the Jātiviveka puts it? Jaya-
ratha the commentator remains silent on this matter.
In any case, the Bhasmāṅkura is mentioned here in a list which also
contains the Kuṇḍa, “the son of a woman by another man than her husband
while the husband is alive,” and the Gola, “a widow’s bastard.”18 These
suggest that the Bhasmāṅkura must indeed be somebody with a problemat-
ic origin, resembling the Kuṇḍa and the Gola. Apparently though, for Ab-
hinavagupta this is not problematic to such an extent that it would pose a
problem, for he states that no prohibition concerning these categories is
taught in the Mālinīvijayottaratantra, the root scripture, and as Jayaratha
summarises: “In our religion there is no such rule, except for [the require-
ment that the guru] must be knowledgeable.”19 This fits in well with the
advaitācāra attitude of non-Saiddhāntika Tantras in general, or to put it
very simply, with the notion that one should usually not distinguish be-
tween good and bad, pure and impure, high and low.
Naturally, the Śaivasiddhānta’s view is different from that of Ab-

hinavagupta. For example, in the Uttarakāmika a Bhasmāṅkura is not al-
lowed to be consecrated as ācārya, like all others characterised by impure
practices, impure bodily and mental features, and problematic origins.20

son of a woman of ill repute, the Kuṇḍa and the Gola, they are impure: this is taught
in the Devyāyāmala. Also the Punarbhū, who was attached to another religion and
then returns to Śaivism (...)” (On the Svayambhūṣṇu [a self-appointed guru] and the
Punarbhū, see TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA III in the entry on punarbhū.)
There is the theoretical possibility the tathā connects bhasmāṅkura with sva-
yambhūṣṇu, as suggested by Judit Törzsök (personal communication).
18
Both in MONIER-WILLIAMS sub vocibus.
19
Tantrāloka 23.11 with Jayaratha’s introduction: asmaddarśane tu jñāna-
vattvam antareṇa na kaścid ayaṃ niyama ity āha “śrīpūrvaśāstre na tv eṣa niyamaḥ
ko ’pi coditaḥ | yathārthatattvasaṅghajñas tathā śiṣye prakāśakaḥ |.” “In our religion
there is no such rule, except for [the requirement that the guru] must be knowledge-
able. This is why the author says: In the root scripture, there is no such prohibition
taught. [The guru] knows all the various ontological entities as they really are, and he
exposes them to the disciple according to truth.” See also Tantrāloka 23.16c-17b:
ato deśakulācāradehalakṣaṇakalpanām || anādṛtyaiva sampūrṇajñānaṃ kuryād
gurur gurum |. “Therefore the guru creates an omniscient guru without considering
his place of birth, family, conduct, and bodily features.”
20
Uttarakāmika 24.12-14 (before the 12th c.?, see SANDERSON 2009: 279, n. 663;

Since the Dīkṣādarśa cites the Kāmika (see Appendix 2), initially the in-
structions here are similar to the ones above. However, when it subsequent-
ly cites the Cintyaviśva, it also provides further details (see verse 9 and the
following). The text states that gurus are essentially defined by their being
guardians of good conduct (ācāra). Those who fall from good conduct
(ācārāt tu paribhraṣṭās) should be avoided and ignored, just as one aban-
dons a broken stone liṅga. The offspring born as a result of a broken reli-
gious observance is called a Bhasmāṅkura, and he should not be allowed to
grant initiation or to consecrate liṅgas. His offspring is named Antara, and
the Antara’s offspring in turn is termed Kauśika. A transcript of a manu-
script of the Jñānaratnāvalī reads bhagnāṅkura instead of bhasmāṅkura,21
but it helps in understanding the previous passage, the one in the
Dīkṣādarśa. Here the Bhasmāṅkura’s offspring is called Kandhaka, whose
offspring is named Kogika. The same text also refers to the Bhasmāṅkura
with the synonym bhasmapraroha in a citation of the beginning of the
fourth pariccheda of Brahmaśambhu’s unpublished Naimittikakriyānu-
sandhāna, completed in the tenth century.22 The context here is categories
of people that are unqualified for abhiṣeka, and again, the Bhasmāṅku-
ra/Bhasmapraroha is mentioned next to the Kuṇḍa, the Golaka, and a certain

Ācāryābhiṣeka, p. 1297): abhakṣyabhakṣakaṃ caiva kuṇḍaṃ bhasmāṅkuraṃ tathā |
khaṭvāṅgiśyāmadantau cāpy ārūḍhaṃ patitaṃ tu vā ||12|| alasaṃ vṛṣalaṃ caivaṃ
vrātyaṃ vaiśyāpatiṃ (veśyā-?) tathā | asacchāstrakṛtaṃ [em.; -chastra- cod.] klībaṃ
vyādhitaṃ kunakhaṃ tathā ||13|| atha vyasaninaṃ pāradārikaṃ vṛṣalīpatim | ci-
trakaṃ gāyakaṃ caiva nartakaṃ ca vivarjayet ||14||. “He should not allow these [to
be consecrated as ācāryas]: anybody who consumes things that are forbidden, the son
of a woman by another man than her husband while the husband is alive, the Bhas-
māṅkura, one with a khaṭvāṅga [perhaps emend to khalvāṭa- (“bald”), see commen-
tary by Jayaratha ad Tantrāloka 23.12, who cites Svacchandatantra 1:24ab: kāṇo
vidveṣajananaḥ khalvāṭaś cārthanāśanaḥ], one with blackened teeth, one who has
fallen from his elevated status [i.e., an outcaste], who is lazy, a Śūdra, a Vrātya, a
harlots’s husband[?], the composers of heretic texts, an unmanly person, anyone who
is ill or has ugly nails, anybody with addictions, who is with somebody else’s wife or
is the husband of a Śūdra woman, a painter, a singer, or a dancer.”
21
Jñānaratnāvalī (12th c.?, p. 313): tāvat te guravo jñeyā yāvad ācārapālakāḥ ||
ācārāt tu paribhraṣṭās tyājyās te bhagnaliṅgavat | bhagnavratāt samudbhūto yo
’sau bhagnāṅkuraḥ smṛtaḥ || tajjātāḥ kandhakā jñeyās te [taj-?]jātāḥ kogikā matāḥ |
dīkṣāsthāpanayoḥ [ete] santyājyā [em.; ºātyā cod.] śubhakāṃkṣibhiḥ [corr.; śu-
bhāº cod.] ||.
22
I am grateful to Prof. Alexis Sanderson for this reference and for sending me
the e-text of this passage in the Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna edited by him, together
with additional pieces of information (personal communication, August 18, 2015).
CSABA KISS 91
Katthaka/Kanthaka.23 The Somaśambhupaddhativyākhyā echoes the Jñāna-

ratnāvalī’s definition of the Bhasmāṅkura, and connects the Bhasmāṅkura
with a certain bhasmaprada, which is most probably corrupted from
bhagnavrata.24 Note also the variants of names here for the offspring: Kalara
and Kuśika. The (Pratiṣṭhā)lakṣaṇa(sāra)samuccaya, which may have been
composed in the tenth century,25 after giving definitions for the Svayambhū,
the Punarbhū, and the Gola, defines the Bhasmāṅkura as follows (chapter 2,
Ācāryādiparīkṣā, variants omitted here):
ācāryadharmapatnīṣu yo jātaḥ sa guroḥ suta[ḥ] |

prāvrājyān naśyate pūrvaṃ strīyogād aparaṃ tathā ||99||
ubhābhyāṃ yaḥ pranaṣṭaḥ syāt tasyāpatyas tu katthakaḥ |
trikarṇotthās trikarṇāś ca trikapānātmakarṇakā[ḥ] [?] ||100||
nityanaimittikāgantugurudevāgnyapūjanāt |
bhasmāṅkuras tu katthotthas26 tatsutāḥ kauśikādayaḥ ||101||
bhojakā vratiputrāś ca kauśikānyāś ca kutsitāḥ |
The one who is born from the ācārya’s faithful wife is the guru’s
son. [If] he first abandons his asceticism and [then sins] by union
with a woman: the offspring of one who fails in both [matters] will
be called a Katthaka. Those born from the Trikarṇas and the
Trikarṇas are trikapānātmakarṇakas[?], because they do not worship
the guru, the devas, and the fire during the daily, occasional, and op-
tional [rituals]. Now, the Bhasmāṅkura is born from the Kattha. His
offspring are the Kauśika etc. The Bhojakas, the sons of ascetics, the
Kauśikas, and others are contemptible.27
This passage is problematic. For example, the Trikarṇa is a category ob-

scure to me, but what seems to be taught here is that the guru’s illegitimate

23
Jñānaratnāvalī (p. 407–408): avikhaṇḍitacāritro na punarbhūr [em.; pu-
narbhin cod.] na kanthakaḥ [em.; kaṃdhanam cod.] | nāpi bhasmaprarohākhyaḥ
ṣaṇḍhaḥ [corr. SANDERSON; ṣaṇḍaḥ cod.] kuṇḍaś ca golakaḥ |.
24
Somaśambhupaddhativyākhyā (p. 190): tāvat te guravo jñeyāḥ yāvad ācāra-
pālakāḥ | ācārāt tu paribhraṣṭās tyājyās te bhagnaliṅgavat || bhasmapradāt [→
bhagnavratāt?] samudbhūto yo ’sau bhasmāṅkura[ḥ] smṛtaḥ | tajjātā[ḥ] kalarā jñe-
yās tajjātāḥ kuśikā matāḥ || dīkṣāsthāpanayor ete santyajyāś śubhakāṅkṣibhiḥ |.
25
According to SANDERSON 2014: 28.
26
katthotthas] corr.; ºsthas cod.
27
The translation of this passage, especially of the second sentence, is tentative.

son is called Katthaka, and the Bhasmāṅkura is the Katthaka’s son. This is
slightly different from what we see in other sources. Note also that there
seems to be another reference to Caṇḍeśa in the following passage:
rāṣṭrakṣayakarā hy ete ye ca pāṣāṇḍino28 narāḥ ||102||

samayādi(ṃ) vinā mūḍhaḥ sthāpanaṃ kurute tu yaḥ |
śāstrāvilokanād29 eva caṇḍeśas tasya śāsakaḥ ||103||
yo ’śaivaḥ sthāpayed īśaṃ lobhavyāmūḍhamānasaḥ |
sa yāti narakaṃ sadyo yājñikaiḥ saha daiśikaḥ ||104||
These and the heretics are the destroyers of the kingdom. A fool who
would perform without [conforming to] the appropriate rules etc.
will be chastised by Caṇḍeśa, because he has neglected the Śāstric
prescriptions.30 If a non-Śaiva teacher, his mind confused by greed,
installs Śiva[’s image], he will go to hell immediately together with
the sacrificers.
Finally, the Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati mentions the Bhasmāṅkura in a

puzzling manner (or simply in a corrupted form): it mentions the term in the
dual when stating that the Bhasmāṅkura should be excluded from rituals. He
is defined here as the offspring of somebody whose observance (vrata) has
been ruined, or broken, and thus is fallen, or an outcaste (patita).31
As regards the names of the Bhasmāṅkura’s offspring (and in the case
of the (Pratiṣṭhā)lakṣaṇa(sāra)samuccaya also that of his father), it seems
certain that we are dealing with a fixed pair of terms modified by textual
corruption and/or local variants. One appellation emerges from Kantha-
ka/Kandhaka/Kandhana/Katthaka/Kalara/Antara, the other from Kauśi-

28
pāṣāṇḍino] corr.; paṣāṇḍino cod.
29
śāstrāvilokanād] em. Törzsök ; śāstrāvalokanād cod.
30
I am indebted to Judit Törzsök for the emendation in the Sanskrit of this sen-
tence and for its translation.
31
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, after 3.11.10, on who cannot be a guru: atra yo-
gaśivapaddhatau | […] kāverīkoṅkaṇodbhūtā ninditā guravaḥ smṛtāḥ | kuṇḍādayaś ca
rogārtā nindyāḥ syur deśajā api || bhraṣṭavratāc ca patitād utpanno yo narādhamaḥ |
bhasmāṅkurāhvayau[?] tyājyau ninditau sarvakarmasu. “gurus born near the River
Kāverī and in the Koṅkaṇa area are prohibited. The Kuṇḍa etc. and those who are ill
are prohibited even if they were born in proper places. The vile man, who is born [from
a man whose] vow has been broken [and is thus] an outcaste, is a Bhasmāṅkura and is
to be excluded, and he is to be prohibited from [performing] any rituals..”
CSABA KISS 93
ka/Kuśika/Kogika. It is safe to say that of these Kanthaka (perhaps from

kanthā, “a rag, patched garment [especially one worn by certain ascet-
ics]”)32 and Kauśika are the most probably correct Sanskrit forms. Regard-
ing the exact meaning of the term bhasmāṅkura, one may suppose that its
meaning is “a sprout grown from ashes,” i.e., an offspring of an ascetic
who uses ashes during his observances, typically a Pāśupata or Śaiva ascet-
ic, and who should be non-reproductive, dry as ashes, so to say, but from
whom new life has now been produced. More specifically, the ashes here
may refer to a Śaiva ascetic’s ash-bed,33 where the Bhasmāṅkura is con-
ceived. To demonstrate that modern researchers are not always familiar
with the connotations of the term bhasmāṅkura, we can refer to Gnoli’s
Italian translation of this passage from the Tantrāloka.34 He translates
bhasmāṅkura as “somebody who besmears his hair with ashes.” In fact,
Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary gives the secondary mean-
ing “hair” for the word aṅkura. This may have been the reason for under-
standing bhasma-aṅkura as “ash-hair” or “hair with ashes.” To refute this
interpretation, we can remark that it would be odd for any Śaiva text to say
that those who use ashes in their daily rituals, a common practice among
Śaivas, should be excluded from the office of ācārya.
As we have seen above, the descriptions of the Bhasmāṅkura point in
the same direction but are richly varied. The original concept and some
descriptions of the Bhasmāṅkura are possibly based on earlier models. One
such model is the Brahmanical Avakīrṇin, a sannyāsin who has broken his
brahmacarya vow.35 In the Yājñavalkyasmṛti (chapter 1, verses 222–224),
for example,36 the Avakīrṇin occurs in a list of categories unfit for śrāddha
rituals, a list that is reminiscent of those containing the Bhasmāṅkura found
in the Śaiva Paddhatis and in Jātiviveka texts:

32
MONIER-WILLIAMS s.v. I am grateful to Prof. Alexis Sanderson for this suggestion.
33
I am grateful to Prof. Alexis Sanderson for this suggestion.
34
Gnoli’s translation of Tantrāloka 23.8cd-9 (GNOLI 1999: 474, emphasis mine):
“[Riprovati come maestri in talune scritture] sono anche coloro che portino i capelli
sparsi di cenere, che siano figli di asceti, figli di donne di facili costumi, figli adul-
terini e di vedove. Secondo il Devyāyāmalatantra, riprovati sono anche coloro che,
dopo aver portato segni settari, hanno sì aderito alla doctrina di Śiva, ma debbono
[per il loro passato] nascere un’altra volta.”
35
See Yājñavalkyasmṛti 3.280ab: avakīrṇī bhaved gatvā brahmacārī tu yoṣitam.
(“The Brahmacārin becomes an Avakīrṇin if he approaches a woman [sexually].”)
36
See also, e.g., Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra 12.8.25.

rogī hīnātiriktāṅgaḥ kāṇaḥ paunarbhavas tathā |

avakīrṇī kuṇḍagolau kunakhī śyāvadantakaḥ ||222||
bhṛtakādhyāpakaḥ klībaḥ kanyādūṣy abhiśastakaḥ |
mitradhruk piśunaḥ somavikrayī parivindakaḥ ||223||
mātāpitṛgurutyāgī kuṇḍāśī vṛṣalātmajaḥ |
parapūrvāpatiḥ stenaḥ karmaduṣṭāś ca ninditāḥ ||224||
Of these categories, the following terms occur in the Śaiva passages quoted
in this article: rogin/rogārta/vyādhita, kāṇa, paunarbhava/punar-
bhava/punarbhū (albeit in different senses), kuṇḍa, gola, kuna-
khin/kunakha, śyāvadantaka/śyāmadantaka, klība, vṛṣala/vṛṣalī. Note es-
pecially that the Bhasmāṅkura is usually placed next to the Kuṇḍa and the
Gola in lists of this kind, as is the Avakīrṇin here. The main difference
between the two categories is of course that the Bhasmāṅkura is the off-
spring of somebody who has broken a vow, while the Avakīrṇin is one who
has broken his own vow.
As regards later occurrences of the term and later models, the Bhasmāṅku-
ra seems to be a Śaiva version of the Brahmanical Dola, which is defined
thus, e.g., in Jātiviveka 2.184:
vipraḥ svīkṛtya saṃnyāsam ārūḍhapatito bhavet |

brāhmaṇīṃ kāmayed raṇḍāṃ tasyāṃ ca janayet sutam |
sa dolaḥ karmacāṇḍālo ’sya sparśāt pātakaṃ mahat ||184||
184 omitted in A 184a svīº ] conj. ; strīº B ● saṃnyāsam ] corr. ;

sa(?)nyāsam B 184c brāhmaṇīṃ ] em. ; brāhmaṇī B ● kāmayed ] em. ;
kāyamed B 184d tasyāṃ ] corr. ; nasyāṃ B
If a Brāhmaṇa who has entered upon a life of renunciation falls from

his elevated status and has sex with a Brāhmaṇa widow and begets a
son, this [son] will be a Dola, a Cāṇḍāla by deed. It is highly sinful
to touch such a person.
Although the circumstances of the conception of the Bhasmāṅkura and the

Dola are similar, there is one significant difference in their descriptions in
the Jātiviveka: the Bhasmāṅkura is not condemned as harshly as the Dola.
By this time, the Bhasmāṅkura may have reached a status somewhat above
that of a karmacāṇḍāla (see below). Alternatively, the author Gopīnātha’s
CSABA KISS 95
Śaiva affiliation37 may have caused him to tone down his description of the
Bhasmāṅkura.38 Further, in texts of the Jātiviveka genre, the Bhasmāṅkura
also seems to represent a variant of the Devalaka, the temple priest (unfit
for śrāddha and sacrifice, see, e.g., Manu 3.152) who subsists on the offer-
ings made to an idol, as noted above.39
But the main question remains: to what extent can we suppose that the
definitions found in the Jātiviveka and related texts are applicable to Śaiva
texts, such as the Saiddhāntika Paddhatis or the Devyāyāmala cited in the
Tantrāloka? The main difference between the two kinds of definitions con-
cerns the Bhasmāṅkura’s association with the temple. We have no Śaiva
reports on the Bhasmāṅkura as someone who lives on offerings made to an
image in a temple, like a Śaiva Devalaka does, something that is con-
firmed, or at least suggested, by all Jātiviveka sources. Thus, there must
have been a process in the course of which the Bhasmāṅkura, first only a
category excluded from certain offices and rituals, was transformed into a
Śaiva temple priest. But when was the category of the Bhasmāṅkura first
associated with the Gurav jāti? Was it around or before the time of the
composition of the Jātiviveka, i.e., the fifteenth century? Or is it a later
interpretation inserted into that text? Several eleventh-century Old Kana-
rese inscriptions that are mentioned by LORENZEN (1991: 115) seem to
refer to Goravas, who are said to have been the supervisors of temples.40
Were these Goravas really “Śaiva mendicants”? Do they have anything to
do with Bhasmāṅkuras?
And how real, or how theoretical, is this category as it appears in the
earlier sources, before it is associated with a well-defined jāti with its own
rights and duties? There is no reason to suppose that Śaiva ascetics never

37
See O’HANLON & HIDAS & KISS 2015: 108.
38
On Devalakas not being condemned in some communities, see SANDERSON
2009: 277.
39
See, e.g., Jātiviveka 2.3–5 (O’HANLON & HIDAS & KISS 2015: 127, n. 53) and
SANDERSON 2009: 277.
40
See EPIGRAPHIA INDICA XV, pp. 85–94 (goravar in line 49, verse 14 on p. 90)
and also ibid. p. 156: “Goraga […] is the Telugu form of the Kanarese gorava,
which according to Kittel means a Śaiva mendicant. It is now obsolete in Telugu. In
the inscription [the Bezwada Pillar Inscription of Yuddhamalla] it is used in the
sense of a Śaiva devotee or teacher.” N. 1 (ibid.) mentions “erotic goravas” in the
“Yēwūr inscription of A.D. 1077” (EPIGRAPHIA INDICA XII, p. 290, from the transla-
tion of the inscription: “Whether it be the head of the establishment, or the Gorava,
or such as are under the rules of this establishment; if there should be a man who
lusts for venery in this establishment, the establishment and the king must expel him.”).

broke their brahmacarya vows, never visited Śūdra women or prostitutes,

and never begot illegitimate children, so it must have been a real-life is-
sue.41 (The Bhasmāṅkura might also originally have something to do with
offspring produced as a result of Tantric sexual rituals,42 in which case
there are no broken vows.) Also, the fact that the social status of a category
of man is repeatedly discussed, with an emphasis on the fact that this cate-
gory is denied certain rights, may suggest that we are not dealing with the-
oretical possibilities here. In fact, it may seem that prohibitions concerning
groups of people could sometimes tell us more about what exactly hap-
pened in the past than prescriptive passages do when they tell us what
should be done. The fact that the Bhasmāṅkura became a distinct category
(probably long before Abhinavagupta’s time) indicates that sons born from
Śaiva ascetics were not an isolated and negligible phenomenon, and they
posed a problem for the Śaiva socio-ritual world.
Another question could be raised about the extent to which the term was
widespread. The oddities in the Sanskrit texts – the dual in the Īśānaśiva-
gurudevapaddhati, the corruption of the term itself elsewhere, and the var-
ious obscurities – could be just the usual errors introduced randomly by
scribes, or they could indicate that even the redactors sometimes had little
idea what a Bhasmāṅkura was. Jayaratha’s silence on the matter is again
inconclusive, but it might be indicative: either he considered the
Bhasmāṅkura sufficiently well-known to not comment on it, or he was
himself unfamiliar with it. We are also left wondering when the
Bhasmāṅkura ceased to be a well-known category.
Moreover, one would suppose that the Bhasmāṅkura may have posed
less of a problem for non-Saiddhāntika sources than for the Siddhānta.
Non-Saiddhāntika traditions “have shown themselves much less willing to
tolerate such compromises [concerning peoples’ origins and caste than the
Siddhānta], seeing them as a contamination of the true Śaiva tradition [...]”
(SANDERSON 2009: 292). Most of our available Śaiva sources for the
Bhasmāṅkura are Saiddhāntika, and we have seen that all of our sources,
apart from the Tantrāloka, condemn the Bhasmāṅkura. Even our only non-
Saiddhāntika scriptural source, the lost Devyāyāmala, which is cited by
Abhinavagupta and was probably a Vidyāpīṭha/Trika text,43 treats the

41
See KANE vol. 2.2: 952 on sannyāsins having wives and concubines.
42
Such as described, e.g., in Brahmayāmala 45, see KISS 2015.
43
See SANDERSON 2002: 4 and 2014: 41.
CSABA KISS 97
Bhasmāṅkura as problematic. Is Abhinavagupta’s approach to categories

such as the Bhasmāṅkura filled with idealisation or exaggeration? Were
Bhasmāṅkuras ever really consecrated as ācāryas in non-Saiddhāntika
communities?
And what is the exact problem with a Bhasmāṅkura in Śaiva texts that
prohibits him to become an ācārya? Some sources, such as the Dīkṣādarśa,
state that only those that belong to the four varṇas, plus the offspring of the
six Anuloma unions in which the father’s varṇa is higher or equal to that of
the mother, can be consecrated as ācāryas. Theoretically, the child of a
Śaiva ascetic and a Śūdra woman, even a prostitute, is very likely to be an
Anuloma offspring, as Bālambhaṭṭa rightly tells us.44 However, if the
Bhasmāṅkura’s father is supposed to be an ascetic, then his son is certainly
the result of a sin, and this fact that the ascetic has broken a vow is relevant
here. The issue is not primarily a problem of caste/jāti that concerns possi-
ble combinations of mother and father, but rather a question of sinful con-
ception. One’s sin makes one a karmacāṇḍāla, someone who would not be
a cāṇḍāla, an outcaste, normally, but whom some sinful deed, some
adharmic karma makes one. So it may be only secondarily, by his father
sinking to the status of a special kind of cāṇḍāla, before the birth of his
son, that the Bhasmāṅkura can be denied the office of ācārya. This is ex-
actly what we see in the case of the Dola, a category which strikingly re-
sembles the Bhasmāṅkura (see above, p. 94). This fact that the Bha-
smāṅkura has neither truly condemnable caste-affiliations nor repulsive
personal features may have acted as an important factor in his later rise to a
higher status. It is also interesting to note that our texts never dwell on the
impurity of the Bhasmāṅkura’s mother. On the contrary, it is always the
breaking of a vow by the father that is emphasised. One reservation con-
cerning the Bhasmāṅkura could have been that he may inherit his father’s
lack of discipline, but more importantly, we may see in the rejection of the
Bhasmāṅkura a hint at the office of ācārya being hereditary. The existence
of an illegitimate son may have caused tension when the retiring ācārya
chose his successor.45 Prohibitions that stop a supposedly Brahmacārin
ācārya of a maṭha to consecrate his son as his successor may well have
been needed to maintain the integrity of the institution.

44
See p. 89 above.
45
On hereditary rights of a priestly community and gurus choosing their succes-
sors, see SANDERSON 2009: 255 and 279.

There could be many more questions raised, and there could hopefully
be many more passages collected and edited concerning this exciting figure
of the Bhasmāṅkura to see more clearly in these matters. His association
with Caṇḍeśa is especially intriguing. What seems to be certain at this
point is that the Bhasmāṅkura is the product of the Śaiva Age. It seems to
be an original Śaiva category, based on earlier models of sinning ascetics,
reflecting socio-ritual problems that were a result of Śaiva practices. It adds
to our understanding as to what extent caste boundaries and problematic
births were ignored in Śaiva ritual practice, and by doing so, it allows us to
peek into the past and see a glimpse of real-life issues in mediaeval India,
ones that usually remain obscured by our prescriptive texts.
Appendix 1
The Jātiviveka in the Paraśurāmapratāpa (sixteenth century?, fol. 50rff.)
quoting the Śivadharmaśāstra (diplomatic transcription):
rudrākṣa kaṃkaṇa haste syāj jaṭṭaikātha mastake |

liṃgaṃ śivāśramaṃ sthānāṃ bhasmasnānaṃ trisaṃdhyakaṃ ||46
kaṃṭhe mūrdhni pavitre vā rudrākṣān dhārayet tataḥ |
āgamoddiṣṭasaṃkhyākān rudralokaṃ sa gacchati |
rudrabhaktaiḥ śirasy ekā dhāryā rudrajaṭā sthirā ||
dhvaṃsinī sarvaduḥkhānāṃ tayā rudratvam āpnuyāt |47
kṣitena bhasmanā kuryāt trisaṃdhyaṃ yas tripuṃdrikaṃ ||
sarvapāpavinirmuktaḥ śivaloke mahīyate |48
mūrdhni haste śarīre ca dhṛtvā rudrākṣamālikā ||49
yas tu bhuñjīta tadbhaktaḥ sa rudro nātra saṃśayaḥ |50
rudrākṣadhāraṇaṃ yasmā nityaṃ loke pavitrakaṃ |
sarvarogapraśamanaṃ sarvakleśavināśanaṃ ||
sarvatīrtheṣu yat puṇyaṃ sarvayajñeṣu yat phalaṃ |51

46
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 11.18 (pp. 129ff): rudrākṣaiḥ kaṅkaṇaṃ haste gale caiva
hi mastake | liṅgaṃ śivāśramasthānāṃ bhasmanāṃ ca tripuṇṭrakam ||.
47
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 11.43c-44b: dhvaṃsanaṃ sarvaduḥkhānāṃ rudratvaṃ
samavāpnuyāt || sitena bhasmanā kuryāt trisandhyaṃ yas tripuṇṭrakam |.
48
= Śivadharmaśāstra 11.44cd.
49
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.91cd: mūrdhni hastopavīte vā kṛtvā rudrākṣamālikām ||.
50
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.92: yaś ca bhuñjīta bhasmāṃgī rudrair bhuktan na
saṃśayaḥ | rudrākṣadhāraṇan tasmān nityam eva praśasyate ||.
CSABA KISS 99
tat phalaṃ labhate sarvaṃ bhasmasnānān na saṃśayaḥ ||

bhasmasnānāt paraṃ snānaṃ pavitraṃ naiva vidyate |52
ity uktā munidevebhyaḥ snāto devaḥ svayaṃ śivaḥ ||
tataḥ prabhṛti brahmādyā munayaś ca śivārthinaḥ |53
sarvapravasu yat tena bhasmasnānaṃ pracakrire ||
duḥśīla[ḥ] śīlamukto vā yo pāpāpy upalakṣitaḥ |54
bhūtiśāśanasaṃyogāt sa pūjyo nātra saṃśayaḥ |
na go brāhmaṇa bhasmāni liṃga chāyāṃ padā spṛśet ||55
na laṃghayeta nirmālyam apsu tiṣṭhen na nagnakaḥ |56
dhārayec chivanirmālyaṃ bhaktyā lobhān na dhārayet ||
bhakṣaṇān narakaṃ gacchet bhūṣaṇāc caiva mūḍhadhīḥ |
na tatra sthānapūjāccāṃ pratigṛhṇāti śaṃkaraḥ ||57
yatra naivedyanirmālyaṃ malaṃ dhṛk pūjayec chivaṃ |58
asaṃspṛśyo bhavet so ’pi yas tasyāṃ gamalaṃ spṛśet ||59
tasmān naṃ saṃspṛśel liṅgaṃ naro nirmālyadūṣitaḥ|60
yatra naivedyanirmālyaṃ saṃkīrṇa kalaśāṃ śubhiḥ |61
snānādyaṃ kriyate bhaktyā na tad gṛhṇāti śaṃkaraḥ ||
rudrākṣān kaṇṭhadeśe daśanaparimitān mastake viṃśati dve

ṣaṭ ṣaṭ karṇapradeśe karayugulagatān dvādaśa dvādaśaiva |
bāhvor indoḥ kalāni pṛthag iti gaṇitān ekam ekaṃ śikhāyāṃ
vakṣasy āṣṭādhikā yaḥ kalayati śatasaṃ sa(ḥ) svayaṃ rudra eva ||62

51
= Śivadharmaśāstra 11.50.
52
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 11.52: bhasmasnānāt paraṃ snānaṃ pavitraṃ naiva
vidyate | uktaṃ tat sarvadevebhyaḥ snāto yena śivaḥ svayam ||.
53
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 11.53: brahmādyāś ca tadārabhya munayaś ca śivā-
rthinaḥ | sarvaparvasu yatnena bhasmasnānaṃ pracakrire ||.
54
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 11.55: duśśīlaś śīlayukto vā yo vā ko vāpy alakṣaṇaḥ |
bhūtir īśasya saṃyogāt saṃpūjyā rājaputravat ||.
55
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.11cd: na gobrāhmaṇabhasmāgniliṅgacchāyān na
laṃghayet ||.
56
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.12: na laṃghayeta nirmālyam apsu bhūmau niveśayet |
dhārayec chivanirmālyaṃ bhaktyā lobhān na dhārayet ||.
57
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.13: bhakṣaṇān narakaṃ gacchet tadvilaṃghī ca
mūḍhadhīḥ | na tatra snānapūjādyaṃ pratigṛhṇāti śaṅkaraḥ ||.
58
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.14ab: - - naivedyanirmālyaṃ mardayan pūjayec chivam |.
59
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.15ab: asaṃspṛśyo bhavet so ’pi yathāsvāṅgamalaspṛśī |.
60
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.15cd: tasmān na saṃspṛśel liṅgaṃ naro nirmālyadūṣitaḥ ||.
61
≈ Śivadharmaśāstra 12.16: - - - vedyanirmālyaṃ saṃkīrṇaiḥ kalaśādibhiḥ |
snānan tu kriyate bhaktyā na tadgṛhṇāti śaṅkaraḥ ||.

Appendix 2
Dīkṣādarśa (of Vedajñānaśivācārya, sixteenth century, compare with Utta-

rakāmika 24.12–14, see n. 20, verse numbering mine):
[varjyagurulakṣaṇavidhiḥ]
(...)
īśvaraḥ kāmike |
kāmīkādiśivajñānaṃ vedārthajñānam eva ca |
samaṃ yo manyate mohāt taṃ prayatnena varjayet ||4||
devayajñaṃ tathāmbaṣṭham ūhāpohavivarjitam |
samānagotrasaṃbandhaṃ kusumākṣaṃ ca varjayet ||5||
parivettā parivittā ca devalaṃ ca punarbhavam |
abhakṣyabhakṣaṇaṃ caiva kuṇḍa[ṃ] bhasmāṃkuraṃ tathā ||6||
khaṭvāṅgamad63 adantaṃ ca ārūḍhapatitaṃ tu vā |
alasaṃ prakṣālanaṃ [vṛṣalaṃ?] caiva prāśyaṃ [vrātyaṃ?] veśyāpatiṃ
tathā ||7||
asacchāstraparaṃ klībaṃ śaktiṃ sutakaṃ tathā |
asa [atha?] vyasaninaṃ pāradārikaṃ vṛṣalīpatim |
citrakaṃ gāyakaṃ caiva nartakaṃ ca vivarjayet ||8||
(...)
cintyaviśve |
tāvat te guravo jñeyā yāvad ācārapālakāḥ |
ācārāt tu paribhraṣṭās tyājyās te bhagnaliṅgavat ||12||
bhagnavratāt samudbhūto yo ’sau bhasmāṃkuraḥ smṛtaḥ |
tajjātā antarā jñeyās tajjātāḥ kauśikās smṛtāḥ ||13||
dīkṣāsthāpanayor ete saṃtyājyāḥ śubhakāṃkṣibhiḥ |
etaiḥ pratiṣṭhitaṃ liṅgaṃ bhuktimuktyor asādhanam ||14||
evamādiguṇair yukto na pūjyo hi mahītale |
asyaivācāryanāmatvam abhiṣekaṃ na kārayet ||15||
pramādād abhiṣekaṃ tu kṛtaṃ ced doṣabhāk bhavet |

62
≈ Puraścaryārṇava 6.232 (part II, p. 438): tantrāntare | rudrākṣān kaṇṭhadeśe
daśanaparimitān mastake viṃśatī dve ṣaṭ ṣaṭ karṇapradeśe karayugalakṛte | bāhvor
indoḥ kalābhir nayanayugakṛte caikam ekaṃ śikhāyāṃ vakṣasy aṣṭādhikaṃ yaḥ
kalayati śatakraṃ sa svayaṃ nīlakaṇṭhaḥ ||.
63
Perhaps emend to khalvāṭa- (“bald”), see commentary by Jayaratha ad
Tantrāloka 23.12.
CSABA KISS 101
Witnesses: IFP transcripts T. 76 pp. 38ff., T.153A pp. 59ff., and T.372B
pp. 1296ff.
4a ºśivaº ] T372B ; omitted in T76, ºniviº T153A 4c samaṃ yo ] T372B

; samayo T76, T153A 5a devayajñaṃ tathāmbaṣṭham ] em. ; devaya-
jñas tathāmbaṣṭha T76, T153A, T372B 5b ūhāpohaº ] em. ; kuhāpohaº
T76, kuhāpohaṃ T153A, kuhāpohaº T372B 7a khaṭvāṅgamad adantaṃ ]
T76 ; khātavagaṃgamardaṃ T153A, - - āṅgam adantaṃ T372B 7b
ārūḍhapatitaṃ ] T76 ; ārūḍapatanaṃ T153A, ārūḍhapatanaṃ 372B 7d
veśyāpatiṃ ] T372B ; vaiśyāpatiṃ T76, peśyāpatiṃ T153A 8a asa-
cchāstraparaṃ klībaṃ ] T76, T372B ; asatśāstrataraṃ klibaṃ T153A
8b śaktiṃ ] T372B ; yāpatiṃ T76, yāpintaṃ T153A ● sutakaṃ ] T372B
; sunakaṃ T76, T153A 8c ºsaninaṃ ] T76, T372B ; ºsaniraṃ T153A 8d
ºdārikaṃ vṛṣalīpatim ] T76, T372B ; dārikā prakṣalīpatim 8f nartakaṃ ]
T76 ; ratnakaṃ T153A, - - kañ T372B (…) 12a tāvat te ] conj. ; tatvato
T153A, tavato T76, T372B ● guravo jñeyā ] T76, T372B ; guruvo
jñeya T153A 9b yāvad ] conj. ; yathād T76, yayād T153A, yathādāv
T372B 12c ācārāt ] conj. ; ācāryaṃ T76, ācāryan T153A, ācāryān
T372B ● paribhraṣṭās ] T153A, T372B ; paribhraṣṭāḥ T76 12d tyājyās
te ] T76, T372B ; yajyā te T153A ● bhagnaliṅgavat ] T76, T153A ;
bhagnannaliṅgaka T372B 12a bhagnavratāt ] conj. ; bhagnavratān
T76, bhagnaprātānya T153A, bhagnavratā T372B ● samudbhūto ]
T76, T153A ; samu - - T372B 13b yo ’sau ] T76, T153A ; - sau T372B
● bhasmāṃkuraḥ ] T76, bhasmāṃkura T153A, T372B 13c tajjātā ]
T76, T153A ; - jjātā T372B ● antarā ] T76, T153A ; - ntirā T372B ●
jñeyās ] T76, T372B ; jñeyā T153A 13d kauśikās ] T76, kauśika
T153A, kauśikā T372B 14b saṃtyājyāḥ ] T76, T372B ; saṃtyājyā
T153A 14d bhuktimuktyor asādhanam ] T76, T372B ; bhu-ktimuktyopi
sādhanam T153A 15b pūjyo hi ] T372B ; pūjyā hi T76, pūjyā hī T153A

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manuscripts used for editions
Jātiviveka
A BORI no. 233 of the Viśrama (ii) collection, Paraśurāmapratāpa
fol. 50v.
B 1638B, Eggeling Catalogue, British Library, Jātiviveka, fol. 13v.
Dīkṣādarśa
T76 Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP) transcript T. 76
T153A Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP) transcript 153A
T372B Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP) transcript 372B
Paraśurāmapratāpa
BORI ms. no. 233 of the Viśrama (ii) collection.
Primary Literature
Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra
Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra: Nārāyaṇakṛtavṛttisametāśvalāyanaśrautasūtram.
Ed. G. Gokhale. Poona: Ānandāśrama Mudrāṇālaya, 1917.
Bālambhaṭṭi
(1) Bālambhaṭṭī, being a Commentary by Bálambhatta Páyagunde, on
the Mitâksharā of Śri Vijñañeśwara on the Yâjñavalkyasmṛiti. Book I.
Âcârâdhyâya. Ed. J. R. Gharpure. Bombay: Office for the Collection of
Hindu Law Texts Girgaon, 1914.
(2) The Mitākshara with Visvarūpa and Commentaries of Subodhini
and Bālambhatti. Ed. Setlur, S. S. Madras: Brahmavadin Press, 1912.
Bṛhajjātiviveka
Bṛhajjātiviveka. Ms. no. 685 of Bhau Daji Collection, Asiatic Society,
Mumbai.
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati. [Isañasivagurudeva paddhati of Isanasiva
Gurudeva]. 4 vols. Ed. T. Gaṇapati Sāstrī. Trivandrum: Gouvernment
Press, 1920-1925, repr. Delhi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1990.
Jñānaratnāvalī
Jñānaratnāvalī. Madras ms., IFP/EFEO transcript T0231.
Manusmṛti
Manusmṛti: with the Sanskrit commentary Manvartha-Muktāvalī of
Kullūka Bhaṭṭa. Ed. J. L. Shastri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.
CSABA KISS 103
Pratiṣṭhālakṣaṇasārasamuccaya
Pratiṣṭhālakṣaṇasārasamuccaya. Transcribed by the staff of Mukta-
bodha under the supervision of Mark Dyczkowski,
http://www.muktabodha.org (accessed November 5, 2015).
Puraścaryārṇava
Puraścharyārṅava [sic]. 3 parts. Ed. M.D. J. Prabhakari & Co., Benares
Cantt. 1901-1904.
Śatapraśnakalpalatā
Śatapraśnakalpalatā. BORI, Pune. P.M. Joshi Collection, Sanskrit ms.
no. 19.
Śivadharmaśāstra
Śivadharmaḥ. IFP transcript no. 72B, copy of Adyar Library Madras
ms. no. 75429.
Somaśambhupaddhativyākhyā
Somaśambhupaddhativyākhyā. IFP transcript no. 170.
Śūdrakamalākara of Kamalākarabhaṭṭa
Śūdrakamalākara. Ed. Pānduranga Jāvajī. Bombay: Nirṇayasāgara
Press, 1928.
Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi of Śrī Śeṣa Kṛṣṇa
Śūdrācāraśiromaṇiḥ. Ed. N. Khiste. Benares: Government Sanskrit Li-
brary, 1933-1936.
The Tantrāloka of Abhinava=Gupta. With Commentary (viveka) of
Rājānaka Jayaratha. 12 Vols. Ed. M. Kaul. Allahabad: Indian Press,
Bombay: Shri Venkateshvar Steam Press; Bombay: Tattva-Vivechaka
Press, Bombay: Nirnaya-Sagar Press, 1918-38.
Uttarakāmika
Kamikāgama Uttarabhāga. Edition in Grantha script published in
Madras in 1909. Transcribed by the staff of Muktabodha under the su-
pervision of Mark Dyczkowski, http://www.muktabodha.org (accessed
November 5, 2015). Muktabodha.org e-text M00125.
Yājñavalkyasmṛti
Yajnavalkya Smriti, with the commentary of Vijnanesvara called the
Mitaksara and notes from the gloss of Bâlambhaṭṭa. Book I: The Âchâ-
ra adhyâya. Mitaksara and Balambhatta. Book I - Acharya Adhyaya.
Transl. S.C. Vidyarnava. Allahabad: Indian Press, 1918.

Secondary Literature
BAPAT, J. B. 2001. The Jātipurāṇas of the Gurava Temple Priests of Maha-

rashtra. International Journal of Hindu Studies 5/1, pp. 45–90.
BAPAT, J. B. 1993. The Gurav temple priests of Maharashtra. South Asia:
Journal of South Asian Studies 16:s1, pp. 79–100.
BENKE, T. 2010. The Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi of Kṛṣṇa Śeṣa. A 16th. Century
Manual of Dharma for Śūdras. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA AND RECORD OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF
INDIA. Vols. XII. Ed. S. Konow (1913-1914) and XV, ed. F. W. Thom-
as (1919-1920). Bombay: British India Press.
GNOLI, R. 1999. Abhinavagupta. Luce dei Tantra. Tantrāloka. Milano:
Adephi.
GOODALL, D. 2009. Who is Caṇḍeśa? In: S. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and De-
velopment of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University
of Tokyo, pp. 351–423.
KANE, P. V. 1939-1962. History of Dharmaśāstra. 5 Vols. Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
KISS, C. 2015. The Brahmayāmala or Picumata. Vol. 2. The Religious
Observances and Sexual Rituals of the Tantric Practitioner: Chapters 3,
21, and 45. A Critical Edition, Annotated Translation and Analysis.
Pondicherry/Hamburg: Institut Français de Pondichéry, École française
d’Extrême-Orient, Asien-Afrika-Institut, Universität Hamburg.
LORENZEN, D. N. 1991 [1971] The Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas. Two Lost
Śaivite Sects. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
MONIER-WILLIAMS, M. 1993 [1899] A Sanskrit-English Dictionary: ety-
mologically and philologically arranged with special reference to cog-
nate Indo-European languages. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
NOBILE, R. 1910. Notizie sulle sotto-caste nell’India. Estratte, pubblicate e
tradotte dai codici inediti del Jātiviveka per opera di R. Nobile: memoria
letta alla R. Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti da Riccardo Nobi-
le. Lettre et Belle Arti. Nuova Serie Vol. 1. Naples: Tip. della R. università.
O’HANLON, R. & HIDAS, G. & KISS, C. 2015. Discourses of caste over the
longue durée: Gopīnātha and social classification in India, ca. 1400-
1900. South Asian History and Culture 6/1, pp. 102–129.
PEOPLE OF INDIA: MAHARASHTRA. Part One. Volume 30. Ed. K.S. Singh.
Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 2004.
RUSSEL, R. V. 1916. The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of
India. Vol. 3. London: Macmillan.
CSABA KISS 105
SANDERSON, A. 2001. History through Textual Criticism in the Study of

Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras. In: F. Grimal
(ed.), Les Sources et le Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pon-
dicherry 11-13 January 1997. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondi-
chéry/École française d’Extrême-Orient, pp. 1–47.
2009. The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early
Medieval Period. In: S. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tantrism.
Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, pp. 41–349.
2014. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 &
25 (2012–2013 [2014]), pp. 1–113.
SOUTH ASIAN FOLKLORE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka. Eds. Peter Claus et al. London/New
York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis, 2003.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA III. Ṭ–PH. Dictionnaire des termes techniques
de la littérature hindoue tantrique. A Dictionary of Technical Terms
from Hindu Tantric Literature. Wörterbuch zur Terminologie hinduis-
tischer Tantren. Eds. D. Goodall & M. Rastelli. Vienna: Verlag der Ös-
terreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013.

Renegotiating ritual identities:

Blurred boundaries between Pāñcarātra ritual
communities in South India
Robert Leach1
“In medieval India,” writes GRANOFF (2000: 399), “rituals often served as
identifying markers that divided one religious community from another.”
By adopting or rejecting a certain ritual or class of rituals, religious com-
munities could define themselves in particular ways, and by placing limits
on the authority to perform certain rituals or by introducing ideas of correct
ritual performance, other communities could be differentiated and excluded
(ibid.).2 In medieval Tantric Śaiva traditions, as Alexis Sanderson has
shown in a number of publications,3 strategies for inclusion and exclusion
often materialised in the form of hierarchies, both of particular rituals and
of the practitioners who were qualified to perform them. Tantric Vaiṣṇava
traditions used similar classificatory methods. As Granoff goes on to ex-
plore, participation in the same rituals could, by the same token, effect a
transcendence of sectarian boundaries or a blurring of distinctions between
communities. In the event of different communities practising the same
rituals, those committed to preserving sectarian boundaries were forced to
maintain that the important distinctions lay elsewhere, for example in the
supra-ritual identity of one community of practitioners or in the particular

1
This article was written with the generous support of the Swiss National Science
Foundation and the Institute of Asian and Oriental Studies, University of Zurich. I
am very grateful to both. My sincere thanks also to Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli,
and Vincent Eltschinger for their valuable comments and corrections, and to Angeli-
ka Malinar for her numerous helpful suggestions. Any errors are my own.
2
My thanks to Angelika Malinar for drawing my attention to this article.
3
See especially SANDERSON 1995: 19–23, 78ff.
(i.e. different) mental attitude they adopt. The results of the present study may
suggest, however, that such identity markers were less effective than ritual.
Numerous textual sources attest to the fact that in South India in the ear-
ly centuries of the second millennium of the Common Era (CE) there were
a number of distinct sub-traditions within the tradition of Tantric Vaiṣ-
ṇavism called “Pāñcarātra.”4 In the South Indian Pāñcarātra literature itself,
the number of these sub-traditions is most commonly given as four, and
these are usually named as the Āgamasiddhānta, the Mantrasiddhānta, the
Tantrasiddhānta, and the Tantrāntarasiddhānta.5 We also find this fourfold
division in the Pāñcarātrarakṣā (“Defence of the Pāñcarātra”) by the four-
teenth-century Viśiṣṭādvaitavedānta author Veṅkaṭanātha, whom I shall
refer to henceforth as Vedāntadeśika, the honorific by which he is now
more commonly known.6 Of the published Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās at our dis-
posal, none, as far as I am aware, affiliate themselves with the Tantra-
siddhānta or the Tantrāntarasiddhānta, though in his Pāñcarātrarakṣā (pp.
30,18–31,6) Vedāntadeśika reports that the Śrīkarasaṃhitā, an apparently
lost scriptural work, aligns itself with the latter. Several extant South Indi-
an Pāñcarātra texts, or portions thereof, do however associate themselves
with either the Āgamasiddhānta or the Mantrasiddhānta,7 and it appears, on
the basis of these texts, as well as Yāmuna’s Āgamaprāmāṇya8 (“The Va-

4
In what follows, I refer to the tradition as “Pāñcarātra” unless I am referring to a
particular text or passage which uses the earlier designation (“Pañcarātra”), since by
the time of the composition of the (post-Yāmuna) South Indian Saṃhitās, which
form the principal subject matter of this article, the former name, literally meaning
“pertaining to” or “belonging to” the Pañcarātra and previously used to denote the
followers of the tradition (see, e.g. Kumārila’s Tantravārttika on sūtra 1.3.4 and
Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s NPP 87.22ff.), had become the standard name for the tradition
itself.
5
For a discussion of these classifications and a list of the Pāñcarātra texts in
which they appear, see RASTELLI 2006: 185–251 and LEACH 2014. The term sid-
dhānta, ordinarily meaning an established conclusion or doctrine, is best understood
here as, in RASTELLI’s (2006: 185) words, “eine Lehre und die damit verbundene
Tradition, die sich vor allem auf die religiöse Praxis bezieht” (a teaching and the
tradition bound to it, which refers above all to the religious practice). The Saṃhitās
provide their own explanations of the term (see RASTELLI 2006: 185–186).
6
On the four Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas in the Pāñcarātrarakṣā, see LEACH 2012.
7
For instance, the PārS (e.g. at 19.522ff.) associates itself with the Āgamasid-
dhānta, while the PādS (1.1.86cd), the BhT (22.88, 24.17–50), the ŚrīprśS (16.31c–
34), and the MārkS (1.26ab) associate themselves with the Mantrasiddhānta.
8
Although he does not name either the Āgamasiddhānta or the Mantrasiddhānta,
Yāmuna clearly distinguishes between two (unnamed) Pañcarātra traditions: one
ROBERT LEACH 109
lidity of the Authoritative Texts [of the Pañcarātra]”) and the aforemen-
tioned Pāñcarātrarakṣā, that these were the two most prominent
Pāñcarātra traditions in South India between roughly the twelfth and the
fourteenth centuries.9 The textual evidence suggests that there were also
two principal Pāñcarātra traditions in North India in earlier centuries.10

whose followers belong, by way of their family lineage, to the Vājasaneya branch of
the Yajurveda, who perform their life-cycle rites in accordance with the domestic
ritual manuals of Kātyāyana and so on (yad ete vaṃśaparamparayā vājasa-
neyaśākhām adhīyānāḥ kātyāyanādigṛhyoktamārgeṇa garbhādhānādisaṃskārān
kurvate, ĀP 169.5–6); and one whose followers have abandoned the religious duties
of the triple Veda (“from the recitation of the Sāvitrī [mantra] onwards”) and who
perform the 40 life-cycle rites enjoined only by the Ekāyana Śruti (ye punaḥ sāvitry-
anuvacanaprabhṛtitrayīdharmatyāgenaikāyanaśrutivihitān eva catvāriṃśat saṃ-
skārān kurvate, ĀP 169.7–8). As will become evident below, the latter group are
clearly followers of what is elsewhere (most likely later) called the Āgamasiddhānta.
I provisionally accept YOUNG’s (2007: 237) estimate for the lifetime of Yāmuna as
ca. 1050–1125 CE, with the Āgamaprāmāṇya being written “in the late eleventh or
early twelfth century” (ibid.: 260).
9
It should be pointed out that these two traditions are not always called “Āga-
masiddhānta” and “Mantrasiddhānta.” For instance, in perhaps the earliest extant
classification of the four aforementioned Pāñcarātra sub-traditions, contained in
the PauṣS (38.293c–294c), the Āgamasiddhānta is called simply “Siddhānta” (see
RASTELLI 2006: 197). Meanwhile, in his NyP (p. 477), section 3.2, Vedāntadeśika
calls the Mantrasiddhānta the “Divyasiddhānta,” and in his PRR (p. 30,18) he
reports that the Śrīkarasaṃhitā calls the Āgamasiddhānta the “Vedasiddhānta.”
10
See, for instance, Ratnākara’s Haravijaya (ca. 830 CE), which distinguishes (at
47.55–56) between the Ekāyanas and the followers of the teaching (śāsana) of
Saṃkarṣaṇa, and Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Nareśvaraparīkṣāprakāśa (ca. 950–1000
CE) which distinguishes between the Saṃhitāpāñcarātras and the Sāṅka-
rṣaṇapāñcarātras. Sanderson, who has drawn attention to both of these passages,
thinks it very likely that these two works refer to the same groups – in other words,
that the Saṃhitāpāñcarātras are the Ekāyanas (SANDERSON 2009: 108). The two
groups differ from each other, according to Rāmakaṇṭha, in their views on the embo-
died self (jīva). On the one hand, the Sāṅkarṣaṇapāñcarātras say that consciousness is
merely a product of (the mental faculties comprising) the “internal organ” (antaḥka-
raṇacaitanikāḥ, NPP 87.22). On the other hand, the Saṃhitāpāñcarātras, along with
the “knowers of the Upaniṣads” who subscribe to the theory of the transformation of
the original cause, say the following: “Embodied selves are truly distinct [from the
mental faculties comprising the internal organ], but they are non-pervasive (i.e.,
atomic), and they originate from the imperishable supreme cause, which is either the
referent of the word brahman [for the knowers of the Upaniṣads] or is called
Nārāyaṇa [for the Saṃhitāpāñcarātras]. Like a pot, for example, [originates from

In this article, I argue that the available textual sources convey im-
portant information concerning the relations between the Āgama and the
Mantra Siddhāntas and the apparent blurring of certain distinctions be-
tween these two traditions in consequence of the circumstances in which
Āgamasiddhāntins found themselves in South India in the thirteenth to
fourteenth centuries. In the first part of the article, I briefly describe certain
aspects of the socio-religious context within which the Āgamasiddhānta
and its adherents, the Āgamasiddhāntins or Ekāyanas, and the Mantra-
siddhānta and its adherents, the Mantrasiddhāntins, existed in South India
during the period in question. In the second part, I discuss the fact that by
the end of this period, probably subsequent to the career of Vedāntadeśika,
the Āgamasiddhānta appears to have ceased to exist as a separate tradition
within the Pāñcarātra. Thereafter, I address several passages in scriptural
works and in the Pāñcarātrarakṣā, which may provide clues as to why this
happened and as to what became of the Āgamasiddhāntins or Ekāyanas.
As RASTELLI (2006: 185ff.) has shown, the textual evidence indicates
that, for at least part of the period between the twelfth and the fourteenth
centuries, the Āgamasiddhānta and the Mantrasiddhānta were in competi-
tion with each other for the control of Pāñcarātra temples and the right to
perform rituals for fee-paying clients. An apparent outcome of this rivalry,
which is recorded in several scriptural works as we will see below, was that
Āgamasiddhāntin authors on occasion condemned or disparaged certain
practices of the Mantrasiddhānta, at least partly, no doubt, as a means of
asserting their own superiority over that tradition.11 In a similar manner,
Mantrasiddhāntins presented their own tradition as the superior one, and
this involved claiming, for instance, that Āgamasiddhāntins do not belong

clay and will eventually dissolve back into it, so] the independent natures [of embo-
died selves] originate from and [will eventually] dissolve back into their own cause”
(pariṇativedāntavidaḥ saṃhitāpāñcarātrāś cāhuḥ satyaṃ bhinnā eva jīvātmānaḥ, te
tu paramakāraṇād anaśvarād brahmapadavācyād avyāpakā eva ghaṭādivat sva-
kāraṇalayasvabhāvāś cotpadyanta iti, NPP 91.18ff.).
11
In keeping with this attitude, ekāyana was understood by South Indian Ekāya-
nas of this period to mean “the only way.” See PārS 1.57c–58b (→ ĪS 1.19):
mokṣāyanāya vai panthā etadanyo na vidyate || tasmād ekāyanaṃ nāma pravadanti
manīṣinaḥ |. “There is no way other than this for going to liberation; therefore, the
wise say that [this] is called Ekāyana (i.e. ‘the only way’).” Cf. the following excerpt
from a version of the Puruṣasūkta contained in the Taittirīya recension of the Black
Yajurveda and quoted by Rāmānuja in his Śrībhāṣya (on sūtra 2.2.35): nānyaḥ
panthā ayanāya vidyate (excerpt from Taittirīyāraṇyaka 3.12.7).
ROBERT LEACH 111
to a Brahmanical kinship group (gotra)12 and are not qualified to use Vedic
mantras13 or to perform certain rites, including the investiture of God’s
icon with the sacred thread (pavitrāropaṇa), the rites relating to the con-
struction of temples (karṣaṇādi), and the installation of divine images
therein (pratiṣṭhā).14 The Pādmasaṃhitā,15 a South Indian Pāñcarātra scrip-
tural work which affiliates itself with the Mantrasiddhānta, declares that an
Āgamasiddhāntin should ask a Brahmin who has been initiated into the
Mantrasiddhānta to perform these latter rites on his behalf.16 The
Āgamasiddhāntin author/s of the slightly later Pārameśvarasaṃhitā coun-
ter several of these claims by enjoining adherents of the Āgamasiddhānta
to perform precisely these actions.17 The discord between these two
Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas during this period is conveyed well by the fact that
in their texts the same reparative rites are prescribed for mixing ritual in-
junctions from separate Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas as for mixing ritual injunc-
tions from separate ritual and doctrinal systems (tantra), whether the latter
be Vaikhānasa or Pāśupata according to the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā (19.520,
549). Indeed, the Pādmasaṃhitā (4.19.125ff.) explicitly states the equiva-
lence between the mixing or confusing of Pāñcarātra sub-traditions
(siddhāntasaṅkara) and the mixing or confusing of the Pāñcarātra with
other religious systems (tantrasaṅkara).
At least in normative terms, then, the divide between Siddhāntas is radi-
cally more pronounced than the distinctions found in apparently earlier
classifications of different types of Pāñcarātra devotees, such as the distinc-
tion between those “with desires” (sakāma) and those “without desires”

12
See e.g. PādS 4.21.41ab.
13
See e.g. PādS 4.21.37c–39b; ŚrīprśS 16.31c–34.
14
See e.g. PādS 4.21.33–35b, 43–46.
15
As is the case with much of the anonymous Pāñcarātra literature, it is extremely
difficult to establish the date of the composition of the Pādmasaṃhitā. RASTELLI
(2003) argues that it can be determined only in relation to other Saṃhitās and places
the bulk of its composition between that of the Paramasaṃhitā, from which it bor-
rows, and that of the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā. Her suggestion that it is subsequent to
the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā as well as to the lifetime of Rāmānuja would most likely
place it towards the end of the twelfth century, or shortly thereafter.
16
PādS 4.21.45: yāceta mantrasiddhānte dīkṣitaṃ viprasattamam | pūjārtham āt-
mano bimbapratiṣṭhākarṣaṇādiṣu (corr., karaṇādiṣu ed.) ||. For a fuller discussion of
this and aforementioned passages in the Pādmasaṃhitā, see RASTELLI 2006: 198–216.
17
For instance, the claim that Āgamasiddhāntins are not qualified to perform the
rites involved in the construction of temples and the installation of images of God is
countered at PārS 15.14c–20 (on which see RASTELLI 2006: 203).

(akāma, niṣkāma) which we find in the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā and the Sātvata-

saṃhitā. Although the Sātvatasaṃhitā reports, for example, that devotees
with desires and those without desires perform divergent rites on different
days of the month during the yearlong vow (vrata) to worship the four
differentiated forms of God (vyūha) (SS 7.37ff.), and that they recite the
Heart Mantra with different endings (SS 19.84c–85) etc., there is no indica-
tion of any rivalry between these different types of worshippers, or indeed
any sign that such worshippers organised themselves into groups. In fact,
the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā even claims that once devotees with desires, or those
who seek “enjoyments” (bhoga), are satiated by such pleasures, they prac-
tice “disengagement” (nivṛtti), which means that they renounce their de-
sires.18 This implies, if we are to take it literally, that a worshipper may go
from being sakāma to being niṣkāma purely according to his own inclina-
tions. As we will see below, this is not the case with regard to membership
of a Siddhānta.
According to scriptural testimony, as with the sakāma and niṣkāma
worshippers, members of each of the four Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas could
belong to any of the four social classes (varṇa).19 The four Siddhāntas are
differentiated from each other in a variety of ways, including the different
principal deity or deities worshipped and the different mantras used,
though many of the accounts we have of these matters contain conflicting
information, with “insider” and “outsider” descriptions of a particular
Siddhānta only occasionally in agreement with one another.20 One distin-
guishing feature between the Āgama and the Mantra Siddhāntas which is
reported in several Mantrasiddhānta sources and does not appear to be
contradicted by any Āgamasiddhānta account (see RASTELLI 2006: 193–
195) is that the Āgamasiddhānta cannot be joined via a ritual of initiation
(dīkṣā).21 Rather, there are a number of textual clues, including those found

18
PauṣS 19.51–52b: pravṛttiś ca nivṛttiś ca karma caitad dvidhā ’bjaja | jayanti
bhogaikaratāḥ pravṛttena tu karmaṇā || paritṛptās tu sambhogair nivṛttenācaranti ca |.
“And action, this is twofold, O Lotus-born: engagement with worldly activities and
disengagement from worldly activities. Those intent upon enjoyments only, they
acquire [those], to be sure, by means of engaged action. But those satiated by [such]
enjoyments, they proceed with disengaged [action].”
19
See e.g. PādS 4.21.37–73b on the Āgama, Tantra, and Tantrāntara Siddhāntas,
and 3.1.15c–17b and 4.2.61c–64 on the Mantrasiddhānta.
20
In the cases of the Tantra and the Tantrāntara Siddhāntas, as already mentio-
ned, we have no insider accounts.
21
See e.g. PādS 4.21.53 (→ BhT 24.25): na dīkṣā naiva dehasya dahanādi-
ROBERT LEACH 113
in several passages which I address below, which indicate that the

Āgamasiddhānta is accessible only by birth.22 To my knowledge, the earli-
est reference to the idea that one is born an Ekāyana is found in the so-
called Saṃvitprakāśa by the Kashmirian author Vāmanadatta. In the clos-
ing verses of each chapter (prakaraṇa) of this work, the author claims that
he is a Brahmin “born into the Ekāyana.”23
Another of the distinctions between the Āgamasiddhānta and the Man-
trasiddhānta which appears to have been uncontroversial is the fact that in
South India in this period the adherents of the former tradition claimed to
base their teachings on a certain Ekāyanaveda, an apparently mythical ur-
text which Āgamasiddhāntins declared both antecedent to and superior to
the Vedas, for which reasons they call it the “original” or “principal” Veda
(mūlaveda). In reality, this Ekāyanaveda, the earliest clear references to
which occur only in the Āgamaprāmāṇya (in the form of ekāyanaśruti, ĀP
169.7, 170.4),24 may have been represented by the three scriptural works
which were, from around the fourteenth century (LEACH 2014), called the
“three jewels” of the Pāñcarātra scriptural canon, namely the
Jayākhyasaṃhitā, the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā, and the Sātvatasaṃhitā. This
much, at least, has been hinted at in the Śrīpraśnasaṃhitā, one of the

viśodhanam | nāṅganyāsādi sakalaṃ neṣṭam ekāyanādhvani ||. “Neither initiation,
nor indeed the purification of the body through [visualising it as] burning etc., nor
the assignation etc. [of mantras to the various] parts of the body – none of this is
desirable according to the way of the Ekāyanas.”
22
However, see PādS 4.2154ab (→ BhT 24.26ab), which speaks of “those fami-
liar with the threefold knowledge (i.e. the three Vedas)” (traividya) who have “en-
tered into the Ekāyana.” As RASTELLI (2006: 195) points out, this must apply only to
those traividyas who do not already belong to another Pāñcarātra Siddhānta, since at
PādS 4.21.74–75b it is said that should a man abandon one Siddhānta and enter
another, he is guilty of committing an offence (kilbiṣin).
23
Saṃvitprakāśa 1.137c–138b reads: ekāyane prasūtasya kaśmīreṣu dvijātmanaḥ ||
kṛtir vāmanadattasya seyaṃ bhagavadāśrayā |. “Depending on the Lord, this is a work
of Vāmanadatta, a Brahmin born in Kashmir into the Ekāyana [lineage].” Cf. verses
2.61, 3.60, 4.98, and 5.52 from later chapters. On the title of the Saṃvitprakāśa, see
SANDERSON 2009.
24
There is, however, a possible allusion to the Ekāyanaveda in a North Indian
work, namely Bhaṭṭa Jayanta’s Āgamaḍambara (composed between 883–902 CE).
Here, the character known as Dhairyarāśi refers to “the designation ‘Veda’ that pe-
ople apply to the texts (vacana) of the Pañcarātra” (see DEZSŐ 2005: 237). The ear-
liest reference to an actual “Ekāyanaveda” may be that found in the PādS (4.1.3) or
in the opening chapter of the PārS (1.32, 56).

later scriptural works which possibly postdates Vedāntadeśika,25 as well

as by the nineteenth-century Śrīvaiṣṇava scholar Alaśiṅgabhaṭṭa who, in
his Sātvatārthaprakāśikā, a commentary on the Īśvarasaṃhitā, claims
that these three works constitute the “sūtras” of the “original Veda.”26
In contrast to the Āgamasiddhāntins or Ekāyanas, Mantrasiddhāntins
claimed to belong to a Vedic school which was widely recognised as such,
namely the Vājasaneyaśākhā. In his Āgamaprāmāṇya, Yāmuna distin-
guishes several times between the Ekāyana and the Vājasaneya or
“Vājasaneyaka” schools (śākhā) and their respective followers within the
Pañcarātra,27 while the later Pādmasaṃhitā, in its account of the origin of
the Mantrasiddhānta (at 4.21.2ff.), places this tradition firmly within that of
the White Yajurveda by claiming that the Mantrasiddhānta’s first initiates
were 8,000 seers (ṛṣi) belonging to the Kāṇva and Mādhyandina recensions
(i.e., of the Vājasaneyisaṃhitā).28 Once they had been initiated, we are
told, these seers were instructed to recite the “Kāṇvī” and “Mādhyandinī”
recensions, and to accompany their performance of Vedic rituals such as
somayāga with visualisation (dhyāna) and worship of Viṣṇu (bhagavat,
PādS 4.21.9–11b). A few verses later, the author of this section of the
Pādmasaṃhitā asserts that Mantrasiddhāntins “should meditate on” or
“should visualise” (dhyāyeyuḥ) and honour Vāsudeva’s image (bera) with
Vedic mantras (trayīmantra, PādS 4.21.28c–29). The Pādmasaṃhitā pre-
sents this amalgamation of Pāñcarātra Viṣṇu-worship and Vedic ritual as
indicative of the Mantrasiddhānta, and a later scriptural work which bor-
rows from the Pādmasaṃhitā and which affiliates itself with the same
Siddhānta, namely the Bhārgavatantra, calls Mantrasiddhāntins “mixed”
(miśra) as opposed to “pure” (śuddha) Vaiṣṇavas (the latter being the
Āgamasiddhāntins), apparently for this reason.29 Another important con-

25
See ŚrīprśS 49.471c–473, wherein the Jayākhyasaṃhitā, Sātvatasaṃhitā, and
Pauṣkarasaṃhitā are presented as offering different versions of the Mūlaveda, tailo-
red to suit the varying abilities of students. See also the Adhikaḥ Pāṭhaḥ section of
the JS (1–12b), wherein the “three jewels” are presented as constituting a single
teaching (ekaśāstra).
26
SāPr on ĪS 1.64–67: idaṃ sātvatapauṣkarajayākhyatantratrayaṃ mūlavedasya
sūtrarūpam.
27
See ĀP 140.5–7, 141.8–10, and 169.5–8.
28
See RASTELLI 2006: 229–230 for a brief synopsis of this passage.
29
See BhT 24.17–18 and the discussion in RASTELLI 2006: 223. The mixed
Vaiṣṇavas are described here as “learned in the three Vedas” (traividya), while the
“pure” Vaiṣṇavas follow the Ekāyanaveda. COLAS (1990: 26) reports that the
Vaikhānasa work Kriyādhikāra, which was composed around the time of Yāmuna
ROBERT LEACH 115
trast with the Āgamasiddhāntins, who consider their own tradition superior
to the Veda, is that Mantrasiddhāntins or “Bhāgavatas,” as they are also
called by the Pādmasaṃhitā,30 claim that their tradition is “rooted in the
Veda.” It is vedamūla rather than mūlaveda.31
In spite of their differences and the apparent enmity which led followers
of both Siddhāntas to criticise and subordinate the other, several Pāñcarātra
works enjoin coparticipation in temple rituals between Ekāyanas and other
Pāñcarātrikas, including those who, like the Mantrasiddhāntins, are de-
scribed as having expertise in the Vedas. For instance, in the final two
chapters of the Sātvatasaṃhitā, which are likely a later addition to this text
(LEACH 2012: 144–146), four Ekāyanas are named among the professional
assistants to the officiating temple priest (guru) – they are called the
“guardians of the image” (mūrtipa) – in a sequence of rites relating to the
construction of a temple (SS 24.282–433) and the subsequent installation
and worship of an image of Viṣṇu (SS 25.39–260b). These Ekāyanas, who
are to be seated by the guru in the four cardinal directions (SS 24.310cd) at
the fire sacrifice during the installation of the pots, are identified as Brah-
mins (vipra, e.g. SS 25.118d), and they receive instructions from the offici-
ating priest together with the other professional assistants (SS 25.106ab),
who are also identified as Brahmins and who are said to be experts in one
or another of the four Vedas (e.g., SS 24.291a, 25.157ab). These latter
assistants are evidently also Pāñcarātrikas, and indeed they are explicitly
identified as such for they are called bhagavanmaya (“consisting of the
Lord,” SS 24.288b, 326b), which is a common way of referring to
Pāñcarātrikas both in the Sātvatasaṃhitā and in other scriptural works.32 It
is notable that throughout the installation rites the Ekāyanas are instructed
to recite not only Pāñcarātra mantras but also Vedic ones (e.g. at SS

(COLAS 2011), also divides the Pāñcarātra into miśra and śuddha sub-groups, and
that according to the Yajñādhikāra, another Vaikhānasa work from the same period,
the latter does not conform to Vedic norms (vedamaryādā).
30
See e.g. PādS 4.21.14–15. It appears that in this period the label “Bhāgavata”
was associated especially with Mantrasiddhāntins (see also PauṣS 38.41c–42).
However, Ekāyanas also used the term in reference to their own tradition (e.g.
PārS 1.77–78).
31
See e.g. PādS 1.1.91cd: “This Tantra is rooted in Śruti and is an authority like
the Kalpasūtras” (śrutimūlam idaṃ tantraṃ pramāṇaṃ kalpasūtravat). This verse is
also found in the ViṣS (8.5ab) as well as in the later MārkS (1.38ab) and ŚrīpurS
(1.26cd).
32
See e.g. SS 6.74cd, 7.107c–109b, and 22.46. Elsewhere, see e.g. JS 16.7–9,
18.6 and PauṣS 27.207cd, 32.88–89.

24.333, 25.53–54b, 113d–115b, 253–257b),33 and that they are enjoined to

recite the latter together with the specialists in the relevant Veda from
among the other Pāñcarātrikas. This prescription for the Ekāyanas to recite
Vedic mantras is, of course, at odds with the aforementioned claim in the
Pādmasaṃhitā that Ekāyanas are not permitted to use Vedic mantras.
Chapter 42 of the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā presents a similar scenario to that giv-
en in the Sātvatasaṃhitā. Here it is said, for instance, that during the offer-
ing of whole grain barley (sākṣata) and sesame seeds into the sacrificial
fire, which forms part of the sequence of rites in establishing the founda-
tions of a temple, the Ekāyana Brahmins (vipra) are to be seated in the
cardinal directions (prāgādau) and the Pāñcarātrikas with expertise in the
Vedas are to be seated in the ordinal directions (“from northeast to north-
west,” īśād vāyupathāvadhi) (PauṣS 42.31–32).34
These sections of the Sātvatasaṃhitā and the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā are writ-
ten in the optative mood, and should accordingly be interpreted as offering
prescriptive rather than descriptive accounts of the rituals in question.
However, as far as I am aware, there is little reason to doubt that these
rituals were performed approximately according to instruction, albeit via
the mediation of the officiating priest or preceptor who is the addressee of
the injunctions.35The Īśvarasaṃhitā, which postdates the Pārameśva-
rasaṃhitā, informs us that (at the time of its composition, probably in the
thirteenth or fourteenth century) Hari is worshipped according to the dic-
tates of the Sātvatasaṃhitā in Yādavācala (Melkote or Melukote in mod-
ern-day Karnataka) and the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā in Śrīraṅgam, and the slightly
later Adhikaḥ Pāṭhaḥ section of the Jayākhyasaṃhitā corroborates these
claims.36 It is also noteworthy that the majority of these sections of the
Sātvatasaṃhitā and the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā were incorporated into one or both

33
These are listed by HIKITA 2005.
34
See also PauṣS 42.122c–126, where the Ekāyana Brahmins are seated together
with the experts in the Sāmaveda “on the west side facing east” (prāṅmukhaṃ
paścime bhāge) of the sacrificial hall (yāgāgāra).
35
The bulk of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās have the function of manuals which are in-
tended to guide the preceptor (usually ācārya or guru, less commonly deśika)
through the officiation of rituals. As far as the other participants in the ritual are
concerned, it is the preceptor rather than the text which acts as the guide. See LEACH
2012: 21–24.
36
See ĪS 1.67: etattantratrayoktena vidhinā yādavācale | śrīraṅge hastiśaile ca
kramāt sampūjyate hariḥ ||; and the Adhikaḥ Pāṭhaḥ of the JS 12c–13b: sāttvataṃ
yaduśailendre śrīraṅge pauṣkaraṃ tathā || hastiśaile jayākhyaṃ ca sāmrājyam adhi-
tiṣṭhati |. Yaduśaila is another name for Yādavācala or Melkote.
ROBERT LEACH 117
of the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā and the Īśvarasaṃhitā, and that these texts were
also used in, respectively, Śrīraṅgam and Melkote.37 Moreover, although the
epigraphical record from Śrīraṅgam is silent on the issue, the Pārameśva-
rasaṃhitā provides testimony that a community of Ekāyanas was active in
Śrīraṅgam, and participated in temple rituals there, at around the same time
that Rāmānuja supposedly held the position of temple manager (śrīkārya) at
the Raṅganāthasvāmin Temple (RASTELLI 2006: 243–244).38 Neither
Rāmānuja nor his predecessor Yāmuna, who himself includes the Ekāyanas
among the Pāñcarātrika Bhāgavatas defended by him in the Āgama-
prāmāṇya, were themselves Ekāyanas. Such considerations further indicate
that there existed, at the least, a degree of cooperation between Ekāyanas and
other Pāñcarātrikas who, like Yāmuna (see NEEVEL 1977: 35–36), per-
formed or supported the performance of a combination (or “mixing”) of
Pāñcarātra and Vedic rituals. This cooperative ethos also extended to the
production of scriptural texts, with Āgamasiddhāntin authors borrowing
from works composed by Mantrasiddhāntins and vice versa.39
As well as textual borrowings, there are also signs of mutual influence
between the two Siddhāntas, especially with regard to the classification of
Pāñcarātra scriptures (LEACH 2014). Presumably the Ekāyana claim that
the Ekāyanaveda is unauthored (or, literally, that it does “not derive from a
[human or divine] person,” apauruṣeya) is an instance of the Ekāyanas

37
For the parts of chapters 24–25 of the SS incorporated into the Pārameśvara-
saṃhitā, see RASTELLI 2006: 577–578; for the parts incorporated into the Īśvara-
saṃhitā, see LEACH 2012: 143, n. 241. Chapter 42 of the PauṣS also contains parallel
verses with the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā (see RASTELLI 2006: 574) and the Īśvarasaṃhitā.
In the latter case, these include PauṣS 42.18c–71 → ĪS 16.29c–82; PauṣS 42.115–117
→ ĪS 14.58–60; PauṣS 42.121–123b → ĪS 18.45c–47; PauṣS 123c–126b → ĪS
11.102c–105b. That the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā was used in Śrīraṅgam and the Īśvara-
saṃhitā in Melkote (Yādavādri) is attested in the Adhikaḥ Pāṭhaḥ of the JS 13c–14b:
pādmatantraṃ hastiśaile śrīraṅge pārameśvaram || īśvaraṃ yādavādrau ca kāryakāri
pracāryate |. The Adhikaḥ Pāṭhaḥ is datable to the fourteenth century (SOUNDARA
RAJAN 1981: 27). In addition, the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā contains, in its tenth chapter
(vv. 108cff.), a panegyric to the Raṅganāthasvāmin Temple in Śrīraṅgam, while ĪS
20.118ff. is written in praise of Melkote (Yādavācala or Yādavagiri).
38
This is further corroborated by the later Kōyilol̤ uku (see HARI RAO 1961: 45ff.),
the Tamil “chronicle” or “record” of the Raṅganāthasvāmin temple, though this is, in
itself, hardly a reliable source (ORR 1995).
39
For instance, the Āgamasiddhāntin Pārameśvarasaṃhitā borrows from the
Mantrasiddhāntin Pādmasaṃhitā (see RASTELLI 2006: 570–571). On Mantrasid-
dhāntin authors borrowing from Āgamasiddhāntins, see LEACH 2014.

having been influenced by the ideas of thinkers, such as Yāmuna, who

were rooted in the tradition of Vedānta and venerated the Veda alongside
the Pāñcarātra ritual texts.40 However, in general the Ekāyanaveda is pre-
sented in contradistinction to the Veda. For example, in contrast to the
exoteric Vedas which enjoin the worship of multiple deities for various
mundane and heavenly rewards, the Ekāyanaveda is said by Ekāyanas to
belong to a secret tradition (rahasyāmnāya) whose members worship only
Vāsudeva, especially in his fourfold form (cāturātmya), and who pursue a
single goal, namely liberation (mokṣa) from the realm of rebirth.41 On ac-
count of their monotheism and their pursuit of liberation to the exclusion of
all other goals, the South Indian Ekāyanas often called themselves “Ekān-
tins,” after the paradigmatic liberation-seeking worshippers of Nārāyaṇa as
depicted in the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Mahābhārata.42
Monotheism and the pursuit of liberation alone are also, according to
Ekāyanas, the principal characteristics which set the adherents of the
Āgamasiddhānta apart from those of the other Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas,
though Mantrasiddhāntin authors disputed this by claiming that their own
tradition also worships Vāsudeva alone and pursues liberation to the exclu-
sion of all other rewards.43 According to the Ekāyanas, not only does their
monotheism and their recognition of liberation as the single goal set them
apart from other Pāñcarātrikas, these characteristics also mark them out as
superior.
This attitude is exemplified in several passages in the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā.
Modern scholars have commonly assigned a relatively early date and a
North Indian provenance to this work, but as I have argued elsewhere
(LEACH 2012), there are numerous indications that significant portions of
the extant Pauṣkarasaṃhitā were composed and added to the text in South
India. At least some of these interpolations appear to have been authored
by Ekāyanas (ibid.). Among such passages, we encounter several descrip-
tions both of the Ekāyanas and of other Pāñcarātrikas. While the former are
variously presented as Ekāntins (e.g., PauṣS 36.261a), as devotees without

40
See Yāmuna’s claim that the authorlessness (apauruṣeyatva) of the Ekāyana
recension (ekāyanaśākhā) is “treated at length” in the Kāśmīrāgamaprāmāṇya (ĀP
170.7–9). For the Ekāyana claim that the Ekāyanaveda is unauthored, see e.g. PārS
19.523–525b (→ ĪS 21.561b–563) and ŚrīprśS 2.38–41.
41
See e.g. PārS 1.16c–19b, 32c–34, 74c–75; 10.145–146.
42
On the figure of the Ekāntin in the Nārāyaṇīya and in later Pāñcarātra litera-
ture, see LEACH 2012: 177ff.
43
See e.g. PādS 4.21.11c–12, 25 and the discussion in RASTELLI 2006: 230.
ROBERT LEACH 119
desires (akāma, PauṣS 31.203cd), as those who do not desire the fruits of
worship (aphalārthin, PauṣS 31.286ab), and as those who worship no other
God (ananyayājin, PauṣS 27.710c), other Pāñcarātrikas are presented as
“mixed worshippers” (or worshippers that mix together their rituals,
vyāmiśrayājin, e.g. PauṣS 36.79) who desire mundane and heavenly re-
wards, and who worship gods other than Viṣṇu, including his subordinate
deities (gaṇa), as a means to achieving these.44 Such worshippers, we are
told in the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā, attain lesser rewards than the Ekāyanas:
“[Rituals] such as the sacrifice are known to grant only meagre fruits to
worshippers with desires, even if they grant heaven.”45 The worshippers
without desires, meanwhile, are granted the world of Acyuta (acyutaloka,
PauṣS 31.203cd) and are united in the supreme self (PauṣS 31.227cd). Ear-
lier in the same chapter, we are told that the approach to worship character-
istic of the “mixed worshippers” is forbidden by God: “The omniscient
abiding in the heart does not permit [worship that is performed with] de-
sire. One who grants heaven to his devotees even when it is not asked for –
what is it that is not given by him? Therefore, one should abandon re-
quests!”46 The following passage from the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā articulates
what appears to be a representative Ekāyana attitude:
Knowing thus [i.e., that Puruṣottama is the “inner ruler” (an-

taryāmin) of all gods], one should certainly never perform mixed
devotion. (259) Indeed one who desires the supreme goal must avoid
[that] with every effort. Those Brahmins that are called Ekāyanas are
truly devotees of Acyuta. (260) They who worship Viṣṇu as a duty
[that is] without fruit, worshipping no other [God], are Ekāntins who
[will] exist in their true state after death. (261) [In other words,] at
death they attain the state of Vāsudeva, O Lotus-born! And the oth-

44
The term “mixed worshipper” is not directly explained in either the Pauṣkara-
saṃhitā or the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā. However, the latter text refers to the Vedas as
the “mixed dharma” (miśradharma), apparently on account of the fact that they refer
to deities (deva) other than Vāsudeva (PārS 1.45–52) and are concerned with the
fulfilment of various desires (kāma), i.e., rather than being concerned only with
liberation (PārS 1.78–89).
45
PauṣS 31.202c–203a: kratuvat svalpaphaladāḥ svargadā yady api smṛtāḥ ||
sakāmānām… |. See also PauṣS 41.98–99.
46
PauṣS 31.149c–150: kāṅkṣitaṃ nānujānāti sarvajño hṛdaye sthitaḥ || aprārthito
’pi svargaṃ tu bhaktānāṃ yo dadāti ca | kim adeyaṃ hi tasyāsti tasmād abhya-
rthanāṃ tyajet ||.

ers are mixed worshippers – they are, however, considered to be

false devotees. (262) Those Brahmins are [easily] recognised on ac-
count of their worshipping the subordinate deities in various differ-
ent ways.47
In the remainder of this article, I address the apparent disappearance of the

Āgamasiddhānta as a separate tradition within the Pāñcarātra by focusing
on several textual passages from the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās and from Vedān-
tadeśika’s Pāñcarātrarakṣā, which may partly explain the manner of this
disappearance and provide us with clues as to why it happened. In an earli-
er article (LEACH 2014), I have given a fuller account of the reasons we
have for supposing that the Āgamasiddhānta ceased to exist as a distinct
tradition within the Pāñcarātra, and in the following I begin with a sum-
mary of that account.
As is demonstrated in a number of works including the Āgama-
prāmāṇya, the Pādmasaṃhitā, and the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, the idea of
the Ekāyanaveda and the name “Ekāyana” were, for a certain period of
time, probably during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, indubitably
linked with one Pāñcarātra tradition in particular, namely that which called
itself, according to certain sources, the Āgamasiddhānta. However, in sev-
eral of the later scriptural works, we find the term ekāyana being used by
non-Āgamasiddhānta authors to refer to the Pāñcarātra and its adherents in
general. Among such works we can count the Śrīpraśnasaṃhitā (e.g. at
2.38ff. and 16.20, 31c–34) and the Śrīpuruṣottamasaṃhitā (1.12) (LEACH
2014). This apparent extension of the semantic scope of the term ekāyana,
which can be found already in a passage in the PādS (4.13.66c–72b) and
which probably represents, rather, a reversion to an older use of the term,
coincides with an increasing tendency among the later Saṃhitās to present
the Pāñcarātra as a single, integrated system with an extensive scriptural
canon. In the majority of these later works, no mention is made of the dis-
tinct Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas (ibid.). As mentioned above, Ekāyana
Pāñcarātrikas appear to have been responsible for the authorship of the
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, and for parts of the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā and the Sāt-

47
PauṣS 36.259c–263b: jñātvaivaṃ bhaktisāṅkaryaṃ na kuryād evam eva hi ||
259 varjanīyaṃ prayatnena ya icched uttamāṃ gatim | viprā ekāyanākhyā ye te
bhaktās tattvato ’cyute || 260 ekāntinaḥ sutattvasthā dehāntān nānyayājinaḥ | karta-
vyatvena ye viṣṇuṃ saṃyajanti phalaṃ vinā || 261 prāpnuvanti ca dehānte vāsude-
vatvam abjaja | vyāmiśrayājinaś cānye bhaktābhāsās tu te smṛtāḥ || 262 parijñeyās
tu te viprā nānāmārgagaṇārcanāt |.
ROBERT LEACH 121
vatasaṃhitā. Judging by the extant Pāñcarātra scriptural corpus, the

Āgamasiddhānta was not nearly as textually prolific as the Mantrasiddhān-
ta, and we can assume on the basis of their relatively small literary output
and the fact that we have little evidence for their existence outside of
Śrīraṅgam that the Ekāyanas very probably represented a minority within
the South Indian Pāñcarātra. While there is good reason to believe that a
community of Ekāyanas still existed in Śrīraṅgam in the fourteenth centu-
ry, when Vedāntadeśika authored the Pāñcarātrarakṣā, there is no obvious
indication that any of the Saṃhitās which probably postdate Vedāntadeśika
were authored by Ekāyanas (ibid., LEACH 2012). Thus, it appears that the
culture of rivalry between the Āgamasiddhānta and the Mantrasiddhānta
subsided and was replaced by one in which non-Āgamasiddhānta
Pāñcarātrikas represented the Pāñcarātra as a single and cohesive system.
In an effort to determine why such changes may have taken place, I will
begin by addressing several short passages from the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā
which I believe to have been authored by Ekāyanas:
Listen! I will explain the foundation provided by fruits, roots, and

[other] foods, for those who desire the fruits [of worship,
phalārthin]. In the three worlds there is no gift better than the gift of
food. (143) It immediately gives pleasure [and] is appetising and re-
storative to beings. Even at the stage of preparation [and] dressing
the tastiness of food is well-known! (144) [All] living beings come
into being from food. From that everything is founded, and by one
who has dedicated that, by him everything is founded. (145) As long
as he lives in this world [and] in the heavenly world called Brah-
ma[loka], he [who dedicates food] may live without sickness and
pain. (146) By means of [donating] food, he reaches lasting prosperi-
ty, with sons, wives, and wealth. He receives the greatest, supreme
honour from eminent persons. (147) The gods, seers, and perfected
beings always consider carefully the highest welfare for him, togeth-
er with increased longevity. (148) Thus, being joyful and well-
nourished, he is ever-satisfied. Enjoying numerous pleasures, at
death he goes to the abode of Nārāyaṇa (149) by means of moon-like
chariots made by the gods. Abiding in all worlds, beginning with
heaven, for many hundreds of Kalpas, (150) in the course of time he
comes here again, to a supremely auspicious place. Achieving a birth
in a respectable family, the most excellent birth, (151) he is born
with handsome form, eloquent, devoted to learning and knowledge.

Evermore beloved, he is revered by all, even his enemies. (152) Pos-

sessed of good character, might, constancy, and strength, a donor is
always best among Brahmins, intent upon the welfare of beings.
(153) [He is] an Ekāntin, a knower of dharma, wholly devoted to
Nārāyaṇa. Thoroughly enjoying the group of three (i.e. the three
puruṣārthas), possessed of the desired qualities, (154) repeatedly
performing meritorious actions of endless qualities through [numer-
ous] lifetimes, knowledge is reached, by which he advances to the
supreme abode.48
There is little doubt that this passage has been inserted into the Pauṣka-
rasaṃhitā, for the redactor responsible has made no effort to disguise the
fact – the next verses follow on from those which precede this excerpt.49
My reason for proposing that this passage has been authored by a self-
identifying Ekāyana is that the donor (dātṛ) is promised a rebirth as an
Ekāntin (I suggest that Ekāntin is to be understood synonymously with
Ekāyana here, as it is elsewhere in this text),50 a reward which is hardly
likely to have been offered by a non-Ekāyana Pāñcarātrika, for whom the
initiation rite (dīkṣā) establishes the candidate’s eligibility to be liberated

48
PauṣS 41.143–155: phalamūlānnapratiṣṭhāṃ śṛṇu vakṣye phalārthinām | nānna-
dānāt paraṃ dānaṃ triṣu lokeṣu vidyate || 143 sadyaḥprītikaraṃ hṛdyaṃ prāṇadaṃ
prāṇinām api | utpattāv api saṃskāre rasam annasya kīrtitam || 144 annād bhavanti
bhūtāni tasmāt sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitam | tac ca pratiṣṭhitaṃ yena tena sarvaṃ pratiṣṭhitam
|| 145 ātmanā saha loke ’smin svarloke brahmasaṃjñite | yāvaj jīvaṃ ca nīrogo vased
duḥkhavivarjitaḥ || 146 putradāradhanair annair vṛddhiṃ yāti kṣaṇāt kṣaṇam | prāp-
noti paramāṃ pūjām utkṛṣṭebhyo mahattarām || 147 devatā ṛṣayaḥ siddhās tasya
saṃcintayanti ca | nityam eva parāṃ vṛddhim āyuṣaḥ saha connatām || 148 hṛṣṭaḥ
puṣṭas tato bhūtvā tṛpto bhavati sarvadā | bhuktvā bhogān suvipulān ante
nārāyaṇālayam || 149 yāti candrapratīkāśair vimānair devanirmitaiḥ | svargādau
sarvaloke tu sthitvā kalpaśatān bahūn || 150 kālāt punar ihāyāti deśe sarvottame śubhe |
satāṃ kule samāsādya janma jātyuttamaṃ mahat || 151 jāyate rūpavān vāgmī
vidyājñānaparāyaṇaḥ | dviṣatām api sarveṣāṃ pūjyaḥ priyataraḥ sadā || 152 śīlavān
śauryasampanno dhṛtyutsāhasamanvitaḥ | dvijadevaparo nityaṃ dātā bhūtahite rataḥ ||
153 ekāntī dharmavettā vai nārāyaṇaparāyaṇaḥ | trivargam akhilaṃ bhuktvā yathā-
bhimatalakṣaṇaḥ || 154 *janmabhyas (corr., janmābhyas ed.) taṃ śubhaṃ karma
kṛtvānantaguṇaṃ punaḥ | jñānam āsādyate yena prayāti paramaṃ padam || 155.
49
The preceding section (PauṣS 41.98–142) is concerned with the establishment
(pratiṣṭhāpana) of the stepwell (vāpī), vertical well (kūpa), tank (taṭāka), and plea-
sure garden (ārāma), and the following verse (PauṣS 41.156) returns to this theme.
50
See e.g. PauṣS 32.72cd. See also 36.261, translated above, and LEACH 2012:
147–150.
ROBERT LEACH 123
from rebirth and to join Viṣṇu in his “supreme abode.”51 The idea ex-
pressed here which is especially relevant to the present discussion – that
one can ensure one’s future as an Ekāyana by making a donation to the
temple – represents a radically different conception of the Ekāyanas from
those which we ordinarily encounter. The fact that these verses are ad-
dressed to worshippers who desire fruits (phalārthin) only serves to em-
phasise the dramatic nature of this shift in attitude, for elsewhere in the
Pauṣkarasaṃhitā, as we have seen, such worshippers are openly censured.
Here, they are presented with the opportunity to become worshippers who
do not desire fruits (aphalārthin), as the Ekāntins (PauṣS 31.286) or
Ekāyanas (PauṣS 36.260–261) are elsewhere characterised. Only then may
they achieve the highest reward.
Elsewhere in the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā we find similar expressions of the
same idea. For instance, in a passage concerned with the festival centred
around the investiture of God’s icon with the sacred thread
(pavitrāropaṇa), it is said that a man who makes donations of cattle, land,
and gold (gobhūsuvarṇa) on a daily basis (pratyaha) for as long as he lives
will attain the fruit of these donations “during a maximum lifespan”
(paramāyuṣi) and will then journey to heaven (diva) “by means of moon-
like carriages” (yānaiś candrapratīkāśaiḥ) (PauṣS 30.174c–177). Born
again into an auspicious family, he will become devoted to Nārāyaṇa in
thought, word, and deed (karmaṇā manasā vācā nārāyaṇaparo bhavet,
PauṣS 30.180cd), will live a long life free of sickness and sorrow
(vyādhiśokavinirmukta), with sons and wives etc. (putradārādika), and will
then go to White Island (śvetadvīpa), where he will achieve identification
with the supreme Brahma (paraṃ brahmatvam āyāti) (PauṣS 30.178c–
184b). Although there is no explicitly “Ekāyana” terminology employed in
these verses, they are likely to have been authored by an Ekāyana (or
“Ekāntin”) for the same reasons I have put forward with regard to the pas-
sage concerning the donation of food to the temple: a worshipper who de-
sires the “fruits” of his worship cannot attain liberation in this lifetime. The
best he can hope for, soteriologically speaking, is an auspicious rebirth as
one who is completely devoted (“in thought, word, and deed”) to
Nārāyaṇa.52 Only then is he an Ekāntin who may go to White Island.

51
See e.g. PādS 4.21.15, LT 41.5c–6, ŚrīprśS 16.18c–19.
52
Cf. PārS 13.114c–115, where rebirth as an Ekāyana is promised as the reward
for the performance of one’s ritual duties (see RASTELLI 2006: 194–195).

In another passage of the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā which conveys the same

idea, the identity of the author is more explicit This passage is a continua-
tion of the passage quoted earlier (PauṣS 36.259c-263b), wherein mixed
worshippers are condemned as “false devotees” (bhaktābhāsāḥ) and the
Ekāyanas are named as the true devotees of Acyuta. Having censured the
“mixed worshipper” (vyāmiśrayājin) in this way, however, the author of
these verses goes on to assert that provided he (the mixed worshipper) has
undergone initiation and is completely devoted to Nārāyaṇa, to ceremonial
rites such as mantra-repetition (japa), and the offering of gifts into the
sacrificial fire (homa) as well as to singing the praises of God (stuti), “even
he, indeed, can attain the world of Viṣṇu at death and, after obtaining a
superior rebirth, he may become, from [the time of his] childhood, O best
among the twice-born, a Tanmaya, well-versed in the rituals pertaining to
the Lord and having him as his chief object. And not aiming at the fruit [of
his worship], even in times of distress, after abandoning the body [at
death], he does not achieve a rebirth in this world.”53 What does it mean to
become a Tanmaya in this instance? The term tanmaya is used quite com-
monly in Pañcarātra texts to denote a meditative state in which there is a
perceived identity between the meditating person and the object of their
visualisation (see RASTELLI 2009), but in several works it is also used to
refer to a particular group of Pāñcarātrikas, namely the Ekāyanas. For in-
stance, in the aforementioned section of the Sātvatasaṃhitā which details a
sequence of rites relating to the installation (pratiṣṭhā) and worship of a
divine image in a temple, the four Ekāyanas who are named among the
professional assistants to the officiating temple priest are referred to as
Tanmayas (SS 25.132a).54 Additionally, in the Pādmasaṃhitā the Tanma-
yas are instructed to recite mantras belonging to the Ekāyana “school” or
recension (śākhā) in contrast to “the most excellent knowers of mantras”
who recite from the four Vedas.55 In this passage in the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā,
then, after contrasting the Ekāyanas and the “mixed worshippers,” and
condemning the latter, the author is declaring that an initiated mixed wor-
shipper who is completely devoted to Nārāyaṇa and to performing his ritu-

53
PauṣS 36.265–267b: dehānte vaiṣṇavaṃ lokaṃ prāpnuyāt punar eva hi | janma
cāsādya cotkṛṣṭam ābālyād dvijasattama || bhagavatkarmaniṣṇātas tatparas tan-
mayo bhavet | nābhisandhāya ca phalam āpatkālagato ’pi vai || tyaktvā dehaṃ punar
janma nāpnuyād iha… |.
54
Cf. the parallel references in the PārS (15.378a) and the ĪS (18.255a).
55
PādS 4.11.242c–243b: dikṣu vedāṃś ca caturaḥ paṭheyur mantravittamāḥ ||
vidikṣv ekāyanāṃ śākhāṃ tanmayāḥ sumukhās tathā |.
ROBERT LEACH 125
al duties can be reborn as an Ekāyana and can in that way achieve libera-
tion from future rebirths.
These passages in the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā, which promise rebirth as an
Ekāyana to those who make donations to the temple and to mixed worship-
pers who are completely devoted to worshipping Nārāyaṇa, show that,
despite their professed ideals, Ekāyanas were active in advertising their
ritual expertise, both to prospective patrons and to other Pāñcarātrikas. The
verses concerned with the endowment of food (PauṣS 41.143–155) may be
addressed specifically to royal patrons, since their description of a superior
rebirth includes references to typically Kṣatriya qualities such as valour
(śaurya), steadfastness or resolve (dhṛti), and strength or energy (utsāha)56
as well as a reference to “enemies” (dviṣat).
In another chapter of the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā, Pauṣkara asks God for a
clarification as to the status of mixed worship, while pointing out that this
has been repeatedly prohibited thus far.57 God replies:
This is true, O wise one, just as you have urged. But when this other
type of ritual (i.e. “mixed worship”) is performed, then there is no
fault for those who are qualified, (48) since for them Acyuta is as-
suredly superior to all. [Therefore], because they are subordinate to
him, there is indeed no fault in worshipping other gods, (49) just as
in one’s everyday life [there is no fault] in paying honour to a retinue
(gaṇa) of servants (or “ministers,” bhṛtya), or to one’s brothers, or to
one’s lawful wives.58
What can we deduce from these verses? First of all, they were evidently
composed after those portions of the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā which forbid the
practice of mixed worship, for they refer directly to these prohibitions.
Since the parts of the Pauṣkarasaṃhitā which forbid mixed worship were

56
See e.g. Arthaśāstra 6.1.3–5, where utsāha is listed among the exemplary qua-
lities of a king (svāmin), and śaurya is named as one of its attributes (guṇa); and
Mahābhārata 6.40.43 (Bhagavadgītā 18.43), wherein the duty of the Kṣatriya (kṣat-
rakarma) is said to involve śaurya and dhṛti.
57
PauṣS 38.47ab: “O God, being a mixed worshipper is repeatedly prohibited”
(deva vyāmiśrayājitvaṃ pratiṣiddhaṃ punaḥ punaḥ).
58
PauṣS 38.48–50c: satyam etan mahābuddhe yathā sañcoditaṃ tvayā | kin tu
kriyāntare prāpte na dośas tv adhikāriṇām || 48 yasmāt sarvaparatvaṃ hi teṣām asty
acyutaṃ prati | tadāśritatvād devānām anyeṣāṃ pūjanāt tu vai || 49 na doṣo hi yathā
loke bhrātṛbhṛtyagaṇasya ca | mānanād dharmapatnīnāṃ… || 50.

most likely authored by Ekāyanas, who called themselves Ekāntins and

proclaimed themselves superior to mixed worshippers partly on account of
their monotheism, we must assume either that a.) these verses were au-
thored by a Pāñcarātrika who was himself a mixed worshipper as opposed
to an Ekāyana, or that b.) they were authored by an Ekāyana, and therefore
provide evidence that some Ekāyanas, at least, changed their attitude to-
wards “mixed worship” and adopted an attitude which is close to what
GRANOFF (2000) has called “ritual eclecticism.”59 I propose that the second
explanation is more likely to be the correct one, for the passage in which
these verses are found, concerned with the installation (pratiṣṭhā) of the
image of God (bhagavadbimba) in a temple, is almost certainly the work of
an Ekāyana. This is evident from the fact that the principal ordinance
(mukhyakalpa, PauṣS 38.41b) for the installation is assigned to knowers of
the five times who are “exclusive” devotees (ananyāḥ, PauṣS 38.31a), who
are devoted to the four Vyūhas and who “also perform the renunciation of
[the fruits of] ritual” (karmaṇām api saṃnyāsaṃ kurvanti, PauṣS 38.32),
while the secondary or “substitutive” ordinance (anukalpa) is to be per-
formed by initiated twice-born Bhāgavatas who are “established in the
dharma of the triple Veda” (trayīdharmasthitaiḥ, PauṣS 38.41c–42). The
former group clearly denotes the Ekāyanas, while the “initiated twice-born
Bhāgavatas” designates the Pāñcarātrikas who are elsewhere referred to as
“mixed worshippers.”
We also encounter an indication that some Ekāyanas may have changed
their attitude towards “mixed worship” in the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā:
After worshipping Vāstu (or “Vāstvīśa,” i.e., Vāstupuruṣa, the

guardian deity of the temple), Kṣetreśa, Garuḍa, Dvārśrī (also known
as Dvāralakṣmī), Caṇḍa, and Pracaṇḍa with arghya and so on, one
should then worship the temple gods in the temple, in the pavilion at
[each of] the four [entrance-]gates, and in the other [places]. (125c–
126) Then, at the three gates [one should worship] Dhātṛ and
Vidhātṛ, and also Jaya and Vijaya, and Bhadra and Subhadra, and
the Lord of the Gaṇas (Ganeśvara, i.e. Viṣvaksena). (127) Worship
[performed] by a man [who is] an Ekāntin which is directed towards
the subordinate class of deities which forms God’s retinue,60 begin-

59
GRANOFF (2000: 401) defines “ritual eclecticism” thus: “The group of insiders
explicitly acknowledges that others have rituals, and then enjoins or permits the
practice of those rituals along with the rituals specific to the group itself.”
60
I take aṅga here in the sense of “God’s retinue” following Alaśiṅgabhaṭṭa, who
ROBERT LEACH 127
ning with the gatekeepers and ending with Viṣvaksena, assuredly

causes distress to men who have little understanding. (128–129b)
[But] not worshipping them, even if [this is done only] by the pupils
[of the priest], causes obstacles to what is being accomplished.61
(129cd) Therefore, worship with [one’s] thought [directed upon] the
[deities who are the] servants of God is enjoined in order to elicit
their compassion, though [it should be done] without devotion and
trust. (130) They (the subordinate deities), mentally visualising the
supreme good in the heart, humbly receive with their mind[s] that
which has fallen from the hands [of worshippers], even if it is given
without respect. (131) Since they are all made of Acyuta, their minds
are surrendered to his mind. Thus, from the worship of these [subor-
dinate deities] by an Ekāntin guru, (132) strife will be cast out, since
they are the servants of Hari.62
It is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from this passage, the bulk of
which is also found in the Īśvarasaṃhitā.63 Indeed, we cannot even be cer-
tain that “Ekāntin” here is to be understood as meaning “Ekāyana.” How-
ever, there are good reasons for believing this to be the case. First of all,
there are other places in the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā where the term ekāntin is
used to refer to the Ekāyanas. Indeed, these include the only uses of the
term ekāntin which occur in the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā prior to the above
passage. Both instances belong to the first chapter, where the Ekāyanaveda

glosses aṅgabhāvam with bhagavatparivāratām in his commentary on the same
verse in the ĪS. See Sātvatārthaprakāśikā on ĪS 4.2.
61
Again, I follow Alaśiṅgabhaṭṭa here in taking api together with śiṣyāṇām rather
than with prakṛtasya, which would be, grammatically speaking, the more orthodox
reading. See Sātvatārthaprakāśikā on ĪS 4.4cd.
62
PārS 6.125c–133b: vāstukṣetreśagaruḍadvārśrīcaṇḍapracaṇḍakān || 125 abhya-
rcyārghyādibhir devān prāsādasthāṃś ca pūjayet | prāsāde ’tha caturdvāre maṇḍape
cetareṣu ca || 126 dvāratraye ’tha dhātāraṃ vidhātāraṃ jayaṃ tathā | vijayaṃ cāpi
bhadraṃ ca subhadraṃ ca gaṇeśvaram || 127 yad aṅgabhāvam abhyeti dvārsthādyaṃ
devatāgaṇam | viṣvaksenāvasānaṃ ca narāṇām alpamedhasām || 128 jantor ekāntinas
tad vai cittakhedakṛd arcanam | vighnakṛt prakṛtasyāpi śiṣyāṇāṃ tadanarcanam || 129
atas tadanukampārthaṃ devabhṛtyadhiyārcanam | bhaktiśraddhojjhitaṃ caiva vihitaṃ
tv evam eva hi || 130 te tatpāṇicyutaṃ (corr. tatprāṇicyutaṃ, cf. ĪS 4.5c) prahvā dattam
apy avahelayā | gṛhṇanti manasā śreyaḥ paraṃ dhyātvā dhiyā hṛdi || 131 yataḥ sarve
’cyutamayās taccittārpitamānasāḥ | etāvad arcanāt teṣāṃ guror ekāntinas tu vai ||
132 syād virodhanirāsas tu yato bhṛtyas tu te hareḥ |.
63
PārS 6.125c–126b → ĪS 3.101; PārS 6.128–133b → ĪS 4.2c–7.

is called the dharma of the Ekāntins (ekāntidharma, PārS 1.60) and the
dharma of the Lord (bhagavaddharma) which is followed by Ekāntins
(ekāntibhir anuṣṭhitaḥ, PārS 1.85cd).64 Secondly, it is very difficult to
make sense of this passage if we take ekāntin in its alternative or, shall we
say, its primary sense, which is merely descriptive, for then we are left
with an account of a man or a guru who is described as being “devoted to
one [God]” (ekāntin) in the same passage that he is described as worship-
ping multiple deities. Such a man is evidently not an ekāntin in the literal
sense of the term, which supports my proposal that we take ekāntin here
not in its literal sense, but in the only other sense which is authorised by its
use in the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, namely as a proper noun which is an al-
ternative name for “Ekāyana.”
The passage appears to indicate that Ekāntins or Ekāyanas were being
criticised in some quarters for worshipping the subordinate members of
Viṣṇu’s entourage, such as Viṣvaksena, the gatekeepers to the temple, and
other temple deities.65 Presumably, if such criticism genuinely existed, it
was based on the notion that worshipping these deities compromised the
Ekāyanas’ commitment to monotheism and, by extension (since the subor-
dinate deities cannot grant liberation), to liberation as the exclusive goal to
be sought. It is to be noted that in his Āgamaprāmāṇya, Yāmuna also
makes the point that the subordinate deities are, like the lord of Viṣṇu’s
retinue (Viṣvaksena), “dependent upon Viṣṇu.”66 However, Yāmuna does
not make this point in response to a specific criticism of the practice of
worshipping Viṣṇu’s subordinate deities. Indeed, there is no indication in
the Āgamaprāmāṇya that the Pāñcarātra’s traditionalist opponents included
this practice among the litany of those which earned their opprobrium. If
the criticism of the Ekāyana worship of Viṣṇu’s entourage was not coming
from traditionalist outsiders, then from where was it coming? This is a
difficult question to answer, but we should not discount the possibility that
it came from other Ekāyanas, perhaps those who were less flexible or less
willing to adapt to the changing circumstances in which they found them-
selves. The author’s strategy in the above passage appears to be to legiti-
mate the Ekāyana worship of the subordinate deities by providing scriptur-

64
See also the first use of the term ekāntin which occurs after the quoted passage
from the sixth chapter of the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā. Here, at PārS 10.285–289, the
names ekāntin and ekāyana are used interchangeably.
65
On the mythical plane Caṇḍa, Pracaṇḍa, Dhātṛ, Vidhātṛ, Jaya, Vijaya, Bhadra,
and Subhadra are the gatekeepers of Vaikuṇṭha, Viṣṇu’s heaven.
66
ĀP 168.6–7: devatāgaṇaḥ || guṇabhūtaḥ śruto viṣṇor viṣṇupāriṣadeśavat |.
ROBERT LEACH 129
al authority for it, but he also attempts to minimise the “distress” that this
may cause by emphasising that this worship is, and should be, performed
without devotion, trust, and respect,67 and that, in any case, the subordinate
deities are “made of Acyuta,” and so any charge of abandoning monothe-
ism is inapplicable.
Finally, I turn to Vedāntadeśika’s Pāñcarātrarakṣā, most likely com-
posed in Śrīraṅgam during the early decades of the fourteenth century
(HARI RAO 1976: 116–117). After quoting the PādS (4.19.131–132) to the
effect that a Brahmin who is initiated into one Tantra or Siddhānta should
not perform rites prescribed by another, Vedāntadeśika goes on to qualify
this statement: “Having said this, it is also said, however, that there is au-
thority in the lower Tantras for those following a higher Tantra.”68 He then
quotes, without attribution, a passage which claims that there is an ascend-
ing order of Pāñcarātra initiates, beginning with those who belong to the
Tantrāntarasiddhānta and culminating in those who follow the
Āgamasiddhānta, and that all initiates are qualified to perform the rites not
only of their own Siddhānta but also, as far as possible, of those Siddhāntas
which are lower than their own. Thus, since the Āgamasiddhānta is at the
top of the hierarchy, its followers are always entitled to worship God in
accordance with the other three Siddhāntas, a Mantrasiddhāntin is addi-
tionally qualified for the Tantra and Tantrāntara Siddhāntas, and a Tantra-
siddhāntin is also eligible for the Tantrāntarasiddhānta. A Tantrān-
tarasiddhāntin is qualified only for his own Siddhānta and must worship in
his own home.69 Vedāntadeśika reports that it is also said here (i.e. in the
same unnamed text) that members of each Siddhānta have the authority to
worship in temples (sthāna) which have been established by a Siddhānta
“inferior” (apakṛṣṭa) to their own,70 which would mean that Āgama-
siddhāntins are entitled to worship in any Pāñcarātra temple.

67
There are echoes here of a process which GRANOFF (2000: 409) describes as an
“acknowledgement that rituals cross sectarian boundaries and that some explanation
for this that preserves those boundaries is required.” In this case, a boundary is pre-
served by the instruction that the subordinate deities should be worshipped “without
devotion, trust, and respect.”
68
PRR 13.9: ity uktvā punar apy uparyupari tantrasthitānām adho ’dhas tantrā-
dhikāritvam uktam.
69
PRR 13.10–14.2.
70
PRR 14.3–4: atrāpy utkṛṣṭasiddhāntasthitenāpy apakṛṣṭasiddhāntasthāneṣu
tattatsiddhāntaprakāreṇaiva pūjanīyatvam uktam.

According to Vedāntadeśika’s anonymous source, therefore, members of

the Āgamasiddhānta have the authority to perform all rites which are en-
joined in the Mantrasiddhānta, the implication being that they can execute
this entitlement without being guilty of “mixing Siddhāntas,” which is for-
bidden by both traditions as Vedāntadeśika elsewhere acknowledges.71 He
then quotes again the same anonymous text which reinforces this idea: “If
they are qualified for the principal [ordinance, then] they are qualified for the
secondary ordinance.”72 An initiate who is qualified for the Āgamasiddhānta
is qualified also for the Mantrasiddhānta, and therefore for acts of “mixed
worship” undertaken by that tradition’s adherents. Here, it may be useful to
ask whether this anonymous source might reflect and give legitimacy to
what was actually taking place – in other words, whether Āgamasiddhāntins
were, in fact, aligning themselves with the more dominant, Veda-congruent
Pāñcarātra traditions. When read in tandem with the aforementioned scrip-
tural passages which indicate that some Ekāyanas were changing their atti-
tude towards, and participating in, acts of “mixed worship,” we are perhaps
in a reasonably good position to give a provisionally affirmative answer to
this question. Certainly, this could help to explain the apparent disappearance
of the Āgamasiddhānta, not only as a named Pāñcarātra tradition but also as
a strand within the Pāñcarātra whose representatives claimed the superiority
of their own tradition over that of the Veda.
The period of mutual animosity between the Āgamasiddhānta and the
Mantrasiddhānta, which was probably current for a period during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, did not last long, and the main reason for
this appears to have been that the Āgamasiddhāntins or Ekāyanas could not
compete effectively with their more orthodox rivals.73 This was, no doubt,
primarily due to the fact that they could not claim affiliation with a recog-
nised Vedic school (śākhā), and in the Śrīvaiṣṇava-influenced conservative
religious environment of South India at this time were therefore less attrac-
tive than the Mantrasiddhāntins in the eyes of prospective patrons. Howev-

71
See e.g. PRR 9.6ff., where Vedāntadeśika reports that the Caryāpāda (the
fourth section) of the Pādmasaṃhitā explains in detail the “offence” (doṣa) involved
in the mixing of Siddhāntas and Tantras (siddhāntasaṃkara and tantrasaṃkara); and
PRR 18.15–19.5, which quotes the PārS (19.545–548b) on the prohibition of the
“mixing of Siddhāntas” (siddhāntasāṃkarya).
72
PRR 14.6: mukhyādhikāriṇaḥ santi yadi gauṇādhikāriṇaḥ.
73
By “orthodox” here, I am referring to the way in which Mantrasiddhāntins po-
sition themselves with regard to the Veda. For them, the latter remains, at least no-
minally, the highest textual authority.
ROBERT LEACH 131
er, another cause of the inability of Āgamasiddhāntins to compete effec-

tively with their rivals may well have been self-inflicted, for in a commer-
cially competitive environment wherein the ritual expertise of professional
priests would have been shaped to a large degree by the needs of their cli-
ents, the Ekāyanas had given themselves a distinct disadvantage. For they
could not promise these clients, as reward for loyalty and generous support,
the attainment of liberation at death. The best they could offer them, soteri-
ologically speaking, was rebirth as an Ekāyana.
An apparent consequence of the greater resources available to the Man-
trasiddhānta in their efforts to attract patronage was that some members of
the Āgamasiddhānta began to incorporate into their repertoire the same
ritual practices that their Mantrasiddhāntin rivals engaged in – practices
that their own tradition (i.e. the Āgamasiddhānta) had previously con-
demned. These included rituals granting rewards to those desirous of the
“fruits” of worship (phalārthin) as well as acts of “mixed worship” such as
the worship of Viṣṇu’s subordinate deities for rewards other than liberation
from rebirth. The PārS (6.125c–133b, and the parallel passage in the Īśva-
rasaṃhitā) appears to contain a small clue that some Āgamasiddhāntins or
Ekāyanas continued to condemn such practices after others belonging to
their tradition had begun to engage in them. But we hear little of these pro-
tests, and, if indeed they existed, they seem to have been otherwise exclud-
ed from the textual record. Rather, several sources attest to the fact that the
religious identities of these two Pāñcarātra Siddhāntas began to merge, or
rather that the need to draw distinctions between them disappeared, which
is why in the later scriptural literature, including works roughly coeval with
and succeeding Vedāntadeśika, we increasingly see the Pāñcarātra present-
ed as a single homogeneous tradition with, for example, a single scriptural
canon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Arthaśāstra
The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra. Part I. Crit. Ed. with a glossary by R. P.
Kangle. Bombay: University of Bombay, 1960.
Āgamaḍambara of Bhaṭṭa Jayanta.
See DEZSŐ 2005.
Āgamaprāmāṇya (ĀP)
Āgamaprāmāṇya of Yāmunācārya. Ed. M. Narasimhachary. Baroda:
Oriental Institute, 1976.
Īśvarasaṃhitā (ĪS)
Īśvarasaṃhitā. 5 Vols. Crit. ed. and transl. M.A. Lakshmithathachar,
rev. V. Varadachari. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the
Arts & Motilal Banarsidass, 2009.
Jayākhyasaṃhitā (JS)
Jayākhyasaṃhitā. Crit. ed. E. Krishnamacharya. Baroda: Oriental Insti-
tute, 1931.
Tantravārttika of Kumārila
Tantravārttika. In: The Mīmāṃsā Darśana of Maharṣi Jaimini. With
Śābarabhāṣya of Śabaramuni with the commentaries of Tantravārtika
of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and its commentary Nyāyasudhā of Someśvara
Bhaṭṭa, Bhāṣyavivaraṇa of Govindāmṛtamuni and Bhāvaprakāśikā, the
Hindi translation by Mahāprabhulāla Gosvāmī. Ed. M. Gosvāmī. 4
vols. Varanasi: Tara Book Agency, 1984.
Taittirīyāraṇyaka
The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka of the Black Yajur Veda with the Commentary
of Sāyanāchārya. Ed. R. Mitra. Calcutta: C. B. Lewis, 1872.
Nareśvaraparīkṣāprakāśa of Rāmakaṇṭha (NPP)
The Nareshvarapariksha of Sadyojyotih with commentary by Rama-
kantha. Ed. M. Kaul. Srinagar: Kashmir Pratap Steam Press, 1926.
Nyāyapariśuddhi of Vedāntadeśika (NyP)
Nayâyaparishuddhi [sic], By Sri Venkatnath Sri Vedântâchârya With a
Commentary called Nyayasar By Sri Niwâcâcharya. Ed. V. Laksh-
manachârya. 5 fasc. Benares: Chowkamba Sanskrit Series Office,
1918–1922.
ROBERT LEACH 133
Pāñcarātrarakṣā of Vedāntadeśika (PRR)

Pāñcarātrarakṣā of Śrī Vedānta Deśika. Crit. ed. M.D. Aiyangar and T.
Venugopalacharya. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1942.
Pādmasaṃhitā (PādS)
Padma Saṃhitā. Crit. ed. S. Padmanabhan and R.N. Sampath (part 1),
S. Padmanabhan and V. Varadachari (part 2). Madras: Pancaratra Pari-
sodhana Prasad, 1974, 1982.
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā (PārS)
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā Govindācāryaiḥ saṃskṛtā. Śrīraṅgam: Kodanda-
ramar Sannidhi, 1973.
Pauṣkarasaṃhitā (PauṣS)
Sree Poushkara Samhita: One of Three Gems in Pancharatra. Ed.
Sampathkumara Ramanuja Muni. Bangalore: A. Srinivasa Aiyangar &
M.C. Thirumalachariar, 1934.
Bhārgavatantra (BhT)
Bhargava Tantram (A Pancaratragama Text). Ed. R.P. Chaudhary. Al-
lahabad: Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, 1981.
Mahābhārata
The Mahābhārata. Crit. ed. V.S. Sukthankar, S.K. Belvalkar et al. 19
vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1933–1966.
Mārkaṇḍeyasaṃhitā (MārkS)
Mārkaṇḍeya Saṃhitā. Tirupati: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, 1984.
Lakṣmītantra (LT)
Lakṣmītantra. A Pāñcarātra Āgama. Ed. with Sanskrit gloss and intro-
duction by V. Krishnamacharya. Madras: Adyar Library and Research
Centre, 1959.
Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā (ViṣS)
Viṣvaksena Saṁhitā. Crit. ed. L.N. Bhatta. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha, 1972.
Śrīpuruṣottamasaṃhitā (ŚrīpurS)
Śrīpuruṣottamasaṁhitā. Ed. A.K. Kāliyā. Delhi: Nyu Bharatiya Buka
Korporesana, 2007.
Śrīpraśnasaṃhitā (ŚrīprśS)
Śrīpraśna Saṃhitā. Ed. S. Padmanabhan. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeetha, 1969.

Saṃvitprakāśa of Vāmanadatta
The Saṃvitprakāśa by Vāmanadatta. Ed. with English introduction by
M.S.G. Dyczkowski. Varanasi: Ratna Printing Works, 1990.
Sātvatasaṃhitā (SS)
Sātvata-Saṁhitā. With the commentary of Alaśiṅga Bhaṭṭa. Ed. V.V.
Dvivedi. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, 1982.
Sātvatārthaprakāśikā of Alaśiṅgabhaṭṭa (commentary on the Īśva-
rasaṃhitā) (SāPr)
See ĪS.
Haravijaya of Rājānaka Ratnākara (HV)
Haravijaya of Rājānaka Ratnākara with the commentary of Rājānaka
Alaka. Ed. Durgāprasād and K.P. Parab. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakash-
an, 2005.
COLAS, G. 1990. Sectarian divisions according to Vaikhānasāgama. In: T.

Goudriaan (ed.), The Sanskrit Tradition and Tantrism. Leiden: Brill, pp.
24–31.
2011. Bhāgavatas. In: K.A. Jacobsen et al. (eds.), Brill’s Encyclopedia of
Hinduism. Vol. 3. Leiden, Boston: Brill, pp. 295–301.
DEZSŐ, Cs. 2005 (ed. & transl.). Much Ado About Religion by Bhaṭṭa
Jayanta. New York, NY: New York University Press / JJC Foundation.
GRANOFF, P. 2000. Other People’s Rituals: Ritual Eclecticism in Early Medi-
eval Religious [sic]. Journal of Indian Philosophy 28/4, pp. 399–424.
HARI RAO, V.N. 1961. Kōil Ol̤ ugu: The Chronicle of the Srirangam Tem-
ple with Historical Notes. Madras: Rochouse.
1976. History of the Śrīrangam Temple, Tirupati: Sri Venkatesvara University.
HIKITA, H. 2005. Consecration of Divine Images in a Temple. In: Sh.
Einoo and J. Takashima (eds.), From Material to Deity: Indian Rituals
of Consecration. New Delhi: Ajar Kumar Jain for Manohar Publishers,
pp. 143–197.
LEACH, R. 2012. Textual Traditions and Religious Identities in the
Pāñcarātra. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
2014. The Three Jewels and the Formation of the Pāñcarātra Canon. In: G.
Ciotti, A. Gornall and P. Visigalli (eds.), Puṣpikā. Tracing Ancient India
Through Texts and Traditions. Contributions to Current Research in In-
dology. Vol. 2. Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, pp. 115–145.
ROBERT LEACH 135
NEEVEL, W.G. 1977. Yāmuna’s Vedānta and Pāñcarātra: Integrating the

Classical and the Popular. Montana: Scholars Press.
ORR, L.C. 1995. The Vaiṣṇava Community at Śrīraṅgam: The Testimony
of the Early Medieval Inscriptions. Journal of Vaiṣṇava Studies 3/3, pp.
109–136.
RASTELLI, M. 2003. On the Concept of Vaikuṇṭha in Viśiṣṭādvaitavedānta
and Pāñcarātra. In: R. Czekalska and H. Marlewicz (eds.), 2nd Interna-
tional Conference on Indian Studies: Proceedings, Kraków: Ksiegarnia
Akademicka, pp. 427–447.
2006. Die Tradition des Pāñcarātra im Spiegel der Pārameśvarasaṃhitā,
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
2009. Perceiving God and Becoming Like Him: Yogic Perception and Its
Implications in the Viṣṇuitic Tradition of Pāñcarātra. In: E. Franco
(ed.), Yogic Perception, Meditation and Altered States of Conscious-
ness. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
pp. 299–317.
SANDERSON, A. 1995. Meaning in Tantric Ritual. In: A.-M. Blondeau and
K. Schipper (eds.), Essais sur le Rituel III: Colloque du Centenaire de
la Section des Sciences religieuses de l’École Pratique des Hautes
Études. Louvain-Paris: Peeters, pp. 15–95.
2009. Kashmir. In: K.A. Jacobsen et al. (eds.), Brill’s Encyclopedia of
Hinduism. Vol. 1. Leiden, Boston: Brill, pp. 99–126.
SOUNDARA RAJAN, K.V. 1981. Kaustubha Prasada – New Light on the
Jayakhya Tantra. In: K.V. Soundara Rajan, Glimpses of Indian Culture.
Vol. 2: Architecture, Art and Religion. Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, pp.
26–35.
YOUNG, K.K. 2007. Brāhmaṇas, Pāñcarātrins, and the Formation of Śrī-
vaiṣṇavism. In: G. Oberhammer and M. Rastelli (eds.), Studies in Hin-
duism IV: On the Mutual Influences and Relationship of Viśiṣṭādvaita
Vedānta and Pāñcarātra. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, pp. 179–226.

*Sahajavajra’s integration of Tantra into

mainstream Buddhism: An analysis of his
*Tattvadaśakaṭīkā and *Sthitisamāsa
Klaus-Dieter Mathes
During the final phase of Buddhism in India, monastic communities started

to integrate more readily elements of Tantric Buddhism from the milieu of
the great Siddhas.1 While the philosophy of the methods of perfection
(Pāramitānaya), i.e., non-Tantric Mahāyāna, could be easily brought in line
with the methods of mantras (Mantranaya),2 certain elements of the latter,
such as sexual yoga during empowerment (abhiṣeka)3 and subsequent prac-
tices, remained problematic in mainstream Buddhism that continued to be
dominated by monasticism. However, since empowerment was an im-
portant requirement for the Tantric path, though, ordained practitioners
faced the conflict of either strictly following the monastic rules or prac-
tising the new powerful and effective techniques.
Such must have been the situation in a typical Buddhist community
when Maitrīpa (986–1063 CE)4 interrupted his career as a monk-scholar at

1
In other words, great accomplished adepts. The term *mahāsiddha refers to any
one of a group of Indian Tantric masters. Many of these were historical figures. See
BUSWELL & LOPEZ 2014: 508–509.
2
In his Tattvaratnāvalī, Maitrīpa includes Tantra within mainstream Mahāyāna by
dividing the latter into non-Tantric Mahāyāna, which he calls Pāramitānaya, and Tan-
tric Mahāyāna, which he calls Mantranaya. See TRĀ 3429–10 and MATHES 2015: 59.
3
Lit. “anointment,” a term originally used to refer to the anointment of a king. By
extension it was applied to the anointment of a Bodhisattva as a Buddha (see
BUSWELL & LOPEZ 2014: 12). In Mantranaya, an abhiṣeka refers to a ritual that
allows the adept to employ Tantric means of practice, such as visualising himself as
a deity, reciting its magical formula (mantra), or generating exemplifying bliss in
sexual yoga (see MATHES 2015: 10–14).
4
ROERICH (1949–53: 842) settled on 1007/10–1084/1087, while TATZ (1994: 65)
suggested ca. 1007 – ca. 1085. ROBERTS (2014: 4 and 212, n. 8) rightly points out,
however, that ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s (1392–1481) Tibetan historical sur-
Vikramapura Monastery5 to search out the great Siddha Śavaripa. Having

received empowerment and “great seal” (mahāmudrā)6 teachings from
him, Maitrīpa returned to the academic milieu and started composing sev-
eral texts that embed mahāmudrā in his favoured Madhyamaka philosophy
of non-abiding (apratiṣṭhāna).7 The Sanskrit term apratiṣṭhāna also means
“non-foundation,” which conveys the idea that there is no foundation in
anything whatsoever by which the latter can be reified in any conceivable
way. Maitrīpa’s student Rāmapāla equates apratiṣṭhāna with mental non-
engagement (amanasikāra),8 a term that Maitrīpa also interprets as lumi-
nous self-empowerment.9 This means that the practitioner not only refrains
from projecting mistaken notions (such as an independent existence or
characteristic signs) onto anything arisen in dependence, whether
skandhas, dhātus, or āyatanas,10 but also realises the luminous nature of
mind. With such a fine blend of mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka, Maitrīpa
and his disciples considerably contributed to integrating the new teachings
and practices of the great Siddha into mainstream Buddhism.
A key role in this process is played by the Tattvadaśaka, or “Ten Verses
on True Reality,” a text in which Maitrīpa combines an analytic Madh-
yamaka path of excluding what true reality is not (via negationis) with a
direct approach of experiencing true reality as luminosity (via emi-

vey, called the Blue Annals (Tib. Deb ther sngon po), does not give any precise
information on the specific elements attributed to the year, and that according to the
life stories of Maitrīpa’s disciples their master must have passed away already before
Vajrapāṇi reached Nepal in 1066. See also MATHES 2015: 1.
5
According to some Tibetan sources (the biography in the ‘Bri gung bka’ brgyud
chos mdzod, Dpa’ bo Gtsug lag phreng ba’s Chos byung mkhas pa pa’i dga’ ston and
the one in the Tucci Tibetan fund (ms 1095) being an exception), Maitrīpa did not
leave Vikramapura but was expelled from Vikramalaśīla for being involved with
alcohol and women (BRUNNHÖLZL 2007: 511).
6
In its Tantric context, mahāmudrā stands for the fruition of the path, but for
*Sahajavajra the term is also used to qualify pith instructions and the true reality they
reveal. See MATHES 2015: 229.
7
Later known as the collection of texts on non-conceptual realisation (amana-
sikāra). For an edition and translation of this corpus, see MATHES 2015.
8
This is very clear from the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla (one of the four
main disciples of Maitrīpa), who glosses apratiṣṭhāna as “not to become mentally
engaged” and “not to superimpose.” See Sekanirdeśapañjikā on SN 29 (SNP 1926):
apratiṣṭhānam amanasikāro ’nāropaḥ.
9
This will be further explained below. See also MATHES 2015: 20 and 247.
10
SNP 1925–6: sarvasminn iti pratītyasamutpannaskandhadhātvāyatanādau...
KLAUS-DIETER MATHES 139
nentiae).11 In his commentary on verse 8 of the Tattvadaśaka (i.e., the

*Tattvadaśakaṭīkā), Maitrīpa’s disciple *Sahajavajra explains the via emi-
nentiae in terms of a mahāmudrā practice that differs from the usual Tan-
tric mahāmudrā. It seems to fall in between the distinction of Mahāyāna
into Pāramitānaya and Mantranaya, since it takes the Tattvadaśaka as
Pāramitānaya pith instructions that accord with, or follow,12 Mantranaya.13
To be sure, this kind of mahāmudrā path is beyond the pride of being a
deity (lha’i nga rgyal) and the sequence of the four seals, i.e., the genera-
tion and completion stages of formal Tantric practice.14 It could be argued
that we have here an Indian predecessor of what came to be known in Tibet
as mdo lugs phyag chen, i.e., “sūtra-style mahāmudrā.”15 The implication
of *sūtra-mahāmudrā is that the advanced practices of the great Siddhas
are possible even without formal Tantric empowerment. In Tibetan Bud-
dhism, there were of course also other strategies of adopting the empow-

11
MATHES 2006: 209–212.
12
Tib. rjes su mthun par. Unfortunately, the Indian original of the *Tattva-
daśakaṭīkā has not come down to us, but in Maitrīpa’s Mahāyānaviṃśikā, verse 4 (in
which the term is used in a similar context) we find the Sanskrit equivalent a-
nusāreṇa. (MATHES 2015: 451).
13
TDṬ (B 1b4–2a2, D 161a2, P 176a4–5): “Having presented in detail the stages
of penetrating the meaning of non-abiding in accordance with Pramāṇa, Madhyama-
ka and authoritative scriptures (āgama), [Maitrīpa] wished to compose brief Pāra-
mitā[naya] pith instructions which accord with the tradition of the secret Man-
tra[naya]…” (tshad ma dang | dbu ma dang | lung (arnams gis ’dir rab tu mi gnas
pa’ia) don la ’jug pa’i rim pa rgyas par (bbstan nasb) (cgsang ngags kyi tshul dangc)
rjes su mthund pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’ie man ngag mdor bsdus (fpa byed par ’dod
pasf) | … a B bzhin b D nyid de bzhin nyid c P du d P om. e D brlabs f BD ba’i). First
quoted and translated in MATHES 2015: 215.
14
The pride of being a deity, often referred to as vajra pride in the secondary lite-
rature, is an important element in the generation stage of Tantric practice, during
which the adept not only generates himself as a deity but is also proud of that. The
four seals are the karmamudrā, dharmamudrā, mahāmudrā, and samayamudrā.
Their sequence describes the completion stage in the Yoginī Tantras. mahāmudrā
corresponds here to the level of the fruit, and dharmamudrā to the ultimate (i.e.,
dharmadhātu, or the like), which is meditated upon or cultivated on the path. This
path is fully in accordance with Pāramitānaya but can be effectively initiated with
the help of a karmamudrā, which involves sexual union with an actual woman in
order to identify the goal of co-emergent joy. The samayamudrā is the display of
Tantric form kāyas for the sake of others as a result of having attained mahāmudrā
(see MATHES 2009: 89).
15
MATHES 2006: 201–203.

erment ritual to a monastic environment, such as substituting the critical

parts with less-offensive ritual elements,16 but *sūtra-mahāmudrā offers a
more elegant solution to this problem and also helps to legitimise the sub-
stitution in the case a formal empowerment is still preferred.
However, a third approach beyond the methods of pāramitā and mantra
is absent in the only other known work by *Sahajavajra, the *Sthitisamāsa.
The possible explanation proposed in this paper is that Pāramitānaya pith
instructions that accord with Mantranaya become part of the Mantranaya. It
will be further argued that *sūtra-mahāmudrā does not mean that
mahāmudrā becomes “Sūtric,” but that sūtra passages that support pith
instructions become Tantric. This “upgrade” of sūtra passages must also be
seen in the wider context of integrating the new mahāmudrā teachings into
mainstream Buddhism by showing that they are in line with the view, con-
duct, and practice of traditional Mahāyāna. In the process, Tantric terms
were explained in a broader Mahāyāna context with the purpose of demon-
strating that their meaning was already latent in more traditional forms of
Buddhism. By showing that mahāmudrā is compatible with more tradition-
al presentations of view and meditation, such as apratiṣṭhāna and amana-
sikāra (see below), it must have been easier for Maitrīpa to propagate the
teachings of his guru Śavaripa among the communities of the big monastic
universities in Northern India. Once the bridge between mahāmudrā and
amanasikāra had been built, it was possible to traverse it in both directions.
To what extent this was in fact intended by Maitrīpa is another question.
In Tibet, however, sGam po pa (1079–1153) and the Dwags po bKa’
brgyud lineages profited from this bridge by giving mahāmudrā teachings
without Tantric empowerments on the basis of calm abiding and deep in-
sight. The possibility of such a *sūtra-mahāmudrā was already indicated in
Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra and (probably in dependence on that) in *Sahaja-
vajra’s *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā. Later bKa’ brgyud masters, such as ’Gos Lo tsā
ba gZhon nu dpal (1392–1481) and Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal (1511–
1587), discerned in these Indian masters’ writings a doctrinal foundation
for their mahāmudrā approach of combining Tantric and Sūtric methods
into a single system of liberation.

16
The guhyābhiṣeka is thus conferred by bestowing the adept a drop of alcohol
from a skull (kapāla) instead of the sexual fluids from the guru and his consort; and
the prajñājñānābhiṣeka is performed by showing the adept a small drawing (Tib.
tsak li) with a Tantric couple, and not the adept’s union with an actual consort.
In his Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā commentary, gZhon nu dpal thus

claims, on the basis of the Tattvadaśaka and its ṭīkā, that what Maitrīpa
called mahāmudrā is a Pāramitānaya path that accords with the secret
Mantranaya (see below). The way in which the Pāramitānaya would accord
with the Mantranaya is evident in gZhon nu dpal’s description of how
those who rely on pith instructions take refuge by seeing their guru as the
Buddha:
Those who rely on pith instructions must be certain about [their] ref-
uge in the Three Jewels. For this reason, they have to take refuge
with the confidence that [their] guru is a Buddha. The guru, further-
more, cannot be anyone, but he must be one who has seen reality.
This is what Maitrīpa called mahāmudrā, a Pāramitā[naya] path that
accords (rjes su mthun pa) with the secret Mantra[naya]. This is the
meaning derived from the Tattvadaśaka and its ṭīkā. Likewise, it is
obvious that the well-known guruyoga exclusively accords with the
Mantra[naya]. If it is not right for followers of Pāramitānaya17 to
practice something that only accords with [Mantranaya], then it is al-
so not right for Śrāvakas to pacify sickness with mantra formulas,
which lean on [Mantranaya].18
In other words, guruyoga,19 or rather one’s reliance on somebody who has

seen true reality as it is, in this case upgrades ordinary Pāramitānaya into a
system that deserves the label mahāmudrā. It could be argued that guru-
yoga is tantamount to Tantric empowerment, since one receives the guru’s

17
Lit. “Pāramitāyāna.”
18
DRSM 1908–13: ’dir man ngag pa dag ni dkon mchog gsum la skyabs su ’gro
ba ni nges par bya dgos pa yin kyi | de las kyang bla ma nyid sangs rgyas su mos nas
skyabs su ’gro bar bya ba yin la | bla ma de yang su yang rung ba ma yin gyi | bden
pa mthong ba zhig zin no zhes bzhed de | ’di ni mai trī pas phyag rgya chen po zhes
bya ba pha rol tu phyin pa’i lam gang zhig gsang sngags dang rjes su mthun pa yin
no zhes bya ba’i don ’di de kho na nyid bcu pa’i rtsa ’grel du ’byung ba yin la | de
bzhin du bla ma’i rnal ’byor zhes grags pa ni sngags dang rjes su mthun pa kho nar
snang la | de pha rol tu phyin pa’i theg pa bas rjes su mthun pa tsam yang nyams su
blang du mi rung na so sor ’brang ba’i rig sngags kyis nad zhi bar byed pa nyan
thos rnams la mi rung bar ’gyur zhing | ….
19
That is, a Tantric ritual of guru devotion, during which the adept visualises his
root guru as not being separated from the Buddha. It is mostly practiced together
with three other preliminary practices, i.e., prostration, Vajrasattva purification, and
maṇḍala offering (see BUSWELL & LOPEZ 2014: 339).

blessing and thus the wisdom of mahāmudrā.20 The Eighth Karmapa Mi

bskyod rdo rje (1507–1554) clarifies this in his sKu gsum ngo sprod rnam
bshad as follows:
Sgam po pa explained: This mahāmudrā of our bKa’ brgyud [tradi-

tion] first of all involves a fortunate disciple taking to the limit [his
or her] devotion to a qualified teacher [in the way that] Nāro relied
upon Tīlo, Mar pa upon Nāro, Mi la upon Mar pa, and ’Brom ston
upon the master Atiśa. This is referred to as “making devotion the
path.” Its power makes it possible for the blessing of the guru to en-
ter [the disciple]. When a [corresponding state of] mind (blo) arises,
the samādhi of calm abiding and deep insight arises effortlessly.
This is referred to as “making blessing the path.” Through its power,
the abiding mode of the true nature and the extent of all phenomena
are seen directly. This is “making direct perception the path.”21
The *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā
*Sahajavajra’s commentary on the Tattvadaśaka has not come down to us
in its Indian original, so that we have to rely on its Tibetan translation con-
tained in the bsTan ’gyur. It was translated by Vajrapāṇi (b. 1017)22 and
mTshur ston Ye shes ’byung gnas (a translator related to ’Brog mi). This
paṇḍita-translator pair is also known to have translated Maitrīpa’s Kudṛṣṭi-
nirghātana, Mahāyānaviṃśikā, Premapañcaka, Sahajaṣaṭka, and accord-

20
In the chapter on the transmission of mahāmudrā lineages In his Deb ther
sngon po (98418–20), gZhon nu dpal states that “… the remedy, which is not mere
theory, is the wisdom of mahāmudrā. It arises from the blessing of the genuine gu-
ru.” (des na lta bar ma gyur pa ’di’i gnyen po ni phyag rgya chen po’i ye shes yin la
| de ni bla ma dam pa’i byin rlabs nyid las ’byung ba yin no |).
21
Mi bskyod rdo rje: sKu gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, vol. 21, 1686–1694: rje
sgam po pas | ’o bkol gyi bka’ brgyud ’di’i phyag rgya chen po ’di la slob ma skal
ldan gyis bla ma mtshan ldan la dang por mos gus tshad du skyol pa nā ros tai lo
bsten pa dang | mar pas nā ro pa bsten pa dang | mi las mar pa bsten pa dang |
’brom gyis jo bo bsten pa ltar bston pa de la mos pa lam byed bya ba yin | de ltar
mos pa lam du song ba’i mthus bla ma’i byin brlabs ’jug tu rung ba’i blo skye zhing
de ltar skye ba la zhi lhag gi ting nge ’dzin rtsol med du skye ba de byin brlabs lam
byed yin | byin brlabs lam du song ba’i mthus chos thams cad ji lta ba dang ji snyed
pa’i gnas tshul mngon sum du mthong pa de la mngon sum lam byed yin |. I thank
Dr. Martina Draszczyk (Vienna) for this reference and also its translation.
22
ROERICH 1949–53: 843.
ing to the Peking bsTan ’gyur23 also the Tattvadaśaka. Compared to these
translations, I did not find any evidence that would call into question the
authenticity of the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā. Yet, Ulrich Timme Kragh raises
doubts because *Sahajavajra’s commentary quotes Kamalaśīla’s Bhāvanā-
krama(s),24 of which no Sanskrit manuscript “has ever been found outside
Tibet.”25 However, there is an untold number of Sanskrit manuscripts that
are not found outside of Tibet, and the fact that no other quotation of the
Bhāvanākramas could so far be identified is not very telling. Given the
intense economic and cultural relations between Central Tibet and its
southern neighbours at the time, it is difficult to see how such important
texts of the Yogācāra-Madhyamaka school should have remained unknown
in India. On the contrary, the quotation of the Bhāvanākramas in
*Sahajavajra’s commentary demonstrates their presence in eleventh-
century India, just as there is evidence for the presence of Kamalaśīla’s
Madhyamakāloka in India from this time onwards.26
If the text was, however, for the sake of argument, composed within a
Nepalese or Tibetan tradition that had been in need of scriptural support for
Pāramitānaya-based mahāmudrā, the author would not have referred to the
Hevajratantra (i.e., HT I.8.44cd)27 in support of a non-conceptual access to
the ultimate.28 This reference to Maitrīpa’s preferred Tantric source per-
fectly adds to the picture that this commentary on the Tattvadaśaka can be
taken as a genuine Indian source.
Although *Sahajavajra already reports a mahāmudrā practice of firmly

realising reality, the main context of mahāmudrā in Maitrīpa’s system is

23
The Derge bsTan ’gyur mentions Tshul khrims rgyal ba as translator.
24
There are, to be precise, three of them.
25
KRAGH 2015: 75, n. 110.
26
See KEIRA 2004: 7–8.
27
HT I.8.44 (HT 955–6): “The whole world should be meditated upon [in such a
way] that it is not produced by the intellect. Meditation is actually non-meditation (or
non-production by the mind), the thorough knowledge of all phenomena.” (bhāvyate
hi jagat sarvaṃ manasā yasmān na bhāvyate | sarvadharmaparijñānaṃ bhāvanā
naiva bhāvanā ||).
28
In his subcommentary on the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, Ti pi ’Bum la ’bar uses this op-
portunity to claim that the direct approach, or non-conceptual bodhicitta, manifests
during empowerment: “As to the non-analytical [bodhi]citta here, in the secret Man-
tranaya a non-analytical realisation manifests during the fourth empowerment.” (’Bri
gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod, vol. kha, 184a3: ’di la dpyad pa med pa’i sems ni gsang
sngags kyi theg pa ’di la dbang bzhi pa’i dus su ma dpyad rtogs pa ’char bas so |).

provided in his Sekanirdeśa,29 where it is embedded in the sequence of the

four seals. In this context, it primarily represents the goal of Buddhahood
that is attained through the experience of four joys on a physical
karmamudrā-level and/or the four joys on a verbal dharmamudrā-level.30
According to *Kāropa, another disciple of Maitrīpa, the karmamudrā is not
required in order to embark on the path to enlightenment,31 and Maitrīpa
claims in his Tattvaviṃśikā that in Tantra, inferior practitioners rely on a
karmamudrā, while a more direct approach to mahāmudrā is available to
those with sharp faculties.32 In other words, the sequence in which
mahāmudrā is embedded is not so strictly prescribed, and it does not cate-

29
The Sekanirdeśa and the Tattvadaśaka belong to the same collection of
Maitrīpa texts, referred to as Yid la mi byed pa’i chos skor in the Tibetan tradition
(see MATHES 2015: 4–6).
30
See Rāmapāla’s commentary on the Sekanirdeśa (SNP 19110–11): “Now that the
karmamudrā, which has the nature of the four joys and is based on physicality, has
been propounded, he teaches the dharmamudrā, which has the nature of the four
joys and is based on speech.” (caturānandasvabhāvā kāyikī karmamudroktaiva |
vācasīṃ dharmamudrāṃ caturānandasvabhāvām āha |). For Maitrīpa and his
disciples, the four joys are joy, supreme joy, co-emergent joy, and no-joy. They are
first enjoyed physically with a karmamudrā (the technical term for a consort). This
proceeds to the subsequent phase of dharmamudrā in which the practitioner realises
the four joys again, but this time on the basis of teachings of how the manifold mani-
fests in the co-emergent and so forth (see MATHES 2009: 89 and 112–113).
31
In Rāmapāla’s commentary on the Sekanirdeśa, we are informed that the
dharmamudrā relates to a central practice of the outer creation phase, while
karmamudrā practice extends through the perfect completion stage.a In other words,
the way dharmamudrā is presented here suggests not so much a progressive succes-
sion following from the karmamudrā empowerment but rather the possibility of an
alternative path which begins with the outer creation phase. According to *Kāropa, a
disciple of Maitrīpa, the four moments and joys can also arise directly on the level of
dharmamudrā, and one must rely on a karmamudrā only when this is impossible.
See MATHES 2009: 94.
a
It should be noted, however, that creation stage visualisations can occasionally
be employed in the advanced levels of the completion stage.
32
See TV 7 and 11 (TV 45912–13 & TV 46016–17): “Those with inferior capacities have
perfectly cultivated the circle with the help of the karma- and samayamudrā. [With a
mind] directed to the external in the matter of pure reality, they meditate on enlighten-
ment. (TV 7) … The yogin who has seen true reality, however, is wholly devoted to
mahāmudrā; his faculty being unsurpassable, he abides in [the realisation of the] nature
of all entities.” (TV 11). (karmasamayamudrābhyāṃ cakraṃ niṣpādya bhāvitāḥ |
dhyāyanti mṛdavo bodhiṃ śuddhatattve bahirmukhāḥ || … dṛṣṭatattvaḥ punar yogī
mahāmudrāparāyaṇaḥ | sarvabhāvasvabhāvena vihared uttamendr iyaḥ ||).
gorically exclude *Sahajavajra’s mahāmudrā as being outside the sequence

of the four seals. Moreover, mahāmudrā is not only fruition (i.e., Bud-
dhahood): in his Sekanirdeśa,33 Maitrīpa introduces his purely Madh-
yamaka presentation of mahāmudrā by equating the latter with non-
abiding, which Rāmapāla equates, as already mentioned, with the practice
of amanasikāra (i.e., the withdrawal of one’s attention from conceptually
created duality34).35 Rāmapāla also makes it clear that the doctrinal source
for this is the Jñānālokālaṃkārasūtra as well as the Avikalpapraveśa-
dhāraṇī, an earlier non-Tantric Dhāraṇī text. Here four sets of characteris-
tic signs, i.e., the mistaken projections of the ordinary phenomenal world,
remedies, true reality, and the fruit, are abandoned through the practice of
not becoming mentally engaged. In the last of the eight verses on
mahāmudrā found in the Sekanirdeśa, Maitrīpa takes up this topic and thus
establishes, according to Rāmapāla’s commentary, an essential link be-
tween mahāmudrā and the abandoning of characteristic signs through men-
tal non-engagement.36 It should be noted, however, that for Maitrīpa the
term amanasikāra stands not only for mental non-engagement but also for
“luminous self-empowerment.”37 For this reason, I propose to translate
amanasikāra in its Tantric meaning as “non-conceptual realisation.”
In his commentary on verse 7 of the Tattvadaśaka,38 *Sahajavajra refers
to precisely this context when he quotes verse 36 of the Sekanirdeśa. In

33
Sekanirdeśa, verse 29 (SN 38611–12) reads as follows: “Not to abide in anything
is known as mahāmudrā. Because self-awareness [i.e., mahāmudrā] is stainless, [the
moments of enjoying] manifold [appearances] and so forth do not arise.” (sarva-
sminn apratiṣṭhānaṃ mahāmudreti kīrtyate | vimalatvāt svasaṃvitter vicitrāder na
sambhavaḥ ||).
34
See MATHES 2015: 248–258.
35
SNP 1922–3: sarvasminn ... apratiṣṭhānam amanasikāro ’nāropaḥ |.
36
In his commentary on SN 36, Rāmapāla offers a nearly verbatim citation from
the section of the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī that describes the abandonment of the
four sets of characteristic signs through amanasikāra. For details, see MATHES 2016:
327–331.
37
At least this is Maitrīpa’s final analysis of the term amanasikāra in the Amana-
sikārādhāra (AMĀ 4976–7): “[The letter] a stands for the word ‘luminous,’ and ma-
nasikāra for the word ‘self-empowerment’ (svādhiṣṭhāna). It is both a and ma-
nasikāra, so we get amanasikāra.” (a iti prabhāsvarapadam | manasikāra iti
svādhiṣṭhānapadam | aś cāsau manasikāraś cety amanasikāraḥ |).
38
Verse 7 of the Tattvadaśaka (TD 4876–7) reads as follows: “The world itself,
which is free from knowledge and knowable objects, is taken to be non-duality. But
even vain clinging to a state free of duality is taken, in like manner, to be luminous.”

verse 5 of the Tattvadaśaka, Maitrīpa explains that phenomena are experi-

enced as being luminous, and verse 7cd even takes helpful concepts such
as the clinging to a state free from duality to be this way. *Sahajavajra then
comments that for Maitrīpa the characteristic signs, which are abandoned
through amanasikāra in the Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, are all realised as
luminous. In other words, for Maitrīpa nothing is really abandoned. One
simply realises everything for what it truly is: luminosity. This perfectly
fits Maitrīpa’s interpretation of amanasikāra as luminous self-
empowerment in his Amanasikārādhāra.
To recapitulate, I suggest that *Sahajavajra here refers to the
mahāmudrā part of the Sekanirdeśa not because of its being embedded in
the sequence of the four seals, but because of its Madhyamaka context of
non-abiding (i.e., Apratiṣṭhāna-Madhyamaka)39 and the related practice of
amanasikāra – understood as a practice of realising the luminous nature of
everything. This calls into question whether mahāmudrā in the Sekanirdeśa
stands only for fruition, as would be required by the strict Tantric context
of the four seals. We have already seen that through its equation with non-
abiding and amanasikāra, for Rāmapāla mahāmudrā also includes the
path. In his *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, *Sahajavajra offers an additional interpreta-
tion following his citation of Sekanirdeśa, verse 36: “Here mahāmudrā
[refers to] the pith instructions on the true reality of mahāmudrā.”40
Thus, as true reality, mahāmudrā refers not only to the fruition and the
path, but also to the foundation. In sum, this provides the familiar triad of
foundation, path, and fruition (gzhi, lam, ’bras bu) mahāmudrā. In his
Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer, Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal also comes to
this conclusion with a particular reference to the definition of mahāmudrā
in the Sekanirdeśapañjikā:

(jñānajñeyavihīnaṃ ca jagad evādvayaṃ matam | dvayahīnābhimānaś ca tathaiva hi
prabhāsvaraḥ ||). In the eyes of *Sahajavajra, here Maitrīpa replies to the possible
objection that he postulates the same characteristic signs which are to be abandoned
through amanasikāra. His reply then is that this is achieved through realising their
luminosity.
39
All eight verses on mahāmudrā in the Sekanirdeśa are Madhyamaka. Some of
them are also found in the Apratiṣṭhāna section of Maitrīpa’s Tattvaratnāvalī.
40
See MATHES 2005: 24. In the quotation of the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā in his Ratnago-
travibhāgavyākhyā commentary, ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal omits “reality” and only
states: “Here mahāmudrā refers to mahāmudrā pith instructions.” (DRSM 46218–19: ’dir
zang phyag rgya chen po zhes ba ba ni phyag rgya chen po’i man ngag ste |).
In the Sekanirdeśapañjikā composed by Rāmapāla [we find]:

“Then, given that it impresses its seal (mudrā) on the three [other]
mudrās, [mahāmudrā] is both great (mahā) and a seal. It is beyond
analysis, and its nature is non-abiding.41 It is made manifest [by] the
diligent and continuous cultivation of the wisdom of the path. It is
non-existent (i.e., lacks an own-being), free of the hindrances of the
knowable, and the basis of everything perfect. It has the identity of
[cyclic] existence and nirvāṇa as its nature, consists of universal
compassion, and has the unique form of great bliss.”
Such are the definition and the identification of mahāmudrā, by
which foundation, path, and fruition mahāmudrā are recognised.42

41
The Sanskrit text which served as a basis for bKra shis rnam rgyal’s Tibetan
quotation must have read: *avicārāgatā-apratiṣṭhānarūpā. In the edition by
ISAACSON & SFERRA (SNP 19013) we find instead: vicārāgatāpratiṣṭhānarūpa-,
which means that both of the two compounds are in compound with what follows,
thus describing the wisdom of the path instead of mahāmudrā. The other difference
is that vicāra (“analysis”) is not negated, so that we get a “wisdom of the path that is
reached by analysis.” ISAACSON’s & SFERRA’s Sanskrit edition is also supported by
the Tibetan translations of the SNP in the bsTan ’gyur editions and the dPal spungs
edition of the Karmapa VII’s Phyag chen rgya gzhung (ISAACSON & SFERRA 2014:
236, l. 3–4). The compound vicārāgatāpratiṣṭhānarūpa- perfectly describes the path,
but the path is not the main subject in this definition of mahāmudrā. Moreover, avi-
cārāgatā and apratiṣṭhānarūpā are well-established attributes of mahāmudrā: In SN
29ab, apratiṣṭhāna is equated with mahāmudrā, and in his commentary on SN 30,
Rāmapāla explains that apratiṣṭhāna is inexpressible wisdom that does not arise
from analysis but is effortless and occurs in its own sphere (SNP 1937–8: tac cāprati-
ṣṭhānam acintyaṃ jñānaṃ na tad vicārāgataṃ kiṃ tarhy anābhogaṃ svarasābhyā-
gatam).
42
Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal: Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer (14818–1495): dbang
bskur nges bstan kyi bka’ ’grel ra ma pā las mdzad pa las | phyag rgya gsum la rgyas
gdab pa’i phyir | ’di chen po yang yin la phyag rgya yang yin te | dpyad pas ma ’ongs pa
mi gnas pa’i ngo bo nyid | lam gyi ye shes gus pa dang bcas shing rgyun mi chad par
goms par byas pa mngon du byas pa dngos po med pa | shes bya la sogs pa’i sgrib pa
spangs pa | phun sum tshogs pa ma lus pa’i gzhir gyur pa | srid pa dang mya ngan las
’das pa ngo bo nyid kyis gcig pa | dmigs pa med pa’i snying rje chen po’i lus can | bde ba
chen po’i sku gcig pu ni phyag rgya chen po’o | | zhes phyag chen gyi nges tshig dang
ngo bo ngos ’dzin dang | de rnams kyis gzhi lam ’bras bu’i phyag chen ngos bzung
dang… First translated by LHALUNGPA (2006: 103–104).

Impressing its seal on the lower three seals means that mahāmudrā is the
nature of these seals, and therefore it can be made to shine through by cul-
tivating the wisdom of the path. Shortly after this, in a section entitled
“Clearing away the confusion of other schools” (Zhar bzung gzhan gyi log
rtog gsal ba), which is basically a response to Sa skya Paṇḍita’s (1182–
1251) critique of the author’s mahāmudrā tradition, Dwags po bKra shis
rnam rgyal writes:
Moreover, in your Thub pa’i dgongs gsal [you claim that] if it is

mahāmudrā, it must have arisen from empowerment. This is not ac-
ceptable for the following reasons: One would have to explain that
the primordial abiding nature of all phenomena, i.e., foundation
mahāmudrā, has arisen from empowerment. If one did not maintain
such a foundation mahāmudrā, one would be forced to deny also
path and fruition mahāmudrā, since the fruit must be actualised after
having cultivated on the path that which abides as the foundation.
Moreover, one would have to engage in the deeds of abandoning the
dharma enunciated in many mahāmudrā works such as the ones by
those gone before us – the elder and younger Saraha, Tīlopa, Nāro-
pa, and Maitrīpa – as well as [other] works such as the seven works
on accomplishment.43
The point made here is that if mahāmudrā is the fruit, it must also be the
foundation, the true nature of all phenomena. This argument presupposes
the position found in the Caturmudrānvaya, namely that an uncontrived
fruit cannot be produced by something contrived.44 While it is true that the

43
Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal: Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer, 1563–11: yang
khyed kyi dgongs su | phyag rgya chen po yin na dbang las ’byung dgos pa’i khyab
’cha’ ba’ang mi rigs te | de ltar na chos thams cad kyi gdod ma’i gnas lugs gzhi’i
phyag rgya chen po de yang dbang bskur las byung tshul brjod dgos par ’gyur ba’i
phyir dang | de ’dra ba’i gzhi’i phyag chen khas mi len na | gzhi la gnas pa lam gyis
goms par byas nas ’bras bu mngon du byed dgos pas | lam gyi phyag chen dang
’bras bu’i phyag chen yang med par smra dgos pa’i phyir dang | sngar bshad pa’i sa
ra ha che chung tai lo nā ro mai tri pa sogs kyi phyag rgya chen po’i gzhung dang |
grub pa sde bdun la sogs pa’i gzhung mang po la chos spong gi las sgrub dgos par
’gyur ba’i phyir dang |… First translated by LHALUNGPA (2006: 109).
44
The Caturmudrānvaya, which is ascribed to the Tantric Nāgārjuna, served as a
basis for the Sekanirdeśa, and thus it represents the most important source for
Maitrīpa. The text explains how something artificially created, such as the physical
experience of the four joys (i.e., the wisdom arisen from a karmamudrā), can initiate
nature of everything becomes manifest through empowerment, the ques-

tions remains which elements constitute the latter and whether formal em-
powerment is required at all. It may be argued that mahāmudrā can also be
manifested by the practice of abandoning all characteristic signs through
amanasikāra based on the kindness of the guru. In fact, this can be gath-
ered from the commentary on verses 29 and 31 of the Sekanirdeśa, the
latter being another one of the eight verses on mahāmudrā that are purely
Madhyamaka. In his explanation on these two verses, Rāmapāla emphasis-
es the importance of the guru’s kindness that enables a direct realisation of
true reality.45 In his commentary on the second part of SN 29,46 Rāmapāla
then adds that this occurs beyond the impure moments and joys. Isaacson
and Sferra object to this that mahāmudrā’s freedom from the impure joys
only refers to the “single undefiled moment within the sequence of the
moments and the Blisses (i.e., joys) of the sexual union of the third conse-
cration.”47 In my opinion, however, Rāmapāla addresses the possible ob-

a process that leads to mahāmudrā, i.e., Buddhahood. The wisdom which arises from
a karmamudrā or prajñā (i.e., the prajñā wisdom) is only an imitation of the real
wisdom, with the prajñā wisdom of the third empowerment being only an
exemplifying wisdom. It becomes a cause for mahāmudrā exclusively in combinati-
on with the teaching of the dharmamudrā. See MATHES 2008: 108.
45
Rāmapāla on SN 29 (SNP 19210–12): “One should not think that [this ama-
nasikāra as taught in the Jñānālaṃkārāloka] cannot be practised, for by the kindness
of [one’s] venerable guru, mahāmudrā, which has the defining characteristic of being
endowed with all supreme qualities, can certainly be made directly manifest.”
(...aśakyānuṣṭhānatā ca na mantavyā. sadgurupādaprasādenāvaśyaṃ sarvākāravaro-
petalakṣaṇamahāmudrāyāḥ pratyakṣīkartuṃ śakyatvāt.). First translated in MATHES
2007: 555–556. Rāmapāla on SN 31 (SNP 19312–15): “If … this reality was to be expe-
rienced directly … [then] it should be known through an awareness [which is obtained
through] the kindness of a genuine guru.” (yady … tat tattvaṃ pratyakṣam anubhūtaṃ
syāt. … sadgurupādaprasādavitter jñeyam.). First translated in MATHES 2011: 120.
46
SN 29cd (SN 38612): “As self-awareness (i.e., mahāmudrā) is stainless, [the
moments of enjoying] manifold [appearances] and so forth do not arise.” (vimalatvāt
svasaṃvitter vicitrāder na sambhavaḥ.). The commentary (SNP 19213–15) reads as
follows: “How is it, then, that [mahāmudrā] does not have the nature of the four
moments? [In 29c] it is stated: ‘Because self-awareness [i.e., mahāmudrā] is stain-
less.’ Being stainless, the three stained moments of the manifold and so forth do not
occur in it. Therefore the three [impure] joys do not arise in it either.” (nanv atra
kathaṃ na catuḥkṣaṇarūpatā. āha – vimalatvāt svasaṃvitter nirmalatayā vicitrādeḥ
kṣaṇatrayasya samalasya nātra sambhavaḥ. tato nānandatrayasambhavaḥ |). First
translated in MATHES 2007: 556.
47
ISAACSON & SFERRA 2014: 413.

jection that mahāmudrā does not have the nature of the four moments if the
practice is exclusively amanasikāra, so to say. Rāmapāla’s reply, then, is
the reassurance that the three impure moments do not occur in mahāmudrā.
While it is true that the third moment and co-emergent joy are related to
mahāmudrā in the context of assigning the four joys to the four mudrās
(although mahāmudrā is beyond the four joys),48 in his Caturmudropadeśa
Maitrīpa explains the following just before referring mahāmudrā to co-
emergent joy:
mahāmudrā [stands for] the union of all phenomena into a pair with
[their own] true nature of non-arising. It is free from [any] thought
relating to a perceived object and a perceiving subject – the hin-
drances of defilements, knowable objects, and so forth having been
abandoned. One experiences it as it truly is according to its specific
characteristic. It is called the fruit which is stainless. As for its na-
ture, it does not have a form [like] all phenomena everywhere, [and]
it is all-pervading, unchangeable, and ever-present. mahāmudrā is
therefore perfect enlightenment in a single moment, and not [some-
thing that can be] broken down into four moments and four joys…49
[When it comes to] reality as it truly is, it needs to be learned from
the mouth of the guru when [he sets] the wheel of the dharma [in
motion].50

48
CMU (B 13a2–3, D 214a7–b1, P 234a1–2): “Still, there is a presentation of the
four joys in relation to the four seals. The karmamudrā is joy, the dharmamudrā
supreme joy, mahāmudrā co-emergent joy, and the samayamudrā the [joy of] no-
joy.” (’on kyang phyag rgya bzhi la ltos nas dga’ ba bzhir bzhag ste | las kyi phyag
rgya ni dga’o | | chos kyi phyag rgya ni mchog tu dga’ ba’o | | phyag rgya chen po ni
lhan cig skyes pa’i dga’ ba’o | | dam tshig gi phyag rgya ni bral lo |).
49
Here Maitrīpa explains how the four seals can be taken as the four joys in their
relation to mahāmudrā (see below).
50
CMU (B 12b5–13a3, D 214a5–214b1, P 233b6–234a2): phyag rgya chen (apo nia)
chos thams cad skye ba med pa’i ngo bo zung du ‘jug pa | gzung ba dang ’dzin pa’i
rtog pa dang bral ba | nyon mongs pa dang shes bya la sogs pa’i sgrib pa spangs pa |
ji lta ba bzhin du rang gi mtshan nyid nyams su myong ba ste | dri ma med pa’i ’bras
bur brjod do | | de’i ngo bo ni mtha’ dbus kyi chos thams cad gzugs can ma yin pa
dang | thams cad du khyab pa dang | mi ’gyur ba dang | dus thams cad pa’o | | des na
phyag rgya chen po ni skad cig ma gcigb la mngon par rdzogs par sangs rgyas pa ste |
skad cig ma bzhi dang dga’ ba bzhi dbye ba ni med do | … de nyid ji lta ba bzhin chos
kyi ’khor lo’i dus su bla ma’i zhal la ltos par bya’o |. a P po’i b P cig.
To be sure, “enlightenment in a single moment” does not mean here that

mahāmudrā is experienced for a single moment only, but that it is attained
instantaneously, for it is clear that once true reality is experienced as it is,
this realisation remains.51 That it is not the co-emergent joy of karmamudrā
practice also follows from the closely related Caturmudrānvaya that calls
the wisdom that arises from a prajñā an “image of the real co-emergent,”52
and in verse 8cd of his Mahāsukhaprakāśa Maitrīpa must be referring to
something similar when he notes that the “pure apparent [truth] should be
known to be something in which there is a false manifestation of bliss.”53
This raises the question to what extent the verses on dharmamudrā and
mahāmudrā in the Sekanirdeśa still belong to the prajñā wisdom empow-
erment. In his *Guruparamparākramopadeśa, Maitrīpa’s disciple Va-
jrapāṇi thus categorises empowerment under supreme, average, or inferior
types: inferior empowerment corresponds to the outer creation stage (up to
the master empowerment); average empowerment to karmamudrā (includ-
ing both the profound creation stage and the completion stage proper); and
supreme empowerment to dharmamudrā (the supreme creation stage).
mahāmudrā, then, is taken as the most supreme empowerment (the natural
completion stage).54
Based on this, I agree with ISAACSON & SFERRA (2014: 413) that the
“reference to the necessity of the favour (i.e., kindness) of a true teacher (to
directly manifest mahāmudrā or realize reality in the Sekanirdeśa) should

51
This can be compared to the ekakṣaṇābhisamaya in the Abhisamayālaṃkāra,
which refers to the Bodhisattva’s simultanenous realisation of all aspects of the three
knowledges in the vajra-like samādhi during the last moment of the tenth bhūmi,
which is immediately followed by the attainment of Buddhahood (Brunnhölzl
2010:60). To be sure, “perfect enlightenment in a single moment” does not mean that it
only lasts for a single moment, for once mahāmudrā is attained it will never be lost.
52
CMA 3925–6: “All that [appears as] co-emergent is called co-emergent because
it duplicates the image of the [real] co-emergent. [This] image of the co-emergent
leads [the adept] to realise [a type of] wisdom that is similar to the co-emergent. The
co-emergent is thus [only in this limited sense] the wisdom based on a prajñā.”
(sahajaṃ tat sarvaṃ sahajacchāyānukāritvāt sahajam ity abhidhīyate | sahaja-
cchāyā sahajasadṛśaṃ jñānaṃ pratipādayatīti sahajaṃ prajñājñānam). First transla-
ted in MATHES 2011: 110.
53
MSP 45316: sātālīkaprakāśā tu vijñeyā śuddhasaṃvṛtiḥ ||. First translated in
MATHES 2015: 182.
54
GPKU (B 299b4–300a6, D 170a4–b3, P 191a5–b5), for an English translation see
MATHES 2015: 142–143.

rather suggest a Tantric context.”55 However, on this level these can hardly
be pith instructions on karmamudrā. In this context, they are rather pith
instructions on true reality (such as Dohā songs or Pāramitānaya pith in-
structions that accord with Mantranaya). As can be seen in the *Tattvada-
śakaṭīkā, such pith instructions on the reality of mahāmudrā (mahāmudrā
pith instructions)56 are also based on non-Tantric sources, such as the
Samādhirājasūtra. In order to demonstrate that characteristic signs are
luminous (or pure and unborn), *Sahajavajra quotes a group of verses from
this sūtra (SRS 32.92–105), the content of which corresponds to a verse
quoted below, i.e., verse 30 of the Sekanirdeśa, the second of the eight
verses on mahāmudrā:57
Effortless wisdom
[Can] be taken as inconceivable.
Something “inconceivable” that one has [been able to] conceive
Cannot be truly inconceivable.58
One could argue that when passages of the Samādhirājasūtra are used as
pith instructions that enable direct access to true reality or emptiness, they
become Tantric or “accord with Mantranaya,” to use *Sahajavajra’s words.
In this context, it is interesting to note that in his Advayavivaraṇa-
prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi Padmavajra59 refers to the Samādhirājasūtra as
Samādhirājatantra when he quotes verse 72 from the first appendix to the
Samādhirājasūtra.60 The Madhyamaka-based mahāmudrā explanations of

55
The additions in brackets are my own.
56
That is, following gZhon nu dpal’s reading of the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā (see above).
57
For a translation of this part, see MATHES 2005: 24–27 and BRUNNHÖLZL
2007: 177–181, who also identified the verse following the Samādhirājasūtra quotes
as SN 30.
58
SN 38618–19: anābhogaṃ hi yaj jñānaṃ tac cācintyaṃ pracakṣyate | saṃcintya
yad acintyaṃ vai tad acintyaṃ bhaven na hi ||.
59
The attribution of the Advayavivaraṇaprajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi to Pad-
mavajra is seen as critical by Adam Krug, because the text also quotes Anaṅga-
vajrapāda’s Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi (and in that text it is clear that Anaṅgavajra
treats Padmavajra as his teacher). Communicated by e-mail on September 10, 2015.
60
AVPUV 21517–18: “Thus it has been said in the Samādhirājatantra: ‘All living
beings will become a Buddha, there is absolutely no sentient being who is un-
worthy.’” (tathā coktaṃ samādhirājatantre (sūtre): buddha bhaviṣyati sarvajano
’yaṃ nāstiha kaścid abhājanasattvaḥ). The quotation accords with SRS 31713–14
(appendix 1, verse 72cd). I thank Adam Krug, UC Santa Barbara, for this reference.
the Sekanirdeśa fulfil a similar function as certain parts of the

Samādhirājasūtra, in that they enable one to directly point out mahāmudrā
in a process that Vajrapāṇi calls the most supreme empowerment. Whether
such teachings then belong to the Pāramitānaya or Mantranaya was at
times regarded as a difficult question, and this issue is very diplomatically
addressed by Maitrīpa’s disciple Vajrapāṇi in his pith instructions on the
Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra:
One may doubt whether these special instructions on the meaning of

the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya[sūtra] belong to the philosophical vehi-
cles or the mantra vehicles. They appear differently in the mind of
sentient beings, but in terms of the profound nature of phenomena
[to which they refer] there is no difference.61
The Pāramitānaya-based pith instructions of Maitrīpa’s Tattvadaśaka can

be seen in the same light. Moreover, they may be used in a full-fledged
empowerment or else in direct mind-to-mind transmission of realisation,
such as the one Maitrīpa received from Śavaripa.62
The best support for the case of a mahāmudrā practice outside the se-
quence of the four seals remains the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā on verse 8, where
*Sahajavajra identifies a mahāmudrā approach distinct from both the Man-
tranaya and Pāramitānaya. From the Tattvadaśaka:
By [the power of] having realised this reality,

The yogin, whose eyes are wide open,
Moves everywhere like a lion,
By any [chosen] means and in any [chosen] manner.63
*Sahajavajra immediately adds the commentary:

61
BhPHṬAP D 293a1–2; P 317a1–3: shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i snying po’i
don gyi gdams ngag ’di mtshan nyid kyi theg pa yin nam sngags kyi theg pa yin zhes
the tshom za na | sems can rnams kyi blo’i snang ba la tha dad du snang mod kyi zab
mo’i chos nyid la tha dad med de | de lta bas na shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i
sngags ’di ni gsang sngags rnams kyi don kyi snying po yin no |.
62
According to one version of Maitrīpa’s life story reported in the ’Bri gung bka’
brgyud chos mdzod (see MATHES 2014: 374–375).
63
TD 48715–16: etattattvāvabodhena yena tena yathā tathā | vivṛtākṣo bhramed
yogī keśarīva samantataḥ ||.

Thanks to the yoga of firmly realising the previously taught nondual

reality through the pith instructions of the genuine guru.64
He subsequently elaborates on this point as follows:
Well then, if one asks, what is the difference compared to a yogin

who follows Mantranaya? [The answer is as follows:] because [the
yogin’s practice] is [conducted] without [following] the sequence of
the four seals, and because it takes a long time to perfect complete
enlightenment through the type of equanimity that lacks the expe-
rience of great bliss resulting from pride in being the deity, there are
great differences with regard to what is accomplished and that which
accomplishes. On the other hand, it differs from the yogin in the
Pāramitānaya, specifically because the suchness of indivisible union,
the emptiness discerned through the instruction of a genuine guru, is
firmly realised. Therefore, those who do not practice austerities [but
rather] have perfect certainty that the reality of one taste is emptiness
are like [skillful] villagers grasping a snake: even though they touch
the snake, they are not bitten. Some call this the wisdom of reality
[or] mahāmudrā.65
In reference to this passage, Kragh speculates that “certain passages, per-

haps the text’s reference66 to a non-Tantric form of Mahāmudrā, could be

64
TDṬ (B, 23a6–b1; D 174b6, P 191b5–6): ’di’i sngar bstan pa’i gnyis su med pa’i
de kho na nyid nia bla ma dam pa’i man ngag gis nges par rtogs pa’i rnal ’byor pas
so |. a B du.
65
TDṬ (B 24a3–b1, D 175a4–7 P 192a5–b1): ’o na gsang sngags kyi tshul gyia rnal
’byor pa dang bye brag ci yod ce na | | phyag rgya bzhi’i rjes su ’gro ba med pa’i
phyir dang | lha’i nga rgyal gyi bde ba chen po’i ro med pas | | btang snyoms kyi
rnam pas mngon par byang chub pa dus ring pos rdzogs pa’i phyir | bsgrub par bya
ba dang sgrub par byed pa nyidb kyi rnam pasc bye brag nyid shin tu che’o | | gzhan
gyisd pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul gyi rnal ’byor pa las ’di khyad par yod de | bla ma
dam pa’i mane ngag gisf dpyad pa’i stong pa nyid zung du ’jug pa’i de bzhin nyid
nges par rtogsg pas shin tu khyad par ’phags pa’i phyir ro | | de’i phyir ’di nyid dka’
ba’i spyod pa med pa ’di nyid nih stong pa nyid du ro gcig pa’i de kho na nyid shin tu
ngesi pa dag ni yul gyi grong gis sbrul ’dzin pa ltar sbrul la rtse yang de’ij ’bigs par
mi ’gyur ro | | ’di nyid la de kho na nyid kyi ye shes phyag rgya chen po zhes kha cig
brjod de |) a BD gyis b B gnyis c DP pa d P gyi e B gdams f D gi g D rtog h D om. i BD
shes j B des ni D nges. First quoted and translated in MATHES 2006: 220–221.
66
For a translation of this reference, see below.
later interpolations.” Moreover, he claims that “in Indian and Tibetan

sources, the use of the pronoun ‘some’ (kha cig, ke cid, or kaś cid) often
marks a rhetorical statement, in which the author distances himself from
what is said by attributing it to someone else.”67 Besides the fact that there
is no formal linguistic indication for taking this passage as an interpolation,
there is also no reason to do so if one includes Pāramitānaya-based
mahāmudrā within Tantra, even though it is outside of the sequence of the
four seals. *Sahajavajra certainly does not call it non-Tantric,68 which
means that there does not need to be a contradiction between it and the
*Sthitisamāsa. In this context, it should be noted that Dwags po bKra shis
rnam rgyal’s path of direct cognition also belongs to the Vajrayāna, namely
as a category separate from the path of blessing.69 As for the issue of ke cid
or kaś cid, even though these indefinite pronouns may introduce a state-
ment opposed to the author’s view, they are also found in Sanskrit philo-
sophical texts with the connotation of “we” (i.e., “we are of the opinion
that…”), which fits the context here much better.70 Moreover, I cannot
understand why Kragh has a “fundamental difficulty” with my “line of
argument when it comes to establishing a connection between the Indian
sources and the beginnings of ‘Sūtra Mahāmudrā’ in Tibet. … The prob-
lem is (i.e., according to Kragh) that the texts stemming from the Indian
circle of Maitrīpa and his students are hardly ever referred to in the Dags

67
KRAGH 2015: 75.
68
In my first publication on this topic, I used “non-tantric” (MATHES 2006: 220
and 224), but always in the sense of *Sahajavajra’s “Pāramitānaya pith instructions
that accord with Mantranaya.” In MATHES 2008 I thus preferred “not specifically
tantric.”
69
Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal: “This very tradition in the cycle of Dohās and
cycles of mahāmudrā in symbolic transmission belongs, in terms of the sūtra/mantra
divide, to the secret Vajrayāna. From among the latter’s threefold [sub]division into
the path of blessing, the path of reassurance, and the path of direct [cognition], it is
explained as the last of [these three]. It has been [further] explained that a ripening
empowerment is needed, an extensive or abbreviated one, whatever is appropriate.”
(Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer 15615–19: do ha’i skor dang | phyag chen brda brgyud
kyi skor ’ga’ zhig tu | lam srol ’di nyid mdo sngags gnyis kyi nang nas gsang sngags
kyi theg pa dang | de la byin rlabs kyi lam dang | dbugs dbyung gi lam | mngon sum
gyi lam gsum du phye ba’i phyi ma yin par ’chad la | smin byed du dbang rgyas
bsdus gang yang rung ba zhig dgos par bshad pa dang …). First translated by
LHALUNGPA (2006: 109).
70
I thank Prof. Diwakar Acharya for this observation.

po’i bka’ ‘bum…”.71 My own “fundamental difficulty” with Kragh’s argu-

ment is that the Tshogs chos material of the Dwags po’i bka’ ’bum, i.e., the
larger part of the corpus based on notes taken by sGam po pa’s disciples,
contains hardly any quotations of original sources, and the texts of the
Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs feature a threefold division of the path
similar to the one in the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā.72 It is well-known that Indian
and Tibetan masters incorporated ideas and whole systems of thought from
others without acknowledging this. Abhinavagupta’s works, for example,
are strongly influenced by Śaṅkara, but the latter is not even referred to
once.73 In such cases, it makes perfect sense to look for similarities. Ac-
cording to gZhon nu dpal, the fact that the Tattvadaśaka and its commen-
tary lend doctrinal support for sGam po pa’s “pāramitā-mahāmudrā” was
already observed by rJe rGod tshang pa (1189–1258).74 Moreover, the im-
portance of the *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā for the Mar pa bka’ brgyud schools is
also stressed by the Eighth Karmapa Mi bskyod rdo rje.75
Finally, I would like to take issue with Kragh’s statement that my
“analysis has thus established that there were rare, isolated Indian cases of
using the otherwise Tantric word mahāmudrā in its contemplative sense as
referring to advanced non-Tantric stages of meditation.”76 I agree with
Kragh that mahāmudrā is a Tantric term. But why should Pāramitānaya
pith instructions that accord with Mantranaya not be labelled with this
term? Moreover, as I have already pointed out in previous publications, the
two main sources for Pāramitānaya-based mahāmudrā are not isolated but

71
KRAGH 2015: 76. The addition in brackets is my own.
72
See MATHES 2008: 39–40.
73
Oral information from Prof. Diwakar Acharya.
74
As reported in MATHES 2006: 206. For a comparison of *Sahajavajra’s passage
with a similar one in sGam po pa’s Tshogs chos yon tan phun tshogs, see MATHES
2008: 40–41.
75
Mi bskyod rdo rje: sKu gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa, vol. 21, 1321–3:
“If one wonders how the view of the two truths transmitted by the Mar pa bKa’
brgyud is, it must be said here that it is roughly the one of Jina Maitrīpa’s Tatt-
vadaśaka and *Sahajavajra’s *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā. … They are taken to be Pāra-
mitā[naya] pith instructions that accord with the Mantra[naya].” (rje btsun mar pa lo
tsa ba’i bka’ brgyud las ’ongs pa bden gnyis kyi lta ba ji lta bu’o snyam na | rgyal
ba mai tri pa’i de kho na nyid bcu pa zhes pa’i ’grel pa slob dpon chen po lhan cig
skyes pa’i rdo rjes mdzad pa de nyid kyi don che long ’dir brjod par bya ste | …
sngags dang rjes su mthun pa’i pha rol tu phyin pa’i man ngag mdor bsdus mdzad
par bzhed pas).
76
KRAGH 2015: 75.
closely related to each other, in view of the fact that *Sahajavajra quotes
and comments on a verse from Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra (still in the con-
text of explaining TD 8):
For outstanding yogins

The union of insight and means is simply meditation.
The victorious ones call it
mahāmudrā union77.78
[But] the followers of the [Mantra]yāna point out that the mere
meditation of uniting means and insight is not mahāmudrā medita-
tion; otherwise it would follow that the traditions of Pāramitā[naya]
and Mantra[naya] are not different.79
The verse just cited is taken from the beginning of the fourth chapter in
Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra, which considers the mode of Mantranaya for
those of superior faculties. The same verse is also found in the Subhā-
ṣitasaṃgraha, where it is explained at length. The Subhāṣitasaṃgraha
leaves no room for Pāramitānaya-based mahāmudrā. Its purely Tantric
description of upāya diverges from Jñānakīrti, however, in that the latter
understands it in the more general Mahāyāna sense of the threefold com-
passion.80 In his explanation of compassion without a focus, Jñānakīrti then

77
Lit. “mahāmudrā union is called meditation by the victorious ones.” It should
be noted that mahāmudrā union does not mean that one unites with an objective
reality called mahāmudrā; it refers rather to a realisation that lies beyond a perceived
object and a perceiving subject (oral information from Chetsang Rinpoche).
78
TA (B 327b2–3, D 43a7–b1 P 47b2–3): thabs dang shes rab mnyam sbyor ba’i | |
bsgom pa nyid rnal ’byor mchog gia ni | | phyag rgya chen po’ib mnyam sbyor ba | |
sgomc par rgyal ba rnams kyis gsungs |. a B gis b BP por c D bsgom. For the Sanskrit
of this verse, see Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (SBhS, part 1, 3978–9): prajñopāyasamāyogo
bhāvanaivāgrayogināṃ | mahāmudrāsamāyogo* bhāvanā bhaṇyate jinaiḥ ||.
*
BENDALL reads -yogā- (I forgot to make this emendation in MATHES 2015: 238).
79
TDṬ (B 24b1–3, D 175a7–b2, P 192a1–3): thabs dang shes rab mnyam sbyor basa | |
bsgom pa nyid ni rnal ’byor mchog | | phyag rgya chen por mnyam sbyor ba’ib | |
bsgom pa ru ni rgyal bas bshad | | ces pa’o | thabs dang shes rab mnyam par sbyor ba
bsgom pa tsam ni phyag rgya chen po bsgom pa ma yin te | pha rol tu phyin pa’i tshul
dang | sngags kyi tshul dagc tha dad med par thal bar ’gyur ba’i phyir ro zhes sngags
pa dag go |. a DP ba b B bas DP ba c DP om.
80
That is, compassion directed towards sentient beings, compassion born from
beholding the impermanent nature of phenomena, and compassion without a focus.

addresses the question whether or not insight and means are cultivated simul-
taneously:
When cultivating compassion without a focus, the compassion of

[the yogin who is] identical with means and insight is not at all like
that of cultivating the opposite, [compassion with a focus.] … What
then is the meditation like for someone who is identical with means
and insight in the state of cultivating compassion without a focus?
An answer is given in the following:
In his identity with the nature of all phenomena,

The yogin is [naturally] endowed with compassion.
On a later meditation level,
He will become identical with mahāmudrā.81
The relation between the Tattvāvatāra and the Subhāṣitasaṃgraha requires

further investigation, but it should be noted at this point that while the Sub-
hāṣitasaṃgraha accords with Jñānakīrti in the explanation of insight,82 its
Tantric presentation of the means does not. It is worth recalling here what I
have already mentioned in previous publications: namely that for Jñānakīrti
advanced Pāramitānaya practitioners of śamatha (calm abiding) and
vipaśyanā (deep insight) are already in possession of mahāmudrā even at
an initial stage.83 Moreover, in his description of the Pāramitānaya, Jñāna-

See TA (B 331a1–5; D 45b3–6; P 50a3–8). See also MATHES 2015: 239–240.
81
TA (B 331a6–b3; D 45b6–46a2; P 50a8–b4): dmigs pa med pa’i snying rje sgom
pa’i gnas skabs su ni thabs dang shes rab de’i bdag nyid cana gyi | snying rje cig
shos sgom pa’i gnas skabs su ni ma yin te | … yang dmigs pa med pa’i snying rje
sgom pa’i gnas skabs su thabs dang shes rab de’i bdag nyid can du bsgom par ji ltar
’gyur ro zhe na | | brjod par bya ste | dngos kun rang bzhin bdag nyid du | | rnal
’byor snying rje can gyur pa | | sgom pa’i rim pa phyi b nas ni | | phyag rgya che
bdag nyid can ’gyur |. a DP yin b B phye.
82
Even though the explanation of insight is mainly Madhyamaka, a Tantric
context is indicated by an unidentified verse quoted in the Tattvāvatāra and the Su-
bhāṣitasaṃgraha, in which insight is taken as the awareness of the mind-vajra.a See
MATHES 2015: 239.
a
In Hevajratantra 2.5.2cd (HT 1105) “the lord of the maṇḍala (i.e., Hevajra) [is
said] to have arisen from the [seed] syllable, which is the mind-vajra (cittavajrasya
bījena niṣpanno maṇḍaleśvaraḥ).” “Seed [syllables, in turn arise] from the awakening
towards emptiness.” See Mahāsukhaprakāśa 4a (MSP 45214: śūnyatābodhito bījaṃ).
83
It should be added that Jñānakīrti structures his Tattvāvatāra according to the
kīrti links the traditional fourfold Mahāyāna meditation with mahāmudrā

by equating the goal “Mahāyāna” in Laṅkāvatārasūtra 10.257d with mahā-
mudrā.84
In summary, the fact that *Sahajavajra quotes Jñānakīrti’s Tattvāvatāra
demonstrates that he was familiar with Jñānakīrti’s system of classification,
and the same could probably be said of his master Maitrīpa. In other words,
they could have picked up the idea of a mahāmudrā path outside of the
sequence of the four seals from this famous master. It should also be noted
that Jñānakīrti’s work was translated, in cooperation with Padmākaravar-
man, by the translator Rin chen bzang po (958–1055), who helped the king
Ye shes ‘od (947–1024) to initiate the revival of Buddhism in Tibet known
as the later dissemination of the dharma.85
The *Sthitisamāsa
The only other known work by *Sahajavajra is the *Sthitisamāsa,86 in
which a summary of the four traditional “positions” (sthiti) of the
Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and Madhyamaka is immediately fol-
lowed by a presentation of Mantranaya. I have already observed87 that the
Mantranaya part of the *Sthitisamāsa begins with a summary of the Madh-
yamaka-crowned analysis of true reality, which is the quintessence of
Pāramitānaya (SS V.1–2b). The actual exposition of Mantranaya begins
with line V.2c:

distinction of three approaches to reality, namely those of the Mantranaya, Pāra-
mitānaya, and “the path of freeing oneself from attachment” (i.e., Śrāvakayāna).
Each of these three again has three distinct forms, for adepts with sharp, average, and
inferior capacities. See MATHES 2008: 36.
84
See MATHES 2008: 36.
85
BUSWELL & LOPEZ 2014: 714.
86
There is only one Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscript which has been photographed.
Confusingly, the microfilm of the manuscript (B 24/4) and the photos (B 25/5) were
catalogued separately. Further, both texts (the original and the photographed text)
were provisionally catalogued under the title Kośakārikā by the National Archives in
Kathmandu and consequently also by the NGMPP. The text was identified by
MATSUDA (1995: 848–843 (= 205–210) as *Sahajavajra’s “Sthitisamuccaya” (SS). I
thank Alexis Sanderson, who pointed out that the correct title of the work should be
*Sthitisamāsa.
87
In MATHES 2006: 222–223.

Based on the Mantra tradition,

By virtue of its being linked with the four mudrās,
[True reality is realised] without confusion, [even] when not analysed.

This is because of the special experience of emptiness [received]
from the guru.
It is the bliss of insight and means,
Which must be experienced through self-awareness.88
It should be noted that the explanation of Mantranaya begins immediately

after the one of the Pāramitānaya is completed. If *Sahajavajra had intend-
ed to formally distinguish a third category, i.e., a pāramitā-based
mahāmudrā outside of Pāramitānaya and Mantranaya (as in the
*Tattvadaśakaṭīkā), this would have been the place. Moreover, such a third
category is found nowhere in the *Sthitisamāsa, and it is also ruled out in
SS V.7cd:
When [one’s practice] is free from investigation,

How can it be free from the tradition of mantras?”89
Tantra is presented in the *Sthitisamāsa in a way that diverges from Mait-

rīpa’s system. First, *Sahajavajra still endorses Maitrīpa’s preferred se-
quence of the four moments. This is evident from SS V.18ab, where
*Sahajavajra claims:
The [moment of] the co-emergent should be known as the third.

In the empowerment of forceful [yoga] (haṭhayoga) it is the fourth.90
In his “Proof that master Nāropa’s and Maitrīpa’s presentation of empow-

erment are in accordance” (mKhas grub nā ro mai tri dbang gi bzhed pa
mthun par grub pa), Zhwa dmar IV Chos kyi grags pa (1453–1524) takes
haṭhayoga to refer to the empowerment found in Nāropa’s Sekoddeśaṭīkā,
i.e., the system found in the Kālacakratantra.91

88
SS 11a4–b1: *mantranītiṃ (em., mantranīta cod.) samāśritya caturmudrānva-
yāgamāt || avicāram asaṃdigdhaṃ viśiṣṭānubhavād guroḥ | śūnyatāyāḥ sva-
saṃvedyaṃ prajñopāyamahāsukham ||.
89
SS 11b4: parāmarśaṃ vinaiva syāt kathaṃ mantranayaṃ vinā ||.
90
SS 12b4: tṛtīyaṃ sahajaṃ vidyāt | seke tu *turīyaṃ (em., turiyaṃ cod.) haṭhe ||.
91
Zhwa dmar Chos kyi grags pa, mKhas grub nā ro mai tri dbang gi bzhed pa
In the section of the *Sthitisamāsa that follows verse V.18ab,

*Sahajavajra surprisingly explains empowerment in line with the Seko-
ddeśa, with verses V.21–28 of the *Sthitisamāsa being nearly identical
with the verses 80–82, 135, and 139–143 in the Sekoddeśa:92
It has been said [in the Sekoddeśa]:
Joy is the descent of the semen

[From] the lotus at the crown [to the one at the] spot between the
eyebrows.
[From] the throat to the heart it is supreme joy.
From there [further down] there is intense joy93.94 (SS V.21, see SU 80)
Through manifold play [with a consort, the semen] abides at the navel.
As long as one is inside the secret lotus,
[The semen] remains in the secret jewel.
As long as it is not emitted, there is co-emergent joy.95 (SS V.22, see
SU 81)

mthun par grub pa 8395–6: “In forceful yoga, the generation stage, and so forth, vene-
rable Maitrīpa places co-emergent [joy] at the end. This accords with Nāropa....” (rje
mai tri pas drag po’i sbyor ba’i dbang bskur dang bskyed rim sogs la lhan skyes
mthar ’don pa ni nā ro pa dang ’thun ...). In other words, haṭhayoga stands here for
a Buddhist practice or empowerment in which co-emergent joy is taken as the last of
the four joys (as explained, for example, in Nāropa’s Sekoddeśaṭīkā). In the same
text (82622–24), Chos kyi grags pa tells us: “‘Forceful yoga’ means the stabilisation of
the element (i.e., the drop of bodhicitta) in the jewel of the vajra through the forceful
yoga of bodily exercise and the power of the subtle winds. Before, in the Ca-
turmudrā[nvaya], it is referred to as haṭhayoga.” (drag po’i sbyor ba zhes byung ba’i
don yang | lus kyi ’khrul ’khor dang rlung gi stobs drag shul gyi sbyor bas | khams
rdo rje nor bur brtan par bzung ba ste | gong du phyag rgya bzhi par btsan thabs
sbyor ba zhes pa dang |).
92
For the Tibetan edition of these verses from the Sekoddeśa, see OROFINO 1994: 81
and 100–103. The English translation of V.24–28 mainly follows OROFINO 2009: 32.
93
That is, the meaning of *virama (for Tib. dga’ bral) in a Kālacakra context.
94
SS (B 185b6–186a1, D 97a3, P 104b1–2): de gsungs pa | dga’ ba khu ba (a’bab
pa ste | | gtsug tor (bsmin phragb) padma’i tshadc | | mgrin pa snying gar mchog
a)
dga’ ste | | dad nas dga’ ba dang bral bar ’gyur |. a B ’babs b B smig phrag P smin
phyag c BD tshal d BP de.
95
SS (B 186a1, D 97a3–4, P 104b2): | sna tshogs rol mos lte ba gnas | | ji srid
gsang ba’i padmar son | | de srid gsang ba’i nor bur gnasa | | ma ’phos bar bu lhan
cig skyes |. a DP nas.

It is non-abiding nirvāṇa,
[The state of the] lord full of great passion.
The bliss which is not emitted lacks [ordinary] passion
And one abides in nirvāṇa.96 (SS V.23, see SU 82)
There does not exist a greater transgression than the lack of passion,
No greater merit than supreme bliss.
Therefore one should constantly seek to actualise
The mind of immutable bliss.97 (SS V.24, see SU 135)
From emission is born dispassion.

From dispassion suffering is born.
From suffering the elements are ruined, and as it was handed down,
From the ruin of the elements death will come.98 (SS V.25, see SU 139)
After death they will be born in another [existence],

Bound in cyclic existence, and born [again].
Therefore one must avoid
With all effort the loss of passion.99 (SS V.26, see SU 140a–141b)
Without passion one would [even] not be a [good] lover,

And not seek out the Kāmaśāstra.
If this is so, why would a yogin create suffering
In accordance with the Tantra I proclaim?100 (SS V.27, see SU 142)

96
SS (B 186a1–2, D 97a4, P 104b2–3): | mi gnas pa yi mya ngan ’das | | ’dod chags
chen posa khyab bdag gtsob | | ma ’phosc bde ba chags bral te | | ded ni mya ngan
’das rab gnas |. a P po’i b B nyid c D ’phros d DP ’di.
97
SS (B 186a2–3, D 97a4–5, P 104b3–4): | chags bral las ni sdig pa med | | bde ba
mchog las bsod nams med | | de phyir mi ’gyur bde ba’i sems | | rtag tu ngesa gnas
mos par bya |. a D der.
98
SS (B 186a3, D 97a5–6, P 104b4–5): | ’pho ba las ni chags bral ’byung | | chags
bral las ni sdug bsngal ’byung | | sdug bsngal las ni khams zad de | | khams zad pasa
ni ’chi bar gsungsb |. a B las b P ’gyur.
99
SS (B 186a3–4, D 97a6, P 104b5): | shi bas de dag (agzhan dua) ’byung | | srid par
’ching zhing skye ba ste | | de phyir ’bad pasb thams cad kyis | | chags pa dor ba
rnam par spangc |. a D bzhin du’ang P gzhan du’ang b B pa c DP spangs.
100
SS (B 186a4–5, D 97a6–7, P 104b5–6): | chags bral ’dod ldan ma yin te | | ’dod
pa’i sbyor thabs mia ’dod na | | nga yis bstan pa’ib (crgyud duc) yang | | ci ste rnal
’byor sdug bsngal bskyed |. a D ’di b DP pa c P rgyun du.
Taking advantage of the nature of immutable bliss,

One must attain the supremely immutable.
Once the support is released,
The supported [yogin] will be passionless.101 (SS V.28, see SU 143)
There is no refutation or critical assessment of this relatively long quota-

tion. In other words, with his tacit acceptance of these verses, *Sahajavajra
not only contradicts his own initial statement but also stands against his
teacher in one of the most controversial debates in eleventh-century India.
On the other hand, it could also be argued that Maitrīpa himself had al-
ready given an explanation of this contradiction: in treatises such as the
Hevajratantra, the correct sequence was not made explicit in order to pro-
tect the instructions from those who do not rely on a guru.102
The second problem with these Sekoddeśa verses in the *Sthitisamāsa

is that *Sahajavajra implicitly endorses the strong emphasis of disad-
vantages that result from releasing one’s semen, a teaching that is directly
opposed to what we find, for example, in Maitrīpa’s *Caturmudropadeśa,
where the co-emergent joy (in the third position) corresponds to two of
altogether four descending drops at the tip of the jewel and two on the sta-
men of the lotus. The fourth joy is then experienced when all four drops are
inside the lotus.103 Khenpo Phuntsok, the abbot of Lekshay Ling Monastery
in Kathmandu, warned, however, against a too literal reading of these lines
from the *Caturmudropadeśa, stressing that it is the real drop (don gyi thig
le) and not the material drop (rdzas kyi thig le) that is being released.104
To summarise, there is a strong Kālacakra influence in *Sahajavajra’s
*Sthitisamāsa, which is missing in Maitrīpa’s own works.105 Given these
differences, one could be inclined to doubt whether the author of the
*Tattvadaśakaṭīkā is the same person who composed the *Sthitisamāsa. Of

101
SS (B 186a5, D 97a7, P 104b6–7): | bde ba mi ’gyur rang bzhin gyis | | mi ’gyur
mchog ni bsgrub par bya | | rten ni shor bar gyur pa yis | | brtena pa chags dang bral
ba yin |. a D rten.
102
CMU (B 11b1–2 ; P 232b6–7): de ni bla ma la ltosa pa dang bral bab glegs bam
gyis mkhas par byed pa’i gang zag gi chedc du dkrugs nas bshad de |. a P bltos b P
om. c P phyed.
103
See MATHES 2016: 314–316.
104
For Khenpo Phuntsok, there are in reality not four drops but one drop.
105
See also ISAACSON & SFERRA (2014: 83, n. 104), who notice early Kālacakra
influences in the *Sthitisamāsa.

course there are other possible explanations, such as that *Sahajavajra may
have adopted his doctrine in an environment of growing Kālacakra influ-
ence. But if this was the case, he could have also abandoned his idea of
Pāramitānaya-based mahāmudrā.
Conclusion
To conclude this discussion, I would like to propose that Pāramitānaya-

based mahāmudrā practice falls into the category of Mantranaya, although
it can be independent of the formal Tantric practice of the creation and
completion stages. What counts is that the adept is considered to profit
from an immediate access to emptiness, just as in Tantra. In other words,
since the particular form of Pāramitānaya under discussion here has, thanks
to the pith instructions of the guru, an important Tantric element, it not
only accords with, or follows, Mantranaya, but it is Mantranaya. This
would then be in line with the direct access to mahāmudrā described in
Maitrīpa’s Tattvaviṃśikā, verse 11 (“The yogin who has seen true reality,
however, is wholly devoted to mahāmudrā; his faculties being unsurpassa-
ble, he abides in [the realisation of] the nature of all entities”106 ), as well as
the mahāmudrā union of insight and means taught in the verse from the
*Tattvāvatāra quoted by *Sahajavajra (“For outstanding yogins the union
of insight and means is simply meditation. The victorious ones call it
mahāmudrā union”107). In other words, *sūtra-mahāmudrā then does not
mean that mahāmudrā becomes “Sūtric,” but that sūtra passages that sup-
port pith instructions become Tantric. This reversal is a key point. That
Padmavajra refers to the Samādhirājasūtra as a Tantra must be certainly
seen in this light.

106
See above, n. 32.
107
See above, n. 78.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources (Indian)
AVPUV: Advayavivaraṇaprajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi
In: Guhyādi-Aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha, 209–18.
AMĀ: Amanasikārādhādhāra
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 489–497
GPKU: Guruparamparākrama-Upadeśa (Tibetan translation)
— B: dPal spungs block print of the Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung,
vol. hūṃ, 290b3–320b4.
— D: Derge bsTan ’gyur 3716, rgyud, vol. tsu, 164b2–183a5.
— P: Peking bsTan ’gyur 4539, rgyud ’grel, vol. nu, 184b2–206b1.
GAS: Guhyādi-Aṣṭasiddhi-saṅgraha
Ed. by Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajvallabh Dwivedi. Sarnath, Varana-
si: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1987
CMA: Caturmudrānvaya
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 389–402
CMU: *Caturmudropadeśa (Tibetan translation)
— B: dPal spung block print of the Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung,
vol. hūṃ, 9a1–13b1.
— D: Derge bsTan ’gyur 2295, rgyud, vol. shi, 211b4–214b5.
— P: Peking bsTan ’gyur 3143, rgyud ’grel, vol. tsi, 231a1–234a5.
TRĀ: Tattvaratnāvalī
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 341–369
TA: Tattvāvatāra (Tibetan translation)
— B: dPal spung block print of the Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya gzhung,
vol. hūṃ, 320b5–377a3.
— D: Derge bsTan ’gyur 3709, rgyud, vol. tsu, 39a2–76a4.
— P: Peking bsTan ’gyur 4532, rgyud ’grel, vol. nu, 42b1–84b2.
TD: Tattvadaśaka
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 485–88
TDṬ: *Tattvadaśakaṭīkā (Tibetan translation)
— B: dPal spung block print of the Phyag rgya chen po’i rgya
gzhung, vol. ā, 1a1–27a6.
— D: Derge bsTan ’gyur 2254, rgyud, vol. wi, 160b7–177a7.
— P: Peking bsTan ’gyur 3099, rgyud ’grel, vol. mi, 176a2–195a3.

TV: Tattvaviṃśikā
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 457–63
MSP: Mahāsukhaprakāśa
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 451–56
BhPHṬAP: Bhagavatīprajñāpāramitāhṛdayaṭīkārthapradīpanāma (Tibet-
an translation)
D 3820, shes phyin, vol. ma, 286b5–295a7
P 5219, mdo ’grel, vol. ma, 309b1–319b8
SN: Sekanirdeśa
Ed. by MATHES 2015: 385–88
SNP: Sekanirdeśapañjikā
Ed. by ISAACSON & SFERRA 2014: 165–204.
SBhS: Subhāṣitasaṃgraha (Part 1 and 2)
Ed. by Cecil Bendall. In Le Muséon 4 (1903), 375–402 (Part 1); Le
Muséon 4.4 (1903), 7–46 (Part 2).
SRS: Samādhirājasūtra
Ed. by P.L. Vaidya. Buddhist Sanskrit Texts 2. Darbhanga: The Mithila
Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning,
1961
SU: Sekoddeśa
Ed. by OROFINO 1994: 54–122.
SS: *Sthitisamāsa
— NGMPP reel nos. B 24/4 & B 25/15.
— See also MATSUDA 1995
HT Hevajratantra
Ed. (together with the Hevajrapañjikā Muktāvalī) by Ram Shankar
Tripathi and Thakur Sain Negi. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Ti-
betan Studies, 2001
Primary Sources (Tibetan)
KARMA PA MI BSKYOD RDO RJE (the Eighth Karmapa)

sKu gsum ngo sprod kyi rnam par bshad pa: sKu gsum ngo sprod kyi
rnam par bshad pa mdo rgyud bstan pa mtha’ dag gi e vaṃ phyag rgya.
In: dPal rgyal ba karma pa sku ’phreng brgyad pa mi bskyod rdo rje
gsung ’bum. Vols. 21–22. Lhasa: dPal brtsegs bod yig dpe rnying zhib
’jug khang, 2004.
KUN DGA’ RIN CHEN (?) (ed.)

— Grub pa sde bdun dang snying po skor gsum yid la mi byed pa’i chos
skor bzhugs so (’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod, vol. ka). No place,
no date.
— ’Phags yul bka’ brgyud grub chen gong ma’i do ha’i skor bzhugs so
(’Bri gung bka’ brgyud chos mdzod, vol. kha). No place, no date.
’GOS LO TSĀ BA GZHON NU DPAL
— DRSM: Theg pa chen po rgyud bla ma’i bstan bcos kyi ’grel bshad
de kho na nyid rab tu gsal ba’i me long. Ed. by K.-D. Mathes. Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003.
— Deb ther sngon po, 2 vols., Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang 1984.
’BRI GUNG BKA’ BRGYUD CHOS MDZOD
See KUN DGA’ RIN CHEN
DRSM
See ’GOS LO TSĀ BA GZHON NU DPAL
DWAGS PO BKRA SHIS RNAM RGYAL
Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer. Sarnath: Vajra Vidya Institute Library,
2005
ZHWA DMAR IV CHOS KYI GRAGS PA
mKhas grub nā ro mai tri dbang gi bzhed pa mthun par grub pa zhes bya
ba bzhugs so. In: gSung ’bum. 6 vols. Beijing: Krung go’i bod rig pa
dpe skrun khang, 2009. Vol. 2, pp. 800–50
BRUNNHÖLZL, K. 2007. Straight from the Heart. Buddhist Pith Instruc-

tions. Ithaca, New York, Boulder, Colorado: Snow Lion Publication.
2010. Gone Beyond: Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras, The Ornament of Clear Real-
ization, and Its Commentaries in the Tibetan Kagyü Tradition. Vol. 1.
New York: Snow Lion Publications.
BUSWELL, R.E. Jr. & LOPEZ, D.S. Jr. 2014. The Princeton Dictionary of
Buddhism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
ISAACSON, H. & SFERRA, F. 2014. The Sekanirdeśa of Maitreyanātha
(Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla. Critical Edi-
tion of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Translation and Re-
productions of the MSS. Naples: Università degli Studi Napoli
“L’Orientale”.
KEIRA, R. 2004. Mādhyamika and Epistemology: A Study of Kamalaśīla’s
Method for Proving the Voidness of All Dharmas. Introduction, Anno-

tated Translations and Tibetan Texts of Selected Sections of the Second

Chapter of the Madhyamakāloka. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische
und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.
KRAGH, U.T. 2015. Tibetan Yoga and Mysticism. A Textual Study of the
Yogas of Nāropa and Mahāmudrā Meditation in the Medieval Tradition
of Dags po. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies.
LHALUNGPA, L.P. 2006. Mahāmudrā – The Moonlight. Quintessence of
Mind and Meditation. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
MATHES, K.-D. 2005. ’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal’s Commentary on the
Dharmatā Chapter of the Dharmadharmatāvibhāgakārikās. Studies in
Indian Philosophy and Buddhism, University of Tokyo 12, pp. 3–39.
2006. Blending the Sūtras with the Tantras: The Influence of Maitrīpa and
his Circle on the Formation of Sūtra Mahāmudrā in the Kagyu Schools.
In: R.M. Davidson and Ch. K. Wedemeyer (eds.), Tibetan Buddhist Lit-
erature and Praxis. Studies in its Formative Period 900–1400. Leiden:
Brill, pp. 201–227.
2008. A Direct Path to the Buddha Within. Gö Lotsāwa’s Mahāmudrā
Interpretation of the Ratnagotravibhāga. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
2009. The “Succession of the Four Seals” (Caturmudrānvaya) Together
with Selected Passages from *Kāropa’s Commentary. Tantric Studies 1
(2008 [2009]), pp. 89–130.
2010. Maitrīpa’s Amanasikārādhāra (“A Justification of Becoming Men-
tally Disengaged”). Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 13 (2009
[2010]), pp. 5–32.
2011. The Collection of ‘Indian Mahāmudrā Works’ (phyag chen rgya
gzhung) Compiled by the Seventh Karma pa Chos grags rgya mtsho. In:
R. Jackson and M. Kapstein (eds.), Mahāmudrā and the Bka’–brgyud
Tradition. PIATS 2006: Proceedings of the Eleventh Seminar of the In-
ternational Association for Tibetan Studies, Königswinter 2006. Andi-
ast: IITBS, pp. 89–130.
2014. A Summary and Topical Outline of the Sekanirdeśapañjikā by ‘Bum
la ‘bar. In: H. Isaacson and F. Sferra (eds.), The Sekanirdeśa of Mait-
reyanātha (Advayavajra) with the Sekanirdeśapañjikā of Rāmapāla.
Critical Edition of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts with English Transla-
tion and Reproductions of the MSS. Naples: Università degli Studi Na-
poli “L’Orientale,” pp. 367–384.
2015. A Fine Blend of Mahāmudrā and Madhyamaka. Maitrīpa’s Collec-
tion of Texts on Non-conceptual Realization (Amanasikāra). Vienna:
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
2016. bKa’ brgyud Mahāmudrā: “Chinese rDzogs chen” or the Teachings

of the Siddhas? Zentralasiatische Studien 45, pp. 309–340.
MATSUDA, K. 1995. Sahajavajra’s Manual on Buddhism (Sthitisamu-
ccaya): The Discovery of its Sanskrit Manuscripts. Journal of Interna-
tional Buddhist Studies 63/2, pp. 848–843 (= 205–210).
OROFINO, G. 1994. Sekoddeśa. A Critical Edition of the Tibetan Transla-
tion. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
2009. The Mental Afflictions and the Nature of the Supreme Immutable
Wisdom in the Sekoddeśa and Its Commentary by Nāropa. In: E.A. Ar-
nold (ed.), As long as Space Endures. Essays on the Kālacakra Tantra
in Honor of H.H. the Dalai Lama. New York: Snow Lion.
ROBERTS, P.A. 2014. The Mind of Mahāmudrā. Advice from the Kagyü
Masters. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
ROERICH, G.N. 1949–53. The Blue Annals. 2 vols. Kalkota: Motilal
Banarsidass.
TATZ, M. 1994. Philosophic Systems according to Advayavajra and Va-
jrapāṇi. The Journal of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies 1, pp. 65–120.

Bāṇa’s literary representation

of a South Indian Śaivite
Christian Ferstl
Introductory remarks
Bāṇa’s Kādambarī is an ornate prose composition with a fictional plot and
fictional characters (a Kathā in terms of Sanskrit poetics) revolving around
the love story between prince Candrāpīḍa and the celestially beautiful prin-
cess Kādambarī. Its composition was probably begun in the first half of the
seventh century in Northern India under King Harṣavardhana’s reign,1 as
can be assumed from the author’s other prose work, the Harṣacarita. As
tradition has it, Bāṇa did not complete the Kādambarī himself, and it was
his son Bhūṣaṇabhaṭṭa who added the less-extensive, concluding “latter
part” (uttarabhāga) to his father’s larger “former part” (pūrvabhāga).
Among a whole range of historical and cultural details, the novel contains a
passage which deserves the attention of historians of both religion and
literature because of its description of a certain South Indian Śaivite who
lives in a North Indian temple of the goddess Caṇḍikā. The Sanskrit term
used to denote the temple dweller is dhārmika, for which a satisfying trans-
lation is difficult to find.2 As a preliminary working translation, I suggest

1
Harṣa is generally accepted to have ruled 606–647 CE; see, e.g., KULKE &
ROTHERMUND 2010: 140. LIENHARD (1984: 248f.) states that Bāṇa probably “work-
ed in the second half of King Harṣavardhana’s reign,” i.e. in the second quarter of
the seventh century.
2
This nominalised adjective literally indicates some kind of (habitual) relation to
dharma, that is, to a (religious) law, custom, or virtue, or someone who is “charac-
terised by dharma” in whatever sense of the word. See HALBFASS 1988: 310–333 on
various notions of the term dharma and especially p. 328f. (§ 24) on orthodox
Brahmanical interpretations of the term dhārmika.
the rendering “holy man,”3 the limitations of which will be reconsidered

towards the end of this paper.
The Caṇḍikā temple episode
To start with, I quote from the first and still well-known English translation
of the Kādambarī by RIDDING (1896: 172):
And on the way he [i.e., Candrāpīḍa] beheld in the forest a red flag,
near which was a shrine of Durgā, guarded by an old Draviḍian her-
mit, who made his abode thereby.
Here, as in many other places of her translation, Ridding decided to give a

“condensed” summary instead of an actual translation.4 The original San-
skrit passage is really a lengthy and minutely descriptive composition that
spans over several printed pages.5 An English translation of it was availa-
ble already in 1917,6 and a translation of the complete pūrvabhāga was
published in 1924,7 followed by a number of partial and complete transla-
tions.8 Nevertheless, despite the availability of editions, translations, and
Sanskrit commentaries,9 this passage is often omitted in summaries of the

3
Other renderings of dhārmika in this passage of the Kādambarī which have be-
en brought forth are “hermit” (RIDDING 1896: 172), “asceet” (SCHARPÉ 1937: 361),
“ascetic” (KALE 1924: 287, LAYNE 1991: 225, 228, HATLEY 2007: 73ff.), or “priest”
(RAJAPPA 2010: 234, 236), each referring to a certain way of living or social-
religious function, but neither of which is made explicit by the term or by the whole
passage. SMITH (2009: 157) calls the dhārmika a “pseudo-saint,” which is quite to
the point but takes too quickly a decision on the ambiguous nature of the figure.
BAKKER (2014: 131) translates the term with “pious ones” in a Gupta inscription
from the seventh century.
4
Ridding’s abbreviations were all translated into Dutch by SCHARPÉ (1937); the
description of the Caṇḍikā temple and the dhārmika is found in ibid.: 359–364.
5
Nearly five full pages (p. 223, 9–228, 7) in the ed. PETERSON 1889 (henceforth
K) and p. 392, 9–401, 6 in the ed. PARAB 31908, where the text is accompanied by a
running commentary. For other editions, see n. 22–24 below.
6
MEHTA & JOSHI 1917.
7
KALE 1924. This was attached to Kale’s own edition in 41968 (11896).
8
Subsequent translations and substantial secondary literature up to the 1960s are
listed in LIENHARD 1984: 253, n. 44. See also SCHARPÉ 1937: 108–127. The most
recent complete English translation was prepared by LAYNE (1991).
9
TRIPATHY 2007: 8–16 describes no less than 14 Sanskrit commentaries, three of
CHRISTIAN FERSTL 173
text10 and failed to attract much attention by western scholars, with the
notable exception of LORENZEN (1972: 17f.), TIEKEN (2001: 226f.), and
the more detailed studies by HATLEY (2007: 73–82) and SMITH (2009).
The Kādambarī can be a demanding composition, especially in passag-
es like those Ridding decided to abbreviate. The Caṇḍikā passage is no
exception to this. The sheer unending syntactical suspense and semantic
density of the passage presents considerable difficulties to the modern
reader. For the largest part, it consists of a single sentence which, as men-
tioned, extends over several pages in the printed editions and which gives
the subject of the description together with its predicate only at the very
end of the syntactical construction, a common feature in Bāṇa’s style.
Another reason for the omission may be that although a prose descrip-
tion of this kind can be appreciated for its stunning phrasing and poetical
embellishments,11 it hardly adds anything substantial to the plot develop-
ment. The Caṇḍikā episode, too, has no further effect on the plot of the
story.12 Its omission nevertheless leads to a distortion of the bigger pic-
ture.13 Among other things, it provides an occasion to display the author’s
skill in creating different sentiments (rasa), such as the comic one (hāsya)
that is a rare feature in the Kādambarī.14 It also serves to lighten the general
mood of the narration, which at this stage is dominated by the hero’s longing

which had been unavailable to him or only known from references in other commen-
tarial works.
10
Thus, note that several of the summaries of the Kādambarī given in compendia
of Sanskrit literature fail to even mention the episode (cf., e.g., LIENHARD 1984:
253–255). WARDER (1983: 43), in a comparatively short paragraph (§ 1728), does
refer to the “mad pseudo ascetic,” but merely to diagnose “a certain shallowness of
[Candrāpīḍa’s] character, rather than a seriousness of his education.”
11
In this regard, BRONNER’s article on Subandhu’s lengthy compounds (2014)
and SHULMAN’s remarks on Bāṇa’s prose syntax (2014: 287–292) are both apprecia-
tive and enlightening.
12
Given that the legend of Bāṇa’s early death and his son Bhūṣaṇabhaṭṭa’s com-
pletion of the Kādambarī is true, it is possible that the latter was unsure about what
his father had in mind and how to deal with the dhārmika episode that may have
originally been intended to influence the further development or conclusion of the
main plot. The story of Bāṇa’s untimely death, however, is seriously challenged by
TIEKEN (2014).
13
Unfortunately, the dhārmika episode was not even accepted to the appendix of
Ridding’s translation, “in which [abstracts of] a few passages, chiefly interesting as
mentioning religious sects, are added” (RIDDING 1896: xxii).
14
Another explicitly humorous passage of the Kādambarī is Candrāpīḍa’s pa-
rody (krīḍālāpa) of the princess’ talking birds’ love quarrel (K: 194, 10–196, 3).

for his beloved. At this point, Candrāpīḍa, the son and successor of King
Tārāpīḍa of Ujjayinī, is experiencing the pangs of separation after having
fallen in love with the Gandharva princess Kādambarī – and vice versa.
But why ridicule an aged hermit for this purpose? The peculiar way this
interlude distracts the reader from the main story gives rise to the suspicion
that Bāṇa had a certain intention in doing so. We will return to this point
below.
Literary aspects
Before highlighting the major topics of the plot, I will briefly address
Bāṇa’s literary style together with his representation of the Śaiva believer
and the latter’s dwelling place.
The syntactical complexity of the passage in question here is more a
means to an end than an end in itself. As indicated above, one long sen-
tence presents a detailed description of what is explicitly named only at the
very end of the construction, namely the goddess of the temple and its in-
habitant. By suspending the grammatical predicate and its direct object for
as long as possible, Bāṇa creates a sustained tension as if to convey the
hero’s own awe and amazement at the moment of entering and beholding
the temple area. In this sense, the syntactical construction mirrors or at
least adds to the subject matter of the passage, and this effect is lost in all
available translations of this and comparable passages.15
As a rule, descriptions of this kind are employed in the introduction of
characters who play a major role in the plot. The obvious pattern is that the
more important the character, the longer the description. A similar style is
described by HUECKSTEDT (1985: 23): the longer a story (of which there
may be several within a single narrative work), the longer the sentence that
introduces it. The location and relationships of the protagonist may be in-
cluded in the main clause or presented in a subordinate or independent
clause. For example, a king is presented together with his resident city and
his chief queen, while the exhaustive account of an eminent sage is replete
with a description of his forest hermitage and his pupils. The same holds
true for metrical literature, where a number of relative clauses can form
what commentaries refer to as kulaka, i.e., stanzas “in which the govern-
ment of noun and verb is carried throughout” (MONIER-WILLIAMS, s.v.).16

15
A similar interpretation is offered by SMITH 2009: 150f.
16
See, e.g., Meghadūta 2.1–15, where at the very beginning of the uttaramegha
When we compare descriptive single-sentence constructions taken from

the Kādambarī’s prose, it turns out that the Caṇḍikā temple receives a re-
markable amount of attention by the author in terms of its length. In the
edition prepared by PETERSON in 1883, nearly four pages (K: 224,13–
228,7) make up a single syntactical sentence devoted to the description of
the Caṇḍikā temple and its old resident. This sentence is one of the longest
of its kind, comparable to those containing the descriptions of the heroine
Kādambarī and her most intimate girlfriend, the ascetic girl Mahāśvetā (pp.
186,4–189,16 and 128,12–131,20 respectively), and surpassed only by that
describing King Tārāpīḍa’s residence (K: 86,19–92,5). Note that the elabo-
ration of King Tārāpīḍa’s residence (rājakula) is not presented at the first
introduction of the king and his reign, but only on occasion of the celebra-
tion of the perfection of Candrāpīḍa’s education. It extends over nearly
five-and-a-half pages of the edition.17
At the beginning of the Caṇḍikā episode, the reader (or the audience) of
the Kādambarī is therefore likely to expect another comprehensive story
within this deeply nested narration, a “subplot” (patākā) or an “interven-
tion” (prakārī) in terms of Indian poetics.18 The extent of the embedded
story and the significance of the Caṇḍikā episode can be presumed by the
comparatively vast proportions of its descriptive opening. This also means
an even longer delay on Candrāpīḍa’s route to his father’s residence and,
more importantly, a prolongation of the lovers’ separation. The starting

the home of the Yakṣas in the Himālaya regions is described in a series of relative
constructions (mostly using the pronoun yatra, but also yasyām in 2.5 and 12, and a
compound yad- in 2.8). The kulaka is completed with the clause tatrāgāraṃ ... as-
madīyaṃ (“there is the house of ours”) in 2.15.
17
K 86,19–92,5. Further examples of long single-sentence descriptions are: King
Śūdraka: half a page (p. 5,5–18) and again almost one-and-a-half pages (pp. 8,21–
10,5); the Cāṇḍāla princess: more than one page, including a description of her at-
tendants, an old mātaṅga and a young Cāṇḍāla boy (pp. 10,11–11,19); Mātaṅga, the
Śabara chief: a little more than two pages (pp. 29,20–32,1); Jābāli: two pages (pp.
41,11–43,9); his āśrama: nearly two-and-a-half pages (pp. 38,15–40,21); Hārīta:
roughly one-and-a-half pages (pp. 36,9–37,19); the city Ujjayinī (in Jābāli’s ac-
count): two-and-a-half pages (pp. 50,1–52,10); Indrāyudha, Candrāpīḍa’s horse: one-
and-a-half pages (pp. 78,14–80,3); the Acchoda lake, where Mahāśvetā’s hermitage
is situated: one-and-a-half pages (pp. 122,16–124,5); an empty Śiva temple nearby
(śūlapāṇeḥ śūnyaṃ siddhāyatanam): one-and-a-half pages (pp. 126,13–128,3); and
finally the forest on the way to the Caṇḍikā temple: a little more than one page (pp.
223,9–224,12).
18
See WARDER 22009: 54f. (§ 122).

point of the main action (the “seed,” bīja) is at risk to lose its continuity
(bindu, lit. “drop”) as the action falters due to another “obstacle” (ava-
marśa) or “pause” (vimarśa),19 yielding no fruition of a happy ending.20
The Caṇḍikā episode, however, is suddenly completed in only a fraction of
the time it took to be introduced. The sinister temple site in the forest is
turned into a rather casual setting of the prince’s sojourn. No new adven-
tures unfold, neither assistance nor obstacles are presented to the hero, and
no curses are spoken by the temple dweller. Superficially and in terms of
narrative structure, the old Śaiva ascetic is deprived of all powers that
would usually be expected from a devotee of the goddess.21 He is repre-
sented as a hapless and grumpy old man, whose appearance and habits
make him a mere object of ridicule rather than a source of awe.
The satirical depiction of the quirky Dravidian constitutes an amusing
relief from the frightening atmosphere which has been created by the pre-
cursory description of the journey through the forest, the scary remains of a
sacrifice in the temple, and the image of a fierce goddess. Expectations are
built up and then surprisingly subverted. Like a snake that turns out to be a
rope, the inhabitant of the dreadful Caṇḍikā temple turns out to be a mere
laughing stock, and strained expectation dissolves into amusement.
The suspense begins with a lengthy description of the journey of the he-
ro and his army through a sinister forest, which is difficult to traverse for
its climbers, roots, and fallen trees, a place where outlaws have left secret
signs of communication and where memorials have been erected at the
horrifying sites of self-sacrifice (vīrapuruṣaghātasthāna). The forest de-
scription,22 a masterly piece of literature in itself, concludes with the depic-
tion of the red flag that spotlights the temple in the depths of the jungle and

19
On the “conjunctions” (sandhi), i.e. significant points in the development of the
plot, and their applicability to any form of Kāvya literature, see WARDER 22009: 57–
59 (§ 128–134) and 77 (§ 182).
20
WARDER 22009: 55 (§ 123f.) and 73 (§ 175). Though LIENHARD stresses the
fact that Sanskrit compositions were judged rather by details of phrasing (1984:
34–37) and descriptions (pp. 230–234) than by the structure and composition of
the work as a whole, the latter criterion should not be neglected, despite the diffi-
culty of keeping track of the plot and its characters (ibid.: 233).
21
For numerous instances and various aspects of the connection between asceticism
and power in ancient and modern Indian culture, see OLSON 2015.
22
K 223,9–224,12; further editions used: PARAB 31908: 392,9–394,8; KANE
1911: 93,21–94,23; SASTRI 51982: 633,3–636,5. For a concordance of PETERSON’s
with three more editions (not consulted by me), see SCHARPÉ 1937: 495.
serves as a thrilling preparation for the ornate description of the Caṇḍikā

temple.
Thus, the sentiment of Candrāpīḍa’s lovesickness gives way to another
one, namely the fearful (bhayānaka rasa). This sentiment is further intensi-
fied by means of the description of the dreadful and hideous details of the
Caṇḍikā temple area.23 Finally, the unexpected use of the comic sentiment
(hāsya rasa) is supposed to relieve the horror-laden atmosphere of the for-
est and temple passages by way of an innocuous conversation between the
old temple dweller and the prince.24
The descriptions of the temple area and the Caṇḍikā image go beyond
mere abundance in fanciful detail and poetic ornamentation. They are poet-
ically ornamented with figurative expressions, like similes (upamā), meta-
phorical identification (rūpaka), and poetical ascriptions (utprekṣā), which
intensify the sentiment and sometimes exaggerate the descriptions. Never-
theless, the subjects of the comparisons (upameya) always remain tangible,
and even their objects (upamāna) as well as the ascriptions of the utprekṣās
are never too far-fetched and go without the surreal and supernatural,25
which maintains a realistic tenor to the passage. This realism, which Smith
called “one of Bāṇa’s trademarks,”26 culminates in the description of the
“holy man” who lives in the temple. Here, similes of every kind, including
the utprekṣā, one of the author’s most frequent figures of speech,27 are
quickly dismissed, that is, after the first three objects of description (the old
man’s protruding veins, his scars, and his hair).28 The remaining part of the
description covers nearly two pages29 and consists of one long series of
plain descriptive characterisations (jāti or svabhāvokti). Besides this, the
figure of double entendre (śleṣa), which frequently features in other de-

23
K 224,13–226,9; PARAB 31908: 394,8–398,1; KANE 1911: 94,24–96,14; SA-
5
STRI 1982: 636,6–642,3.
24
K 226,9–228,7; PARAB 31908: 398,1–401,6; KANE 1911: 96,14–98,9; SASTRI
5
1982: 642,3–648,4.
25
One single mythological allusion is found at the beginning of the description of
the temple area (K 224,17), where the iron image of a buffalo (lohamahiṣa) features
palm prints of red sandal (raktacandanahastaka) and hence looks “as though he had
been gently patted by the God of Death’s bloody hands” (rudhirāruṇayamakaratalā-
sphālita, translation by LAYNE 1991: 223f.).
26
SMITH 2009: 160. On the realism in Bāṇa’s metrical work, see TUBB 2014,
who also attests a distinctive “boldness in the choice of subject matter” (p. 346).
27
HUECKSTEDT 1985: 31.
28
K 226,9–13.
29
K 226,13–228,7.

scriptive parts of the Kādambarī as well as other prose works, is absent

from the forest and the temple passages.30
Another stylistic device of the author is the careful use of colours. No-
tably, red is used to depict the temple scene, which abounds with offerings
of animals, human heads, and the remains of bloody sacrifices. The inten-
tional choice of the colour red is introduced by the depiction of the large,
red flag that marks the transition from the forest to the temple passage.
While this flag still belongs to the forest passage syntactically, physically it
is already part of the temple. It is mounted “atop an old, red sandalwood”
and “seemed wet with dabs of lac, like bloody chunks of fresh, moist flesh;
the tree’s trunk was ornamented with red banners that were like lolling
tongues, and with black fly-whisk streamers that appeared like matted hair
or the limbs of freshly butchered animals.”31 By mentioning the colour red
and reddish items, the author refrains from conveying an atmosphere of
auspiciousness and solemnity that would easily and naturally be expected.
The sentiment thus evoked in terms of colour is the fearful one, and it pre-
vails throughout this part of the narration. The narrator fancies that Can-
drāpīḍa “saw from afar the large, red flag that seemed to be searching here
and there on the path for travellers who could serve as offerings (for Dur-
gā).”32 The colouring is carried on when Candrāpīḍa enters the temple area,
where he finds “a line of black, iron mirror plates with reddish chowries”33
right at the entrance (dvāradeśa) that is furnished with an iron gate. The
temple area abounds with flower offerings of “red lotuses that resemble the
eyes of jungle buffaloes, slain by śabara tribesmen,”34 Agati and Palash
flowers that are compared to the bloody claws of lions and tigers35 (their
resemblance is striking indeed), and “tufts of blood-red Kadambaka flow-

30
Compare, e.g., the description of Tārāpīḍa’s court, especially towards the end.
One of the paradigmatic works for śleṣa prose poetry is Subandhu’s Vāsavadattā,
which notoriously abounds with all kinds of double entendre, also, e.g., in its
descriptions of the Vindhya forests (ed. SHUKLA 1966: 13,18–17,7).
31
Translation LAYNE 1991: 223.
32
K 224,11f: itas tataḥ pathikapuruṣopahāramārgam ivālokayantaṃ mahāntaṃ
raktadhvajaṃ dūrata eva dadarśa. My translation is based on the one by LAYNE
(1991: 223). The rhetorical figure here is that of an “ascription with regard to the
action” (kriyotprekṣā), according to Sastri’s commentary Candrakalā (SASTRI 51982:
636,24–26).
33
raktacāmarāvaliparikarāṃ kālāyasadarpaṇamaṇḍalamālām (K 224,14f.).
34
kvacid raktotpalaiḥ śabaranipātitānāṃ vanamahiṣāṇām iva locanaiḥ (K 224,19).
35
kvacid agastikuḍmalaiḥ kesariṇām iva karajaiḥ, kvacit kiṃśukakusumakuḍma-
laiḥ śārdūlānām iva sarudhirair nakharaiḥ (K 224,20f.).
ers that are hung to the limbs” of the mūrti.36 These and further details37 are
beheld in the reddening light of the setting sun. The predominance of the
colour red then ceases in the description of the “holy man,” in which refer-
ences to the colour black prevail.
The colouring of a scene is a strongly suggestive literary device that
does not necessarily impose a restriction on its realism. It features also in
other passages in the Kādambarī, for instance in an earlier episode prior to
the prince’s love story, in which Bāṇa conceives the figure of the beautiful
Apsaras Mahāśvetā. She lives as a hermit in “an empty shrine of the
blessed Trident-wielder,” i.e., Lord Śiva,38 at the banks of the Acchoda
lake on the foot of the Kailāsa mountain. The Apsaras’ complexion, her
garment, and her modest jewellery are white, she plays an ivory vīṇā,39 and
carries a conch as an alms bowl.40 The shrine on the banks of the Acchoda
lake is also portrayed as all in white.41 Hence she is called “the acme of
whiteness.”42 Here as well, a certain colour is strongly emphasised and not
left to random choice. It is further in accord with the lunar lineage of the
girl and clearly serves as an illustration of her divine and pure character.

36
śoṇitatāmrakadambastabakakṛtārcanaiś (…) ivāṅgaiḥ (K 225,19–21).
37
K 225,19f. Further instances of the colour red are: blooming red Ashoka trees;
hastaka marks of red sandal on the iron buffalo (see above, n. 25); red cocks; drops
of elephant must-fluid taken for red pearls according to the poetic convention; red-
dened rags in the garbhagṛha; red (but also blue and yellow) mirrors hung at the
door panels; red rags at the feet of the mūrti; ornamental cords reddened with sandal;
offerings of red Kadambaka flowers; Caṇḍikā’s lips which are red from betel offered
by Śabara women; red flames of the resin (guggula) lamps; and red jewels on the
heads of cobras (another poetic convention).
38
bhagavataḥ śūlapāṇeḥ śūnyaṃ siddhāyatanam (K 128,2f.). The ornate single-
sentence description which is syntactically completed with this line runs from pp.
126,13–128,3.
39
K 130,23–131,3.
40
śaṅkhamayena bhikṣākapālena (K 133,15).
41
See K 128,12–131,20 for a portrayal of the outer appearance of the girl (in one
single sentence extending over three and a half pages) and pp. 122,16–128,11 for the
lake and the shrine where she lives (transl. LAYNE 1991: 125–136).
42
LAYNE 1991: 133, translating iyattām iva dhavalimnaḥ (K 129,21f.). See also:
“She seemed to have been made only out of the abstract quality of whiteness”
(LAYNE 1991: 132, translating dhavalaguṇenaiva kevalenotpāditām, K 128,21).

The Caṇḍikā temple and its main image
Candrāpīḍa and his army come across the temple in the forest on their way
from the Kailāsa mountain, the residence of his beloved Kādambarī, to
Ujjayinī, where he was summoned to by his father Tārāpīḍa. Progressively
advancing towards the inner parts of the temple area, the narrator provides
a detailed description of the site (āyatana) and its central image of the god-
dess Caṇḍikā.43 The temple area is enclosed by an ivory fence (dan-
takapāṭa), and its entrance (dvāradeśa) is framed by an iron archway.
Ashoka trees flower in the courtyard (aṅgaṇa) that comprises an area re-
ferred to as uddeśa, possibly a forecourt. The inner courtyard (ajira)44 leads
to the entrance of a sanctuary (garbhagṛha), which is furnished with two
door panels (kapāṭapaṭṭa) and ivory bolts (daṇḍārgala). The image (mūrti)
is seated on a throne (pīṭha), which is resting on an inner pedestal
(antaḥpiṇḍikā). Facing the goddess from a separate rock platform (śilāve-
dikā) is an iron buffalo (lohamahiṣa). This is an image of the buffalo de-
mon named Mahiṣa, which is more commonly depicted with the goddess
stamping on him or piercing him with a trident.45 Finally, there are also
cobras that live in an empty sanctuary (devakula).
The fierce image of Caṇḍikā is covered in darkness, which makes it dif-
ficult to distinguish offered fruits from the heads of sacrificed children.
Scattered at the feet of the image are the remains of sanguinary offerings or
even self-sacrifices.46 Among these are found tips of deer horns (hariṇa-
viṣāṇakoṭi), cut out tongues (jihvāccheda), bloody eye-balls (raktanayana),

43
K 224,13–226,9.
44
The terminology of modern secondary literature on temple architecture in
many instances differs from Bāṇa’s choice of words (see, e.g., MEISTER & DHAKY
1991, HARDY 2007, LORENZETTI 2015). Hence, it remains unclear to me what
exactly is denoted by uddeśa (K: 225,8) and ajira (K: 225,10).
45
The story of Caṇḍī killing the buffalo demon Mahiṣa is known from the
Mahābhārata and several Purāṇas (see STIETENCRON 1983, YOKOCHI 1999). The act
of Caṇḍī’s killing the demon with a kick of her left foot is told in Skandapurāṇa
68.12–23 (ed. YOKOCHI 2013: 341–343) and represents nearly the sole topic of
Bāṇa’s Caṇḍīśataka (ed. QUACKENBOS 1917: 243–362).
46
Offerings of one’s own blood, body parts, or head to a goddess are well at-
tested in mediaeval Indian history (see DEZSŐ 2012: 82 for references to it in
Kāvya literature, inscriptions, and reliefs). To Dezső’s list we may here add the
above-mentioned sites of self-sacrificers (vīrapuruṣa) from the forest passage. In
the description of the Caṇḍikā temple passage, it is not always clear whether the
offerings are human or animal sacrifices.
and skull bones (muṇḍamaṇḍala), all of which indicate “the violence of

offerings” (upahārahiṃsā). Streams of blood run visibly through the inner
courtyard. These offerings can be partially assigned to the frightening
Śabara tribesmen who, as a literary topos, live and hunt in the Vindhya
forests.47 The offerings of the Śabaras are said to consist in flesh, and they
worship the gods with the blood of animals.48 The chief of a Śabara army is
described as having his arms scarred from repeatedly offering his own
blood to Caṇḍikā.49 Throughout the Kādambarī, the Śabaras are described
as a horribly violent tribe. Though this is not made explicit, they must
cause considerable trouble to the pitiable temple dweller.
The “holy man”
The “old Dravidian holy man” (jaraddraviḍadhārmika) who lives in the

temple is represented as a quirky old fellow regarded as an object of ridi-
cule by the village people and by Candrāpīḍa’s convoy. Even his physical
appearance is diametrically opposed to what one would expect from an
honourable Brahmin sage presiding over an āśrama where pupils study the
Veda and the forest deer peacefully drink from the freshly watered tree
roots. One of these stereotypical, ideal sages is Jābāli, the Brahmin who
narrates the main portion of the Kādambarī story to the parrot chick
Vaiśampāyana that was saved by one of the āśrama’s pupils. However, the
“holy man” from the Caṇḍikā temple passage is not one of those men
equipped with learning, authority, and a divine eye. Quite the opposite is
true of him: one of his eyes has lost sight due to the extensive use of some
magical collyrium (siddhāñjana)50 once given to him by a quack doctor
(kuvādi). While the epic sages are notoriously radiant like the sun or shine
like the moon, their skin white from the holy ashes, this “holy man’s” skin

47
K 27,5–34,19. The tribe of the Śabara hunters also occurs, e.g., in the Vāsava-
dattā, where they frighten the deer in the Vindhya forest witless (ed. SHUKLA 1966,
p. 13,19–21).
48
paśurudhireṇa devatārcanam, māṃsena balikarma; K 32,9f.
49
caṇḍikārudhirabalipradānārtham asakṛnniśitaśastrollekhaviṣamitaśikhareṇa
bhujayugalena; K 30,11–13.
50
The use of “a black pigment, often applied to the eyelashes” (TĀNTRIKĀBHI-
DHĀNAKOŚA I: 99 [s.v. añjana]) is said to bring about magical powers, like seeing
hidden treasures or invisible things, even becoming invisible oneself. Magical colly-
rium is often referred to in narrative literature but also in Tantric works of the Śaiva
and Vaiṣṇava traditions. For references to the latter, see ibid.

is black. His body is covered by a web of veins, in the same way the trunk
of a burnt tree is covered by all kinds of lizards,51 whereas Jābāli’s veins,
which have also obtruded due to his severe asceticism, are compared to the
creepers on the wish-fulfilling tree (kalpataru).52
It seems significant that the old man who lives in the temple is not giv-
en a proper name, since the name of every other significant character in the
Kādambarī is usually given right when they are introduced to the story.
While proper names hardly characterise real people, literary names are
often significant and meaningful, revealing the origin, fate, or intentions of
the named character.53 This is common practice in fictional literature, and
the Kādambarī is no exception. For example, Candrāpīḍa’s name (“[he
who wears] the moon as a chaplet [on his head]”) hints at his provenance
from the moon god and relates him to his father Tārāpīḍa (“[he who wears]
the stars as his chaplet”); the heroine’s name Kādambarī alludes to the
sweetly fragrant flowers of the evergreen Kadam tree; the background of
Mahāśvetā’s name, “the Great White,” was already mentioned above; the
name of the sage Jābāli is borrowed from the famous sage of the
Rāmāyaṇa (2.100–103); and so on. The Dravidian “holy man,” on the other
hand, remains anonymous, and an important piece of information is thus
withheld from the reader. The old man himself is not silent on private mat-
ters, for Candrāpīḍa manages to soothe the irascible old man and make him
speak about personal matters, such as his origins and the reasons for his
living in the temple:
With coaxing words and with a hundred sweet ones of conciliation,

Candrāpīḍa somehow mollified him and, in order, asked his birth-
place, caste, education, whether he had a wife and children, his

51
K 226,9f. The colour (varṇa) of the skin may be an allusion the social class
(varṇa), as McComas Taylor’s discourse analysis of jāti suggests (TAYLOR 2007).
However, Taylor’s thesis is severely criticised in MAAS 2013–2014. It may also
allude to the quality of the soul according to the Sāṃkhya classification of pure (whi-
te), impure (black), and mixed (red) souls. On historical overinterpretations of this
matter, see also ADLURI/BAGCHEE 2014: 187.
52
K 42,17f. A passage a few lines before (ibid.: 42,12f.) mentions the protruding
veins on Jābāli’s neck (kaṇṭhanāḍī). Several instances of the topos of the gaunt
ascetics’ protruding veins are already attested in the Mahābhārata and in Buddhist
literature (see OLSON 2015: 86).
53
GABRIEL 2014: 168f.
wealth, his age, and the reason for his renouncing domestic life. And
on being questioned, the ascetic told about himself.54
An account of their talk, however, is not given. The narrator is primarily

interested in depicting the “holy man” as he appears to visitors. He is not
concerned with the old man’s past life or the reasons for his devotion to
Caṇḍikā. The “holy man’s” self-presentation is tersely outlined and merely
serves to portray his boasting talkativeness. By the unlikelihood of its con-
tent it creates but another punchline of the passage:
The king’s son was very much amused by him as he continued to

narrate his past heroism, handsomeness, and wealth.55
One more detail is worth addressing here, precisely because it is left un-
mentioned by Bāṇa: the “holy man’s” sacred thread (yajñopavīta or brah-
masūtra). This is one of the items which Sanskrit authors would rarely fail
to mention in a description of a major Ṛṣi, sage, or ascetic. For example,
Jābāli and his pupils in the forest hermitage most certainly carry one;56
even Kādambarī’s ascetic girlfriend Mahāśvetā, “who had taken the Pāśu-
pata vow” (pratipannapāśupatavratā),57 carries a brahmasūtra;58 and Bhai-
ravācārya, the royal officiant featured in the third chapter of Bāṇa’s
Harṣacarita, is also said to wear one.59 Although the unorthodox and more
transgressive Śaiva cults from no later than the seventh century exhibit
great variety in this matter, ranging from a thread of human hair to no
thread at all,60 the latter case would be rather unusual. Thus, Bāṇa’s silence
on the thread in the present case is likely to be intentional. This would im-

54
K 228,12–15: upasāntvanaiś ca katham api priyālāpaśatānunayaiḥ praśamam
upanīya, krameṇa janmabhūmiṃ jātiṃ vidyāṃ ca kalatram apatyāni vibhavaṃ
vayaḥpramāṇaṃ pravrajyāyāś ca kāraṇaṃ svayam eva prapraccha. pṛṣṭaś cāsāv
avarṇayad ātmānam. Translation based on LAYNE’s (1991: 228).
55
K 228,15f.: atītasvaśauryarūpavibhavavarṇanavācālena tena sutarām arajyata
rājaputraḥ. Translation based on LAYNE 1991: 228.
56
K 42,13f. (Jābāli’s sacred thread), 37,2f. (Hārīta’s sacred thread) etc.
57
K 131,20. The Pāśupata vow is known from the Pāśupatasūtras, a short scripture
from the first or second century CE that prescribes an ascetic kind of worship of Śiva
Paśupati (see ACHARYA 2011). Originally, the Pāśupata vow was restricted to Brahmin
males, and Mahāśvetā appears to represent a later stage of the cult’s doctrine.
58
K 130,18.
59
Ed. FÜHRER 1909: 164, 16. On Bhairavācārya, see below, n. 74.
60
See Brahmayāmalatantra 21.1–123.

ply that the author denies this “holy man” a proper socio-religious status,
because it would seem inappropriate for a such a “pseudo-saint,” to use
Smith’s pungent rendering here, or perhaps a Dravidian.61 In any case, the
literary ruse of disregarding the sacred thread ads to the general picture of
the temple dweller as a worshipper of the powerful goddess but also as
someone who himself lacks every trace of power and authority, an amusing
but eventually insignificant character. It also adds to the ambiguous identi-
ty of the nameless, old man whose social status and proper function in the
temple remains undiscussed.
The ways in which the “holy man” is represented does not command
anyone’s respect. On the contrary, by mentioning neither his name nor his
varṇa, the description shows signs of irreverence and is thoroughly amus-
ing or at best piteous. Amusement is not merely the modern reader’s im-
pression, for upon sight of the old man Candrāpīḍa has to “laugh for quite a
while” (suciraṃ jahāsa). He visibly smiles despite his pangs of separation
from Kādambarī62 and although he is depicted as a rather serene character
in other parts of the story.63 Eventually, however, he restrains himself and
has his army stop making fun (upahasant) of the poor fellow.64 The occa-
sional lay temple visitors also have fun (viḍambana) with him. During the

61
According to Medhātithi’s Manubhāṣya and Kumārila’s Tantravārttikā, adher-
ents of the Śaiva Mantramārga were to be considered outside the Veda (SANDERSON
2015: 160f.). According to Manusmṛti and other sources (see HALBFASS 1988: 176,
n. 13), draviḍas and daradas (from the Afghan region) as well as pahlavas (Persi-
ans) etc. are not entitled to wear the sacred thread, since they are excluded from the
varṇa system. The Skandapurāṇa and many other sources, on the other hand, list
draviḍas as a fivefold group of Brahmins (pañcadrāviḍa, as opposed to the group of
pañcagauḍa) that is said to be found south of the Vindhya mountains and to compri-
se drāviḍas as a sub-group (DESHPANDE 2010).
62
K 228,10f.
63
For example, he is described as “very steadfast by nature” (atidhīraprakṛti, K
80,5), even when the astonishing horse Indrāyudha is first shown to him.
64
K 228,11f. (with a minor variation in the eds. SASTRI 51982 and PARAB 31908).
Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra 6.52 lists six particular kinds of laughter in order of increasing
intensity. The case of Candrāpīḍa would be hasita, the second variety and the second
last intensive: “the full but silent smile in which the teeth show, the eyes seem to
grin, and the cheeks are full with pleasure” (SIEGEL 1989: 46). It is apt for refined
persons. The soldiers’ laughter would be upahasita, the fourth and a rather crude
form of laughter according to Bharata’s list.
spring festivals, for instance, they are said to marry him to an old servant
(vṛddhadāsī), whom they carry around on a broken bedstead.65
What exactly is so amusing about the “holy man”? And what is the rea-
son for his tragicomical lack of authority? As explained above, he is pre-
sented as quite the opposite of what would be expected from a secluded
hermit, a severe ascetic, or a powerful officiant. The old man thus repre-
sents anything but an idealised and normative character. By twisting and
inverting the ideal and in order to ease the sinister sentiment of the whole
intervention (prakārī), Bāṇa makes him the laughing stock of temple visi-
tors, including Candrāpīḍa. In fact, several aspects of his appearance, be-
haviour, and skills are likely to arouse laughter.
First of all, in Bāṇa’s audience his physical appearance is destined to
arouse amusement rather than respect. He has a hunchback and a crooked
neck. His dark body is speckled with wounds and blisters, and he has pro-
truding teeth. One of his arms is shrivelled from inadvertently and severely
beating himself with a brick (iṣṭakāprahāra), and the fingers of one of his
hands are contracted from another mistake. Monkeys have wounded his
nose, a bear has scratched his head, and so on.
Secondly, he appears quite clumsy, which is the cause of much of his
pitiable condition. His head, for instance, is injured from bilva fruits
(śrīphala) falling from the trees.66 Travellers and temple visitors shudder
when he plays the vīṇā, which is accompanied by his shaking head and him
humming like a mosquito.
Finally, he has a tendency to exaggerate what he undertakes. Whether it
is simple prostrations at the feet of the goddess, medical treatments, magi-
cal rites, the use of elixirs (rasāyana) – in the end it causes him more harm
than benefit. For example, he has a callus (arbuda) on his black forehead,
resulting from the prostrations to the feet of Ambikā, the Mother-
goddess;67 the incessant use of a certain pungent ointment (kaṭukavarti)

65
K 227,21f.
66
The fruits of the Bael tree (Aegle marmelos Correa) are common in the
worship of Śiva. The edible, round fruits of about 1–2 inches in diameter have a
woody shell (SAHNI 1998: 49f.). Hence, a falling fruit is likely to hurt if it hits one’s
head. In contrast to this mishap, it is said of more accomplished hermits that bran-
ches from the trees bow down to offer their fruits, or that the trees’ fruits fall directly
into the alms bowls of the tapasvins, as, e.g., in the case of Mahāśvetā (K 134,2–4)
or of an eminent Pāśupata ācārya in Koūhala’s verse narration Līlāvaī (v. 211–214).
67
The callus is possibly an allusion to hypocrisy. In Śyāmilaka’s satirical play
(bhāṇa) Padatāḍitaka (p. 26), one hypocrit, the aged “pimp” (viṭa) called Dayita-

increases his blindness (timira), and he also suffers from night blindness
(rātryandhatā);68 and although “improperly prepared elixirs have caused
him periodic fevers,”69 instead of a prolongation of his life span, he is said
to have “developed a morbid inclination towards mineralogy.”70 Hence one
might suspect creeping poisoning induced by the improper use of elixirs
and substances as a possible cause for his grotesque behaviour.71
Whatever the exact cause may be, the “holy man” appears like an “offi-
ciant with inauspicious signs” (ācārya aśubhalakṣaṇa). A list of such char-
acteristics can be found, for instance, in the Śaiva Tantric scripture Sva-
cchandatantra,72 which defines the type of officiants that should be pre-
ferred and those that should be rejected. If this is applied to our Caṇḍikā
devotee, we find that more than half of the items in the list can easily be
related to him either positively or negatively. For instance, an officiant who
is inclined to wrath (krodhana, v. 1.16a) or who has protruding teeth (dan-
tura, 1.16.c), both of which is said of the old man,73 should be avoided,
whereas one who is polite (dākṣiṇyasaṃyuta, 1.14d) or “whose whole body
is adorned” (sarvāvayavabhūṣita, v. 1.13b), neither of which is said of the
temple dweller, should be sought out. In my understanding of this Kādam-
barī passage, Bāṇa has created an amusingly exaggerated and condensed
portrait of a follower of the Śaiva dharma who displays a great number of
possible characteristics of a “officiant with inauspicious signs.” Indeed,
neither disciples nor devotees are mentioned, and neither Candrāpīḍa asks
for the “holy man’s” advice, nor does the latter ask for the help of the prince.
The religious tradition that underlies Bāṇa’s depiction of the old temple
dweller was examined by Shaman Hatley, who identified it as that of the

viṣṇu, is said to “have his forehead and knees hard with triple calluses (…) due to his
worship of gods” (devārcanāt … kiṇatrayakaṭhoralalāṭajānuḥ).
68
K 226,16f. and 227, 16 respectively.
69
K 226,19f.: asamyakkṛtarasāyanānītākālajvara.
70
K 227,1f.: saṃjātadhātuvādavāyu. In the Āyurvedic medical sense of the term,
vāyu denotes a “morbid affection of the windy humour” (as it is translated in APTE’s
Sanskrit dictionaries) that manifests itself in different kinds of mental disturbance.
Accordingly, it is glossed in the commentaries with vātavyādhi (“affection of the
wind element”), vikriyā (“seizure, disease”), and similar expressions.
71
In a note on Kṣemendra’s Kalāvilāsa 8.11–12, VASUDEVA (2005: 367) links
serious “behavioural oddities” of goldsmiths to their frequent use of mercury and
alkaline salts.
72
Svacchandatantra 1.13cd–18ab. I thank Somdev Vasudeva for this reference.
73
K 227,10 and 228,1 (krodha); also ibid.: 227,9f. (atiroṣaṇatā) and p. 228,10
(kupita).
Bhairavatantras.74 These scriptures of early Tantric Śaivism elaborate on

many of the magical and power-seeking practices that are adopted by
Bāṇa’s “holy man.” Where are these scriptures to be placed within the
history of Śaiva traditions?
According to a model developed by Alexis Sanderson,75 early Śaivism
that was followed not by laymen but by initiate ascetics had developed into
two major branches by the fifth century: the Atimārga, the “Path Beyond,”
i.e., beyond the orthodox Brahmanical system and therefore considered
non-Vedic and antinomian, and the Mantramārga, or the “Path of Man-
tras.” The Atimārga was centred on the worship of Śiva, and the main goal
of its ascetic adherents was liberation from rebirth, especially so in the
earlier developments that are known as the Pāśupata and Lākula traditions.
This tradition was open only for initiated Brahmin males. A later develop-
ment of the “Path Beyond” was widely known as the tradition of the
Kāpālikas, ascetic devotees of Śiva “with the skull” (kapālin), that is, the
skull of the beheaded god Brahmā. One of the more noticeable ascetic fea-
tures of Kāpālika practice was the imitation of their god’s external appear-
ance by means of their characteristic use of skull cups in rituals and as
begging bowls as well as their performance of cremation grounds practices.
Initiation into the Kāpālika cult was possible also for women and non-
Brahmins. Out of the Atimārga then emerged the Mantramārga, which also
transgressed the Vedic, Brahmanical socio-religious order and developed a
number of new ritual technologies aimed at accomplishing supernatural
powers (siddhi).76 The Mantramārga includes various branches, from the
more orthodox to the more transgressive. Some of these, including the
Bhairavatantras discussed here, centre on the worship of Śiva in his manifes-

74
HATLEY 2007: 73–82. The cult of Bhairavācārya in the Harṣacarita is also
identified as belonging to the Bhairavatantras. See also SMITH 2009, who compares
the draviḍadhārmika to Bhairavācārya. The latter officiated in the South and per-
formed important rituals for King Puṣyabhūti, a probably fictive ancestor of Harṣa.
He displays an “ostensible contrast” to the dhārmika (SMITH 2009: 156), since he
has by far more power, authority, and success. See also BAKKER 2007: 4 on
Bhairavācārya and BAKKER 2014: 78–80 on Puṣyabhūti.
75
SANDERSON 2006: 145–158 and 2009: 45–53, which improve on parts of the
systematisation presented in SANDERSON 1988. For scriptural sources of the several
Śaiva traditions, see SANDERSON 2014.
76
HATLEY (2007: 74–76) refers to scriptures like the Bhairavatantras, the Brah-
mayāmalatantra, and Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka that are connected with these and
other Tantric elements. On subdivisions of the Mantramārga, see HATLEY 2007: 7f.
and SANDERSON 2004: 229.

tation as skull-bearing Bhairava (“the Dreadful”) as well as his female con-

sort, variously called Durgā, Aghoreśvarī, Cāṇḍī, and similar names indicat-
ing the goddess’ fierceness and wrath. Another branch within the Śaiva initi-
atory systems is an even more esoteric “path,” the Kulamārga, which centred
on various hierarchical “clans” (kula) of female divinities and spirits (yo-
ginīs) and permeated much of the Mantramārgic Bhairava cult.77
The Caṇḍikā passage in the Kādambarī appears to most prominently allude
to the Mantramārgic Bhairavatantras. First of all, the “holy man” who lives in
the temple is depicted as a devotee of the fierce goddess called Caṇḍikā, Dur-
gā, or Ambikā, “good mother.” Among his possessions is a “hymn to Durgā
recorded on a small tablet (or ribbon),”78 and “with his prayers he importunes
Durgā for the boon of sovereignty over South India.”79
An interesting passage in terms of identifying the religious traditions
associated with the “holy man” refers to a manuscript in his possession,
namely “a written record of the doctrine of Śiva Mahākāla80 based on the
teaching of an aged (and eminent) Pāśupata.”81 This passage features the
term mahāpāśupata (lit. “eminent Pāśupata”), a term that appears in vari-
ous literary and epigraphical sources. However, it has not yet been clearly
established which group of Atimārgic practitioners this refers to, and it
may have been a more widely-used term. Nevertheless, if we accept this
reading here,82 it could refer to a kind of practitioner closer to the more
Kāpālika-type of Śaivism within the Bhairavatantra branch. That this is
indeed the case is strengthened by the fact that the Brahmayāmalatantra, a
Śaiva Tantra from the sixth to seventh centuries, contains a chapter with the
same title as the manuscript of our “holy man,” namely “the doctrine of Śiva

77
SANDERSON 1988: 668–672 and 679f.
78
K 226,22: paṭṭikālikhitadurgāstotreṇa. See TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA III s.v.
paṭa and paṭṭa (pp. 371–373). The size of the writing surface suggests a rather short
hymn (stotra).
79
K 226,20f.: dakṣināpathādhirājyavaraprārthanākadarthitadurgeṇa.
80
Śiva Mahākāla and the goddess Caṇḍikā are also linked in Bāṇa’s Harṣacarita
(HATLEY 2007: 80f.).
81
K 226,23–227, 1: jīrṇamahāpāśupatopadeśalikhitamahākālamatena.
82
The eds. by PARAB and SASTRI omit the honorific mahā and read jīrṇapāśu-
patopadeśa-. LORENZEN (1972: 18f.) discusses the expression mahāpāśupata in the
Kādambarī and other works of Sanskrit literature as a technical term denoting either
Pāśupatas who practiced the “great observance” (mahāvrata), i.e. Kāpālikas, or
Śaivas following the Kālamukha doctrines. BAKKER (2014: 150), drawing on a pas-
sage from the earliest part of the Niśvāsatattva corpus (ca. 6th c.), identifies the
Mahāpāśupatas exclusively with the Kāpālikas.
Mahākāla.”83 This dual association with the Atimārgic Kāpālika branch as

well as the Mantramārgic Bhairavatantras is appropriate, since, for instance,
the Brahmayāmalatantra itself comprises Kāpālika doctrines of the Atimār-
ga and several characteristics of the Mantramārga.84 Sectarian borders gener-
ally were somewhat fluid during this period, both in etic as well as in emic
accounts of the time.85 For example, it is noted that the Kāpālikas were the
most transgressive group of the Atimārga branch of Śaivism but also part of
the Mantramārga. Their striking appearance soon made them stock charac-
ters in stage plays and works of narrative literature.86
Bāṇa’s “holy man” is also said to “know a thousand wonder-tales of the
mountain Śrīparvata,”87 a pilgrimage site located in today’s Andhra Pra-
desh. In literary sources, the earliest of which are Bāṇa’s Kādambarī and
Bhavabhūti’s stage play Mālatīmādhava (eighth century), this site is fre-
quently mentioned in connection with Kāpālikas.88
Apart from this, the “holy man” is also said to be a collector of palm-
leaf booklets89 “which contain magical formulas from scoundrel manu-
als.”90 These manuals (tantra) and formulas (mantra) are not connected
with a certain Śaiva tradition, but they represent another attempt by the old
man to acquire supernatural powers and add to his general dubiousness.
The old man’s worship thus seems to be motivated at least in part by

83
HATLEY 2007: 78 and 80f.; see also KISS 2015: 24 and 26.
84
SANDERSON 2014 : 39f.
85
SANDERSON (2015: 49) describes the case of permeable borders of tradition in
the Kālī cult that “remained both Kaula in its self-definition and firmly Kāpālika in
its practice.”
86
A large number of Sanskrit and Prakrit works of fiction from the seventh and
later centuries that feature Kāpālika characters are introduced and discussed in
LORENZEN 1972: 48–71. The earliest literary description of a Kāpālika ascetic is
probably the description of a young woman in the Prakrit anthology Gāhāsattasaī,
the stanzas of which were collected during the first centuries CE (see LORENZEN
1972: 13 and TÖRZSÖK 2011: 355).
87
K 227,3f.: śrīparvatāścaryavārtāsahasrābhijñena.
88
See LORENZEN 1972: 18–20 and 50–52 respectively. The connection between
this site and various Śaiva cults, most prominently that of the Kāpālikas, is also evi-
dent in inscriptions and other non-fictional works, like the early biographies of
Śaṃkara (ibid.: p. 31f.) and the twelfth-century chronicle Rājataraṅgiṇī (ibid.: 66).
89
For codicologists it may be worth mentioning that these palm-leaf manuscripts
(tālapatra-…-pustikā) are “written with smoked red lac” (dhūmaraktālaktakākṣara).
90
K 226,22f.: kuhakatantramantra (ed. SASTRI omits -mantra-). On this line, see
HATLEY 2007: 78, n. 144. A variety of more serious books are used in Jābāli’s forest
hermitage, where they are read out loud (vācyamānavividhapustaka, p. 40,5).

worldly intentions rather than by soteriological aims. This assumption is

supported by a number of other traits, like his pursuit of supernatural pow-
ers (vibhava) and accomplishments (sādhana) for which he resorts to min-
eralogy, elixirs, ointments, and magical formulas (mantra).
Furthermore, certain rituals for the worship of the female goddesses, al-
so called Mothers (mātṛ), require female partners (dūtī).91 This may be
alluded to when it is said that the old man throws magical powder (cūrṇa)
at old mendicant women (jaratpravrajitā) who happen to stay in the temple
in order to make them submissive (vaśīkaraṇa),92 for his celibacy is said to
be merely compulsory.93
It is these dubious practices that reflect considerable discredit on the
“holy man’s” more sincere spiritual gains like his “unwavering self-
identification with Śiva,” a line that seems predestined to cause trouble in
the course of textual transmission.94 In the sense of “meditative identifica-
tion” this is an element found in Tantric Śaivism and bears clear soteriolog-
ical connotations.95 However, a more general, and rather primary, meaning
of the phrase would be “pride of being a devotee of Śiva.”96 It is likely
possible that Bāṇa intended both meanings as a pun (śleṣa). This would
make the “holy man” appear liberated and haughty at the same time; or
rather, if one of the two possible interpretations was to be stressed while
still retaining an idea of the other, it would create the ambiguity of present-
ing him either as an imitator (with only little cause for his pride) or as pos-
sibly dangerous (an odd person that may really be a powerful ascetic).

91
92
HATLEY (2007: 74) prefers to link this line exclusively to the Bhairavatantras
for its reference to the ritual use of powders.
93
K 227,8f. He has adopted “the celibacy of horses” (turagabrahmacarya),
known as such because a stud is chaste only in the absence of mares (see the Sanskrit
commentaries in PARAB 31908: 399,33f. and SASTRI 51982: 645,23–25, and KANE’s
notes on p. 234). It is also said that the old man madly longs for heavenly maidens
(yakṣakanyakā) but fails to successfully attract one (K 227,2f.).
94
I follow the reading avimuktaśaivābhimānena in the eds. by KANE (1911:
97,9f.), KALE (41968: 339,5), and SASTRI (51982: 645,3) (including the editors’
commentaries). K 227,5 and PARAB 31908: 399,6f. read avamukta-, i.e., “loosened,
let go” instead of “unwavering.”
95
HATLEY’s (2007: 75) interpretation of śaivābhimāna as a technical term.
96
This interpretation was accepted in the notes by KANE (1911: 234) and is in ac-
cord with a gloss by Bhānucandra (aham eva śaivo nānyaḥ) and a similar one in
the Candrakalā commentary (śaivo ’ham ity avalepaḥ).
Historically noteworthy is Bāṇa’s reference to strings of the so-called

rudrākṣa-beads, the dried seeds of the tree in the genus Elaeocarpus, which
is widely used even today. As we are told, the “holy man’s” “tuft of his
hair hangs down to his ears, looking like a string of Rudra beads.”97 This is
one of the earliest pieces of textual evidence for the use of
rudrākṣamālās.98 A variety of rosaries or strings of various materials are
mentioned in the Kādambarī. The Brahmin sage Jābāli and his pupils are
said to have strings made from ordinary rudrākṣa-beads,99 but they also
have some made from jewels,100 which are known since no later than
Kālidāsa’s time.101 Hārīta, Jābāli’s most eminent pupil, has one “hanging
down from his right ear.”102 Many more such stings are mentioned in the
Kādambarī, some of which are also used by female ascetics.103 Note again
that the “holy man” does not wear any such string of beads.

97
K 226,12: karṇāvataṃsasaṃsthāpitayā ca cūḍayā rudrākṣamālikām iva da-
dhānena. According to normative sources, rudrākṣa-strings are to be worn on the
wrist, chest, or head, not on the ear (see, e.g., Śivadharmaśāstra 11.19; see also
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA I, p. 79f., s.v. akṣamālā). However, in the Kādambarī
another string is mentioned hanging from the ear of a most eminent ascetic (see
below, n. 103).
98
According to Dominic Goodall in a personal communication, November 2013.
99
Jābāli has one of these (rudrākṣavalaya, K 43,5f.), and many of his pupils in
the āśrama count the beads of their strings (gaṇanā rudrākṣavalayeṣu, p. 41,4f.) that
have been strung together there (grathyamānākṣamāla, p. 40,9f.).
100
Jābāli is said to have one “made from pieces of pure crystal” (amala-
sphaṭikaśakalaghaṭitam akṣavalayam, K 42,15f.). Puṇḍarīka holds one in his hand
and counts its beads (sphaṭikākṣamālikāṃ kareṇa kalayantam, K 140,1), and
Mahāśvetā will find and wear it later (K 145,20–146, 1).
101
Kumārasambhava 6.6 describes the mythological seven Ṛṣis as wearing “rosa-
ries made of gems” (ratnākṣasūtra, transl. SMITH). Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha 1.9 men-
tions “strings of clear crystal beads” (acchasphaṭikākṣamālā) in the description of
God Nārada.
102
K 36,18f.: sphāṭikenākṣavalayena dakṣiṇaśravaṇavilambinā.
103
The Pāśupata girls (pāśupatavratadhāriṇī) that live with Kādambarī are also
busy with “turning their rosaries” (akṣamālāparivartana, K 208,19f.), and even a
lotus pond (kamalinī) in Jābāli’s āśrama is metaphorically said to be adorned by
“circles of honey bees (resembling) rosaries” (madhukaramaṇḍalākṣavalaya, K
48,7). Bāṇa’s preference for valaya (instead of mālā or mālikā) may be explained by
his characteristic predilection for short syllables (see HUECKSTEDT 1985: 139–148).

Social aspects
While the prince probably is a rare person to talk to, the “holy man” cer-
tainly does not live in isolation. Daily life in his temple is animated by
monkeys, black antelopes, goats, rats, cobras, cocks, and crows,104 but also
by travellers, mendicants, village folk, and Śabara tribals. The old temple
dweller however is unable and sometimes unwilling to fulfil any of their
needs. Every once in a while, he is wrestled down by a passersby
(adhvaga) after unsuccessfully attempting to drive him away from the tem-
ple, which is also the reason for his crooked spine. He has the habit of
scolding locals (janapada) for no reason, and his bad temper often results
in blows and wounded limbs. He throws mustard seeds (siddhārthaka) that
were made ritually effective by the invocation of magical formulas (abhi-
mantrita) towards those possessed by night fiends (piśāca). He does not
succeed with the exorcism, however, and a slap in the face is what he earns
instead.105 This together with the above-mentioned old, mendicant women
and the remains of the offerings made by the tribesmen indicates that the
temple is far from being inaccessible. In fact, the Caṇḍikā temple is easily
reached by all kinds of folk, and even children come to the temple and play
their pranks on the old Dravidian. It is worth noting that there is no men-
tion of any initiatory community, pupils, or temple employees.106
The “holy man’s” social contacts are neither restricted to the Caṇḍikā
temple nor to followers of the Śaiva faith. For example, the above-
mentioned quack who gifted him the magical ointment (siddhāñjana) and
an ill-educated Buddhist mendicant (duḥśikṣitaśramaṇa, if we accept this
reading) who recommended to him a mark on the forehead (tilaka) to pro-

104
These largely ill-reputed animals make up the satirical counterpart of the ele-
phants and lions that are said to live in perfect harmony in Jābāli’s āśrama (K 38,15–
40,21). This is also where the orphaned parrot chick Vaiśampāyana was raised,
which plays a major part in the nested narration of the Kādambarī.
105
K 227,4f. In the second chapter (ucchvāsa) of his Harṣacarita, Bāṇa states
that “mustard seeds were strewn on his head” (śikhāsaktasiddhārthaka, FÜHRER
1909: 91,8f.) as a blessing at the moment he set out for his journey to the royal
court. In another passage of the work (at the end of the third ucchvāsa), mustard is
mentioned in connection with the Mahākālahṛdaya ritual. In this ritual, the eminent
Śaiva officiant Bhairavācārya uses black sesame seeds (kṛṣṇatila, FÜHRER 1909:
164,9) besides mustard seeds, the latter of which are said to have protective power
(rakṣāsarṣapa, FÜHRER 1909: 164,2).
106
For literature on maintenance workers in ancient Indian temples, see
LORENZETTI 2015: 138, n. 159.
mote his powers107 could have been encountered not only in the Caṇḍikā
temple but virtually anywhere. In any case, the old man himself is known
to have visited other holy places (āyatana) to lay down and fast at the feet
of the images installed there (pratiśayita or pratiśayana).108 However, all
this was in vain and he was left unrewarded by the goddess, which is just
another instance of his blatant lack of success in all his undertakings.
The peculiar and ambiguous character of the fellow living in the
Caṇḍikā temple fails to meet the expectations of a proper holy man. An
idea of the ambiguity, perhaps even irony, in Bāṇa’s use of the term
dhārmika can perhaps best be conveyed by the use of quotation marks, as it
has been done throughout this paper. To speak of a “holy man,” that is, the
so-called “holy man,” in the Caṇḍikā episode contradicts neither the mean-
ing of the word dhārmika nor the old man’s behaviour. At the same time, it
is less judgemental than “pseudo-saint” and conveys more of a good-
humoured wink.
Geography
After leaving the temple and the “holy man” at the very end of the forest
interlude, it takes Candrāpīḍa “but a few days” (alpair evāhobhiḥ) to reach
Ujjayinī.109 He rides his horse Indrāyudha (“Indra’s weapon”), which he

107
There are various readings of this line, including differences in how the mark
was obtained: either from an “ill-educated (Buddhist) mendicant” (duḥśikṣitaśra-
maṇa-, eds. SASTRI 51982: 664,2 and KANE 1911: 97,1f., including the commentary
Candrakalā in the former [p. 644,13f.] and KANE’s notes [p. 232f.] in the latter edi-
tion) or after “listening to an ill-educated one” (duḥśikṣitaśravaṇa-, eds. PARAB
3
1908: 399,1, including Bhānucandra’s commentary, p. 399,12 and K 226,21). There
may be a joke in the phrase duḥśikṣitaśramaṇādiṣṭatilaka- (“a mark on the forehead
recommended by an ill-educated [Buddhist] mendicant”), which lies in the juxtaposi-
tion of the mark on the forehead and the Buddhist mendicant (śramaṇa, most likely
understood as a disparaging term to denote a Buddhist monk in Bāṇa’s time). For
forehead marks are particularly uncommon with Buddhist traditions. The reading
śravaṇa might have been motivated by the need to resolve this apparent incongruity.
108
The former reading pratiśayita is accepted by PETERSON (K 227,22). In the
preceding description of the temple area, Bāṇa fancies (by way of an utprekṣā) that
black antelopes seem as if they had adopted the same practice of “importuning”
(pratiśayita, K 226,6f.; likewise SASTRI 51982: 642,1). PARAB 31908: 397,9 reads
pratiśayana, which is glossed with pratitalpa by Bhānucandra (p. 397,33); SASTRI
comments his reading with kṛtapratiśayana (p. 642,9).
109
K 229,12–14.

received as a gift from the King of Persia (pārasīkādhipati) and which had
magically emerged from the sea.110 This is the same horse he rode all the
way from Kailāsa, far more than a thousand kilometres covering moun-
tains, river fords, and woodlands. While it is futile to calculate the distanc-
es a fictitious character can travel on a supernatural horse, we may assume
that the army accompanying Candrāpīḍa without supernatural mounts will
have kept with its commander’s pace in more mundane dimensions. Given
the storytelling is plausible and consistent, the Caṇḍikā temple should thus
be located somewhere in or near the ancient region of Malwa, on the route
from the (Trans-)Himalayan mountains, i.e., north of Ujjayinī.
This city is well-known from a great number of works of Sanskrit litera-
ture and plays a central role in the history of early Śaivism. According to
Kauṇḍinya’s commentary on the Pāśupatasūtras,111 God (bhagavat) de-
scended to Kāyāvataraṇa (or Kārohaṇa, today’s Karvan, Gujarat) in the
form of a Brahmin and walked northeast to Ujjayinī (today’s Ujjain,
Madhya Pradesh, about 380 kilometres on modern roads). There he initiat-
ed his only pupil Kuśika. According to the original Skandapurāṇa, which
was also in existence in Bāṇa’s time,112 Śiva alias Lakulīśa descended to
earth in Kārohaṇa, and after granting yogic perfection to a Brahmin called
Somaśarman he went to Ujjayinī and initiated Kauśika. After that, Lākulin
went north and initiated Gārgya and Mitra in Jāmbumārga and Mathurā
respectively as well as a fourth pupil in Kānyakubja. All four were taught
the pañcārtha doctrine by Śiva/Lākulin.113
The temple of Śiva Mahākāla in Kālidāsa’s Meghadūta is said to be
near Ujjayinī and somewhere on the way north to Daśapura (today’s Man-
dasor) in the Malwa region.114 These and other examples that predate the

110
K 78,2–4. The horse’s former “abode in the sea” (udadhinivāsa) is mentioned
on p. 79,3f., its “roaming in the ocean” (jalanidhisaṃcaraṇa) on p. 79,8.
111
Kauṇḍinya’s Pañcārthabhāṣya ad Pāśupatasūtra 1.1 (3,15–4,12); see also
BAKKER 2000: 14 and BISSCHOP 2006: 45.
112
The earliest manuscript of the Skandapurāṇa is dated 810 CE (see YOKOCHI
2013: 3). Text-critical evidence, however, points to a date of its first redaction
around 600 CE (BAKKER 2014: 3f.), possibly in the period between 570 to 620 CE
(ibid.: 137).
113
BISSCHOP 2006: 44–50, BAKKER 2007: 1–3. Besides the accounts from the
Skandapurāṇa, evidence for the Pāśupata history in Mathurā is also well attested
from a pillar inscription dated 360 CE (see BHANDARKAR 1931–32 and BISSCHOP
2006: 45f.).
114
Meghadūta 1.36–39. Ujjayinī, alias Viśālā, is mentioned in vv. 1.28 and 31,
the ancient city Daśapura in v. 1.50. On the air route from one city to the other is
composition of the Kādambarī demonstrate that the Caṇḍikā temple is

situated in one of the historical centres of early Śaivism, and Bāṇa’s plac-
ing it there is certainly not purely fictional.
Imperial history and humour
Imperial history suggests an alternative approach to the interpretation of

the Caṇḍikā passage. In consideration of the historical situation of the au-
thor and his patron King Harṣa, the unflattering depiction – to say the least
– of the “holy man” and his temple might be in debt to Harṣa’s temporary
defeat by Pulakeśin II, the well-known ruler from the South Indian Cālukya
dynasty, in the year 630 CE.115 Since the Caṇḍikā temple should be located
somewhere north of the Narmadā river and within the reign of Harṣa, Bāṇa
possibly ridiculed the temple dweller in order to level criticism against
South Indian traditions which were gaining foothold in the north. He did
this by deconstructing, as it were, the southerner’s Tantric cults by denying
it seriousness and power, and he did this with good sense of humour. De-
spite the political conflicts, the representation of the temple and the Dravid-
ian shows no obvious traits of hostility or malice. Finally, it ends on a jovi-
al and conciliatory note. In fact, Candrāpīḍa does not leave without leaving
plenty of riches, thus fulfilling a desire of the old “holy man.”
Closing remarks on poetic license

One final word on the fictional character of the Kādambarī may be in place
here. It is not despite but exactly because the Kādambarī is a fictional work
of literature that some of its descriptive passages can be so remarkably
naturalistic. In the episode of the “holy man” (as in many other passages),
Bāṇa makes use of poetic license not in order to fantasise in the sense of
purely diverting from real-world phenomena, but, on the contrary, to repre-
sent these phenomena more vividly and in a more concentrated form than
this would be possible in non-fictional accounts. The ambiguity of the reli-
gious life of the “holy man,” his eclectic use of rites and practices, the utter

situated the temple of Mahākāla, also called Śūlin (v. 1.37), Caṇḍīśvara (1.36), and
Paśupati (1.39), the husband of Bhavānī (ibid.).
115
This connection was suggested to me by Csaba Dezső. The complex situation
of Harṣa’s military conflicts with many other dynasties throughout the Indian sub-
continent is tentatively reconstructed in BAKKER 2014: 104–113. Compare KULKE &
ROTHERMUND 2010: 141; SASTRI 1999: 134f.

lack of success in all his efforts, and his relieving but also tragic lack of
power have sprung from the author’s lively imagination as much as from
his rare observation skills and an outstanding literary talent.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Kādambarī (K) of Bāṇabhaṭṭa

Kādambarī. Ed. P. Peterson. Bombay: Government Central Book De-
pôt, 1883.
Other editions used:
KALE, M.R. 11896. Kadambari. Bombay: Shāradā Kridan Press.
KALE, M.R. 41968. Bāṇa’s Kādambarī. Pūrvabhāga Complete (ed. with
new Sanskrit commentary Tattvaprakāśikā, introduction, notes and a
literal English translation). Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass Publishers.
KANE, P.V. 1911. The Kādambarī of Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Pūrvabhāga (Part 2).
Bombay: Nirṇaya-Sāgara Press.
PARAB, K.P. 31908 [11890]. The Kādambarī of Bāṇabhaṭṭa and his son
with the commentaries of Bhanuchandra and his disciple Siddhachan-
dra. Bombay: Nirnaya Sagar Press.
SASTRI, S.K. 51982. Kādambarī (Pūrvārdha) of Bāṇabhaṭṭa. Ed. with
The Chandrakalā and Vidyotinī Sanskrit and Hindī Commentaries.
Vārāṇasī: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Sansthan.
Kumārasambhava of Kālidāsa
The Birth of Kumára. Ed. and Translated by D. Smith. New York: Clay
Sanskrit Library, 2005.
Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata
Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharatamuni. With the Commentary Abhinavabhāratī by
Abhinavaguptācārya. Vol. 1. Eds. K. Krishnamoorthy, B. Muni, M.
Rāmakṛṣnakavi, V.M. Kulkarni, T. Nandi. Vadodara: Oriental Institute,
1992 [4th revised edition].
Pancārthabhāṣya of Kauṇḍinya
Pasupata Sutras with Pancharthabhashya of Kaundinya. Ed. R.A.
Sastri. Trivandrum: Oriental Manuscript Library of the University of
Travancore.
Padatāḍitaka of Śyāmilaka
See VASUDEVA 2005.
Brahmayāmalatantra
See KISS 2015.
Meghadūta of Kālidāsa
The Meghadūta of Kālidāsa. Ed. M.R. Kale. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
2005 (corr. ed., 2nd repr.).
Yaśastilaka of Somadeva Sūri
The Yaśastilaka of Somadeva Sūri With the Commentary of Śrutadeva
Sūri. Ed. M.P. Śivadatta and K.P. Parab. 2 Vols. Bombay: Nirnaya
Sagara Press, 1901–1903.
Rāmāyaṇa
Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa: text as constituted in its critical edition. Ed. R.T.
Vyas. Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1992.
Līlāvaī of Koūhala
Līlāvaī. A Romantic Kāvya in Māhārāṣṭrī Prākrit of Koūhala, with the
Sanskrit Vr̥ tti of a Jaina Author. Ed. A.N. Upadhye. Bombay: Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan, 1949.
Vāsavadattā of Subandhu
Vāsavadattā of Subandhu. Ed. J.M. Shukla. Jodhpur: Rajasthan Oriental
Research Institute, 1966.
Śivadharma
Śivadharma. Institut Français, Pondichéry, transcript no. 72 (copy of
Adyar Library, Madras ms. no.: 75425). Transcribed by the staff of
Muktabodha under the supervision of Mark Dyczkowski, even though
mistakably titled Śivadharmottara, http://www.muktabodha.org (ac-
cessed August 5, 2019).
Śiśupālavadha of Māgha
Śiśupālavadham: Śrīmallināthakṛta ‘sarvaṅkaṣā’ vyākhyāyutaṃ, ‘maṇi-
prabhā’ nāmaka hindīṭīkāsahitam. Ed. Bh. Miśra, transl. H. Śāstrī.
Vārāṇasī: Caukhambā Vidyābhavan, 1961.
Skandapurāṇa
See YOKOCHI 2013.
Svacchandatantra
The Svacchandatantram with Commentary “udyota” of Ksemaraja. 2
Vols. Ed. V. Dwivedi. Delhi: Delhi Parimal Publications, 1985.
Harṣacarita of Bāṇa
Śrīharṣacaritamahākāvyam. Bâṇabhaṭṭa’s biography of king Harsha-
vardhana of Sthâṇviśvara with Śaṅkara’s commentary Saṅketa.
Ed. A.A. Führer. Bombay: Government Central Press, 1909.

ACHARYA, D. 2011. Pāśupatas. In: Knut A. Jacobsen (ed.), Brill’s Encyclope-

dia of Hinduism. Vol. 2. Leiden etc.: Brill, pp. 458–466.
ADLURI, V. & BAGCHEE, J. 2014. The Nay Science: A History of German
Indology. New York etc.: Oxford University Press.
APTE , V.S. 1957. The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Revised & En-
larged Edition. Poona: Prasad Prakashan (3rd repr. Kyoto: Rinsen Book
Company, 1992).
BAKKER, H.T. 2000. Somaśarman, Somavaṃśa and Somasiddhānta: A Pāśu-
pata Tradition in Seventh-Century Daksịnạ Kosala. In: R. Tsuchida and A.
Wezler (eds.), Harānandalaharī: Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru
Hara on His Seventieth Birthday, Reinbek: Dr. Inge Wezler Verlag für
Orientalistische Fachpublikationen, pp. 1–19.
2007. Thanesar, the Pāśupata Order and the Skandapurāṇa. Studies in the
Skandapurāṇa IX. Journal of Indological Studies 19, pp. 1–16.
2014. The World of the Skandapurāṇa: Northern India in the Sixth and Sev-
enth Centuries. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
BHANDARKAR, D.R. 1931–32. Mathura Pillar Inscription of Chandragupta II:
G.E. 61. In: H. Sastri et al. (eds.), Epigraphia Indica and Record of the Ar-
chaeological Survey of India. Vol. 21. Delhi: Manager of Publications, pp. 1–9.
BISGAARD, D.J. 1994. Social Conscience in Sanskrit Literature. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass Publishers.
BISSCHOP, P.C. 2006. Early Śaivism and the Skandapurāṇa. Sects and Cen-
tres. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
BRONNER, Y. 2014. The Nail-Mark That Lit the Bedroom. Biography of a
Compound. In: Bronner & Schulman & Tubb 2014, pp. 237–262.
BRONNER, Y. & SHULMAN, D. & TUBB, G. 2014 (eds.). Innovations and
Turning Points. Towards a History of Kāvya Literature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
DESHPANDE, M.M. 2010. Pañca Gauḍa and Pañca Drāviḍa: Contested Borders
of a Traditional Classification. Studia Orientalia 108, pp. 29–58.
DEZSŐ, Cs. 2012. The Story of the Irascible Yakṣa and the King Who Nearly
Beheaded Himself in Dhanapāla’s Tilakamañjarī. Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society Series 3, 22, 1, pp. 73–91.
DEZSŐ, C. & VASUDEVA, S. 2009. The Quartet of Causeries by Śyāmilaka,
Vararuci, Śūdraka & Īśvaradatta. New York: New York University Press,
JJC Foundation.
GABRIEL, G. 2014. Fiktion, Wahrheit und Erkenntnis in der Literatur. In: C.

Demmerling, I.V. Ferran (eds.), Wahrheit, Wissen und Erkenntnis in der
Literatur: Philosophische Beiträge. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 163–180.
HALBFASS. W. 1988. India and Europe. An Essay in Understanding, Albany:
State University of New York Press.
HARDY, A. 2007. The Temple Architecture of India. Chichester: Wiley.
HATLEY, S.H. 2007. The Brahmayāmalatantra And Early Śaiva Cults of Yo-
ginīs. A Dissertation in Religious Studies. Unpublished PhD thesis, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania.
HUECKSTEDT, R.A. 1985. The style of Bāna: an introduction to Sanskrit prose
poetry, Lanham: University Press of America.
KALE, M.R. 1924. A Literal English Translation of Bâṇa’s Kâdambarî (Pûrv-
abhâga Complete). Bombay: Vâman Yashvant & Co.
KISS, Cs. 2015. The Brahmayāmala or Picumata. Vol. 2. The Religious Ob-
servances and Sexual Rituals of the Tantric Practitioner: Chapters 3, 21,
and 45. A Critical Edition, Annotated Translation and Analysis. Pondicher-
ry/Hamburg: Institut français de Pondichéry, École française d'Extrême-
Orient, Asien-Afrika-Institut, Universität Hamburg.
KULKE, K. & ROTHERMUND, D. 2010 (1982). Geschichte Indiens. Von der
Induskultur bis heute. München: CH Beck.
LAYNE, Q. 1991 Kādambarī: A Classic Sanskrit Story of Magical Transfor-
mations. New York etc.: Garland publishing, Inc.
LIENHARD, S. 1984. A History of Classical Poetry. Sanskrit – Pali – Prakrit.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
LORENZEN, D. 1972. The Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas, Two Lost Śaivite Sects,
New Delhi: Thomson Press.
LORENZETTI, T. 2015. Understanding the Hindu Temple. History, Symbols
and Forms. Berlin: EB-Verlag Dr. Brandt.
MAAS, P. 2013–14. On Discourses of Dharma and the Pañcatantra. Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 55, pp. 1–31.
MEHTA, K.V. & JOSHI, L.H. 1917. A Literal Elaborate Translation of Bana’s
Kadambari. Ahmedabad: N.C. Bodiwala.
MEISTER, M.W. & DHAKY, M.A. 1991. Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Ar-
chitecture. Vol. 2: North India. Part 2: Period of Early Maturity. New Del-
hi: Oxford University Press.
MONIER-WILLIAMS, M. 1872. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.
OLSON, C. 2015. Indian Asceticism: Power, Violence, and Play. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.

QUACKENBOS, G.P. 1917. The Sanskrit Poems of Mayūra. Edited with a

translation and notes and an introduction, together with the text and trans-
lation of Bāṇa's Caṇḍīśataka. New York: Columbia University Press.
RAJAPPA, P. 2010. Kadambari. New Delhi: Penguin Books India.
RIDDING, C.M. 1974 (1896). The Kādambarī of Bāṇa. New Delhi: Oriental
Books Reprint Corp.
SAHNI, K.C. 1998. The Book of Indian Trees. Oxford/New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
SANDERSON, A. 2004. Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory
of the King’s Brahmanical Chaplain. Indo-Iranian Journal 47, pp. 229–300.
2006. The Lākulas: New evidence of a system intermediate between
Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism. The Indian Philosophical
Annual 24, pp. 143–217.
2009. The Śaiva Age. The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Early
Medieval Period. In: Sh. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tan-
trism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, pp. 41–349.
2015. Tolerance, Exclusivity, Inclusivity, and Persecution in Indian Religion
During the Early Mediaeval Period. In: J. Makinson (ed.), In Honoris Causa:
Essays in Honour of Aveek Sarkar. London: Allen Lane, pp. 155–224.
SASTRI, K.A. 1999. A History of South India. From Prehistoric Times to the
Fall of Vijayanagara. Oxford: University Press.
SCHARPÉ, A.A.M. 1937. Bana’s Kadambari – vertaling van het Sanskrit in het
Nederlands, van het Uttarabhaga en van gedeelten van het Purvabhaga,
met inleiding, aantekeningen en lexicographisch appendix. Leuven:
Vlaamsche Drukkerij.
SHULMAN, D. 2014. Persons Compounded and Confounded. A Reading of
Bāṇa’s Kādambarī. In: Bronner & Schulman & Tubb 2014, pp. 277–307.
SIEGEL, L. 1989. Laughing Matters: Comic Tradition in India. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
SMITH, D.S. 2009. Innuendo and Irony in Bāṇa’s Treatment of Kings and
Ascetics. In: P.M. Rossi, C. Pieruccini (eds.), Kings and Ascetics in Indian
Classical Literature. Milano: Cisalpino, pp. 149–161.
STIETENCRON, H. 1983. Die Göttin Durgā Mahiśāsuramardinī: Mythos, Dar-
stellung und geschichtliche Rolle bei der Hinduisierung Indiens. Visible
Religion 2, pp. 118–166.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA. Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la littera-
ture hindoue tantrique. 3 Vols. (a-au, k-d, ṭ-ph). Eds. Gerhard Oberham-
mer, Hélène Brunner und André Padoux (Vol 1 & 2); D. Goodall & M.
Rastelli (Vol. 3). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wis-
senschaften, 2000, 2004, 2013.
TAYLOR, M. 2007. The Fall of the Indigo Jackal. The Discourses of Division and
Pūrṇabhadra’s Pañcatantra. Albany: State University of New York Press.
TIEKEN, H. 2001. Kāvya in South India. Old Tamil Caṅkam Poetry. Groning-
en: Egbert Forsten.
TIEKEN, H. 2014. Bāṇa’s Death in the Kādambarī. In: Bronner & Schulman &
Tubb 2014, pp. 263–276.
TÖRZSÖK, J. 2011. Kāpālikas. In: Knut A. Jacobsen (ed.), Brill’s Encyclopedia
of Hinduism. Vol. 3. Leiden etc.: Brill, pp. 355–361.
TRIPATHY, J. 2007. Kādambarī studies in the light of Bhānuchandra. Delhi:
Pratibha Prakashan.
TUBB, G. 2014. On the Boldness of Bāṇa. In: Bronner & Schulman & Tubb
2014, pp. 308–354.
VASUDEVA, S. 2005. Three Satires [by] Nīlakaṇṭha, Kṣemendra & Bhallaṭa.
New York: New York University Press.
WARDER, A.K. 1983. Indian Kāvya Literature. Vol. 4: The Ways of Originali-
ty (Bāṇa to Dāmodaragupta). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
WARDER, A.K. 2009. Indian Kāvya Literature. Vol. 1: Literary Criticism.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (2nd rev. ed.).
YOKOCHI, Y. 1999. Mahisāsuramardinī Myth and Icon. Studies in the
Skandapurāna II. Studies in the History of Indian Thought (Indo-Shisōshi
Kenkyū) 11, pp. 65–103.
YOKOCHI, Y. 2013. The Skandapurāṇa III: Adhyāyas 34.1-61, 53-69: The
Vindhyavāsinī Cycle. Groningen: Brill.

TANTRIC RITUAL COMMUNITIES

Whose dharma? Śaiva and Śākta community rules

and Dharmaśāstric prescriptions
Judit Törzsök1
Introduction
Shared rules, whether they are explicit or implicit, are among the character-
istics that define any given community. In this paper, I propose to examine
different sets of rules of conduct that various Śaiva Tantric communities
claimed to follow, or rather, rules that their scriptures prescribed them to
follow. There are several limitations to such an investigation. As it is com-
monly pointed out, scriptures – as many other types of written sources – are
prescriptive and therefore cannot be taken to reflect the social reality of
their time. This is true in more than one sense. Scriptures and the rules they
define may represent an ideal state of affairs, thus they may include injunc-
tions that were never actually followed in reality. At the same time, there
may have been additional rules that were left unmentioned for various rea-
sons: because they went against some of the principles established in the
scriptures or elsewhere, because they were not considered worth mention-
ing (no matter how interesting they would be for us now), or because they
had a limited sphere of application, for instance in the case of certain local
rules.

1
The first version of this paper was delivered at the workshop “Visions of Com-
munity. Tantric Communities in Context: Sacred Secrets and Public Rituals” (Febru-
ary 5–7, 2015, Vienna, Austrian Academy of Sciences), in which I was able to parti-
cipate thanks to the support of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) VISCOM SFB
Project. I would like to thank Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli, and Vincent Eltschinger
for inviting me to this event. I am grateful for all the comments made by the partici-
pants present, in particular to Jung Lan Bang for discussing difficult passages of the
Tantrasadbhāva and sharing her draft edition as well as manuscript photos, to Sha-
man Hatley for helping to understand obscure expressions in the Brahmayāmala, and
to Csaba Kiss for corrections, comments, and issues raised in the last stages of the
writing of this paper.
And there are additional pitfalls. Tantric scriptures, just as non-Tantric

ones, were meant to be applicable eternally and without any restrictions as to
time and place. This implies, first of all, that they are notoriously difficult to
date or to locate. But it also means that we cannot always know what is
chronologically or geographically particular in them. In the case of commu-
nity rules, it would be difficult to tell where and when particular injunctions
were to be applied or whether certain rules were pan-Indian or local.
With these problems in mind, what one can actually study in scriptural
sources is not some factually verifiable historical reality but rather the self-
representation of certain religious groups who composed or tried to follow
certain scriptures and their prescriptions. It may be disappointing not to
stumble upon hard-and-fast historical data. However, such self-representation
is actually part of the historical reality that we are trying to understand.
The picture appears to be even further removed from what may have
been real when we attempt to compare Tantric prescriptions to Brahmanical
orthopraxy. Orthopraxy as laid down in the Dharmaśāstras seems to have
been a theoretical framework, or, in any case, one could say that most
Dharmaśāstric rules “were considered normative within particular Brahmin
circles at particular times, though we cannot now know where or when
exactly.” (LUBIN 2015: 228)
This leaves us with a very vague basis indeed: comparing Tantric pre-
scriptions with Dharmaśāstric ones may seem like comparing two ghosts.
However, I would again argue that the situation is not as bad as it seems.
First, similarly to Tantras, Dharmaśāstras can also be read to see how cer-
tain religious groups represented themselves. Thus, we compare the self-
representations of different religious communities, not what they actually
were or what they did. Second, concerning Dharmaśāstras, it has been ob-
served that their terminology was also used in inscriptional sources that
were to define local or regional law. Whatever are the full implications of
this, the use of Dharmaśāstric terminology in epigraphical legalese shows
that Dharmaśāstric prescriptions had more than a mere theoretical exist-
ence, even if they provided a framework or a normative model rather than a
law-code proper.
In what follows, I shall limit my investigations to certain community
rules called samayas that figure in Tantric scriptures; but one must bear in
mind that there is a corpus of texts that establishes Śaiva rules for the so-
called lay (laukika) Śaivas who did not receive Tantric initiation: the
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 207
Śivadharma corpus.2 The Śivadharmas were perhaps the first body of texts
that attempted to define a particular set of rules for Śaiva communities; and
Tantric scriptures may in fact presuppose their existence and application. I
do not intend to discuss the Śivadharma texts here, which are being edited
and studied;3 but, by way of introduction, in order to show how lay Śaivism
proposes different solutions compared to orthodox Brahmanical proce-
dures, I would like to present a Purāṇic example.
Śiva versus Manu: a Purāṇic example

The example comes from the Skandapurāṇa, datable in its earliest form to
around the end of the sixth century CE. I have chosen to present this case
because it shows very clearly how Dharmaśāstric principles may have been
and probably were opposed by distinctly Śaiva ideas and solutions. The story
is related in chapter 52 of the text, which forms part of a series of chapters
dealing with hells and how people can be saved from suffering in hell, par-
ticularly by their sons.4 The idea of the son saving his ancestors agrees with
Brahmanical ideology. However, the way the birth of the son is ensured is
not according to traditional prescriptions. The story runs as follows.
A Brahmin of the Gautama lineage called Bhūmanyu marries an ātreyī

woman called Yaśā. They do not succeed in having a son, and Bhūmanyu
is getting old. One day Bhūmanyu, dejected, talks to his wife about a solu-
tion. He says: “People desire to reach a better world and to get rid of their
debt towards their ancestors by having a son. I am already very old and still
have not got a child. With my full consent, you should resort to someone in
my lineage (gotra) to have a son. With folded hands, I beg you to do this.”5

2
For the texts belonging to this corpus and their place in Śaiva literature, see
SANDERSON 2014: 2–4.
3
Several people are working on various texts belonging to this corpus, such as
Peter Bisschop, Florinda de Simini, Nirajan Kafle, Timothy Lubin, Anil Kumar Ach-
arya, Nina Mirnig, and Paolo Magnone.
4
For the edition and synopsis of this chapter, see Skandapurāṇa vol. IIB.
5
I give a summary rather than a translation above. For reference, here is the
Sanskrit text, Skandapurāṇa 52.29–32: gautamasyānvaye vipro nāmnā kṛṣṇa iti
prabhuḥ | tasya putro ’bhavat khyāto bhūmanyur iti nāmataḥ | tasya patny abhavat
subhrūr ātreyī nāmato yaśā || sa kadācit kṛtodvāho bhūmanyur nāma gautamaḥ |
nāvindata sutaṃ tasyā jarayā cābhisaṃvṛtaḥ || sa bhāryām āha duḥkhārta idaṃ
vacanakovidaḥ | “putreṇecchanti lokāṃś ca anṛṇāś ca bhavanty uta | jarāpariṇataś

In his request, Bhūmanyu applies a well-known principle taught for in-

stance by the Manusmṛti (9.59), which prescribes that if a couple fails to
have a son, another male member of the family may replace the husband,
provided the necessary authorisation has been obtained:
If the line is about to die out, a wife who is duly appointed may ob-
tain the desired progeny through a brother-in-law or a relative be-
longing to the same ancestry.6
Now in our story, the wife replies the following:
I can’t believe my ears! You cannot have said this! How could
someone like me even think of such a terrible thing? I was born in
the noble family of Atri and came, through marriage, to the eminent
Gautama family. How could someone like me commit such a shame-
ful act, condemned by the virtuous? Those who desire wealth, happi-
ness, sons, a family, or a better rebirth practice asceticism. So go and
practice asceticism yourself, great sage!7
After this, the wife gives several epic and Purāṇic examples of sages who
managed to have a son thanks to their asceticism, and then concludes:
You should also practice asceticism with full absorption of your

mind, and you shall obtain an eminent son who will have extraordi-
nary yogic powers. When Atri, Brahmā’s son himself, saw me once,
he said: This woman shall have a true son. This prediction should
come true. Whatever ascetic power I have been able to accumulate,

cāhaṃ na ca me dṛśyate sutaḥ || sā tvaṃ kaṃcit sagotraṃ me anujñātā mayā śubhe |
abhipadyasva putrārthaṃ yāce tvāṃ prāñjalir nataḥ” ||.
6
Manusmṛti 9.59: devarād vā sapiṇḍād vā striyā samyaṅ niyuktayā | prajepsit-
ādhigantavyā saṃtānasya parikṣaye ||, transl. OLIVELLE 2005: 193. Cf. “On failure
of issue (by her husband) a woman who has been authorised, may obtain, (in the)
proper (manner prescribed), the desired offspring by (cohabitation with) a brother-in-
law or (with some other) Sapinda (of the husband).” (Transl. BÜHLER 21984: 337 )
7
Skandapurāṇa 52.33–35: na mayā śrutam etat te tathā noktaṃ tvayānagha | mādṛśī
katham etad dhi manasāpy abhicintayet || atrīṇāṃ tu kule jātā gautamaṃ kulam āgatā |
madvidhā katham etad dhi kuryāt sadbhir vigarhitam || tapasā dhanam anvicchej jīvitāni
sukhāni ca | putrān kulaṃ ca lokāṃś ca tapaḥ kuru mahāmune ||.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 209
through your grace, you shall have it. Armed with my tapas and
yours, you must worship Rudra.8
Thus, the wife not only rejects Manu’s solution to the problem but even
finds it outrageous. She argues that the replacement of the husband is a
custom condemned by the virtuous. By saying this, she justifies her rejec-
tion through the Dharmaśāstric principle according to which “an activity
that the Āryas praise is righteous (dharma), and what they deplore is un-
righteous (adharma).”9
Let us remark here that the rejection of the levirate is not unknown to
the Manusmṛti either. Contradicting rules are given as to whether the levi-
rate is an approved or rejected practice, and whether it should be stopped
after begetting the first son or having a second one is also permitted. How-
ever, the prohibition appears to concern the remarriage of widows rather
than the replacement of a living husband.10
In any case, using the authority of the virtuous, the wife argues against
the replacement of her husband. She proposes a particularly Śaiva solution
to the problem, which obviously does not come from mainstream Dhar-
maśāstric authorities. Obtaining a son through tapas is certainly not con-
demned by any authority either, therefore such a solution is a legitimate
supplement to what is dharmic. The concluding sentence adds the Śaiva
element already expected all along the argument but not yet overtly ex-
pressed: the tapas accumulated should be used to worship Rudra, who shall
then bestow one’s wish.
The story shows that while lay Śaivism certainly did not claim to go
against the norms of orthopraxy, it had its own solutions that did not neces-
sarily follow what was laid down in Dharmaśāstras.
It is also interesting to note that in the above extract the man represents
the traditional Brahmanical solution borrowed from Manu, and the woman

8
Skandapurāṇa 52.38–40: tathā bhavān api tapaḥ karotu susamādhinā | lapsyase
tvaṃ sutaṃ śreṣṭhaṃ mahāyogabalānvitam || māṃ hi dṛṣṭvā purā prāha atrir brahma-
sutaḥ svayam | satputriṇī bhavitrīyaṃ na mithyā tad bhaviṣyati || tapo ’sti mayi yat kiṃcit
tvatprasādāt samārjitam | tena svena ca saṃyukto rudram ārādhaya prabho ||.
9
Āpastamba Dharmasūtra 1.20.6–7: yat tv āryāḥ kriyamāṇaṃ praśaṃsanti sa
dharmo yad garhante so ’dharmaḥ, transl. OLIVELLE 2000: 57. The same Dhar-
masūtra in fact goes on to warn readers that sometimes the conduct depicted in scrip-
ture is not legitimate in the present day, since the ancients had “extraordinary power”
(tejoviśeṣa) that people lack in later ages (2.13.7–9).
10
See in particular Manusmṛti 9.64–66.

defends the better, more virtuous Śaiva one. Women, along with Śūdras,
were certainly treated better in Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism than in mainstream
Brahmanism, at least in the sense that they had access to some form of ini-
tiation (even to full initiation in the Śākta branches) and therefore hope for
potential liberation, from which they were entirely excluded according to
mainstream Brahmanism. It may not be accidental in our story that it is the
woman that proposes the Śaiva solution.
Whose pledges?
After this detour to Purāṇic Śaivism, let us turn to the so-called samaya
rules or pledges. They are recited at the end of the so-called samaya rite
that introduces new members to the Śaiva Tantric community. Now who
was to follow these rules?
It is often reiterated that women, along with children, the elderly, the
sick, and the like are to be given a so-called “seedless” initiation (nirbīja-
dīkṣā), which excludes the obligation to follow the post-initiatory rules
(samaya). The king, who is too busy to deal with these obligations, is also
included in the list. As it is stated in the locus classicus, Svacchandatantra
4.88:
Children, fools, the elderly, women, kings, and the sick – for these,
initiation is seedless, [i.e.,] it excludes [the obligation to follow] post-
initiatory rules etc.11
All these categories of people are considered to be unable to follow the

rules of the community, therefore they are given an easier version of initia-
tion that is also less powerful.
It is nevertheless surprising to see here that women are considered una-
ble to follow the samaya rules. For the so-called samaya ritual itself, which
is a preliminary to initiation proper (dīkṣā) and which ends with the recita-
tion of the rules to be observed, can also be performed for women, who in

11
SvT 4.88: bālabāliśavṛddhastrībhogabhugvyādhitātmanām | eṣāṃ nirbījikā
dīkṣā samayādivivarjitā ||. According to Kṣemarāja’s commentary, the word “etc.”
refers to other ritual obligations, such as the annual reparatory pavitraka rite
(ādiśabdāt pavitrakādividhiḥ). On this rite, see the entries pavitraka and pavitrāro-
haṇa/pavitrāropaṇa in TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA vol. III, where it is also pointed
out that the earliest Tantras do not describe this rite. Thus, it is possible that the
Svacchanda’s author(s) had something different in mind than Kṣemarāja.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 211
some systems receive their own, female initiation names. It seems quite
absurd to perform the samaya ritual for everybody and to recite the rules to
be observed in front of every neophyte, only to later declare a large number
of them unable to follow these rules. Indeed, this category of reduced initia-
tion is absent from the earliest surviving Tantras of the Śaiva Siddhānta12 as
well as from Śākta scriptures. The “seedless” initiation was most probably
introduced at a relatively later point. I would therefore argue that samayas,
at least initially, were in fact meant to be observed by all initiates.
Samayas in the Śaiva Siddhānta
Scriptures of the Śaiva Siddhānta list relatively few samayas, and they tend
to cluster around four major topics (as numbered below). Traditionally, eight
such rules are given, which figure already in the Nayasūtra of the Niśvāsa.
(1) One set of rules concern different types of nindā, i.e., defamation or
criticism. This is mainly a Śaiva application of the Brahmanical rule that
forbids vedanindā, reviling the Vedas, and gurunindā, reviling the guru.13
In Śaivism, those who must be treated with respect are the deity (deva),
scripture itself (śāstra) that comes from him, the guru, through whom the
deity can act, and other Śaiva initiates (termed variously as sādhakas, pu-
trakas, dīkṣitas, bhaktas). These four nindās are formulated in four tradi-
tional samayas. Fire, which is also identified with the deity, can also be
included in the list. Moreover, it is also sometimes added that one must
always obey one’s guru.
(2) It is always mentioned that nirmālya, i.e., what has been offered to
the deity and been touched or consumed by him (devajagdha), should not
be eaten. According to Bhojadeva, the eight traditional samayas also in-
clude that one should not step over the nirmālya, and this is also mentioned
for instance in the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha, which adds that the
nirmālya should not be given away either.
At this point, the Niśvāsa Nayasūtra (1.104ab) adds something difficult
to interpret: nirmālyabhakṣaṇe vāpi balidāne paśor api (ms.: balidāna-
paśor api). Perhaps it means, as it is understood in GOODALL et al. 2015,
that one must perform a reparatory rite “if the nirmālya is eaten or if it is
given to an animal as a bali offering.” However, I propose that one could also

12
See the entry nirbījadīkṣā by Dominic Goodall in TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA
vol. III.
13
See, e.g., Manusmṛti 4.163 for vedanindā and 2.200 for gurunindā.

understand that the transgression the Niśvāsa condemns here is the eating of
an animal offered in sacrifice, if we read balidānapaśor api with the manu-
scripts and construe it with -bhakṣaṇe as a sāpekṣasamāsa. In other words,
one must perform an expiatory rite “if one eats either the nirmālya or the
animal given in/destined to a bali sacrifice.” I suspect that the prohibition to
eat the animal offering was later forgotten because nobody would have
thought of eating meat anyway, whether prepared as an offering or not.
However, this injunction is in accordance with the frequently repeated rule
which forbids the touching or eating of any offering (naivedya).14
The Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha’s parallel, which is also difficult to
understand, seems to say something along the same lines,15 but it is also
possible that a different transgression is meant here.16 In any case, the
Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha clearly continues by stating that such things
should not be done even when one is in great danger,17 in other words the
nirmālya is not to be used or consumed even if there is a famine or some
similar situation in which one may be allowed to resort to āpaddharma.
Such rules about nirmālya seem to be specifically Śaiva ones.
(3) Some samayas forbid initiates to accept food touched by certain cat-
egories of women: mainly those who have their period or those who have
recently given birth. The traditional eight samayas mention only women
during their menses,18 but scriptures often include women in the post-
partum period (sūtikā).19 Such samayas reproduce faithfully the Brahmani-
cal principle according to which one is not to accept food from these wom-

14
See, for instance, Mataṅgapārameśvara Caryāpāda 1.7: niveditaṃ vā yat kiṃcid
devadevasya śūlinaḥ | na ca tat svopayogāya kartavyaṃ manasāpy atha ||.
15
SvāSS 10.24cd–25ab: nirmālya-laṅghanaṃ [-]dānaṃ [-]bhojanaṃ ca vivarjayet ||
tatrāviplavanaṃ (for tantraviplāvanaṃ?) dānam avinītabaleḥ paśoḥ ||. Perhaps under-
stand “one should avoid stepping over, offering, or eating the nirmālya as well as
divulging scripture and offering (dāna) a sacrificial animal (paśu) whose sacrifice
(bali) has not been performed (avinīta) or has not been performed properly.” (I un-
derstand a kind of sāpekṣasamāsa here, whereby nirmālya- is to be understood or
supplied with -dānaṃ and -bhojanaṃ. The same applies in the next citation.)
16
One could read tantraviplāvanaṃ dānaṃ avinītābale paśau, “divulging the
Tantra or giving it to an uninitiated person (paśu) who lacks any decency or
strength.”
17
SvāSS 10.25cd: nācarec chivamārgasthaḥ mahātayagato ’pi san (clearly cor-
rupt for mahābhayagato ’pi san). sandhi is not applied here at the end of a pāda.
18
See ārtavispṛṣṭam in the Niśvāsa Nayasūtra 1.104cd.
19
See Sarvajñānottara 15.26a: sūtikāyānnasaṃspṛṣṭaṃ; SvāSS 10.24b: saṃ-
spṛṣṭaṃ puṣṭavatyānnaṃ (for puṣpavatyānnaṃ) svaryātānāñ ca sautikam.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 213
en (Manusmṛti 4.232). The Manusmṛti (5.85) also points out that touching
such women, just as touching an outcaste or a corpse, defiles one and re-
quires a purificatory bath. In the same vein, the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃ-
graha’s version adds that one is also to avoid food touched by someone
who has gone to heaven.20
(4) Finally, one should not step on the shadow of a liṅga. By extension
it is also enjoined sometimes that one should not step on the sacrificial area
(catvara).21
These four types of rules – nindā, nirmālya, not accepting food from
certain women, not stepping on any (Śaiva) sacred space – cover the eight
traditional samayas and many other, extended lists in the Śaiva Siddhānta.
Most of them are either taken from Brahmanical rules of conduct or are
Śaiva versions of such rules, except rules concerning the nirmālya and the
liṅga, which appear to be particular Śaiva ones.22
Although, as is obvious from the above rules, the Śaiva Siddhānta cer-
tainly offered a form of Śaivism that conformed to orthopraxy and assimi-
lated Dharmaśāstric principles in its samayas, it also saw itself as different
from the orthodox mainstream and defended its own territory and validity
against Vaidikas, at least at the initial stages represented by the Niśvāsa.
For the Nayasūtra (1.106cd–108ab, just after mentioning the samayas)
clearly warns against returning to Vedic ritual and turning one’s back to the
Śaiva community:
If someone studies the Śaiva scripture and performs Śiva worship,

[but then] sacrifices with Vedic rites, reviles devotees of Śiva, and
venerates and praises Brahmins with other religious affiliations, then
Hāṭha-kuṣmāṇḍa-rudra shall punish that evil-minded person.23
In the same vein, the Nayasūtra (1.105cd–106ab) also warns against fol-
lowing other, possibly Tantric prescriptions:

20
See svaryātānāñ in the above citation.
21
Sarvajñānottara 15.26b: cchāyācatvaralaṃghanam.
22
Note that different rules for the nirmālya apply in Pāñcarātra scriptures, for
which see the entry by Marion Rastelli in TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA vol. III.
23
śivatantram adhītvā tu śivayajñaṃ prakurvvate || yajate vaidikair yajñaiḥ śiva-
bhaktāṃś ca nindate | viprāṃś caivānyaliṅgasthāṃ pūjayet stunateti ca ||
hāṭhakuṣmāṇḍarudras tu taṃ vai badhnāti durmmatim |.

If someone undertakes a solemn religious observance, but then aban-

dons that Śiva-observance and takes up an observance taught in an-
other [= non-Śaiva] scripture, Devī shall punish him for that.24
These prohibitions show that there must have been people who did not
refrain from changing affiliations. Perhaps turncoats or renegades were not
so uncommon, for the boundaries between Śaiva and Vaidika or Śaiva and
non-Śaiva may not have been as strict for common people as more ardent
Śaivas (or Vaidikas) would have preferred. It was probably not considered
impossible to try out (Saiddhāntika) Śaivism and then turn back to Vedic
ritual or try out yet something else, probably remaining, by and large, with-
in the rules and boundaries of orthopraxy.25
Eclectic samayas of early Śākta Tantras

Since Śākta Tantras prescribe nondual Tantric practice such as the offering of
alcohol and meat and the use of various impure substances, one would expect
that their samayas also prescribe whatever goes against orthopraxy. It is
therefore surprising to see that earlier Śākta Tantras appear to give a very
heterogeneous list of samayas: they mix some rules taken over from Dhar-
maśāstras with those that enjoin the very violation of Dharmaśāstric rules.
The short recension of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (of around the seventh
century),26 which is otherwise rather concise on many topics, gives a fairly
detailed list of such samayas, and the list has many parallels in related
texts. With regard to their conformity to Dharmaśāstric prescriptions, there
are three kinds of rules here.

24
pratijñāvratam ārūḍho punas tyaktvā śivaṃ vratam || anyattantravrataṅ gṛhṇed
devī tena nibandhati |. I would like to note here that my translations of the Niśvāsa
passages are indebted to GOODALL et al. 2015. In most cases, I follow the interpreta-
tions given there and alter the translation only slightly, mainly to fit better in the
context of this paper.
25
In this context, it must be remarked that converts are a recognised category of
Śaiva initiates, who normally do not have the right to take up one of the two Śaiva
offices, namely that of the ācāryas or sādhakas. They are called “the reborn,”
punarbhū-, see the entry in TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA vol. III. by Dominic Goodall.
This category, however, comprises prāgliṅgins, i.e., those who had a previous secta-
rian mark. The expression suggests that they were Vaiṣṇava or Saura (worshippers of
the sun god) or Bauddha and did not simply belong to the nonsectarian/mainstream
Brahmanical tradition (vaidika).
26
See TÖRZSÖK 1999 and TÖRZSÖK forthcoming.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 215
First, there are samayas that are in total agreement with orthopraxic pre-
scriptions and are practically taken over from mainstream Brahmanical
sources. We have seen that those samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta that for-
bid people to accept food from women in periods of impurity also belong to
this category. The Siddhayogeśvarīmata and the Tantrasadbhāva, however,
add many other such samayas: one should not perform fruitless acts,27 one
must not look at naked women,28 one must avoid having sex during day-
time if one wishes to succeed in obtaining supernatural powers (or libera-
tion),29 one is not to urinate in certain places such as in a field, on the road,
on a cremation ground, etc.30 All these rules have their equivalents in the
Manusmṛti, either fully agreeing with the Tantric ones or having only some
minor variations. Although they are rather generic rules of conduct, their
inclusion in the samayas suggests a certain adherence to general Dhar-
maśāstric principles. It also betrays perhaps the intention of the authors to
become as authoritative in a particular Śākta community as Manu was
among the orthodox – or to create, as it were, their own Dharmaśāstra.
Second, several samayas are Śaiva inflections of Dharmaśāstric rules,
just as the nindā rules are in the Śaiva Siddhānta. Similarly, the deity or the
scriptures are not to be reviled in Śākta Tantras either.31 One must mentally
invoke and worship the deity at the three junctures of the day,32 and one
must worship one’s ācārya.33

27
SYM 6.46a (= Mālinīvijayottara 8.133a): niṣphalaṃ naiva ceṣṭeta. (See also
TSB 9.531c: niṣphalāṃ varjayec ceṣṭāṃ.) Cf. Manusmṛti 4.63a: na kurvīta
vṛthāceṣṭāṃ, 4.70c: na karma niṣphalaṃ kuryān.
28
SYM 6.47c: na nagnāṃ vanitāṃ paśyen (see also TSB 9.532cd). Cf. Manu-
smṛti 4.53b: nagnāṃ nekṣeta ca striyam.
29
SYM 6.48cd: grāmadharmaṃ sadā varjyaṃ vāsare siddhim icchatā (See TSB
9.534cd: grāmadharma na kartavyaṃ vāsare siddhim icchatā.) Cf. Manusmṛti
11.174: maithunaṃ tu samāsevya puṃsi yoṣiti vā dvijaḥ | goyāne ’psu divā caiva
savāsāḥ snānam ācaret ||.
30
SYM 6.51cd–52ab: kṣetramārgaikavṛkṣeṣu śmaśānāyataneṣu ca | viṇmūtra[ṃ]
śayan[aṃ] vāpi na kuryān mantravit kvacit. See TSB 9.547cd–548: śayanaṃ naiva
kartavyaṃ ekavṛkṣe catuṣpathe || kṣetre caiva śmaśāne ca vane copavaneṣu ca |
devāgāre nadītīre bhasmagomayamadhyataḥ || viṇmūtraṃ naiva kartavyaṃ
ṣṭhīvanaṃ maithunaṃ tathā |. Cf. Manusmṛti 4.45cd–46: na mūtraṃ pathi kurvīta na
bhasmani na govraje || na phālakṛṣṭe na jale na cityāṃ na ca parvate | na jīrṇade-
vāyatane na valmīke kadācana ||.
31
In the SYM for instance śāstranindā is mentioned in 6.45c, while 45ab enjoins
naivedya for the deities whenever one eats (as does the TSB in 9.531a).
32
Śakti in the SYM (6.49ab: traiḥkālaṃ cintayec chaktiṃ sakalīkṛtavigrahaḥ);

Third, many samayas are completely unparalleled in Dharmaśāstras.

Some of them are merely specific to certain Śākta texts, for instance that
the words ḍākinī34 or rere35 should not be uttered, probably because they
carry particular power and are therefore considered dangerous. But other
samayas clearly go against Dharmaśāstric prescriptions, for instance that
one should not revile alcohol or those who are unmanly (klībam).36
The Brahmanical aversion to alcohol is well-known. It is perhaps less
often pointed out that those who are considered unmanly (whatever that
means exactly, including the impotent, the effeminate, transvestites, her-
maphrodites, etc.), designated with the generic word klība,37 are also treated
with much contempt. In Manusmṛti 3.150, klības are put in the same group
as outcastes, thieves, and atheists: “Brahmins who are thieves, fallen from
their caste, or impotent or who follow the livelihood of infidels – Manu has
declared these unfit to participate at divine or ancestral offerings.”38

deva in the TSB (9.565c: traiḥkālyaṃ pūjayed devaṃ).
33
See SYM 6.49cd: vanded ācāryam āsannaṃ dūrasthaṃ dhyānayogataḥ.
34
SYM 6.51ab: ḍākinīti na vaktavyaṃ pramādān mantriṇā –m– api; the word
śākinī is mentioned in the parallel in TSB 9.533ab: śākinīti na vaktavyaṃ. Words deno-
ting dangerous female spirits (ḍākinī or śākinī) were not to be pronounced in general.
35
In SYM 6.46cd: rereśabdaṃ sadākālaṃ na prayuñjyā[t] kadācana. A similar
injunction is formulated concerning the word hehe in TSB 9.532ab: rereśabdaṃ na
coccāryaṃ heheśabdaṃ tathaiva ca.
36
SYM 6.45cd: surāṃ klībaṃ na nindyāt, with a parallel in TSB 9.542cd ff. SvT
5.48 also includes other commonly avoided substances that one should not be dis-
gusted of: meat, fish, and so on. Moreover, those who do or do not obey general rules
of conduct (ācāra) should not be treated with disgust either.
37
See OLIVELLE’s note on Manusmṛti 3.150 (p. 263–264): “[T]he term klība has
been subject to widely different interpretations. It probably did have a range of mean-
ings, and in different contexts may have assumed somewhat different meanings. In
general, it refers to males who are in some way sexually dysfunctional or deviate from
the culturally constructed notions of masculinity. Such individuals include the impo-
tent, the effeminate, transvestites, hermaphrodites and the like. This term does not refer
to castrated eunuchs; I think the term ṣaṇḍha indicates such a person, although there is
scholarly disagreement even with regard to this. A verse of Kātyāyana cited in the
Dāyabhāga (5.8) gives a definition of klība: ‘If a man’s urine does not foam, if his stool
sinks in water, if his penis has no erection or sperm, he is called a klība.’”
38
Manusmṛti 3.150: ye stenapatitaklībā ye ca nāstikavṛttayaḥ | tān havyakavyayor
viprān anarhān manur abravīt ||, transl. OLIVELLE 2005: 116. Cf. “Manu has declared
that those Brahmanas who are thieves, outcasts, eunuchs, or atheists are unworthy (to
partake) of oblations to the gods and manes.” (transl. BÜHLER 21984: 103).
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 217
Eunuchs are also said to have a polluting presence (if they watch a
Brahmin eat, for example).39 As to inheritance, Manu says: “Eunuchs [or
rather, those who are unmanly, klība J.T.] and outcasts, (persons) born
blind or deaf, the insane, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in
any organ (of action or sensation), receive no share.”40
As the last verse (as well as other passages) of Manu show, people who
have any physical defect also belong to the bottom of the Brahmanical hi-
erarchy – and it is precisely these people that should not be despised ac-
cording to the longer list of samayas in the Tantrasadbhāva:
The deformed, the depressed, eunuchs, the unmanly, the blind, and
those who suffer [from any illness] [...] should not be treated with
contempt.41
Women, who – just as eunuchs and unmanly males – are considered poten-
tially polluting in Brahmanical orthopraxy, are also included in the list of
those who should not be reviled in Tantric sources.42 Furthermore, in the
Tantrasadbhāva many outcastes and low-status members of the Brahmani-
cal society are enumerated among those who must not be treated with con-
tempt: tribal people such as the Bhillas and Ḍombas, fishermen (kaivarta),
foreigners (mleccha), wrestlers (malla), leather-makers (carmakāraka), and
so on. At the end of the list, the Tantrasadbhāva also mentions that, in ad-
dition, others who have not been mentioned should not be reviled either.43

39
Manusmṛti 3.239: cāṇḍālaś ca varāhaś ca kukkuṭaḥ śvā tathaiva ca | rajasvalā
ca ṣaṇḍhaś ca nekṣerann aśnato dvijān ||. “A Caṇḍāla, a pig, a cock, a dog, a menst-
ruating woman, or a eunuch must not look at the Brahmins while they are eating.”
(transl. OLIVELLE 2005: 120).
40
Transl. BÜHLER 21984: 372. Manusmṛti 9.201: anaṃśau klībapatitau jātya-
ndhabadhirau tathā | unmattajaḍamūkāś ca ye ca ke cin nirindriyāḥ ||. Cf.
OLIVELLE’s translation (2005: 200), who understands (against the commentators and
Bühler) nirindriya also to refer to the absence of manly strength: “The following
receive no shares: the impotent, outcastes, those born blind or deaf, the insane, the
mentally retarded, mutes, and anyone lacking manly strength.”
41
TSB 9.552cd... 555a: vairūpyaṃ duḥkhitaṃ śaṇḍhaṃ klībaṃ andhaṃ tathātu-
ram || ...na nindeta varārohe.
42
See 6.45cd in the very heterogeneous list of the SYM: striyaṃ śāstraṃ surāṃ
klībaṃ na nindyāt kanyakām api. “One should not despise women, the scripture,
alcohol, the unmanly, and young girls.”
43
See the following provisional edition of the passage kindly provided by Jung
Lan Bang. Because of the focus of this paper, textual problems, which remain quite

See also a similar list in the Kubjikāmata 5.65cd–66ab, mentioning wres-

tlers (malla), leather-makers (carmakāraka), liquor-sellers (dhvaja), butch-
ers (sūnākara), fish-killers (matsyaghāta), and hunters (lubdhaka).44
This set of samayas thus appears to defend several categories of those
who are marginalised according to Brahmanical rules.
Now was there some sense of social justice or equality that prompted
our authors to establish such samayas? I am afraid there is no statement to
this effect. There is, however, one passage in the Brahmayāmala that ap-
pears to give a theological justification that comes relatively close to re-
vealing a certain sense of equality.
The passage in question starts with an enumeration of things and people
that are not to be hurt or spoken ill of (na dūṣayet) according to Bhairava’s
command: those who are unmanly, madmen, drunkards, those who are
delirious, naked, or are absorbed in sexual union, alcohol, women, and so
on. The text then goes on to say that since the goddesses and Śiva can be
found everywhere, one should not revile anyone or anything subject to
decay or old age, or someone or something deformed. A practitioner who
abides in knowledge,45 who has received the samayas and intends to follow
them, must see different kinds of worship, the varṇas, various (ritual) acts,
substances, and bodies in the same way.46

numerous, are not discussed here. TSB 9.552–555: kaivartaṃ kāndukaṃ mlecchaṃ
dhvajaṃ sūnākaram priye | vairūpyaṃ duḥkhitaṃ śaṇḍhaṃ klībaṃ andhaṃ tathā-
turam || malla-vandina-kausadyaṃ cchippakaṃ carmakārakam | jaṭṭaṃ bhuṭṭaṃ
mathīraṃ ca kāpotaṃ kulabhakṣakam || medaṃ bhillaṃ ca ḍombaṃ ca tathānyaṃ
bhaṇḍakārakam | evam anye pi ye noktā mānavā varavarṇini || na nindeta varārohe
vratinaṃ yad upasthitam | haṭṭanāryo na vaktavyā nākrośet kanyakāḥ sudhīḥ ||.
44
This passage, repeating some elements from the TSB above, also lists several
categories that I cannot translate with certainty (see underlined words, of which the
first may denote jugglers and the final one archers): kandukaṃ mallakoṣāḍhyā
chippakaṃ carmakārakam || dhvajaṃ sūnākaraṃ vāpi matsyaghātaṃ tu lubdhakam.
45
More precisely, “he who is in the stage of life for/of knowledge.” The text
seems to create a fifth stage of life (āśrama) added to the traditional four. The name
suggests that it is characterised by the knowledge of the doctrine it propounds. It may
have been conceived of as an āśrama that is beyond the four, in the manner of the
atyāśrama of the Pāśupatas.
46
This is not a full translation of the text, which has a few textual difficulties;
Brahmayāmala 62.124127ab: guhyaṃ klībādi conmattam pramattaṃ vihvalaṃ priye |
nagnaṃ suratasaṃsaktaṃ mṛto[ndha/tva]ntaṃ surā striyaḥ ||. (Perhaps read mṛto
’ndhaṃ or mṛtoddharantaṃ?) na dūṣaye[’] †vase† vātha yantranā bhairavasya tu |
sarvvatas tu tato devyaḥ śivaś ca labhate priye || ato na nindayet sarvvaṃ jarāsthan tu
virūpakaṃ | jñānā-sramī makhāṃ varṇṇāṃ kṛyādravyāṃ tathā tanuṃ || tulyabhāvena
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 219
Let us note that the same sort of theological explanation is given to jus-
tify or explain the use of impure substances in ritual: since everything is
made of Bhairava and the goddess, one must treat all substances alike.47
Now a somewhat similar argument also figures in the Svacchanda in the
context of samayas. It is, however, not about the equal treatment of sub-
stances or people, but about the validity of different Śāstras. When the
Svacchanda prescribes that Bhairava and his teaching should not be reviled,
it adds the following:
The Sāṃkhya, the Yoga, the Pāñcarātra, and the Vedas should not be
reviled either, for they all come from Śiva and they all bestow the
fruit of final liberation.48
Thus, just as the Brahmayāmala argues for the equality of all substances
and people because they are all Śiva’s creations, so too does the Svacchan-
da argue for the validity of all Śāstras, since they are also Śiva’s creations.
After this statement, the Svacchanda adds a final member to the list of
teachings that should not be reviled: the prescriptions of Smṛtis, because
they demonstrate the proper ways to behave and act (smārttaṃ dharmaṃ
na nindet tu ācārapathadarśakam, 5.45cd). This confirms, once again, an
adherence to the generic smārta rules of conduct.
Now there is yet another group of samayas that are worth pointing out
in early Śākta Tantras: those that reproduce or are closely related to the
special samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta.
The Tantrasadbhāva, for instance, mentions that one should not step
over the shadow of a liṅga.49 It extends this samaya to the various attributes

pasyeta samayī samayārthinaḥ |. Transcription kindly provided by Shaman Hatley.
47
For various usages of this argument, see TÖRZSÖK 2014.
48
SvT 5.44cd–45ab: sāṃkhyaṃ yogaṃ pāñcarātraṃ vedāṃś caiva na nindayet |
yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve hy apavargaphalapradāḥ ||. Let us note the alternative
reading given by Jayaratha in the Tantrālokaviveka (ad 1.18 and 13.302): yataḥ
śivodbhavāḥ sarve śivadhāmaphalapradāḥ, “for they all come from Śiva and be-
stow the fruit of abiding in Śiva,” and by Abhinavagupta himself in the Mālinīvi-
jayavārttika (2.290: svacchandatantre tenoktaṃ sarvaśāstre śivaḥ phalam | yataḥ
śivodbhavāḥ sarve śivadhāmaphalā iti). The same reading in the singular (yataḥ
śivodbhavaṃ sarvaṃ śivadhāmaphalapradam) is also mentioned ad loc. by Kṣe-
marāja, who claims that some people read this version in old manuscripts (iti
pāṭhaṃ purāṇapustakadṛṣṭam iha kecit paṭhanti). However, the Nepalese manu-
script agrees basically with the edited SvT here: sāṃkhyayogaṃ pañcarātraṃ
vedāṃś caiva na nindayet | yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve hy apavargaphalapradāḥ ||.

(āyudhas) of gods that are also not to be stepped over or touched with the
foot (9.562–568 ending with: pharakaṃ vāpi khaḍgaṃ vā anya vāpy
āyudhaṃ priye | pāde naiva spṛśen mantrī na tu laṅghet kadācana ||. “The
master of mantras should never touch with his foot or step over the shield,
the sword, or any other [divine] weapon, my beloved.”).
The Brahmayāmala also includes what resembles the samayas of the
Śaiva Siddhānta in two passages. In the first (62.123cd), it overtly refers to
the rule of those who follow dualist practice:
One should under no circumstances consume the nirmālya, which is

not to be consumed according to the dualist50 mantra(mārga) tradition. 51
The second passage mentions the eight samayas, some of which recall
those of the Śaiva Siddhānta, although the Brahmayāmala gives its own
version and certainly fewer than eight:
There is no higher god than Śiva. And in this Tantra, the respectable
persons are the ācārya, the Mothers,52 the practitioners, and the pi-
ous. They are not to be despised or insulted, they must be wor-
shipped as well as one can. These are the eight samayas that increase
devotion and faith. Obeying these rules of conduct is the cause of all
success.53
It is possible that the idea of having precisely eight samayas was more
prevalent in the Śaiva Siddhānta than in Śākta texts (which had numerous
ones) and mentioning the samayas as being eight in number may have im-

49
TSB 9.550: varṣās tu navabhiś caiva liṅgacchāyāṃ na laṃghayet. I am not su-
re how the first half of the verse is to be understood, perhaps it means that the rule
applies from age nine of the person (understanding a corruption and/or irregular
expression standing for navavarṣāt, and the idea being that younger children may not
comply with such rules and may be allowed to skip over the shadow of a liṅga).
50
The term “dualist” always refers to ritual dualism in this text, cf. TÖRZSÖK 2014.
51
Brahmayāmala 62.123cd: dvaitamantre tu nirmālyaṃ nābhakṣaṃ bhakṣayet
kvacit ||. Transcription kindly provided by Shaman Hatley.
52
The expression “mothers” may refer to female ancestors and family members
as well as to various groups of female spirits and goddesses of the Śākta pantheon.
53
Brahmayāmala 86.3cd–5: na śivasya paro devaḥ ācāryo mātaras tathā || 3 || as-
min tantre tu guravaḥ sādhakāḥ sādhur eva vā | nāvamānyā nādhikṣepyā pūjanīyāś ca
śaktitaḥ || 4 || aṣṭau tu samayā hy ete bhaktiśraddhāvivarddhakāḥ | siddhīnāṃ kāraṇaṃ
hy etat samayācārapālanaṃ || 5 ||.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 221
plied that the samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta were alluded to. In any case,
in this passage they include only those that correspond to existing
Saiddhāntika samayas, without the numerous additional Śākta ones.
The Brahmayāmala, however, does not end the list of samayas at this
point. It goes on to give another set of eight (with the count being some-
what problematic again, since here we have perhaps more than eight), in
this case a set that does not resemble those of the Siddhānta. While the
previous eight were simply said to bring success if one maintains them, the
second set is labelled “the eight supreme samayas,” distinguishing them
from the first, presumably ordinary, set:
The eight “supreme samayas” are these: One must not be attached to
another deity, one must have no qualms or hesitation [concerning the
use of impure substances]54 and be free of greed. One must be non-
dual [in the ritual sense] and careful, observing the rules of conduct.
One must observe the yama of maintaining celibacy while actively
consorting with women.55 One must be free of anger and transmit
[this Tantric] tradition.56
This complete recreation of the eight samayas points to a new develop-

ment: to the establishment of nondual Śākta samayas that have nothing to

54
This would be the natural interpretation of vikalpa in the Brahmayāmala’s
nondualist ritual context. However, as the parallel of the Jayadrathayāmala pointed
out below shows (3.32.6cd: tantroktaṃ guruvākyaṃ vā vikalpair nāvatārayet ||.
“One should not transmit the teaching of the Tantra or the guru’s words with vikal-
pas.”), it could also refer to a different/fancy interpretation (of scripture or of the
guru’s teaching).
55
Interpretation suggested by Shaman Hatley (in a personal communication).
Csaba Kiss has adduced a parallel, 24.108–110, which may point to the expression
meaning an alternation between celibacy and sexual relationship with women. He has
also kindly pointed out that 68.69ab appears to support Shaman Hatley’s interpretati-
on of the two things happening at the same time: nārīcaryasamāyukto brahmacarya-
samanvitaḥ.
56
Brahmayāmala 86.6–7: ananyadevatāsaṅgo hy avikalpo hy alolupaḥ | advaitaś
cāpramādaś ca samayācāraceṣṭita[ḥ] || nārīcaryasamutthānaṃ brahmacaryaṃ tathā
yamaḥ | akrodha srotasañcāra ity aṣṭau samayā parāḥ || (Shaman Hatley’s transcrip-
tion). To be free from anger (akrodha) is commonly considered a separate injunction
(see, for instance, SvT 11.144), but then there are altogether nine samayas. This may
not have been perceived as a problem by the authors, or it is also possible that two of
the previous samayas were regarded as one.

do with those of other Śaiva currents, and even less with prescriptions of
Dharmaśāstras, although they may intend to underline some remote rela-
tionship to the eight samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta, by the mere fact that
there are eight of them.57
To summarise the situation in the early Śākta Tantras examined above:
They include smārta rules of conduct in their samayas as well as prescrip-
tions that appear to go against Dharmaśāstric ones. These may be consid-
ered somewhat self-contradictory, but some of them may also be under-
stood as alternatives, possibly for different kinds of practitioners. In some
cases, they also cite, include, or refer to the samayas of the Śaiva Siddhān-
ta. I take this apparent eclecticism to suggest that these Śākta Tantric cur-
rents did not intend to separate themselves completely from Brahmanical
society and its norms, nor from the Siddhānta, despite the fact that in their
ritual and theology they clearly defined themselves as following different
or even opposite principles. Even if the inclusion of Dharmaśāstric rules
was only a way to pay lip service to Manu and involved only generic rules
of conduct, it was apparently thought to be necessary, and the establishment
of the rules of the community to some extent still occurred along Dhar-
maśāstric lines.
The extreme nondualism of later Śāktas
This seems not to be the case in later Tantras, in particular those of the
Kaula and the Krama. Their samayas are exclusively nondual, in other
words, they go against standard Brahmanic prescriptions in promoting the
use of impure substances and rites. No Dharmaśāstric or Saiddhāntika in-
fluence is discernible here.
Concerning the samayas, the Yoginīsaṃcāra represents a transition be-
tween what we see in earlier Śākta Tantras and in later Kaula or Krama
ones, for some of its samayas are close to those of the Brahmayāmala (a
parallel pointed out by Shaman Hatley in his transcription of the Brahma-

57
In other passages, the Brahmayāmala still includes elements of the original
eight Saiddhāntika samayas as well as rules coming from the Dharmaśāstra literature,
as shown above (as in 62.121ff.: na nagnāṃ vanitāṃ pasye na cāpi prakaṭastanīṃ |
nālokayet paśukrīḍā kṣudrakarman na kārayet ||). It must also be noted that in this
paper I do not deal with the various prescriptions concerning meat-eating and which
meats are not to be consumed. These samayas of the Śākta scriptures are possibly
related to the animal-headed deities worshipped in these Tantras.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 223
yāmala), but it retains mainly those samayas of the Brahmayāmala that are
particularly Śākta.
It begins with the set of nindā rules. These are still somewhat reminis-
cent of the first four samayas of the Siddhānta: one must not revile but
worship and respect Śiva, the different gods, the guru, the teaching, (other)
practitioners, and yoginīs. The text seems to call these rules the three pre-
cepts (padatraya) of the three other Tantric currents (trayasyānyasya bhed-
asya, lit. “of the three other divisions”) that should be taught.58
Following these nindā rules, the Yoginīsaṃcāra gives a more explicit
and elaborate version of the Brahmayāmala’s set of Śākta samayas, re-
named here as the eight samayas of the Lāmās (a category of female beings
and practitioners). I have noted the equivalents of the Brahmayāmala in
parentheses.
Yoginīsaṃcāra 9.6–10 / Brahmayāmala 86.6–7

Jayadrathayāmala 3.32.6–10
anyasmiṃ devatāsaṃgo (= ananyadevatāsaṅgo)

hāsyenāpi na kārayet |
tantroktaṃ guruvākyaṃ vā
vikalpair nāvatārayet || (= avikalpo?)
viṣayeṣv alolupas tiṣṭhen (= alolupaḥ)
niyamair hy apavāhinīm |
samayācāraceṣṭāsu (= cāpramādaś ca
apramādī sadā bhavet || samayācāraceṣṭitaḥ)
ātmānaṃ sarvataḥ paśyed
advaitaparibhāvitaḥ | (= advaitaś)
nārīcaryāsamutthena (= nārīcaryasamutthānaṃ
saṃyamo vratapālanam || brahmacaryaṃ tato yamaḥ)
tithau tathaiva tat kuryān
niyataiḥ paribhūṣitam |
svavikalpena lāmānāṃ
sampradāyo nivartate ||

58
Jayadrathayāmala 3.32.3–5, which is 9.3–5 of the Yoginīsaṃcāra: samayān
tāva vakṣyāmi ye ’smiṃs tantre sudurlabhāḥ | śivā parāparā devā ācāryo yaḥ sa eva
tuḥ (?) || ye tantre guravo devi sādhakā ye mahāmate | yāni śāstrāṇi siddhāś ca yogi-
nyo yā divaṃgamaḥ || na nindyā nāpy adhikṣepyāḥ pūjayet tāṃ tu nityaśaḥ | traya-
syānyasya bhedasya etac chikṣet padatrayam ||. I am grateful to Alexis Sanderson for
making available his draft edition of the Yoginīsaṃcāra.

śrotrasaṃcaraṇe caiva (= akrodha srotasañcāra)

nityam akrodhano bhavet |
ity aṣṭau samayā proktā (= ity aṣṭau samayā parāḥ)
lāmāvargasya siddhidā ||
One must not be attached to another deity even for fun, one is not to
transmit the words of the Tantra or of the guru with an alternative in-
terpretation. One must not covet the objects of the senses, and one
should serve Her-Who-Takes-[Them]-Away with the optional obser-
vances. One must always maintain the samayas unfailingly. One is to
see one’s self everywhere with a nondual state of mind and observe
the vrata(s), the vow (saṃyama) that comes from engaging with
women (?).59 One must do the same on the tithi days, but with special
restrictions. The traditional teachings of the Lāmās [may] cease be-
cause of one’s own error. One must always be without anger when
transmitting the teaching. These are the eight samayas of the Lāmās,
which bestow success.60
The next set of samayas is called those of śākinīs (śākinīnāṃ maheśāni

samayāṃ śṛṇu sāṃpratam, 3.32.11.1), and the last set perhaps belongs to
yoginīs (adhunā saṃpravakṣyāmi yogīnāṃ yogasiddhidā, 3.32.24.1, yogī
being commonly used for yoginī in Tantric texts). One of the last sentences
of the passage adequately summarises these numerous rules: one must fol-
low left-hand practice in all actions (vāmācāreṇa varteta sarvakarmasu
suvrate, 3.32.44.1).
Kaula and Krama texts indeed seem to have a tendency to prescribe only
“left-hand” rules. They may mention, among other things, that the guru must

59
The text may be corrupt. In any case, the parallel with the Brahmayāmala sug-
gests that here too, celibacy combined with being with women is meant.
60
This translation is very tentative, for the text is sometimes very terse or ambi-
guous, and sometimes the construction may be irregular (or there may be a corrupti-
on). On two occasions, the Brahmayāmala appears to establish different rules. The
first is the above-mentioned avikalpa. The second is in the final line, for the Brahma-
yāmala could be interpreted to denote two rules (“one must orally transmit the
teaching, and one must be without anger”), while the Jayadrathayāmala seems to
prescribe only one (“one must be without anger when transmitting the teaching oral-
ly”). If the latter is understood in the Brahmayāmala too (although this seems a rather
unlikely rule), then the Brahmayāmala passage may feature the required eight samayas.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 225
be respected or daily ritual is to be observed, but these rules are more or less
lost among samayas that require a particular Kaula attitude and behaviour.
The Devīpañcaśatikā (6.5–12ab), for instance, gives the following sa-
mayas:
One should not revile Kaula conduct or its substances. One is not to
pronounce the words kālī and ḍāvī. One must always worship
Kumārī/a young girl61 and cultivate one’s knowledge of the Self. One
must be ready to abandon one’s life, wife, land, and possessions for
the sake of one’s guru. One must perform the regular recitation of
mantras and never omit the daily ritual. One should not be disgusted
by what women or heroes (i.e., male or female practitioners) do or do
not do. One must not disobey one’s guru, and one must worship the
Kula teaching. One must avoid acting as a bound soul and being ex-
cessively arrogant. One must not feel aversion to Kula scriptures,
neither to their argument nor to their expression. One must give up
dualist Śaivism and embrace nondualism. One should worship au-
tonomous Lāmās and should not revile those who are clad in black.
One should not be disgusted by whatever has been taught by the Su-
preme Lord or by the Emaciated Goddess herself, one should wor-
ship their teaching as Hara is worshipped. Those who observe these
samayas and are devoted to Kālī, O great lord, will obtain success
shortly and reach the heavenly realm. 62

61
The word kumārī can denote a category of female beings or goddesses in the
pantheon, but also an actual young girl before puberty whose worship may be
prescribed.
62
Devīpañcaśatikā 6.5–12ab: na ninde[’] kaulikācāraṃ taddravyāṇi na nindayet |
kālīti vākyaṃ na vaded ḍāvīśabdaṃ (em., ḍārīśabdaṃ edMIRI) na bhāṣayet || kumā-
rīṃ pūjayed nityam ātmajñānarato bhavet | gurvarthena tyajet prāṇān dārābhūmi-
dhanāni ca || nityam eva japaṃ kuryād āhnikaṃ na vilopayet | na jugupseta nārīṇāṃ
vīrāṇāṃ ca kṛtākṛte || guror no laṃghayed ājñāṃ kulaśāstraṃ ca pūjayet | na kuryāt
paśuvat kāryaṃ nātigarvaṃ ca bhāvayet || tarkārthe vātha śabdā-rthe na jugupse[’]
kulāgamam | parityajya śivadvaitam advaitaṃ paribhāvayet || svacchandāṃ pūjayel
lāmāṃ kṛṣṇavāsāṃ na nindayet | yaduktaṃ parameśena (em., parameśāna edMIRI)
kṛśodaryāthavā svayam || na jugupset tataḥ śāstraṃ vandanīyaṃ yathā hara[ḥ] |
etatsamayasaṃyuktaḥ kālībhakto maheśvara || acirāt siddhibhāgī syā[t] prāpya vai-
hāyasīṃ gatim |. Ed. M. Dyczkowski (MIRI), square brackets enclose my minor
additions for better understanding of the irregularities.

Sometimes elements of earlier Śākta samayas recur in a combined form.

The Ūrmikaulārṇava, for instance, prescribes not just the worship of wom-
en or yoginīs, but also the worship of women who are blind or crippled.
Furthermore, it clearly goes against orthopraxy by enjoining the worship of
women who have their period, a rule that was not yet among the samayas
of early Śākta Tantras, even if the Brahmayāmala, for instance, does in-
clude the worship of women who have their period in its chapters on ritual:
The eminent practitioner must worship Mothers (mātṛ), perfected

yoginīs who know the Kālikā conduct, whether they are naturally
born ones or are born in sacred places, old women as well as girls,
those who observe the Kula vow, who are naked, flat-nosed, those
who have their period. He must also worship them if they are desti-
tute, blind, or crippled.63
These Kaula or Krama rules do not seem to be related to other, non-Śākta

sets of samayas. They appear to betray a much more radical antinomian
standpoint and a much more categorical rejection of orthopraxy than early
Śākta Tantras. Nevertheless, the lack of any Dharmaśāstric rules may also
signal that it was no longer felt necessary to define the samayas along
Dharmaśāstric lines, because the authority of Dharmaśāstras had perhaps to
some extent faded.
Conclusion
Four different forms of Śaivism have been examined here, in order to see
which community rules they establish and how they demarcate themselves
from orthopraxy. These four are, in order of increasing distance from main-
stream Brahmanism: non-initiatory lay Śaivism, the Śaiva Siddhānta, early
Śākta Tantras, and later, more esoteric Kaula and Krama Tantras.
Lay Śaivism, although it adheres to mainstream Brahmanical ortho-
praxy and prescribes no samaya-type rules of its own,64 proposes particular

63
Ūrmikaulārṇava 4.29cd–31ab: sahajā pīṭhajā vātha vṛddhastrī bālakanyakā ||
kulavratadharā nagnā bhagnanāsā rajasvalā | mātaraḥ siddhayoginyaḥ kālikā-
cārapāragāḥ || pūjayet sādhakendreṇa dīnāndhā vikalāḥ tathā |.
64
Again, the Śivadharma corpus and Purāṇic Śaivism do prescribe their own set
of injunctions concerning devotion to and worship of Śiva, but these are not com-
parable to the Tantric samayas.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 227
Śaiva solutions to problems such as infertility. In this way, it marks its dif-
ference, without nevertheless going against any basic rules of orthopraxy.
The Śaiva Siddhānta most commonly establishes a set of eight commu-
nity rules to be observed after initiation. These include borrowings from
mainstream Brahmanical rules of purity (mainly concerning the avoidance
of female impurity) or Śaiva applications of Brahmanical prescriptions
(respect of the teaching and the guru, for instance). They also include a few
special rules of their own system: (1) concerning the nirmālya, or offering,
made to Śiva that should not be reused, and (2) concerning the shadow of a
liṅga and Śaiva sacred spaces, which must not be stepped upon/over.
The post-initiatory community rules are surprisingly heterogeneous in
early Śākta Tantras (around the seventh to eighth centuries CE?). They in-
clude several samayas of the Siddhānta and a number of Dharmaśāstric rules,
to which are added their own ones, even though in most cases they clearly go
against Dharmaśāstric principles. These Śākta samayas often appear to be in
favour of those who are not particularly treated well in Dharmaśāstras: wom-
en, those who are considered genderless or unmanly, the handicapped, the
outcast. The theological argument that supports these rules is that everybody
is created by Śiva and must therefore be treated with respect.
The inclusion of many Dharmaśāstric rules, however, seems to suggest
that these Śākta communities probably did not want to separate themselves
from those who represented mainstream orthopraxy and the Śaiva Siddhān-
ta. They had an inclusivistic attitude towards other religious forms and
currents. The theological justification was, once again, the fact that all
teachings originated in Śiva.
By contrast, the Niśvāsa, which is the earliest surviving Tantric scripture
(whose earliest stratum may date to 550–650 CE), insists on delimiting its
own territory as opposed to Vaidika religion and warns against following
other teachings. This attitude may be explained by the religious context of
the period: for the Niśvāsa was composed when Śaivism was about to estab-
lish itself as a new initiatory religion, and perhaps it was important to show in
what way it proposed something better than mainstream Brahmanism.
The eclectic samaya sets of early Śākta Śaiva Tantras seem to disappear
in later, more esoteric Śākta branches of the Kaula and Krama systems.
Many explanations are possible here. One certainly is that they simply de-
fine themselves more categorically as following left-hand or antinomian
practice. But it is also possible that by the time of their composition it was

not felt necessary to use the authority of the Dharmaśāstras, because by that
time Śaivism itself had become the dominant form of religion.65
Abbreviations
KSTS: Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies

MIRI: Muktabodha Indological Research Institute. E-texts available online:
http://muktalib5.org/digital_library.htm (accessed July 6, 2019).
NAK: National Archives, Kathmandu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Āpastamba Dharmasūtra
See OLIVELLE 2000.
Ūrmikaulārṇava
Edited by Mark Dyczkowski on the basis of NAK ms. no: 5-5207 (sic.
5-5202); NGMPP reel no: B 115/9. MIRI, accessed in 2011, not availa-
ble in December 2017.
Kubjikāmatatantra
The Kubjikāmatatantra: Kulālikāmnāya version. Ed. T Goudriaan & J.
Schoterman. Leiden: Brill, 1988. I am grateful to Somdev Vasudeva for
providing me with his etext of the Kubjikāmatatantra.
Jayadrathayāmala
NAK 5-4650 (ṣaṭka 1 and 2); 5-722 (ṣaṭka 3) ; 1-1468 (ṣaṭka 4 A 151-
16). I am grateful to Olga Serbaeva for making her transcription availa-
ble to me.
Tantrasadbhāva (TSB)
NAK 5-1985 and NAK 5-445, unpublished edition of chapter 4 by
Somdev Vasudeva, unpublished edition of chapters 16 and 25 by Judit
Törzsök. Complete e-text established under the supervision of Mark
Dyczkowski. MIRI, accessed in 2011, not available in December 2017.
For chapter 9, I have used Jung Lan Bang’s draft edition, for which I am
grateful to the editor.

65
I refer to the main thesis about the “Śaiva Age” in SANDERSON 2009.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 229
Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta, with a commentary by Jayaratha

The Tantrāloka of Abhinava Gupta, with commentary (-viveka) by
Rājānaka Jayaratha. 8 vols. Ed. Mukund Rām Śāstrī. With an introduc-
tion R.C. Dwivedi and N. Rastogi. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.
(Reprint of KSTS 1918-1938)
Devīpañcaśatikā (EdMIRI): Kālīkulapañcaśatikā also known as Devī-
pañcaśatikā
NAK ms. 5-5183, 5-358, and 1-252. Electronic edition by Mark Dycz-
kowski, MIRI, accessed in 2011, not available in December 2017.
Niśvāsa(tattvasaṃhitā)
See GOODALL et al. 2015.
Brahmayāmala
NAK ms. no. 3-370. E-text by Shaman Hatley. I am grateful to the edi-
tor for making his transcription available to me.
Mataṅgapārameśvara
Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (Kriyāpāda, Caryāpāda et Yogapāda) avec
le commentaire -vṛtti de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Ed. N.R. Bhaṭṭ. Pondi-
cherry: Institut Français d’Indologie, 1982.
Manu(-smṛti)
Manusmṛti with the Sanskrit Commentary Manvartha-Muktāvalī of
Kullūka Bhaṭṭa. Ed. J.L. Shastri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.
Mālinīvijayavārttika of Abhinavagupta
Śrī-Mālinīvijayavārtikam. Ed. M.K. Shastri. Pune: Aryabhushan Press,
1921.
Mālinīvijayottaratantra
Mālinīvijayottaratantra. Ed. Acharya Krishnanand Sagar. Varanasi:
Krishnānand Sāgar, 1985. (1st ed. Madhusūdan Kaul, Bombay, 1922.)
Yoginīsaṃcāra
Part of Ṣaṭka 3 of the Jayadrathayāmala. Draft edition by Alexis Sander-
son. I am grateful to Prof. Sanderson for making available his draft edition.
Sarvajñānottara
Draft edition by Dominic Goodall, based on IFP ms. T.334, IFP ms.
T.760 and NAK ms. 1-1692 and 3 available editions. I am grateful to the
editor for making his edition available to me.
Siddhayogeśvarīmata (SYM)
Edition based on NAK ms. no. 5-2403 and on the Asiatic Society of
Bengal, Calcutta, ms. 5465 (G). See TÖRZSÖK 1999 and TÖRZSÖK
forthcoming.

Skandapurāṇa
The Skandapurāṇa. Vol. IIB. Eds. H.T. Bakker, P.C. Bisschop and Y.
Yokochi, in cooperation with N. Mirnig and J. Törzsök. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Svacchanda(tantra) (SvT)
Svacchandatantra, with the commentary -uddyota by Kṣemarāja. 2 vols.
Ed. V.V. Dvivedi. Delhi: Parimal Publications, 1985.
Svacchanda
Nepalese recension. NAK ms. no. 1-224.
Svāyaṃbhuvasūtrasaṃgraha (SvāSS)
Svāyaṃbhuvasūtrasaṃgraha. Ed. Mysore 1937 Transcription no. 39,
Institut Français de Pondichéry; 1-348. Electronic edition with notes by
Dominic Goodall. I am grateful to Dominic Goodall for making his draft
edition available to me.
BÜHLER, G. 21984 [1886]. (transl.) The Laws of Manu. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass.
GOODALL, D. et al. 2015. The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. The Earliest Surviving
Śaiva Tantra. Vol. 1. A Critical Edition & Annotated Translation of the
Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra and Nayasūtra. Pondicherry: Institut Français
d’Indologie/École française d’Extrême-Orient.
LUBIN, T. 2015. Writing and the Recognition of Customary Law in Pre-
modern India and Java. Journal of the Americal Oriental Society 135/2,
pp. 225–259.
OLIVELLE, P. 2000. Dharmasūtras. The Law Codes of Āpastamba, Gauta-
ma, Baudhāyana and Vasiṣṭha. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
2005. Manu’s Code of Law. A Critical Edition and Translation of the
Mānavadharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SANDERSON, A. 2009. The Śaiva Age: the Rise and Dominance of Śaivism
During the Early Medieval Period. In: S. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and De-
velopment of Tantrism. Tokyo: University of Tokyo, pp. 41–349.
2014. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies 24–25 (2012–
13), pp. 1–113.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA (Dictionary of Hindu Tantric Terms). Vol. III.
ed. D. Goodall and M. Rastelli. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2014.
JUDIT TÖRZSÖK 231
TÖRZSÖK, J. 1999. The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits. A critical edition of

selected chapters of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata(tantra) with annotated trans-
lation and analysis. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
2014. Nondualism in Early Śākta Tantras: Transgressive Rites and Their
Ontological Justification in a Historical Perspective. Journal of Indian
Philosophy 42.1, pp. 195–223.
Forthcoming. The Teaching of Yoginīs. A critical edition of the Siddhayo-
geśvarīmata with an introduction and annotated translation.

Tantric ritual components in the initiation

of a Digambara Jain
Ellen Gough*
In this volume and in other scholarship, a defining component of a Tantric

community is a particular type of non-Vedic initiation (dīkṣā) its members
must undertake in order to perform the ritual practices of their cult.1 Vari-
ous Buddhist and Hindu traditions have been deemed “Tantric” because
they require this type of initiation, which usually involves the construction
of a maṇḍala and the imparting of esoteric mantras from guru to disciple.2
Jainism, however, has not been considered a “Tantric tradition,” or “Tantric
cult,” nor have Jains been seen as members of a “Tantric community,” in
part because their initiations have been understood as monastic, not Tantric.
The few examinations of Jain dīkṣā that have been published3 emphasise

* Fieldwork for this study was undertaken in 2013 under the auspices of a Ful-
bright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Grant. I thank Phyllis Granoff, Koichi Shinohara,
David Brick, John Cort, and the editors of this volume for feedback on earlier versi-
ons of this text.
1
Hamburg’s Centre for Tantric Studies, for example, has titled its journal Tantric
Studies: A Journal for the Study of Initiatory Religions of Indian Origin, and defined
“tantric traditions” as “initiatory and esoteric forms of religion emphasizing mantric
forms of deities.”
2
SHINOHARA (2014a: xiii) notes that the beginning of the use of the All-
Gathering Maṇḍala in Chinese Buddhist initiation ceremonies in the sixth century
“may be taken as the beginning of the self-aware Esoteric [i.e. ‘Tantric’] tradition.”
GOODALL (2004: xxi) argues that “the central fact that characterizes these [Śaiva]
tantric cults is that they are private cults for individuals who take a non-Vedic initia-
tion (dīkṣā) that uses non-Vedic (as well as Veda-derived) mantras and that is the
means to liberation, a liberation which consists in being omnipotent and omniscient,
in other words in realizing the powers of Śiva.”
3
AGRAWAL 1972, CORT 1991, and HOLMSTROM 1988 have described image-
worshiping Śvetāmbara dīkṣā ceremonies, but they do not discuss the uses of mant-
ras and maṇḍalas. SHĀNTĀ (1997: 444–472; 653–660), from her fieldwork on Jain
sādhvīs of various sects in the 1970s, provides the most detailed portraits of dīkṣā
found in secondary literature on Jains, but she confesses that when it comes to the
the ascetic and monastic components of the ceremonies, such as the taking
of mendicant vows and the pulling out of hair. Michael Carrithers, for ex-
ample, highlights the ascetic core of modern Digambara dīkṣās by focusing
on how the initiate severs ties with all worldly connections upon initiation:
[T]he form of the ceremony (…) gives no place to the notion of the
muni saṅgha. Unlike the Buddhists, the Digambar Jains do not en-
shrine the collectivity of ascetics in their initiation (…) Nor is any-
thing passed on which might form a bond, such as the mantra which
is part of many Hindu ascetics’ dīkṣā.4
Carrithers emphasises how modern Digambaras reject the ties to a worldly

community and thus uphold the “original project of Jainism, which stressed
tapas,” not collectivity (CARRITHERS 1990: 154). He promotes a common
view5 that Jains, since the formation of the tradition around the fifth century
BCE, have maintained a deeply ascetic, individualistic tradition: unlike
Buddhists and Hindus, they were not influenced by medieval Tantric de-
velopments in initiation practices that required the transmission of esoteric
mantras from guru to disciple.
Modern Digambara dīkṣās contain several components of Hindu and
Buddhist initiations termed “Tantric”: the construction of a maṇḍala-like
diagram, the transmission of karma-destroying non-Vedic mantras from
guru to disciple, and the imparting of non-Vedic rites of passage
(saṃskāra). And searching for these modern components in pre-modern
texts can lead us to previously unstudied medieval Digambara discussions
of initiations. Indeed, no pre-modern manual on Digambara dīkṣā has been
published, Digambara texts are not entirely devoid of discussions of initia-
tion, and if we know what to look for, we can find it. If we reverse the more
common methodology of using texts to lead us to the field – if we allow
fieldwork to determine how and what we read – we can bring a new per-
spective to pre-modern texts.6

dīkṣā ceremony, “the subject of mantras is too vast and too complex to be considered
here, for it requires a separate study” (SHĀNTĀ 1997: 656, n. 56).
4
CARRITHERS 1990: 153–154.
5
To date, too little scholarship has been produced to discredit JAINI’s (1979:
254) claim that “Jainism has remained for the most part untouched by the sort of
tantric practices which typified many Śaivite cults and eventually permeated the
Buddhist community as well.”
6
This methodology is encouraged in CORT 1990.
ELLEN GOUGH 235
In the following pages, I will do use close study of a modern Digambara

initiation to guide us to medieval textual descriptions of Jain dīkṣā rites that
exemplify a blend of monasticism and Tantrism. We will see how medieval
Digambaras had, probably by the ninth century, integrated the “Tantric” con-
struction of a maṇḍala and imparting of karma-destroying mantras with ear-
lier ascetic rites of mendicant initiations. Jains,7 then, unlike their Buddhist
counterparts, require their followers to undertake a “Tantric” initiation into a
maṇḍala in order to become a celibate mendicant. While Buddhist monks
can undergo a Tantric initiation into a maṇḍala (abhiṣeka), unlike Jains, they
do not have to construct a maṇḍala and receive esoteric mantras from their
guru in order to become a monk.
Examining this blend of a monastic and Tantric initiation raises ques-
tions about the nature of the “Tantric communities” at the focus of this
volume. While Digambara monks could, in one sense, be considered to be
“Tantrics,” in part because they undergo a Tantric initiation, they are only
in some ways Tantrics, and it would be too simplistic to claim that they
belong to a “Tantric community” or a “Tantric cult.” Indeed, it may be too
simplistic to designate people, or religious traditions, or even rituals as
wholly “Tantric,” because, as we will see in the case of Jain initiations,
religious actors, communities, and rituals cannot be defined by one term –
they are composites of many layers of history. Rather than thinking in
terms of “Tantric communities,” it might be better to think in terms of Tan-
tric ritual components that allow for the formation of communities. Exam-
ining the history of a modern Digambara dīkṣā will allow us to do just that.
Modern Digambara mendicant initiations
For many Digambaras today, the story of modern dīkṣā begins at the outset
of the twentieth century, specifically, on November 25, 1913. On this day,
on a remote hilltop in Kuntalgiri, Maharashtra, a 47-year-old lay Digamba-
ra Jain named Śivgouḍā Pāṭil stood in front of a temple icon of a Jina, re-
moved his clothes, pulled out his own hair, and, according to his followers,
reinstated the order of naked Jain monks after a near-complete absence for
hundreds of years. This man, who was known as Muni Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara
after his initiation, chose to stand before an image of the Jina – he chose the

7
This chapter will focus on Digambaras, but image-worshiping Śvetāmbara monks
also include Tantric components in their initiations and promotions. On the use of the
sūrimantra in the promotion of a Śvetāmbara ācārya, see DUNDAS 1998.

founder of Jainism as his initiatory guru – because he did not know of any
living naked monks who could initiate him. From about the beginning of the
thirteenth century, the Digambara Jain community had been mostly led by
bhaṭṭārakas, sedentary renunciants who wore orange robes and had estab-
lished themselves as leaders of certain caste groups and the trustees of the
temple complexes where they reside.8
Muni Ādisāgara, in rejecting these bhaṭṭārakas and embracing nudity,
made a radical departure from the Digambara Jainism of his day and an
argument for a return to the ascetic practices of the first Jain monks. And
this departure was extremely successful. By the time of his death in 1944,
he had initiated 32 naked monks, many of whom would go on to establish
mendicant lineages that persist to this day.9 Today, no bhaṭṭārakas remain
in North India, only 14 remain in South India,10 and peripatetic successors
of Ādisāgara and his disciples number in the hundreds.11
In CARRITHERS’ (1990) study of Digambara dīkṣā, he uses the example
of self-initiation in front of a temple icon to emphasise the solitary nature
of these modern, reformed Digambara munis.12 However, modern Digam-
bara dīkṣās are anything but solitary endeavours, and they include proces-
sions throughout the town, communal offerings of foodstuffs to a maṇḍala
made of coloured powder, and a daylong ceremony in which dozens of
mantras are imparted from guru to disciple on stage in front of cheering
laypeople. Ādisāgara may have rejected the orange robes of the
bhaṭṭārakas, but his followers quickly readopted the devotional, communal,
and Tantric components of mendicant initiations that had been layered onto
the ritual before and during the rule of these pontiffs. By outlining the
components of a modern Digambara initiation and then searching in earlier
texts for precedents for these components, we can see how medieval, early
modern, and modern Digambaras added devotional and Tantric layers to

8
On the bhaṭṭārakas, see FLÜGEL 2006: 339–344.
9
For a collection of essays on Ādisāgara, see JAIN (B.M.) 1996.
10
For brief biographies of each of these Bhaṭṭārakas, see JAIN TĪRTHVANDANĀ
2012: 26–47.
11
SAUDHARMBṚHATTAPOGACCHĪYA JAIN ŚVETĀMBAR TRISTUTIK ŚRĪSANGH
(2013: 407) documents 740 living Digambara munis, though it is not specified how
many of them trace their lineages to Ādisāgara, and not to one of the other foun-
ders of modern muni lineages, Śāntisāgara “Dakṣiṇa” and Śāntisāgara “Chāṇī.”
12
CARRITHERS (1990: 141–150) focuses on the other modern Digambara muni
to self-initiate, Śāntisāgara “Dakṣiṇa,” who did so in 1918 and is identified as the
founder of the majority of contemporary Digambara lineages.
ELLEN GOUGH 237
the ascetic core of early Jain mendicant initiations not to emphasise indi-
viduality, but in order to strengthen communal ties.
Becoming a Digambara monk in 2013
In November 2013, in a small town 90 miles southwest of Jaipur, in Kekri,

Rajasthan, I joined hundreds of Digambara laypeople to witness a dīkṣā
ceremony of three people into the mendicant community (saṅgha) of the
Digambara Ācārya Vairāgyanandī. Ācārya Vairāgyanandī traces his lineage
to Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara, and, from the two main traditions lay Digambaras
follow – the “Path of Twenty,” the Bīsapantha, or the “Path of Thirteen,”
the Terāpantha – he identifies as a Bīsapanthī.13 In 1994, Vairāgyanandī
was initiated as a muni in Kunthalgiri, Maharashtra, by Ācārya Kun-
thusāgara, himself a disciple of Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara’s successor
Mahāvīrakīrti (1910–1972). Eleven years later, in 2005, Ācārya
Vairāgyanandī was promoted to the rank of ācārya, becoming a leader of
his own mendicant community.
In Kekri in November of 2013, Ācārya Vairāgyanandī initiated a hus-
band and wife as a full monk (muni) and nun (āryikā), respectively, and one
man as a lower-level initiate who wears two garments (kṣullaka). In my
interview with Ācārya Vairāgyanandī after the initiation ceremony in
Kekri, he would not tell me the details of the dīkṣāvidhi he follows, stress-
ing that the instructions for performing dīkṣā must only be passed from
guru to devoted disciple. Even so, he admitted that the basic structure of
the initiation ceremonies he performs are found in a manual of mendicant
rituals entitled “Collection of Pure Devotion,” Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah
(VBhS), which was compiled by the contemporary nun Āryikā
Syādvādamatī Mātā, who also belongs to one of the lineages stemming
from Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara.14
Monks and nuns of different lineages have compiled several different
manuals of this sort, but often multiple lineages accept the same manuals,
and the descriptions of rites are nearly identical in these collections.15 The

13
On Bīsapanthīs and Terāpanthīs, see FLÜGEL 2006: 339–344.
14
VBhS, pp. 442–452. Āryikā Syādvādamatī belongs to a different sub-lineage
of Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara called the “Vimala Saṅgha,” which traces its origins to
another of Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara’s disciples, Vimalasāgara (1915–1961).
15
In Jaipur in February 2013, when I met with a monk who is mostly connected
to Terāpanthīs, Ācārya Vibhavasāgara, he also mentioned the Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah
as his main published reference for the rituals for mendicant initiation.

exact same outline of the initiation rites in the Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah is
also included in other texts on renunciation of various lineages, both
Bīsapanthī and Terāpanthī.16 While each mendicant leader certainly must
individualise the rituals included in these manuals, the published text avail-
able in these sources seems to have become the standard framework for
modern Digambara initiations of all Digambara lineages.17
Because Ācārya Vairāgyanandī mentioned the Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah, I
will provide an outline of that text’s instructions for initiating different
levels of mendicants and then compare the text to the rituals I observed in
Kekri. The dīkṣāvidhi in Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah, composed in simple San-
skrit with some Prakrit mantras, outlines the rituals for four levels of men-
dicant: (1) muni, a fully initiated naked monk, (2) kṣullaka, a “junior”
monk who wears a loincloth, a white cloth around his shoulders, and can
eat from a plate, not his hands, (3) upādhyāya, a higher-level initiate who is
trained as a mendicant teacher, and (4) ācārya, a monk at the highest level
of promotion, a leader of a mendicant group (saṅgha) who can initiate dis-
ciples. The munidīkṣā is summarised below.
• On the day before the initiand takes the five vows of a mendi-
cant, he should eat a meal and then go to the temple, where he
should approach his initiatory guru and take a vow to fast for a
particular period of time (pratyākhyāna). As part of this vow, he
should recite two of the Sanskrit devotional praise poems called
“Bhaktis,” the Siddhabhakti and the Yogibhakti. These different
Bhaktis play an important role in the dīkṣā ceremony and will
be discussed in more detail below. Having taken this vow, he
should bow before his guru and recite more of these praise po-

16
These manuals include the “Collection of Rituals,” the Kriyā-kalāpaḥ (KK), a
compendium of ritual instructions the lay Terāpanthī scholar Pannalāl Sonī-Śāstrī
compiled in Agra in 1935, and the “Ritual Actions of a Monk,” Municaryā (MC), a
collection of rites compiled by the most prolific living Digambara nun (āryikā), the
Bīsapanthī Jñānamatī Mātā. For an English summary of many of the rites outlined in
these manuals, mixed with accounts from interviews, see SHĀNTĀ 1997: 656–660.
17
Even the handwritten notes of ritual specialists (pratiṣṭhācārya) align with these
texts. Paṇḍit Vimalkumār Jain, a ritual specialist who resides in Jaipur, has outlined
24 rites (kriyā) that correspond exactly to the rituals described in published manuals.
He confirmed that he performs these rites for both Bīsapanthī and Terāpanthī mendi-
cants. Interview with author, Jaipur, February 2013.
ELLEN GOUGH 239
ems addressing different objects of devotion, the Ācāryabhakti,

Śāntibhakti, and Samādhibhakti.
• According to their means, members of the community should

then worship the diagram for the pacification of bad omens
(śāntika) and another geometric diagram, the “Ring of Disci-
ples” (gaṇadharvalaya). Below, I will discuss the “Ring of Dis-
ciples” in detail and outline what this text means when it pre-
scribes its “worship” (pūjā).
• After the completion of the worship of these diagrams, the initi-

and is ritually bathed and ornamented as lavishly as his means
allow. The guru should then, with grand celebration
(mahāmahotsavena), lead the initiand to a temple.
• [The next morning] the initiand should worship the Tīrthaṅkaras

and ask for forgiveness from the community.
• In front of the community, next to his guru, having put on white

clothing, the initiand should sit on an eastward-facing seat that
married women whose husbands are still living (saubhāgyavatī)
have decorated with a svastika symbol and covered in a white
cloth.18
• Having recited the Yogibhakti and the Siddhabhakti, the guru,

with his left hand, should sprinkle scented water on the head of
the initiand three times while reciting the Sanskrit mantra for the
removal of adversity (śāntimantra) that invokes the sixteenth
Tīrthaṅkara, Śānti, who is said to destroy all obstacles, diseases,
accidental death, misfortune caused by others, and damaging
fires.19 The guru should place his left hand on the initiand’s head.

18
Paṇḍit Vimalkumār Jain’s notebook instructs that the svastika should be made
of unbroken rice (akṣata). Photographed in Jaipur, February 2013. SHĀNTA (1997:
657), describing the initiation of a nun, explains this part of the ceremony as follows:
“On arrival, śrāvik[ā] (a laywoman) makes the outline of a svastika with saffron-
coloured grains of rice on a low table that she then covers with a new white
cloth….the gaṇinī [nun] seats the vairāgiṇī [initiand] on the low table, facing either
towards the East or the North, and sits down herself beside her.”
19
The mantra reads: oṃ namo ’rhate bhagavate prakṣīṇāśeṣakalmaṣāya divyatejo

• The guru should put curd, rice (akṣata), other cow products
(gomaya),20 and a blade of dūrva grass (dūrvāṅkara) on the
head of the initiand and pronounce the Prakrit vardhamānaman-
tra,21 which asks for protection in the court of the king, in battle,
and in various other pursuits.22
• The guru should sprinkle a mixture of saffron and ash on the

initiand’s head and recite a Sanskrit mantra to the one whose
body is attired with purity and the three jewels of right faith,
knowledge, and conduct, who is made of light, and who has
sensory and scriptural knowledge, mind-reading capabilities,
clairvoyance, and omniscience (i.e., the Jina).23 He should begin
pulling out the initiand’s hair, reciting a mantra of syllables.24
• To complete pulling out the initiand’s hair, the guru should pull
out five fistfuls of the initiand’s hair while reciting a Sanskrit
version of the pañcanamaskāramantra that honours the Five
Supreme Lords of Jainism, (1) the enlightened being (arhat), (2)
the liberated soul (siddha), (3) the mendicant leader (ācārya),
(4) the mendicant teacher (upādhyāya), and (5) all ordinary
mendicants (sādhu).25 The Siddhabhakti then should be recited.

mūrtaye śrī śāntināthāya śāntikarāya sarvavighnapraṇāśanāya sarvarogāpamṛtyu-
vināśanāya sarvaparakṛtakṣudropadravavināśanāya sarvakṣāmaḍāmaravināśanāya
oṃ hrāṃ hrīṃ hrūṃ hrauṃ hraḥ a si ā u sā amukasya (i.e., name of initiand) sarva-
śāntiṃ kuru kuru svāhā (VBhS, p. 444). Here, the a stands for the enlightened soul
(arhat), si for the liberated soul (siddha), ā for the mendicant leader (ācārya), u for
the mendicant teacher (upādhyāya), and sā for the ordinary mendicant (sādhu).
20
Paṇḍit Vimalkumār Jain’s notebook names milk, curd, ghee, saffron, akṣata,
and dūrvāṅkura as the substances to be sprinkled on the head of the initiand.
21
Paṇḍit Vimalkumār Jain’s notebook notes that the vardhamānamantra is also
called the “Mantra for Victory,” the vijayamantra.
22
The mantra reads: oṃ namo bhayavado vadḍhamāṇassa risahassa cakkaṃ
jalaṃtaṃ gacchai āyāsaṃ pāyālaṃ loyāṇaṃ bhūyāṇaṃ jaye vā vivāde vā thaṃbhaṇe
vā raṇaṃgaṇe vā rāyaṃgaṇe vā moheṇa vā savvjīvasattāṇaṃ aparājido bhavadu
rakkha rakkha svāhā (VBhS, p. 444).
23
The mantra reads: ratnatrayapavitrīkṛtottamāṅgāya jyotirmayāya mati-
śrutāvadhimanaḥparyayakevalajñānāya a si ā u sā svāhā (VBhS, p. 445).
24
The mantra reads: oṃ hrīṃ śrīṃ klīṃ aiṃ arhaṃ a si ā u sā svāhā (VBhS, p. 445).
25
oṃ hrāṃ arhadbhyo namaḥ oṃ hrīṃ siddhebhyo namaḥ oṃ hrūṃ sūribhyo
namaḥ oṃ hrauṃ pāṭhakebhyo namaḥ oṃ hraḥ sarvasādhubhyo namaḥ (VBhS, p.
ELLEN GOUGH 241
• Having had his head washed and having recited the Gurubhakti,
the initiand should remove his clothes and other ornaments.
• The guru should pronounce 108 times a mantra that comprises

seed syllables and the first letters of the pañcanamaskāraman-
tra.26 He then should recite a Prakrit verse (gāthā) that praises
the three jewels, the 24 Jinas, the Five Supreme Lords, and right
conduct.27
• Having made these recitations, the guru should use saffron,

camphor, and sandalwood paste to write the seed-syllable śrī 34
times on the forehead of the initiand in the four directions: three
śrīs should be painted to the east (pūrva), twenty-four to the
south (dakṣiṇa), five to the west (paścima), and two to the north
(uttara). Having written these śrīs, he should pronounce San-
skrit praises to right faith, knowledge, and conduct.
• The guru should recite the Siddhabhakti, the Cāritrabhakti, and

the Yogibhakti, and place rice (taṇḍula), a coconut, and betel
(pūgīphala) in the cupped hands of the initiand.
• The guru accepts from the initiand a commitment to the 28 root

qualities (mūlaguṇa) of a monk: (1-5) the five vows of nonvio-
lence (ahiṃsā), truth (satya), not taking what is not given
(asteya), celibacy (brahmacarya), and non-possession
(aparigraha), (6-10) the five samitis of care in walking, care in
speaking, care in accepting alms, care in picking things up and
putting them down, and care in relieving oneself, (11-15) re-
straining the five senses (indriyarodha), (16-21) the six essential
duties of equanimity (samāyika), praise of the 24 Jinas (catur-
viṃśatistava), praise of the guru (vandana), confession
(pratikramaṇa), performance of meditative standing pose
(kāyotsarga), and taking short-term vows (pratyākhyāna), (22)
pulling out one’s hair, (23) nudity, (24) not bathing, (25) sleep-

445). The original pañcanamaskāramantra was composed in Prakrit. On this mantra,
see ROTH 1974.
26
The mantra reads: oṃ hrīṃ arhaṃ a si ā u sā hrīṃ svāhā (VBhS, p. 445).
27
The verse reads: rayaṇattayaṃ ca vaṃde cauvīsajiṇaṃ tahā vaṃde | paṃcagurūṇāṃ
vaṃde cāraṇajugalaṃ tahā vaṃde | (VBhS, p. 445).

ing on the ground, (26) not brushing one’s teeth, (27) eating
standing, and (28) taking meals once a day.28
To accept these vows, the initiand recites a Prakrit verse first found in
Kundakunda’s “Essence of the Teachings,” the Pravacanasāra (ca. first
few centuries CE). Pravacanasāra 3.8 reads:
[The root qualities of a śramaṇa are] vows (Skt. vrata), religious ob-
servances (Skt. samiti), restraint of the senses (Skt. indriyarodha),
pulling out the hair (Skt. luñcana), essential duties (Skt. āvaśyaka),
nudity (Skt. acailakya), not bathing (Skt. asnāna), sleeping on the
ground (Skt. kṣitiśayana), not brushing one’s teeth (Skt. adanta-
dhāvana), eating standing (Skt. sthitibhojana), and taking meals once
a day (Skt. ekabhakta).29
• Having repeated, three times, “May you have the correct vows,
fixed vows that constitute correct faith (samyaktva),” the guru
should recite the Śāntibhakti, and various foodstuffs (rice etc.)
should be offered to the disciple.30
• The guru should impart to the initiand 16 rites of passage

(saṃskāra) by reciting a mantra requesting that each quality or
power of the saṃskāra blossom in the soon-to-be monk (iha
munau sphuratu) and sprinkling cloves and flowers on the initi-
and’s head. These saṃskāras, unlike the worldly Brahmanical
saṃskāras of conception, birth, naming, marriage, etc., impart
the ideal qualities of a mendicant. The first four saṃskāras, for
example, impart right faith (samyagdarśana), right knowledge

28
Digambara nuns adopt only 15 of the mūlaguṇas. They do not eat standing,
they do not take the full vow of non-possession, as they wear white robes (they adopt
105 of the 108 requirements of aparigraha), and they do not uphold the guṇa of not
bathing, as they are required to bathe when they menstruate. Āryikā Śubhamatī Mātā,
personal communication with the author, Mumbai, July 2013.
29
Pravacanasāra (PraSār) 3.8: vadasamidiṃdiyarodho locāvāsayam acelam
aṇhāṇaṃ | khidisayaṇam adantadhāvanaṃ ṭhidibhoyaṇam eyabhattaṃ ca ||. The rea-
ding here, “adantadhāvana” corrects the reading of “adantavaṇaṃ” in VBhS, p. 446.
30
Paṇḍit Vimalkumār Jain’s notes prescribe that the mother and father of the ini-
tiand offer these foodstuffs.
ELLEN GOUGH 243
(samyagjñāna), right conduct (samyagcāritra), and the ability to

perform external and internal austerities (bāhyābhyantaratapas).
• The guru should place his hand on the initiand’s head and pro-
nounce a mantra that consists of the Prakrit pañcanamaskāra-
mantra – ṇamo arihaṃtāṇam ṇamo siddhāṇaṃ ṇamo āiriyāṇaṃ
ṇamo uvajjhāyāṇaṃ ṇamo loe savvasāhūṇaṃ – plus the Sanskrit
mantra oṃ paramahaṃsāya parameṣṭhine haṃsa haṃsa haṃ
hrāṃ hriṃ hrīṃ hrūṃ hrauṃ hraḥ jināya namaḥ jinaṃ
sthāpayāmi saṃvauṣaṭ.31
• The guru should read the names of the monks in the mendicant
lineage of the initiand (gurvāvali), ending by pronouncing the
initiand’s new mendicant name. All current Digambara mendi-
cant groups trace their lineages back to Kundakunda, whom
they believe flourished in the first century CE. Monks initiating
a disciple thus first recite “Kundakundādi” or “Kundakunda
etc.” and then recite the names of the monks in their twentieth-
century lineage. Monks in Ācārya Vairāgyanandī’s lineage,
then, recite the names of: Ācārya Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara, Ācārya
Mahāvīrakīrti, Ācārya Kunthusāgara, and Ācārya Vairāgya-
nandī. Thus, by simply reciting “etc.” or “ādi,” modern monks
create the illusion of a continuous chain of monks going all the
way back to Kundakunda, but they do not have to provide spe-
cific names from the late medieval and early modern period,
when there were effectively no naked monks.
• Community members should gift the new initiate the insignia of

a Digambara monk: (1) a broom of peacock feathers (picchikā),
(2) a scripture (śāstra), and (3) a water pot (kamaṇḍalu). Mod-
ern monks are given the earliest Digambara text on mendicant
rules, the Mūlācāra, which will be discussed below.
• The initiate should wash the ritual substances off his face and
head (mukhaśuddhakriyā) (VBhS, pp. 442–449).

31
Paṇḍit Vimalkumār Jain’s notes term this mantra the “guru mantra.”

This outline provides only a glimpse of the ostentation and complexity of

modern Digambara dīkṣā ceremonies. In the dīkṣā I witnessed in Kekri in
November 2013, it took eleven days to perform all of the following rites:32
November 10–17: Worship of a large ritual diagram, the “Ring of Dis-

ciples” (gaṇadharavalaya). Inside a ritual pavilion (maṇḍapa) in a worship
hall (upāśraya), ritual specialists constructed a large diagram of coloured
powder measuring approximately 10ft x 10ft. An icon of the Jina was es-
tablished at the centre of the diagram, surrounded by three coloured rings
decorated with 1,452 white dots. Each dot represented one of the original
disciples (gaṇadhara) of the 24 Tīrthaṅkaras. To worship the diagram of
coloured powder, the initiands would recite a Hindi line of praise to one of
these disciples and then place a coconut on the diagram for that disciple.
November 17: Performance of the śāntividhāna, or the offering of food-

stuffs to a coloured diagram dedicated to the sixteenth Tīrthaṅkara Śāntinātha
in order to remove obstacles.33
November 18: Fire offerings (havana) to complete the worship of the

ritual diagram, application of turmeric paste (haldī) and henna (mahendī) to
the hands and feet of the initiands.
November 19: Procession of the initiands around town, singing of songs

by women (ladies’ saṅgīta).
November 20: Initiands take a ritual bath (maṅgalasnāna), perform the

physical worship (pūjā) and ablution (abhiṣeka) of a Tīrthaṅkara icon, and
then, on a stage in front of the lay community, undertake the rites of mo-
nastic ordination as outlined above, pulling out their hair, removing their
clothing, taking the vows, receiving mantras from their guru and a water
pot (kamaṇḍalu), broom (picchikā), and scripture (śāstra) from the lay
community.

32
The key difference between the performance in Kekri and the prescriptions in
Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah was the use of substances. Ācārya Vairāgyanandī and his
fellow monks used only mixtures of sandalwood paste and cloves to impart the vows
and mantras, and did not use flowers, ash, cow products, blades of dūrvā grass, etc.
33
On this diagram, also known as the Śāntinātha Maṇḍala Vidhāna, see CORT
2008: 146–155.
ELLEN GOUGH 245
The diversity of rites undertaken in the above outlines – from the worship
of the Ring of Disciples to the final day of ordination – shows how this
Digambara ceremony, like every ritual, did not emerge as a coherent whole,
but is instead a product of a variety of historical developments and agendas.
In these rituals, we can see multiple layers. We can see the extravagant,
communal rites such as the procession around town and the ladies’ saṅgīta
that show off and celebrate renunciation as the ultimate event in the life of
a Jain. Performing ceremonies usually associated with the most celebrated
life event, a wedding, by dressing the initiands in expensive garments and
decorating their bodies with henna establishes renunciation as the life event
whose celebration should usurp all others. On top of these communal rites,
the fundamental acts of monastic renunciation performed on the final day –
pulling out one’s hair, taking the vows of a mendicant, and standing on
stage in front of hundreds of laypeople in a meditative posture (kāyotsarga)
and removing one’s clothes – constitute another ascetic layer of the rite.
There are also acts of great devotion, such as the recitation of the Bhaktis.
At the same time, the ceremony also contains key components of Tantric
initiation: the construction of a maṇḍala preceding the initiation proper,
and the imparting of mantras from the guru to initiand. Digambaras do,
then, enshrine collectivity through their initiation rites. Through the use of
ascetic, devotional, and Tantric ritual elements, they establish fundamental
connections between guru and disciple, gaṇadhara and modern muni, and
layperson and mendicant. How were all these elements incorporated into
modern Digambara dīkṣā ceremonies? We can answer this question by
moving chronologically through Jain texts, searching for the components of
modern Digambara initiation ceremonies.
Early Jain sources on mendicant initiation
The earliest account of Digambara initiation may be found in Kundakun-

da’s Prakrit text the “Essence of the Teachings,” the Pravacanasāra, which
likely dates to the first half of the first millennium and must have been
composed before the eighth century.34 The beginning of the third chapter
dedicated to mendicant duties briefly describes the process of renouncing
the world:

34
For some datings of Kundakunda to between the first and third centuries CE,
see UPADHYE 1935: 10–16. For a placement of him in the eighth century, see DHAKY
1991.

Having again and again honoured the enlightened souls (Skt. sid-
dha), the mighty, supreme Jinas, and the monks (Skt. muni), if he de-
sires release from suffering, may he become a monk, having taken
leave of all his relatives, having been let go by elders, his wife and
children, and being intent on the cultivation of knowledge, faith,
conduct, austerities, and power (Skt. vīrya).35
He prostrates himself before a monk (Skt. śramaṇa) who is the head of a

mendicant group (Skt. gaṇin), fixed in virtues, endowed with distinctive
family, form, and age, and honoured by mendicants, saying “Admit me,”
and he is accepted into the mendicant order.36
I do not belong to others, nor do others belong to me; there is nothing

that is mine here: thus determined and conquering his senses, he
adopts a form similar to that in which he was born [i.e., nudity] (Skt.
yathājātarūpadhara).37
The [external] mark [of a Jain monk] consists in possessing a form in

which one is born (being nude), in pulling out the hair on one’s head
and face, in being pure, in being devoid of violence, etc., and in not
attending to the body (Skt. apratikarman). The [internal] 38 mark [of
a Jain monk], which is the cause of freedom from rebirth, consists in
being free from infatuation and preliminary sins, in being endowed
with purity of manifestation of consciousness and activities, and in
having no desire for anything else.39

35
PraSār III.1–2: evaṃ paṇamiya siddhe jiṇavaravasahe puṇo puṇo samaṇe |
paḍivajjadu sāmaṇṇaṃ jadi icchadi dukkhaparimokkhaṃ || āpiccha baṃdhugaggaṃ
vimocido gurukalattaputtehiṃ | āsijja ṇāṇadaṃsaṇacarittatavavīriyāyāraṃ ||.
36
PraSār III.3: samaṇaṃ gaṇiṃ guṇaḍḍhaṃ kularūvavayovisiṭṭhamiṭṭhadaraṃ |
samaṇehi taṃ pi paṇado paḍiccha maṃ cedi aṇugahido ||.
37
PraSār III.4: ṇāhaṃ homi paresiṃ ṇa me pare ṇatthi majjhamiha kiṃci | idi
ṇicchido jidiṃdo jādo jadhajādarūvadharo ||.
38
The twelfth-century commentator Jayasena understands the first “liṅgam” of
this verse to be the dravyaliṅgam, and the second the bhāvaliṅgam (Sanskrit text in
UPADHYE 1935: 279).
39
PraSār III.5–6: jadhajādarūvajādaṃ uppāḍidakesamaṃsugaṃ suddhaṃ | ra-
hidaṃ hiṃsādīdo uppaḍikammaṃ havadi liṃgaṃ || mucchāraṃbhavimukkaṃ juttaṃ
uvajogajogasuddhīhiṃ | liṃgaṃ ṇa parāvekkhaṃ apuṇavbhavakāraṇaṃ jainam ||.
ELLEN GOUGH 247
Having adopted [these] mark[s] at the hands of an excellent guru,

having bowed before him, and having heard the course of duties con-
sisting of vows, when one begins to practice [these vows], he be-
comes a monk (Skt. śramaṇa).40
The next verse, Pravacanasāra 8.8, which outline the 28 root qualities of a
mendicant, from accepting the five vows to eating only once a day, is recit-
ed to this day as part of modern Digambara initiation ceremonies (see
above). These 28 qualities, which stress asceticism, were likely formulated
quite early, with one of the earliest Digambara texts on mendicant conduct,
the Mūlācāra (ca. second to fifth century CE),41 also identifying the same
28 mūlaguṇas of a monk.42
Early Digambara sources do not provide any more information about the
performance of renunciation. Śvetāmbara canonical texts (āgama) from the
first few centuries CE,43 however, do give us some descriptions of the ini-
tial entrance into a mendicant group that may shed light on the practices
undertaken by members of both of these sects, especially since the distinc-
tion between Digambara and Śvetāmbara may not have been formally fixed
at this early stage. Narrative accounts of the initial entrance into a mendi-
cant group (pravrajyā) from Śvetāmbara Āgamas such as the Bhaga-
vatīsūtra (BhS) and the Jñātādharmakathā (Jñā) suggest that there was at
that time a somewhat formalised ritual of renunciation. The majority of
these accounts describe how the initiands face the northeast, ritually pull
out their hair, remove their clothes and ornaments, and approach a senior

40
PraSār III.7: ādāya taṃ pi liṃgaṃ guruṇā parmeṇaṃ taṃ ṇamaṃsittā | soccā
savadaṃ kiriyaṃ uvaṭṭhido hodi so samaṇo ||. The translation above is adapted from
the one found in UPADHYE 21935: 405–406.
41
The common dating of the Mūlācāra to the second century (see, e.g., CORT
2002: 72; JAINI 1991: 46) is not confirmed, but evidence suggests that the text is
quite old. The seventh chapter of this text is understood to be an earlier version of the
Śvetāmbara Āvaśyakaniryukti attributed to Bhadrabāhu (see LEUMANN 2010: 44–58).
Based on paṭṭāvalīs, LEUMANN (2010: 78) places the earliest possible date for the
completion of the Āvaśyakaniryukti at 80 CE. OHIRA (1994: 11, 163) argues that the
majority of the contents of the present-day Āvaśyakaniryukti, after a long period of
development, were codified between the first and fifth centuries CE. We can thus
place the Mūlācāra in the first half of the first millennium, and parts may, indeed,
date to the second century CE.
42
For the entire list of these 28 mūlaguṇas, see Mūl vv. 2–3.
43
For these dates, I rely on the “canonical stages” proposed in OHIRA 1994: 1–39.

mendicant, circumambulating him three times and expressing the intent to

renounce using a standard formula found in multiple texts.
The Jñātādharmakathā contains a lengthy description of the renuncia-
tion of Prince Megha (Pkt. Meha), who decides to renounce into the mendi-
cant order of the twenty-fourth Tīrthaṅkara, Mahāvīra. In this account,
Prince Megha has his hair cut to the length of four fingers, is ritually bathed
with gold and silver pots, and is paraded through the city in a palanquin.
Facing east, the prince sits in the palanquin with his mother and his nurse,
who carries the two symbols of a Śvetāmbara monk – a broom (Pkt. ra-
yaharaṇa) and an alms bowl (Pkt. paḍiggaha)44 – which were bought from
a shop and to be gifted to the prince upon his renunciation. After reaching a
temple outside the city of Rājagṛha (Pkt. Rāyagiha), the prince stands to the
northeast of Mahāvīra, removes his clothes and ornaments (Pkt.
ābharaṇamallālaṃkāraṃ omuyai), pulls out his hair in five fistfuls (Pkt.
paṃcamuṭṭhiyaṃ loyaṃ karei), and makes three circumambulations of
Mahāvīra. While circumambulating, he recites an intention to renounce
found in several sources45 and that includes a description of the state of the
world as ablaze with the fire of decay and death, a statement of faith in the
Jain teachings, and a declared desire to have one’s hair pulled out and to
accept the ascetic way of life.46 The key rite of renunciation in this and
other early Jain accounts seems to be the moment of pulling out one’s hair.
While the general Prakrit term for pulling out one’s hair is muṇdāvaṇa, the
specific rite performed at renunciation is known as “pulling out of five
fistfuls of hair” (paṃcamuṭṭhiyaṃ loyaṃ karaṇa), and this phrase is often
used as shorthand for renunciation.
In these accounts from the Jñātādharmakathā and the Pravacanasāra,
we can see the celebratory and ascetic components of modern Digambara
initiations. We see the procession around town of the initiand that promotes
these Jain ideals to the larger community, proclaiming renunciation as the
ideal undertaking. We also see the ascetic core of the rite: the removal of

44
Jñā 1.143.
45
Jñā 1.159. For this same statement of intent to renounce, see also BhS 2.1.34,
9.32.16, and 9.32.17.
46
Jñā 1.140–159. For a more detailed summary of Megha’s renunciation, see
DEO 1956: 142. This story seems to have been drawn from a template for royal
initiations, as King Śailaka’s initiation in Jñā 5.53–57 is described in essentially the
same way as King Megha’s. BhS 9.33.21–82 also contains a lengthy description of
the renunciation of Prince Jamāli that parallels the renunciations of royalty descri-
bed in the Jñātādharmakathā.
ELLEN GOUGH 249
clothes, the pulling out of one’s hair, the gifting of the insignia of a mendi-
cant, and an ācārya’s acceptance of a disciple. These components belong to
the earliest layer of the rite, found in texts from the first few centuries of
the first millennium.
The medieval tantricisation of Jain mendicant initiation
In medieval texts, we begin to see the rites of renunciation change. Published

medieval Digambara texts do not provide a full account of the rituals in-
volved in mendicant initiation, but we can gain some ideas about these cere-
monies from a few descriptions of rituals that are modelled on mendicant
initiations. The first is an account of lay initiation (upāsakadīkṣā) found in
Ācārya Jinasena’s Ādipurāṇa (ĀP), a ninth-century universal history struc-
tured around the life story of the first Tīrthaṅkara, Ṛṣabha (Ādinātha). Be-
cause Jinasena was a converted Vaiṣṇava Brahmin, multiple scholars have
noted the “Hinduisation” of Jain rituals in the Ādipurāṇa, in particular the
fortieth chapter, which outlines 16 life-cycle rites (saṃskāra) for “Jain brah-
mins” (JAINI 1979: 292–304; DUNDAS 1998: 35). Jinasena likely had access
to knowledge about non-Jain Tantric traditions, since he was employed in the
court of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king Amoghavarṣa (r. 814–880). While Amoghavarṣa
himself supported Jain endeavours, there was certainly acceptance of non-
Jain, especially Śaiva, Tantric sects by Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings before, after, and
around his time (ALTEKAR 1934: 19–23).47
Chapter 38 of the Ādipurāṇa describes how Bharata, Ṛṣabha’s son and
the universal emperor (cakravartin), having established himself as king in
his capital, Ayodhyā, lectures his subjects on the proper ritual actions of a
lay Jain. In this narrative, Bharata insists that a twice-born, or a Brahmin,
has two births: one from his mother, and another from ritual actions.48 A
true twice-born performs 108 rites: 53 rituals related to birth
(garbhānvayakriyā), 48 rituals related to initiation (dīkṣānvayakriyā), and

47
NANDI (1973: 76–78) has drawn upon epigraphic evidence to document the
flourishing of Āgamic Śaiva monastic institutions in the areas of Central and South
India where Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings ruled from the eighth to tenth centuries.
48
Bharata emphasises that a person who does not perform the proper ritual ac-
tions and recite the proper mantras is a twice-born in name only (ĀP 38.48: dvir jāto
hi dvijanmeṣṭaḥ kriyāto garbhataś ca yaḥ | kriyāmantravihīnas tu kevalaṃ nāma-
dhārakaḥ ||).

the seven “fruition” acts that occur only because of the fruition of meritori-
ous acts (kartranvayakriyā).49
For the purpose of our discussion, chapter 39, which outlines 19 of the
48 ritual acts (kriyā) that a Jain should perform to lead one towards dīkṣā
(dīkṣānvayakriyā), is key. In essence, the dīkṣānvaya rituals outline
Jinasena’s understanding of the process of converting to Jainism. They
include the rites for accepting the Jain teachings, removing false gods from
one’s home, and other rituals that lead up to renunciation (dīkṣā), which is
referred to as the rite of removing one’s clothes or “taking the form of the
Jina” (jinarūpitākriyā) (ĀP 39.78). While Jinasena does not give the partic-
ulars of the rites involved in munidīkṣā, his brief outline of the rituals for an
initiation of a layperson, or an upāsakadīkṣā, is likely modelled on contem-
poraneous mendicant initiations.
This lay initiation is called “gaining a place [in the Jain community],”
sthānalābha, and is listed as the third dīkṣānvaya ritual one should under-
take on one’s path to renunciation, after the first rite, “descent [into the
right path]” (avatāra), in which the aspirant is compelled by a worthy
teacher’s sermon to follow the true teaching and reject false teachings, and
the second rite, “adopting right conduct” (vṛttalābha), in which the aspirant
who has approached a teacher to take an unspecified group of vows
(vratavrāta) bows before the guru.50 Jinasena prescribes that after one ac-
cepts a guru and the Jain teachings in this way, experts should construct
one of two types of colored ritual diagrams inside a pure Jain temple
(jinālaya) using finely ground powder (cūrṇa) mixed with either water or
sandalwood paste etc. They should construct either an eight-petalled lotus
or a representation of the Jina’s Preaching Assembly (samavasaraṇa), in
which a newly enlightened Jina sits on a divinely made throne, surrounded
by all the beings of the universe seated in concentric circles who have gath-
ered to hear the teachings on the truths of life and death. The diagram
should be worshiped, and the mendicant head (sūri), according to ritual
prescription, should have the initiand enter (the maṇḍala) facing the icon of
the Jina (presumably placed at the centre of the diagram).
Touching the head of the disciple, he should pronounce, “This is your
lay initiation (upāsakadīkṣā).”51 Having touched the initiand’s head accord-

49
For a list of these 108 rites, see ĀP 38.51–62.
50
ĀP 39.36: tato ’sya vṛttalābhaḥ syāt tadaiva gurupādayoḥ | praṇatasya vrata-
vrātaṃ *vidhānenopaseduṣaḥ (em. vidhānenupaleduṣaḥ ed.) ||.
51
ĀP 39.38–41: jinālaye śucau raṅge padmam aṣṭadalaṃ likhet | vilikhed vā jina-
sthānamaṇḍalaṃ samavṛttakam || ślakṣeṇa piṣṭacūrṇena salilāloḍitena vā | vartanaṃ
ELLEN GOUGH 251
ing to the procedure of the rite of “pulling out five fistfuls of hair” and hav-
ing said, “You are purified by means of this dīkṣā,” the guru, pronouncing,
“By this mantra, all of your bad karma (pāpa) is purified,” should teach
him the pañcanamaskāramantra.52 Above, we saw how modern Digamba-
ras impart a Sanskrit version of this mantra at the time of the guru’s pulling
out of the disciple’s hair, but this text presumably refers to the original
version of the mantra, which is a Prakrit litany to the Five Supreme Lords
of Jainism that is first found as an auspicious benediction (maṅgala) at the
start of a text on karma theory dated to the first half of the first millennium,
the “Scripture of Six Parts,” the Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama (ṢkhĀ):53
Praise to the enlightened beings, praise to the liberated beings,

praise to the mendicant leaders, praise to the mendicant teachers,
praise to all mendicants in the world. 54
Having been taught this mantra, the initiate is then allowed to break his fast
and return home,55 where he should expel the icons of false gods (mith-
yādevatā) from his house, taking them elsewhere.56 In the next step, he is to

maṇḍalasyeṣṭaṃ candanādidraveṇa vā || tasminn aṣṭadale padme jaine vā’’sthāna-
maṇḍale | vidhinā likhite tajjñair viṣvagviracitārcane || jinārcābhimukhaṃ sūrir vidhi-
nainaṃ niveśayet | tavopāsakadīkṣeyam iti mūrdhni muhuḥ spṛśan ||.
52
ĀP 39.40–43: pañcamuṣṭividhānena spṛṣṭvainam adhimastakam | pūto ’si dī-
kṣayety uktvā siddhaśeṣā ca lambhayet || tataḥ pañcanamaskārapadāny asmā upādi-
śet | mantro ’yam akhilāt pāpāt tvāṃ punītāditīrayan ||. The text here that reads “sid-
dhaśeṣā ca lambhayet” is not clear, so I have avoided summarising it above. How-
ever, as we saw in the description of the dīkṣā from 2013, and as we will see below
in discussions of medieval texts, recitations of certain praise poems called Bhaktis
are key components of dīkṣās, and the Siddhabhakti is recited at the time of the pul-
ling out of the initiand’s hair. I hypothesise, then, that this unusual term (siddhaśesā)
could be a bahuvrīhi compound referring to the Bhaktis, of which the remaining is
the siddha. The text could be instructing the guru to cause the recitation of the Sid-
dhabhakti. I thank Phyllis Granoff for this suggestion.
53
Scholars have hypothesised a variety of dates for the ṢkhĀ, from the first
century BCE to the sixth century CE. For a good overview of the debate, see WILEY
2008: 57, n. 36.
54
ṢkhĀ 1.1.: ṇamo arihaṃtāṇam ṇamo siddhāṇaṃ ṇamo āiriyāṇaṃ | ṇamo
uvajjhāyāṇạṃ ṇamo loe savvasāhūṇaṃ ||.
55
ĀP 39.44: kṛtvā vidhim imaṃ paścāt pāraṇāya visarjayet | guror anugrahāt
so’pi saṃprītaḥ svagṛhaṃ vrajet ||.
56
On this rite, known as the gaṇagrahakriyā, see ĀP 39.45–48.

perform Jain rites (the pūjārādhyakriyā) such as fasting, temple worship,

and listening to the meanings of the Jain scriptures (aṅga).57
After outlining 19 of the 48 rites that lead to initiation, the text describes
the seven “fruition acts” (kartranvayakriyā) that chart the progression of a
soul from birth as a man to eventual liberation: (1) birth as a human male in
a good family (sajjāti), (2) being an honourable householder (sadgṛhitva),
(3) initiating as a monk (pārivrājya), (4) rebirth as a god (surendratā), (5)
subsequent birth as a universal emperor (sāmrājya), (6) becoming enlight-
ened (ārhantya), and (7) achieving liberation (nirvṛtti) (ĀP 39.82–211).
Here, in the verses on initiating as a monk, the term for renunciation used
in early Digambara texts, pārivrājya, is glossed as “liberating initiation,” or
nirvāṇadīkṣā. It is further described, recalling the Pravacanasāra, as adopt-
ing one’s appearance at birth (jātarūpa), i.e., nudity.58 The text emphasises
that a person who desires to be liberated (a mumukṣu) must approach a Jain
mendicant leader, an ācārya, on an auspicious day and at an auspicious
time, to undertake this dīkṣā.59 Other than this remark, the remaining de-
scription of munidīkṣā does not provide any information about the rituals
involved in renouncing.
While the Ādipurāṇa thus does not provide us with a detailed descrip-
tion of the renunciation of a monk, its discussions of initiations hint at the
“tantricisation” of Digambara dīkṣā, as several aspects of the upāsaka and
muni dīkṣās echo contemporaneous non-Jain Tantric initiations. To begin
with, Jinasena’s renaming of pārivrājya as nirvāṇadīkṣā suggests a corre-
spondence with Tantric traditions such as the Śaiva Mantramārga, whose
members use this very term for their highest level of initiation.60 The
upāsakadīkṣā outlined by Jinasena also includes a key component of Tan-
tric initiations scholars familiar with the Pāñcarātra, Śaiva Siddhānta, and
other Tantric initiations will immediately recognise: the construction of a

57
ĀP 39.49: pūjārādhyākhyayā khyātā kriyā’sya syād ataḥ parā | pūjopavāsa-
saṃpattyā śṛṇvato’ṅgārthasaṃgraham ||.
58
ĀP 39.156: pārivrājyaṃ parivrājo bhāvo nirvāṇadīkṣaṇam | tatra nirmamatā
vṛttyā jātarūpasya dharaṇam ||.
59
ĀP 39.157: praśastatithinakṣatrayogalagna[muhūrtaḥ] grahāṃśake | nirgra-
nthācāryam āśritya dīkṣā grāhyā mumukṣuṇā ||.
60
For a good overview of the different types of initiation found in the Śaiva
Āgamas, the three initiations (samaya, viśeṣa, and nirvāṇa) codified in later ritual
manuals (paddhati), and the levels of initiate (sādhaka, ācārya), see BHATT 1977:
xviii–xxiii. For an overview of Pāñcarātra initiation rites and levels, see GUPTA 1983:
69–91.
ELLEN GOUGH 253
maṇḍala.61 In addition, readers might be reminded of non-Jain Tantric initi-

ations when they read about the principle that mantras destroy karma.
Quoting from the sixth chapter of the Kiraṇāgama, Alexis Sanderson has
described how in the nirvāṇadīkṣā of the Śaiva Mantramārga, the mantras
“are the immediate agents by which the fetters are destroyed” (SANDERSON
1992: 286). The construction of a ritual diagram and the usage of a karma-
destroying mantra are thus two components of the Ādipurāṇa’s descrip-
tions of initiation not found in early Jain outlines of renunciation but found
in medieval non-Jain Tantric texts.
The Ādipurāṇa’s discussion of lay and mendicant initiations is not,
however, a mere adoption of Śaiva Tantric ritual culture. It is, in many
ways, exceptionally Jain. Jinasena has expertly combined early Jain teach-
ings with medieval ritual developments. Firstly, he transforms the Jina’s
Preaching Assembly (samavasaraṇa) into an initiation maṇḍala. The sa-
mavasaraṇa, in which the entire universe surrounds the newly enlightened
Jina in concentric circles to hear him preach, is depicted in Jain texts and
art from the early centuries CE,62 and in the medieval period this preaching
assembly became the ideal diagram to be used in Tantric rites such as
dīkṣā.63
Jinasena’s description of the guru’s imparting of the pañcanamaskāra-
mantra, said to destroy all bad karma, also draws upon earlier Jain teach-
ings and practices. This idea that the pañcanamaskāra destroys bad karma
is found in the above-mentioned Digambara text on mendicant conduct
dated to the first few centuries CE, the Mūlācāra, which uses the pañcana-
maskāra as a maṅgala – an auspicious start to the text – and declares that
“this five-fold praise destroys all bad karma and is the foremost maṅgala of
all maṅgalas.”64 Jinasena thus relies upon an old Jain understanding of the

61
For the construction of maṇḍalas in Śaiva initiation ceremonies, see TÖRZSÖK
2003: 179–224.
62
For some of the early textual accounts of the samavasaraṇa, see SHAH 1955:
85–95 and BALBIR 1994: 67–104. For a recent discussion of the samavasaraṇa in
both Digambara and Śvetāmbara art, see HEGEWALD 2010: 1–20.
63
See, for example, the second chapter of the Pañcāśakaprakaraṇa (PP) by the
eighth-century Haribhadra, which outlines the dīkṣāvidhi in which an initiand,
blindfolded, should throw a flower onto a diagram of the Preaching Assembly in
order to determine his worthiness for renunciation and his future birth placement
(PP 2.16–29).
64
Mūl 514: eso paṃcaṇamoyāro savvapāvapaṇāsaṇo | maṅgalesu ya savvesu
paḍamaṃ havadi maṃgalaṃ ||.

power of sound to develop a Tantric rite of initiation. Indeed, of all the so-
called “Tantric” initiations that emerged in the medieval period, this
Digambara version may have the most coherent genealogy of the soterio-
logical function of ritual utterances.
This genealogy continues into the present day, because, as noted above,
modern Digambara ācāryas pronounce the pañcanamaskāra when they
complete the pulling out of the initiand’s hair. This parallel between the lay
initiation described in the ninth-century Ādipurāṇa and modern mendicant
initiations suggests that Jinasena’s upāsakadīkṣā was modelled on a mendi-
cant initiation. By the ninth century, it is likely that mendicant initiations,
like this lay initiation, had been tantricised in ways that persist to this day.
Unfortunately, few medieval Digambara texts provide evidence for this
claim. The other medieval mentions of dīkṣā in texts of prominent Digam-
bara monks who followed Jinasena shed no light on the medieval ritual use
of maṇḍalas and mantras in Digambara dīkṣā ceremonies. Instead, they
focus on the recitation of praise poems called Bhaktis.
Emphasising devotion: the medieval silence

on the tantricisation of initiation
Published pre-modern Digambara accounts of the initiation of a mendicant
(munidīkṣā) suggest that it was appropriate for monks to emphasise the
ascetic components of dīkṣā and to outline the praises to Jain ideals recited
in these ceremonies, but little else could be discussed. As research stands
now, there are two known coherent65 accounts of the rituals involved in
munidīkṣā in medieval Digambara texts: Cāmuṇḍarāya’s “Essence of Cor-
rect Conduct,” the Cāritrasāra (ca. 1000), and Āśādhara’s “Nectar of
Righteous Conduct for a Mendicant,” the Anagāradharmāmṛta composed
in 1240. Both of these texts focus mostly on which of the hymns called
“Devotions,” Bhaktis, should be recited for different parts of initiation.
The exact history of these Bhaktis is not known, though they feature in
most Digambara lay and mendicant rituals today. Compilations of these
recitations will group them into two sets of hymns called “Ten Bhaktis,”
one set of Prakrit praise poems attributed to the Digambara monk Kun-
dakunda who, as noted above, can be placed in the first half of the first

65
The only other known published Digambara dīkṣāvidhi in a pre-modern source,
five verses in Vidyānuśāsana (VA), pp. 263–264, is too cryptic and corrupt to exa-
mine at this point.
ELLEN GOUGH 255
millennium, and another set of ten Sanskrit Bhaktis attributed to the

Digambara monk Pūjyapāda, who can be placed in the seventh century.66
Pūjyapāda and Kundakunda likely did not compose these recitations, how-
ever, and the number and names of Bhaktis in various sources are not uni-
form, nor is the content of the recitations. Many contemporary lists of the
so-called “Ten Bhaktis” contain more than ten hymns. 67 A serious study of
the history and contents of these praises is desperately needed, but for now
we will just note that descriptions of Digambara dīkṣā ceremonies from the
eleventh and thirteenth centuries focus mostly on the recitation of these
praises, and little else.
After Jinasena’s Ādipurāṇa, the next published account of a Digambara
dīkṣā is found in a Sanskrit text composed by Cāmuṇḍarāya, a disciple of
Jinasena. Despite being a disciple of the monk who revealed that Digamba-
ra Jains likely used maṇḍalas and mantras in their mendicant initiations,
Cāmuṇḍarāya says nothing of the use of these ritual components in his
manual on lay and mendicant conduct, the “Essence of Conduct,” the
Cāritrasāra (ca. 1000). Cāmuṇḍarāya does, however, describe two stages
of renunciation: (1) leaving the world to join a mendicant order
(saṃnyāsa), and (2) the initiation (dīkṣā), which is characterised by pulling
out one’s hair. He also outlines the promotion to the rank of mendicant
leader (ācārya), but for all of these rites Cāmuṇḍarāya remains silent on
“Tantric” topics, focusing mostly on when to recite certain Bhaktis.
At the beginning of the ceremony for renunciation (saṃnyāsa),
Cāmuṇḍarāya explains, one should recite the Siddhabhakti praising the
liberated soul. One should then listen to teachings (vācanā) and then recite
the Sūribhakti and the Śrutabhakti, in praise of the mendicant leader and

66
For the best (if brief) introduction to the Bhaktis, see UPADHYE ś1935: xxvi–
xxix. LEUMANN (2010: 6–15) examines the Bhaktis as found in different manuscripts
of Prabhācandra’s sixteenth-century commentary on the Kriyākalāpa. CORT 2016
has examined a Sanskrit and Prakrit version of the Yogibhakti.
67
Thirteen different Bhaktis are listed by SHĀNTĀ 1997: 654–655. These are:
Siddhabhakti, Cāritrabhakti, Yogibhakti, Ācāryabhakti, Pañcagurubhakti, Tīrthaṅka-
rabhakti, Śāntibhakti, Samādhibhakti, Nirvāṇabhakti, Caityabhakti, Nandīśvarabhak-
ti, and Vīrabhakti. Twelve Bhaktis are listed as the “Ten Sanskrit Bhaktis,” (saṃskṛt
das bhaktiyāṃ) in KĀMAKUMĀRANANDĪ 2009: xiv–xv. These Sanskrit Bhaktis are
listed as: Arhadbhakti, Siddhabhakti, Caityabhakti, Śrutabhakti, Cāritrabhakti, Yo-
gibhakti, Ācāryabhakti, Pañcamahāgurubhakti, Śāntibhakti, Samādhibhakti, Nirvā-
ṇabhakti, and Nandīśvarabhakti. In this same compilation, seven Bhaktis are listed as
the “Ten Prakrit Bhaktis” (prākṛt das bhaktiyāṃ): Siddhabhakti, Śrutabhakti, Cārit-
rabhakti, Yogabhakti, Ācāryabhakti, and Pañcamahāgurubhakti.

the scriptures, respectively. At the completion of studying (svādhyāya), one

should recite the Śrutabhakti. Then, when the initiand finishes delivering a
sermon, he should recite the Śāntibhakti in praise of the Jina Śānti, an ap-
propriate pacification rite at the end of the ceremony to ensure a positive
outcome of the ritual. After spending some time living as a monk, perform-
ing the required duties such as confession (pratikramaṇa), study
(svādhyāya), and the practice of yoga, one should undertake dīkṣā. For this
rite, when pulling out one’s hair (luñcana), one should recite the Siddha-
bhakti and the Yogibhakti in praise of correct conduct and austerities. When
all of one’s hair has been pulled out, the monk should recite the Siddha-
bhakti, listen to a lecture by the guru, recite the Ācāryabhakti, praise the
ācārya, and then recite the Siddhabhakti (CS, pp. 148–150).68
The account of mendicant initiation and promotion in one of the most
well-known Digambara guides to mendicant conduct, the Sanskrit text
Anagāradharmāmṛta (published as Dharmāmṛtānagāra; DhA), composed
in 1240 by one of the most influential Digambara scholars, Paṇḍita
Āśādhara, a layman who lived in the Paramara Kingdom, Malwa, also fo-
cuses mostly on when to recite certain Bhaktis. In this text, a single San-
skrit verse describes initiation. Āśādhara describes how when one receives
the symbols of renunciation – pulling out one’s hair (luñca), receiving a
new name, becoming naked, and receiving a broom – one should recite the
Siddha-bhakti and the Yogibhakti. Upon the completion of the rite, the Sid-
dhabhakti should be recited.69
It is difficult to form a complete understanding of the historical devel-
opment of the use of the Bhaktis in initiations by comparing the accounts in
the texts of Cāmuṇḍarāya and Āśādhara with the modern manual outlined
above, the Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah. While modern Digambaras use Sanskrit
versions of the Bhaktis published in the sources listed above, it is not clear

68
Cāmuṇḍarāya then describes promotion to the rank of mendicant leader. After
spending some time as a monk (sādhu), with the command of the guru, humble
(vinīta) and virtuous (dharmaśīla) candidates who have been designated as appropri-
ate to become an ācārya should, in the presence of the guru, recite the Siddhabhakti
and the Ācāryabhakti. To complete the ceremonial promotion to the rank of mendi-
cant leader, the monk should recite the Śāntibhakti (CS, p. 152).
69
The promotion to the rank of mendicant leader (ācārya) is also described with
just one verse. Āśādhara says that a monk whose virtues shine (sphuradguṇa), having
recited the Siddhabhakti and the Ācāryabhakti, at the auspicious time, with the per-
mission of his guru, should be promoted to the rank of ācārya and then recite the
Śāntibhakti (DhA 9.83).
ELLEN GOUGH 257
what the contents of the praises were in the medieval period, or whether
Cāmuṇḍarāya and Āśādhara were referring to Sanskrit or Prakrit Bhaktis.
However, there does seem to be some continuity between these three ac-
counts. Āśādhara was aware of Cāmuṇḍarāya’s text, as his own commen-
tary on the Anagāradharmāmṛta the Jñānadīpikā, composed in 1243/44,
cites the Cāritrasāra when explaining the meaning of the verse on the pro-
motion of an ācārya (DhA 9.75). And the modern manual seems to have
continued the tradition of these medieval accounts, as it, too, structures the
dīkṣā around the recitation of certain Bhaktis and prescribes that the Sid-
dhabhakti should be recited when the initiand’s hair is pulled out. Reciting
praises to a liberated soul at the moment when one undertakes the required
action to become that liberated soul – ascetic renunciation – highlights the
purpose of this ritual action.
From the accounts of Āśādhara and Cāmuṇḍarāya, therefore, we can
reason that along with the early ascetic components, the “devotional” layer
of modern renunciation ceremonies, for lack of a better term, was also pre-
sent by the medieval period. Not much else can be deduced from these
accounts, however. If we were to base our analysis on these three known
pre-modern outlines of Digambara initiation – the accounts of Jinasena,
Cāmuṇḍarāya, and Āśādhara – we might be left thinking that the funda-
mental acts of initiation are the recitation of hymns of praise. The only
evidence about Digambaras’ uses of maṇḍalas and mantras in mendicant
initiation would come from a single text, the Ādipurāṇa, that clearly has
been influenced by non-Jain traditions. There would be no way to confirm
whether or not Jinasena’s account in the Ādipurāṇa was just an idiosyncrat-
ic account, so we could not confirm whether or not medieval Digambaras
used mantras and maṇḍalas in mendicant initiations. Thankfully, however,
there are other medieval sources for information on Digambara dīkṣā: man-
uals on the consecration and establishment (pratiṣṭhā) of temple images
(bimba, pratimā, etc.).
The initiation of a monk as

depicted in image consecration rites
Of Digambara published sources, manuals on pratiṣṭhā provide some of the
best clues about the details of medieval mendicant initiations, because they
not only embed the initiation of a monk into the consecration of a temple
image of a Jina, they also model parts of the consecration ceremony on a
dīkṣā. By looking at two of these texts from the thirteenth century, Nemican-

dra’s Pratiṣṭhātilaka (PrT) and Āśādhara’s Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra (PrSā), we

can find medieval roots of three of the Tantric components of the modern
Digambara dīkṣā ceremony outlined above: the recitation of the vard-
hamānamantra, the imparting of the rites of passage (saṃskāra), and the
construction of the maṇḍala called the Ring of Disciples. In these manuals,
transforming an inert material to the physical presence of the Jina requires
ritual specialists to use the stone or metal representations of the Jinas to reen-
act the five auspicious events (pañcakalyāṇaka) in the life of the Jina: (1)
conception (garbha), (2) birth (janman), (3) renunciation (dīkṣā/tapas/
niṣkrama), (4) omniscience or enlightenment (kevalajñāna), and (5) death
and liberation (mokṣa). Because the medieval authors of these texts pre-
scribed the same rites for the icon of the Jina that were performed on hu-
mans, focusing on these texts’ descriptions of the third auspicious event
(dīkṣā) sheds light on the tantricisation of this ceremony in this period.
To this day, ritual specialists performing rites for Bīsapanthīs, members
of the Digambara tradition more popular in South India, follow Nemican-
dra’s Pratiṣṭhātilaka in image consecration ceremonies. Nemicandra com-
posed his manual in Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, around 1200, towards the
end of the rule of the Coḷa kings, who were famous for undertaking mas-
sive temple-building projects based on the prescriptions of Śaiva Saiddhān-
tika texts (NAGASWAMY n.d.). As such, Nemicandra’s manual, like other
Digambara pratiṣṭhā handbooks, aligns with these Tantric sources in many
ways. The first thirteen verses of the tenth chapter of Nemicandra’s
Pratiṣṭhātilaka outline all the rites involved in what it terms the
niṣkramaṇakalyāṇaka, or the rite in which the temple icons being conse-
crated are made to renounce the world. On the ninth day of the image con-
secration ceremony,70 the pūjā of a ritual diagram called the yāgamaṇḍala
should be performed, and the Jina icon should be established in front of the
diagram. Lay worshipers representing gods should sing praises, taking the
Jina to a pavilion established for the initiation ceremony (dīkṣāmaṇḍapa),
and seating the icon below a representation of a tree, where it should be
bathed, worshiped, ornamented, and rubbed with ointments (PrT 10.1–4, p.
234). Then the vardhamānamantra should be pronounced seven times, and
married women (saubhāgyavatī) should perform a lamp offering to the icon
(PrT 10.5, p. 234).71 After offerings are made to the icon, it is taken to a rep-

70
Eight days after the completion of the purification rites and establishment of the
ritual space on the first day of the ceremony (aṅkurārpaṇādi, the establishment of
pots of grains, etc.) (PrT 10.1, p. 234).
71
For another mention of the vardhamānamantra, see PrT 10.8, p. 236.
ELLEN GOUGH 259
resentation of a forest on a palanquin (PrT 10.5, p. 234). The Jina should then
take dīkṣā: his hair should be pulled out and worshiped by laypeople repre-
senting gods (indra), his clothes are to be removed and worshiped, and four
lamps should be lit in order to symbolise the Jina’s attainment of the fourth
type of knowledge, clairvoyance (manaḥparyāya) (PrT 10.9–11, p. 234).72
The above summary of the dīkṣā ceremony for the Jina icon provides
further evidence that some of the Tantric elements in the modern Digamba-
ra ceremony in Kekri had already in the medieval period been integrated
with earlier renunciation rites of communal celebration and ascetic under-
takings. Nemicandra here mentions that the Jina icon should be given the
vardhamānamantra, the mantra that Digambara gurus today impart to their
disciples when they become monks. While the contents of the vardha-
mānamantra are not outlined, Nemicandra’s Pratiṣṭhātilaka suggests that
the modern practice of imparting the vardhamānamantra to the initiand
traces back to at least the thirteenth century, whether or not the contents of
the mantra have remained uniform over time.
Āśādhara’s Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra, composed in Rajasthan in the first half
of the thirteenth century, provides further evidence of the medieval tantrici-
sation of Digambara mendicant initiations. Āśādhara’s account of the aus-
picious event of renunciation also requires laypeople to bring the icon of
the Jina to a representation of a forest, where it should be established below
the tree where renunciation occurs (dīkṣāvṛkṣa), have its hair removed, etc.,
and be placed behind four lamps representing the attainment of clairvoy-
ance (PrSā, 4.99–112, pp. 100b–102b). On top of these rites, the
Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra also prescribes that 48 rites of passage, or saṃskāras,
be given to the Jina image (PrSā 4.130–135, pp. 105b–106a). Each of the
48 saṃskāras should be imparted to the icon with a sprinkling of flowers
(PrSā, p. 106b). While we saw above that modern dīkṣā ceremonies list 18
rites of passage to be imparted to initiands, not 48, the first 18 saṃskāras of
Āśādhara’s list are identical to the 18 imparted to initiands today,73 suggest-
ing that this practice, like the imparting of the vardhamānamantra, has
persisted in Digambara dīkṣās since at least the thirteenth century.
Both of these components – the guru’s transmission of an initiatory
mantra and the imparting of non-Vedic saṃskāras – are common compo-
nents of non-Jain Tantric initiations. Scholars have examined how Tantric

72
On the five types of knowledge, see WILEY 2009: 112.
73
Nemicandra’s Pratiṣṭhātilaka also requires the imparting of saṃskāras, but for
the kevalajñānakalyāṇaka, not the niṣkramaṇakalyāṇaka. See PrT, pp. 247–250.

Vaiṣṇavas74 and Śaivas75 adapted the Vedic paradigm of imparting rites of

passage to create kinship ties separate from those of the community of
Brahmins who had undertaken Vedic initiation rites (upanayana). A similar
idea underlies the imparting of 48 saṃskāras to the Jina icon before it
achieves enlightenment. Here, the icon of the Jina, representing all Jain
mendicants, must enter the Jain community through the ritual transfer of
the saṃskāras of right faith, right knowledge, etc., and the subsequent em-
bodiment of the ideal characteristics of a follower of the Jain teachings.
Thus, the descriptions of the auspicious rite of renunciation in these medie-
val handbooks on pratiṣṭhā provide a wealth of information about the in-
troduction of Tantric components into Digambara dīkṣā ceremonies in the
medieval period.
These image consecration manuals also shed light on the tantricisation
of the dīkṣā because the construction of maṇḍalas made out of colored
powder in pratiṣṭhā ceremonies parallels the construction of a maṇḍala for
the initiation of a mendicant.76 In Nemicandra’s Pratiṣṭhātilaka and in
Āśādhara’s Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra, depending on the image being installed –
whether it be a Jina icon, a representation of a mendicant leader (ācārya),
the footprints of a monk, or another type of image – a different diagram
must be constructed out of colored powder in the days leading up to the
moment when the image becomes established in the temple. These hand-
books suggest that in order for these images to become sacred objects of
worship, they must be sacralised by being placed in front of ritual diagrams
into which the ideals those objects represent are invoked and onto which
foodstuffs are offered. In this way, the consecration of an image is similar
to Tantric initiations that require the invocation of various deities into a
maṇḍala preceding the key moment of initiation.
In the summary of Nemicandra’s text above, we saw how he prescribes
the yāgamaṇḍala to be offered flowers (puṣpañjali) at the outset of the

74
For the imparting of saṃskāras in the Pāñcarātra text the Paramasaṃhitā
(composed before 1000 CE), see CZERNIAK-DROŻDŻOWICZ 2003: 141.
75
On the imparting of saṃskāras (saṃskāradīkṣā) as part of the viśeṣadīkṣā in the
eleventh-century Śaiva text the Somaśambhupaddhati, with ample references to other
Śaiva sources that outline the imparting of saṃskāras (garbhādhāna etc.) as part of
different dīkṣā rites, see BRUNNER-LACHAUX 1977: 112–142.
76
SHINOHARA (2014b: 280–294) has shown how medieval Chinese esoteric Bud-
dhist manuals on image consecration have modelled the worship of a maṇḍala and
the ritual ablution (abhiṣeka) of images in the pratiṣṭhā on the same rites performed
in the abhiṣeka of an ācārya.
ELLEN GOUGH 261
auspicious event of renunciation; indeed, he dictates that the deities and

ideals called into this diagram be offered flowers at the outset of each day
of the consecration ceremony. To this day, Digambaras will construct this
diagram out of synthetic colored powders and, each morning of the conse-
cration ceremony, while reciting prayers to the deities that have been called
into the maṇḍala, they will place coconuts on the diagram (GOUGH 2017:
285–286). These actions are consistent with the requirement in both Nemi-
candra’s Pratiṣṭhātilaka and in Āśādhara’s Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra that flow-
ers (puṣpañjali) be offered to the yāgamaṇḍala in order to consecrate a
temple image of a Jina (PrT, pp. 118–122; PraSā 1.173–184, pp. 19a–21a).
In these texts, however, other maṇḍalas are required for other types of im-
ages,77 and Nemicandra and Āśādhara agree that the consecration of an
image of an ācārya or another type of mendicant (ācāryādi)78 requires the
construction of a diagram called the “Ring of Disciples,” the gaṇadharava-
laya (PrT, pp. 328–329; PrSā, pp. 230a–231a). Nemicandra prescribes the
construction of the gaṇadharavalaya on a ritual platform (vedī) on the sixth
day of the worship ceremony. While the size of the diagram and the materi-
als used to make it are not specified,79 Āśādhara’s and Nemicandra’s out-
lines of the gaṇadharavalaya are word-for-word identical. At the center of
the gaṇadharavalaya sits a six-cornered figure with the seed syllable ḳṣmā
at its center. Inside the six corners of this figure, the syllables a pra ti ca
kre phaṭ should be inscribed from left to right. On the outside of this central
figure, between each of its six corners, the six syllables vi ca krā ya svā hā,
going from left to right and ending with jhrauṃ, should be inscribed. A
circle of deities – Śrī, Hrī, Dhṛti, Kīrti, Buddhi, and Lakṣmī – should be
placed at the tips of the six-sided figure. 48 petals surround this central
figure, which contain 48 different Prakrit praises to ascetic practitioners
who have achieved superhuman powers (labdhi, ṛddhi).
Like the pañcanamaskāra, these praises inscribed in the petals, begin-
ning with ṇamo jiṇāṇaṃ, ṇamo ohijiṇāṇaṃ, “praise to the Jinas, praise to
the Jinas with clairvoyance (Skt. avadhi),” are first found as a maṅgala in

77
On the construction of the siddhacakra to consecrate a temple image of an en-
lightened soul (siddha), see GOUGH 2015a.
78
Temple icons of historical monks, often the gurus of wealthy lay patrons, seem
to have been commonplace from the medieval period onwards. NANDI (1973: 72), in
discussing the growth of the temple cult of the ācārya in the medieval period, refe-
rences an inscription from 1060 to an installation of an icon of an ācārya.
79
PrT, p. 326, says that the siddhacakra for a siddhapratimā should be made of
five colours.

the Digambara text on karma theory, the Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama, dated to the first
half of the first millennium. In Śvetāmbara and Digambara texts from this
period, the superhuman powers praised in these lines, such as the ability to
fly and clairvoyance, were associated with the disciples of the 24
Tīrthaṅkaras (gaṇadhara). Thus, this diagram, the “Ring of Disciples”
(gaṇadharavalaya), is named for these praises to superhuman powers in-
scribed in rings (valaya) around the central six-cornered figure.80 Because
many parts of these image consecration ceremonies involve icons acting the
rituals of humans, it would make sense that medieval Digambaras would
model the consecration of an icon of a monk on the initiation of a human
mendicant. Thus, we can hypothesise that by at least the thirteenth century,
Digambaras constructed the Ring of Disciples as part of their initiation
ceremonies. Here, too, medieval Digambaras remodelled an older Jain ritu-
al component – an existing Prakrit invocation to powers associated with the
disciples of the Tīrthaṅkaras – to fit a Tantric ritual. They inscribed these
praises on a maṇḍala so that new mendicants who made offerings to this
diagram as part of their initiations could link themselves to the origins of
their lineage, the gaṇadharas, by honouring the powers of these monks.
While Āśādhara in his manual on mendicant conduct says nothing about
the construction of a maṇḍala as part of initiation rites, preferring to follow
Cāmuṇḍarāya in emphasising the recitation of devotional prayers, Bhaktis,
his image consecration manual suggests that the Digambara dīkṣā had fully
incorporated this Tantric element of maṇḍala worship by the thirteenth
century. The account of initiation in the Ādipurāṇa and these image conse-
cration manuals confirm that three key Tantric elements of modern Digam-
bara dīkṣās – the worship of the Ring of Disciples, the recitation of the
vardhamānamantra to initiate munis, and the imparting of the rites of pas-
sage (saṃskāra) – were combined with earlier Jain ideas of renunciation
(pulling out the hair etc.) and devotional currents (the recitation of the
Bhaktis) in the medieval period. The description of the Ring of Disciples
diagram in Āśādhara’s and Nemicandra’s image consecration texts, howev-
er, differs considerably from the Ring of Disciples diagram constructed
today. While the diagram of these medieval manuals has 48 praises to prac-
titioners with superhuman powers, modern Ring of Disciples diagrams
contain 1,452 dots. To understand the connection between these two differ-
ent diagrams with the same name, it is necessary to study one last important
stage in the history of Digambara dīkṣā – the period of the dominance of

80
For information on this mantra and diagram, see GOUGH 2015b.
ELLEN GOUGH 263
the orange-robed bhaṭṭārakas, whom twentieth-century munis supposedly

rejected. The rituals these pontiffs composed allow us to fully understand
how the modern Digambara dīkṣā was developed as an unusual combina-
tion of a monastic and Tantric ordination.
Bhaṭṭārakas’ formulations of modern initiations
Catalogues of the texts composed by bhaṭṭārakas and inscriptions detailing

their activities in the early-modern-to-colonial period (fifteenth to nine-
teenth centuries)81 confirm that one of the primary roles of these pontiffs
was the performance of large public rituals – the worship of large colored
maṇḍalas and temple consecrations – that garnered funds and visibility for
the communities and mendicant lineages, which had by this point been
divided into several gaṇas and saṅghas.82 To promote their lineages and
temple complexes, bhaṭṭārakas fully embraced the Tantric elements that
had entered Jainism in the medieval period and expanded many of the
maṇḍalas mentioned in earlier sources, composing elaborate rituals for
these diagrams. Before this period, the Ring of Disciples diagram had bare-
ly been mentioned in texts. Between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
however, several different bhaṭṭārakas composed manuals (vidhāna) on the
worship of the Ring of Disciples, including Sakalakīrti (Balātkara Gaṇa, ca.
1386–1442), Padmanandī (Balātkara Gaṇa, bhaṭṭāraka from ca. 1514–
1522), Prabhācandra83 (Nandi Saṅgha, consecrated as bhaṭṭāraka in 1514),
and Śubhacandra (Balātkara Gaṇa, bhaṭṭāraka from ca. 1516–1556).84
The Ring of Disciples likely rose to prominence in the fifteenth and six-
teenth centuries because it was worshiped as part of the promotion of a
bhaṭṭāraka; extant manuscripts on bhaṭṭārakapadasthāpanā mention the
gaṇadharavalaya as an essential component of the rite.85 Because the Ring

81
For the bhaṭṭārakas of North India, see KĀSLĪVĀL 1967 and JOHRAPURKAR 1958.
82
On these different groupings of Digambaras, see the introduction to
JOHRAPURKAR 1958: 1–12 and FLÜGEL 2006: 342–344.
83
For the manuals of Sakalakīrti, Śubhacandra, Padmanandī, and Prabhācandra
texts, see Śrīgaṇdharvalay Pūjan Saṃgrah (SPS).
84
On the dates of these bhaṭṭārakas, see the translated lists of bhaṭṭāraka succes-
sions (paṭṭāvali) translated in HOERNLE 1892.
85
Tillo Detige has collected several undated manuscripts on bhaṭṭāraka-
padasthāpanā from the Sonāgiri Bhaṭṭāraka Granthālāya in the pilgrimage site of So-
nagiri, Madhya Pradesh, that confirm that bhaṭṭārakas worshiped the gaṇadharavalaya
as part of their promotions. Tillo Detige, e-mail to author, December 30, 2013.

of Disciples became a key symbol of initiations and promotions in the pre-

modern period, erected for the public celebrations of the appointment of a
new bhaṭṭāraka, these pontiffs would have wanted to make the diagram’s
components more explicitly relate to the disciples of the Tīrthaṅkaras, thus
linking themselves to the founders of Jainism. Lay Digambaras in the pre-
modern period were likely not aware that early Jain texts associate the
gaṇadharas with the superhuman powers of the earliest version of the Ring
of the Disciples diagram described in the medieval image consecration
texts. Thus, bhaṭṭārakas transformed this earlier diagram with 48 praises to
superhuman powers into a diagram of 1,452 dots – each dot representing
one of the original disciples of the Tīrthaṅkaras – and composed ritual
manuals that had laypeople singing praises to each of these disciples.
In the modern initiation in Kekri outlined above, the three initiands fol-
lowed a Hindi adaption of the Sanskrit worship manual of the Ring of Dis-
ciples composed by the bhaṭṭāraka Śubhacandra in 1549 (RĀJAŚRĪ 2003).
Śubhacandra belonged to the Balātkara Gaṇa Digambara lineage, and he
was one of the most prolific and active bhaṭṭārakas of North India, travel-
ing widely to consecrate new temples and composing multiple manuals on
the worship maṇḍalas that remain popular today.86 Śubhacandra’s
Gaṇadharavalayavidhāna followed in Kekri was translated into Hindi and
compiled in 2000 by a nun in the same lineage as Ācārya Vairāgyanandī,
another disciple of Ācārya Kunthusāgara, Gaṇinī Āryikā Rājaśrī. In the
Hindi introduction to the text, her guru, Ācārya Guptinandī, stresses that
Digambaras must worship the gaṇadharavalaya before initiating as a
Digambara mendicant (RĀJAŚRĪ 2003: 4). This seems to have become
standard for Digambaras of all modern mendicant lineages; during my re-
search in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Haryana, Delhi, and Uttar Pra-
desh in 2013, I spoke to dozens of Digambara monks and nuns from vari-
ous lineages who all confirmed that they worshiped the gaṇadharavalaya
before their initiations.87
Modern Digambara initiands usually take one, three, or five days to
worship the Ring of Disciples before they take the vows of a mendicant,
but the worship ceremony can be up to eight days long. The worship of the

86
On Śubhacandra and the many texts he composed, see KĀSLĪVĀL 1967: 63–105.
87
More research needs to be done to confirm that it is, indeed, the case that all Di-
gambaras construct the gaṇadharavalaya preceding their dīkṣās. SHĀNTĀ (1997: 656)
notes that a siddhacakra is constructed before a Digambara dīkṣā, but the source of this
claim is unclear, since she outlines a Śvetāmbara, not a Digambara, siddhacakra.
ELLEN GOUGH 265
diagram in Kekri lasted eight days.88 Inside a ritual pavilion (maṇḍapa) in a

worship hall (upāśraya), ritual specialists constructed a large diagram made
of synthetic colored powder with an icon of the Jina established at the cen-
ter, surrounded by three concentric circles with 1,452 dots on it. On the first
day of the vidhāna, Ācārya Vairāgyanandī and the ritual specialists led a
few dozen lay worshipers, along with the three initiands, in performing
preliminary rites familiar to scholars of Tantric ritual. Ritual specialists
hoisted a banner at the entrance to the worship hall to signify the beginning
of the worship ceremony, six pots of water and eight pots of herbs
(aṅkurārpaṇa) were placed at the edges of the colored diagram to sanctify
the space, and the three initiands and the other lay people performing the
pūjā undertook the “transformation” (sakalīkaraṇa) rites in which they
placed (performed nyāsa) the pañcanamaskāra on different parts of their
bodies so they “transformed” into gods and goddesses (indra, indrāṇī),
whom Jains envision as the ideal worshipers of the Jina.
For each of the following seven days, then, the worshipers in Kekri sys-
tematically honoured each and every one of the disciples of the 24
Tīrthaṅkaras, beginning with Vṛṣabhasena, the first disciple of the first
Tīrthaṅkara, Ṛṣabha, and ending with Nirottama, the eleventh and final
disciple of the twenty-fourth Tīrthaṅkara, Mahāvīra (RĀJAŚRĪ 2003: 59,
221). A ritual specialist would recite a Hindi verse honouring a disciple,
Ācārya Vairāgyanandī would recite the Sanskrit mantra associated with the
verse (“oṃ hrīṃ arhaṃ vṛṣabhasenagaṇadharāya namaḥ arghyaṃ” etc.),
and upon completion of the mantra, the laypeople seated in rows in front of
the diagram would transfer a mixture (arghya) of the substances of the
eight-fold pūjā89 from one plate to another. At the same time, the initiands
would place a coconut on the colored diagram. In this way, with each praise

88
The worship lasted eight days because it was also performed for the eight-day
festival Aṣṭāhnikā Parva, for which laypeople also construct ritual diagrams. On the
construction of maṇḍalas for Aṣṭāhnikā Parva, see GOUGH 2015a.
89
Bīsapanthīs and Terāpanthīs offer slightly different substances, and both were
present at the initiation in Kekri. The eight substances of a modern Bīsapanthī pūjā
are: (1) water, (2) sandalwood paste (listed as gandha in ritual handbooks and used to
trace a svāstika on the plate), (3) uncooked rice (akṣata), (4) flowers, (5) sweets
(naivaidya), (6) a lamp (dīpa), (7) incense (dhūpa), and (8) fruit (phala). Terāpanthīs
offer: (1) water, (2) sandalwood paste (gandha), (3) uncooked white rice (akṣata), (4)
yellow-colored (from sandalwood) rice (puṣpa), (5) white coconut pieces (nai-
vaidya), (6) yellow-colored (from sandalwood) coconut pieces (dīpa), (7) incense
(dhūpa), and (8) nuts, raisins, dried dates, etc. (phala).

of a disciple, the three initiands connected themselves to the first monks –

the original disciples of the Tīrthaṅkaras – and legitimated their place in the
Digambara mendicant tradition that traces itself back to these gaṇadharas.
While this worship was structured around honouring the disciples repre-
sented by each of the 1,452 dots, Śubhacandra’s manual, which these wor-
shipers followed, also recognises the earlier form of the Ring of Disciples
outlined in image consecration manuals. Śubhacandra’s text begins, for
example, with instructions for the ritual ablution (abhiṣeka) of an icon of
the Jina along with a metal yantra on which the exact components outlined
in the medieval image consecration manuals – a six-sided figure surround-
ed by rings of praises to these superhuman powers – are inscribed. In Kekri,
each morning, when the worshipers would return to the worship hall to
honour a section of the diagram, the ceremony would begin with these sev-
en different ritual ablutions of a metal icon of the Jina. The lay worshipers
would pour (1) sugarcane juice, (2) clarified butter (ghṛta), (3) milk, (4)
curd, (5) water with herbs, (6) water from four pots, and (7) water mixed
with sandalwood (sugandhita) on the Jina icon and a metal yantra
(RĀJAŚRĪ 2003: 17-19). With each abhiṣeka, the worshipers would recite a
Sanskrit verse composed by Śubhacandra asking for worldly goals and
liberation, and then Ācārya Vairāgyanandī would recite a mantra that in-
cludes the a pra ti ca kre phaṭ vi ca krā ya svā hā we saw at the center of
the earlier version of the Ring of Disciples diagram outlined in the medie-
val image consecration manuals. When performing the abhiṣeka with sug-
arcane juice, for example, he recited:
oṃ hrīṃ jhvīṃ śrīṃ arhaṃ a si ā u sā apraticakre phaṭ vicakrāya

jhrauṃ jhrauṃ. I perform the ablution with supremely sacred sugar-
cane juice. 90
In this way, Śubhacandra’s sixteenth-century Sanskrit Gaṇadharavalaya-

vidhāna and its subsequent adaptions expand upon the earlier Ring of Dis-
ciples, likely because the earlier version had been used for generations to
initiate monks, and the bhaṭṭārakas developing these rites wished to main-
tain a link with these earlier practices while more explicitly connecting
themselves to the first monks of Jainism.

90
RĀJAŚRĪ 2003: 17: oṃ hrīṃ jhvīṃ śrīṃ arhaṃ a si ā u sā apraticakre phaṭ vi-
cakrāya jhrauṃ jhrauṃ. pavitratarekṣurasena snapayāmi svāhā.
ELLEN GOUGH 267
Indeed, Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara, the founder of the lineage of the Digam-

baras at Kekri, is an anomaly in the history of Digambara Jainism in em-
phasising that mendicant initiation should be about asceticism and an indi-
vidual connection with the Jina. After Ādisāgara’s self-initiation in front of
an icon of the Jina, his followers quickly readopted the rituals developed by
the bhaṭṭārakas. In 2002, the nun Āryikā Śītalamatī published a manual
entitled “Various Rituals for the Initiation Rite of Passage,” Vividh Dīkṣā
Saṃskār Vidhi, that contains, in Sanskrit, the prescriptions for the rites of
initiation for a mendicant teacher (upādhyāya), mendicant head (ācārya),
and pontiff (bhaṭṭāraka) said to have been copied from an “ancient”
(prācīna) manuscript a direct disciple of Ādisāgara, Muni Sanmatisāgara,
found in a manuscript house in the pilgrimage site of Śri Atiśaya Kṣetra
Beḍiyā in Gujarat (JAIN 2009: 16). While no date or author is mentioned in
the manuscript, it should be placed sometime in the early modern period –
during the reign of the bhaṭṭārakas in Gujarat – and most certainly outlines
rituals that were developed before the rise of the modern naked muni tradi-
tion in the twentieth century.91
The description of the initiation of a mendicant teacher (upādhyāya) in
this pre-modern manuscript is word-for-word identical to the description of
this rite in the modern manual used by the Digambaras in Kekri, the Vimal
Bhakti Saṃgrah.92 This rite includes the worship of the Ring of Disciples,
the guru’s imparting of mantras related to the rank of the upādhyāya, and
the recitation of the Siddha, Śruta, Śānti, Samādhi, and Guru Bhaktis. Apart
from a few anomalies such as Ādisāgara’s self-initiation, Digambara dīkṣās
have been, for at least 1,000 years, complex combinations of devotional,
ascetic, and Tantric rituals. Each of these components of the dīkṣā – from
the Tantric worship of a maṇḍala to the recitation of praise poems –
strengthens communal ties between laypeople and mendicants and between
Jains of the past and present.

91
JAIN (2009: 122) rightly notes that it must have been composed after the twelfth
century, since the ritual outlining the promotion of a bhaṭṭāraka prescribes the guru
promoting the pontiff to pronounce him as the head of either the Sarasvatī Gaccha,
the Mūlasaṃgha, the Nandisaṃgha, or the Balātkara Gaṇa, and the latter two line-
ages emerged around the twelfth century.
92
Compare JAIN 2009: 121 with SYĀDVĀDAMATĪ 2002: 451.

Concluding remarks
This study of Digambara dīkṣā has highlighted some commonalities be-

tween the initiatory practices of Jains and those of so-called “Tantrics.” We
have seen how Digambara Jain initiations, since at least the ninth century,
have in some ways been “Tantric,” because they involve the construction of
maṇḍalas and the imparting of karma-destroying, non-Vedic mantras. But
this incorporation of Tantric elements into Jain initiations does not mean
that Jains are Tantrics, or that Jains belong to a Tantric community. “Tan-
tric” is not always an accurate or sufficiently precise term to designate reli-
gious actors or communities.
It can, however, be helpful to use the term to distinguish some ritual
components from others. At an early stage, Jain mendicant initiations did
not include maṇḍalas and mantras, and then, at some point, they did. Using
the word “Tantric” here to refer to these components can help us chart ritu-
al developments on the subcontinent and allow Jains access to a larger con-
versation about the emergence of these practices in the medieval period.
Once Jains enter this conversation from which they have been largely
excluded, can we begin to see how Tantric practices are in some ways
“Jain”? Can we examine how early Jain understandings about the power of
certain recitations to destroy karma are echoed in later Tantric claims that
initiatory mantras obliterate impurities? Can we study how the very idea of
a non-Vedic initiation for soteriological purposes is rooted in early ascetic
traditions such as Jainism? Jains may not belong to a Tantric community,
but examining their images, texts, and practices can certainly enrich our
understandings of how Tantric ritual components have been used to create
communities.
ELLEN GOUGH 269
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Ādipurāṇa of Jinasena (ĀP)

Ādipurāṇa of Jinasena. 2 pts. Ed. and translated into Hindi by P. Jain.
Delhi: Bhāratīya Jñānpīṭh, 2004.
Kriyākalāpa (KK)
Kriyā-Kalāpaḥ. Ed. by P.S. Śāstrī. Agra: Kapūrcand Jain, Mahāvīr
Press, 1935.
Cāritrasāraḥ of Cāmuṇḍarāya (CS)
Cāritrasāraḥ of Cāmuṇḍarāya. Ed. by Ś. Jain, translated into Hindi by
L. Śāstrī. Ambala, Hariyana: Muni Śrī Saurabhsāgar Granthmālā, 32002.
Jñātādharmakathāṅga Sūtra (Jñā)
Jñātādharmakathāṅga Sūtra. Compiled and ed. by Madhukara Muni.
Translated into Hindi by Ś. Bhārill. Beawar, Rajasthan: Śrī Āgam-
prakāśan Samiti, 1989.
Dharmāmṛtānagāra of Āśādhara (DhA)
Dharmāmṛtānagāra of Āśādhara, with Jñānadīpakā Sanskrit Panjikā. Ed.
and translated into Hindi by K. Śāstrī. Delhi: Bhāratīya Jñānpīṭh, 42003.
Pañcāśakaprakaraṇam of Haribhadrasūri (PP)
Pañcāśakaprakaraṇam of Haribhadrasūri. Ed. by S. Jain and K. Jain, trans-
lated into Hindi by D. Śarmā. Varanasi: Pārśvanāth Vidyāpīṭh, 1997.
Pratiṣṭhātilaka of Nemicandra (PrT)
Pratiṣṭhātilaka of Nemicandra. Edited by Āryikā Jñānamatī. Hastinapur:
Digambar Jain Trilok Śodh Saṃsthān, 22012.
Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra of Āśādhara (PrSā)
Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra of Āśādhara. Ed. by M. Śāstrī. Bombay:
Jaingraṃth Uddhārak Kāryālay, 1917.
Pravacanasāra (Pavayaṇasāra) of Kundakundācārya (PraSār)
Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasāra. Crit. ed., with the Sanskrit Com-
mentaries of Amṛtacandra and Jayasena, and a Hindī commentary of
Pāṇḍe Hemarāja, and an English translation, by A.N. Upadhye. Bom-
bay: Sheth Manilal Revashankar Jhaveri, 21935.
Bhagavatīsūtra (BhS)
Bhagawati Sutra. 3 pts. Edited by Amarmuni, S.S. “Saras,” and Var-
uṇamuni, translated into English by S. Bothara. Delhi: Padma Prakash-
an, 2005–2008.

Municaryā (MC)
Municaryā: Munikriyākalāp. Compiled by Jñānamatī Mātā. Hastinapur:
Digambar Jain Trilok Śodh Saṃsthān, 1991.
Mūlācāra (Mūl)
Mūlācāra. Pts. 1 & 2. Ed. by K. Śāstri, J. Śāstrī, and P. Jain, translated
into Hindi by Āryikā Jñānamatī. Delhi: Bhāratīya Jñānpīṭh, 52004.
Vidyānuśāsana of Bhaṭṭāraka Matisāgara (VA)
Vidyānuśāsana of Bhaṭṭāraka Matisāgara. Ed. by Muni Guṇadharanandī.
Jaipur: Śrī Digambar Jain Divyadhvani Prakāśan, 1990.
Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah (VBhS)
Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah. Compiled by Āryikā Syādvādamatī. Varanasi:
Bhāratvarṣīya Anekānt Vidvat Pariṣad, 2000.
Śrīgaṇdharvalay Pūjan Saṃgrah (SPS)
Śrīgaṇdharvalay Pūjan Saṃgrah. Compiled by Muni Ajitsāgara. Udai-
pur: Śrī Paṇḍit Guljārī Lāl Caudhrī, 1967.
Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama of Puṣpadanta (ṢkhĀ)
Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama of Puṣpadanta and Bhūtabali, with the Dhavalāṭīkā of
Vīrasena. Book 1. Ed. and translated into Hindi by H. Jain, Ph.
Siddhāntśāstrī, and B. Siddhāntśāstrī. Amaravati: Jain Sāhityoddhārak
Fund, 1939. Reprint, Solapur: Jain Saṃskṛti Saṃrakṣak Saṃgh, 2000.
Secondary sources
AGRAWAL, B.C. 1972. Diksha ceremony in Jainism: An analysis of its

socio-political ramifications. Eastern Anthropologist 25, pp. 13–20.
ALTEKAR, A.S. 1934. The Rāshṭrakūṭas and Their Times. Poona: Oriental
Book Agency.
BALBIR, N. 1994. An Investigation of Textual Sources on the samava-
saraṇa. In: N. Balbir & J.K. Bautze (eds.), Festschrift Klaus Bruhn zum
Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahrs dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden
und Kollegen. Reinbek: Verlag für Orientalische Fachpublikationen, pp.
67–104.
BHATT, N.R. 1977. Mataṅgapārameśvarāgama (Vidyāpāda) avec le com-
mentaire de Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha. Pondichéry: Institut Français
d’Indologie.
BRUNNER-LACHAUX, H. 1977. Somaśambhupaddhati. Troisième partie:
Rituels Occasionnels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon
Somaśambhu. Texte, Traduction et notes. Pondichéry: Institut Français
d’Indologie.
ELLEN GOUGH 271
CARRITHERS, M. 1990. Jainism and Buddhism as Enduring Historical Streams.

Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 21, pp. 141–163.
CORT, J.E. 1990. Models of and for the Study of the Jains. Method & Theo-
ry in the Study of Religion 2/1, pp. 42–71.
1991. The Śvetāmbar Mūrtipūjak Jain Mendicant. Man (N.S.) 26, pp. 651–671.
2002. Bhakti in the Early Jain Tradition: Understanding Devotional Reli-
gion in South Asia. History of Religions 42/1, pp. 59–86.
2009. Contemporary Jain Maṇḍala Rituals. In: Ph. Granoff (ed.), Victorious
Ones: Jain Images of Perfection. New York: Rubin Museum of Art, pp.
140–157.
2016. When Will I Meet Such A Guru? Images of the Yogī in Digambar
Hymns. In: Ch. Key Chapple (ed.), Yoga in Jainism. London:
Routledge, pp. 191–209.
CZERNIAK-DROŻDŻOWICZ, M. 2003. Pāñcarātra Scripture in the Process
of Change: A Study of the Paramasaṃhitā. Vienna: The De Nobili Re-
search Library.
DEO, S.B. 1956. History of Jaina Monachism from Inscriptions and Litera-
ture. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.
DHAKY, M.A. 1991. The Date of Kundakundācārya. In: M. Ḍhākī & S. Jain
(eds.), Paṇḍit Dalsukhbhāī Mālvaṇiyā Abhinandana Grantha I. Varana-
si: Pārśvanāth Vidyāśram Śodh Saṃsthān, pp. 187–206.
DUNDAS, P. 1998. Becoming Gautama: Mantra and History in Śvetāmbara
Jainism. In: J.E. Cort (ed.), Open Boundaries: Jain Communities and
Cultures in Indian History. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, pp. 31–52.
FLÜGEL, P. 2006. Demographic Trends in Jaina Monasticism. In: P.
Flügel (ed.), Studies in Jain History and Culture. London: Routledge,
pp. 312–398.
GOODALL, D. 2004. The Parākhyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhān-
ta. Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry/École Française
d’Extrême-Orient.
GOUGH, E. 2015a. Wheel of the Liberated: Jain Siddhacakras, Past and
Present. In: K. Jacobsen (ed.), Objects of Worship in the South Asian
Religions: Forms, Practices, and Meanings. London: Routledge, pp.
85–108.
2015b. The Ṇamokār Mantra’s Forgotten Brother. Jaina Studies: Newslet-
ter of the Centre of Jaina Studies 9, pp. 32–34.

2017. The Digambara Sūrimantra and the Tantricization of Image Conse-

cration. In: István Keul (ed.), Consecration Rituals in South Asia. Lei-
den: Brill, pp. 265–308.
GUPTA, S. 1983. The Changing Pattern of Pāñcarātra Initiation: A Case
Study in the Reinterpretation of Ritual. In: R. Kloppenborg (ed.), Select-
ed Studies on Ritual in the Indian Religions: Essays to D.J. Hoens. Lei-
HEGEWALD, J.A.B. 2010. Visual and Conceptual Links Between Jaina
Cosmological, Mythological and Ritual Instruments. Journal of Jaina
Studies (Online) 6/1, pp. 1–20.
HOERNLE, A.F.R. 1892. Three Further Pattavalis of the Digambaras. The
Indian Antiquary 21, pp. 57–84.
HOLMSTROM, S. 1988. Towards a politics of renunciation: Jain women and
asceticism in Rajasthan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
JAIN, B.M. 1996. Ācārya Śrī Ādisāgar (Aṅkalikar) kī Jhalak. Delhi: Ācārya
Śrī Sanmati Sāgar jī Saṅgh.
JAIN, H. 1996. Pūjan Pāṭh Pradīp. Delhi: Śrī Pārśvanāth Digambar Jain
Mandir.
JAIN, R. 2009. Jainparamparā aur Yāpanīyasaṃgh. Dvitīya khaṇḍ. Agra:
Sarvoday Jain Vidyāpīṭh.
JAIN TĪRTHVANDANĀ: Bhāratvarṣīya Digambar Jain Tīrthkṣetra Kameṭī kā
Mukhpatra. Vol. 22/2 (May 2012).
JAINI, P. 1979. Jaina Path of Purification. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
1991. Gender and Salvation: Jaina Debates on the Spiritual Liberation of
Women. Berkeley: University of California Press.
JOHRAPURKAR, V.P. 1958. Bhaṭṭāraka Saṃpradāya: A History of the
Bhaṭṭāraka Pīṭhas Especially of Western India, Gujarat, Rajasthan and
Madhya Pradesh. Sholapur: Jaina Samskriti Samrakshaka Sangha.
KĀMAKUMĀRANANDĪ, M. 2009. Śramaṇ Kriyākalāp Pāṭhāvali. Delhi:
Maisars Mahālakṣmī Enṭarprāīj.
KĀSLĪVĀL, K. 1967. Rājasthān ke Jain Sant: Vyaktitva evaṃ Kṛtitva. Jai-
pur: Śrī Di. Jain A. Kṣetra Śrī Mahāvīrjī.
LEUMANN, E. 2010. An Outline of the Āvaśyaka Literature. Translated into
English by G. Baumann. Ahmedabad: L.D. Institute of Indology.
NAGASWAMY, R. n.d. Jaina Temple Rituals: Pratishtha tilaka of Nemican-
dra – a study.
http://tamilartsacademy.com/journals/volume2/articles/jain-temple.html
(accessed August 15, 2013).
ELLEN GOUGH 273
NANDI, R.N. 1973. Religious Institutions and Cults in the Deccan (c. A.D.
600–A.D. 1000). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
OHIRA, S. 1994 A Study of the Bhagavatīsūtra: A Chronological Analysis.
Ahmedabad: Prakrit Text Society.
RĀJAŚRĪ, Ā. 2003. Vṛhad Gaṇadhar Valay Vidhān. Ed. by Ācārya Gupti-
nandī. Jaipur: Śārdā Prakāśan.
ROTH, G. 1974. Notes on the Pamca-Namokkāra Parama-Maṅgala. Brah-
mavidyā (Adyar Library Bulletin) 38, pp. 1–18.
SANDERSON, A. 1992. The Doctrine of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra. In: T.
Goudriaan (ed.), Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism: Studies in
Honor of André Padoux. Albany, NY: State University of New York,
pp. 281–312.
SAUDHARMBṚHATTAPOGACCHĪYA JAIN ŚVETĀMBAR TRISTUTIK ŚRĪSANGH
2013. Samagra Jain Cāturmās Sūcī 2013. Badnagar, Madhya Pradesh:
Akhil Bhāratvarṣīya Śrī Rājendra Jain Navyuvak Pariṣad evaṃ Pariṣad
Parivār.
SHAH, U.P. 1955. Studies in Jaina Art. Varanasi: Parsvanatha Vidyapitha
(repr. 1998).
SHĀNTĀ, N. 1997. The Unknown Pilgrims. The Voice of the Sādhvīs: The
History, Spirituality and Life of the Jaina Women Ascetics. Translated
into English by M. Rogers. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
SHINOHARA, K. 2014a. Spells, Images, and Maṇḍalas: Tracing the Evolution
of Esoteric Buddhist Rituals. New York: Columbia University Press.
2014b. The Esoteric Buddhist Ritual of Image Installation. In: J. Soni, M.
Pahlke, C. Cüppers (eds.), Buddhist and Jaina Studies: Proceedings of
the Conference in Lumbini. Bhairahawa, Nepal: Lumbini International
Research Institute, pp. 265–298.
TÖRZSÖK, J. 2003. Icons of Inclusivism: Maṇḍalas in Some Early Śaiva
Tantras. In: G. Bühnemann (ed.), Maṇḍalas and Yantras in the Hindu
Traditions. Leiden: Brill, pp. 179–224.
UPADHYE, A. N. 1935. See Pravacanasāra.
WILEY, K.L. 2008. Early Śvetāmbara and Digambara Karma Literature: A
Comparison. In: C. Caillat, N. Balbir (eds.), Jaina Studies: Papers of the
12th World Sanskrit Conference. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 43–60.
2009. The A to Z of Jainism. Lanham: Scarecrow Press.

Minor Vajrayāna texts V:

The Gaṇacakravidhi attributed to Ratnākaraśānti
Péter-Dániel Szántó
Overview
There are very few studies on the gaṇacakra, a ritualised communal feast
as celebrated by followers of the Vajrayāna, i.e., Tantric Buddhist commu-
nities. LALOU’s preliminary study (1965) is still useful, and it was only
recently followed up. The only monograph on the subject, which I was
unable to consult in its entirety, is in Japanese by SHIZUKA (2007), who has
before and since authored several articles on the topic, including a very
useful English summary of his research (2008). Shizuka mostly worked
with Tibetan canonical translations, however, as I will demonstrate below,
a relatively small amount of material does survive in the original Sanskrit.
The main point of this article is to present a gaṇacakra manual in San-
skrit. First, I will say a few general points on the rite for the non-specialist
reader. I will then give a rough overview of the earliest (eighth to ninth
centuries CE) sources for this rite in Buddhist literature, followed by a brief
discussion of later (tenth to thirteenth centuries CE) sources and Sanskrit
manuals, or fragments thereof, specifically devoted to it. I will then turn to
announce a fortunate discovery of one such manual in the original. After
some introductory notes, in the next section I will provide a diplomatic
edition of the text accompanied by philological notes and a tentative trans-
lation. The final section contains a diplomatic edition of a short and incom-
plete gloss that was found together with the manual.
The non-specialist reader will probably be baffled by the amount of
philological groundwork required to clarify sometimes even very basic
points as well as by the amount of unpublished and/or unstud-
ied/untranslated literature provided in the references. Alas, such is the state
of our field.
General introduction
The main points of a gaṇacakra (or gaṇamaṇḍala), lit. “assembly circle,”

essentially a ritualised communal feast, are as follows: The ritual should be
observed periodically, at least once a year, but preferably more often. It is
not a public affair, as participation is limited to initiates of a particular Tan-
tric cult, ideally both male and female. They are headed by their master
who is seated in the middle, usually accompanied by his consort, and offi-
ciates during the key points of the rite. Lesser duties are delegated to an
assistant. The resources are provided by a sponsor, who is also present. The
chief aim of the rite is to consume the so-called samaya (“vow,” “pledge”)
substances – bodily fluids and meats – in a communal fashion. These are
placed in a vessel (usually a skull bowl) filled with liquor and are conse-
crated by the main officiant. The vessel is then passed around, usually ac-
companied by verses in Apabhraṃśa, a kind of literary Middle Indic, with
everyone obliged to partake. This is followed by a feast with food, drink,
song, and dance. Some descriptions specify that participants should com-
municate using secret signs and secret codewords (both called chommā). It
is usually assumed that intercourse also takes place, and we do indeed find
allusions to this in some of our manuals, e.g. the one discussed here, but
this is not the main point. The ritual usually takes place at night and can last
until daybreak. Thereupon the participants are dismissed respectfully.
The ritual manuals explain the rationale behind celebrating a gaṇacakra
in various ways. Most relevant authors will state that the primary reason is
to gather the equipments of merit and knowledge (puṇya° and
jñānasaṃbhāra), which are obligatory requisites for one’s spiritual career.
Abhayākaragupta, a highly influential East Indian author from the late
eleventh and early twelfth century, claims (Tōh. 2491, 243b) that it is a
transgression not to perform it, while his disciple Ratnarakṣita lists as aims
(Tōh. 2494, 249a) restoring transgressed Tantric vows, gaining victory over
enemies, achieving all objects of desire, pleasing the deity, and ultimately
obtaining the accomplishment of the highest state of consciousness, the
mahāmudrā. However, there are also dangers: at least one author, the
somewhat obscure *Bhavya, warns (Tōh. 2176, 31b–32a) that participants
will be killed by ḍākas (or ḍākinīs), either malevolent spirits or possibly the
deities themselves, if the rules of the feast are not observed correctly.
Modern anthropological theory would no doubt find such manuals a rich
resource for topics such as celebrating and maintaining identity, testing
PÉTER-DÁNIEL SZÁNTÓ 277
communal loyalty, distribution of resources, ritual etiquette, transgressive

behaviour and control thereof.
The earliest textual sources for the gaṇacakra ritual
While I am fully aware that the Buddhist gaṇacakra/°maṇḍala probably

imitates a Śaiva ritual (note that gaṇa primarily means an attendant of the
god Śiva), I will ignore this point in my brief historical overview (for more
on this topic, see SANDERSON 2009: 154).
To the best of my knowledge, the earliest reference in Buddhist litera-
ture to a gaṇacakra or gaṇamaṇḍala dates to the early eighth century or
possibly slightly earlier.1 This is in a nebulous but incredibly important
text, the so-called Longer Paramādya (Tōh. 488, 238a):
The vajra-holder (i.e., the initiate) together with (i.e., holding) his
vajra-sceptre should place in the middle of the assembly (tshogs =
*gaṇa) great (i.e., human) blood together with camphor (i.e., semen)
and sandalwood (i.e., faeces) mixed with [menstrual] blood. [In the
state of] the best of yogas (i.e., meditative identification) with
*Sarvākāśa (i.e., the deity?), he should taste [the mixture] as if it
were Soma,2 [lifting a bit from the vessel] with the [joined] tips of
his ring finger and thumb; [by this] he shall obtain eternal accom-
plishment.3

1
This dating is based first and foremost on the fact that the Sarvabuddhasamāyo-
gaḍākinījālaśaṃvara (on which see GRIFFITHS & SZÁNTÓ 2015), which borrows
extensively from the Longer Paramādya, was already extant in the first half of the
eighth century. SHIZUKA (2008, 188) proposes that the gaṇacakra/gaṇamaṇḍala is a
historic outgrowth of guhyamaṇḍalas taught in the Tattvasaṃgraha (ca. early 7th c.).
This may be accurate, but one significant difference is that the pivotal moment of
consuming the antinomian substances is missing in the description of the guhya-
maṇḍala in the Tattvasaṃgraha.
2
Here the intended sense is more akin to “drink of immortality,” rather than a re-
ference to the drink usually consumed in Vedic ritual.
3
Tōh. 488, 238a: | khrag chen ga bur dang bcas pa | | tsandan dmar dang sbyar ba ni |
| tshogs kyi nang du rab zhugs nas | | rdo rje dang bcas rdo rje ’dzin |
| srin lag mthe bo rtse mo yis | | nam mkha’ thams cad sbyor mchog ldan |
| zla ba’i btung ba bzhin myangs na | | rtag pa’i dngos grub thob par ’gyur |.

This crucial passage is reproduced with two changes (marked here in bold
and irrelevant for our present discussion) in a dependent text, the famous
Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṃvara (ms. fol. 14r):
mahāraktaṃ sakarpūraṃ raktacandanayojitam |

gaṇamadhye pratiṣṭhaṃ śrīsarvocchiṣṭarasāyanam ||4
anāmāṅguṣṭhavaktrābhyāṃ svādhidevātmayogavān |
somapānavad āsvādya siddhim āpnoti śāśvatīm ||5
The Longer Paramādya does not actually use an equivalent of the Sanskrit
term gaṇamaṇḍala, but it is not unlikely that the word tshogs (Skt. *gaṇa)
and the use of gaṇa in gaṇamadhye in the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinī-
jālaśaṃvara are simply abbreviations with the same meaning. On the other
hand, in another passage the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṃvara
already uses the term gaṇamaṇḍala (ms. fol. 13v: kalpayed gaṇa-
maṇḍalam) and gives a more detailed but still rather obscure description. It
seems to me that the point here is to recreate a “live” version of the deities,
in other words, an enactment or re-enactment of the maṇḍala. The partici-
pants wear costumes, and if their number does not match the number of
entities in the maṇḍala, simulacra made of wood or metal are used. There
are very few restrictions imposed and possession (āveśa) plays a major
part. This stands in contrast with later, more standardised descriptions,
where behaviour is controlled and dignified: for example, singing and danc-
ing is to be performed only with the officiant’s permission, and alcohol is
to be consumed with moderation.
Most of the relevant verses from the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījāla-
śaṃvara are rehashed and expanded in what may be regarded the classical
description of the gaṇacakra, namely, Āryadeva’s Sūtaka, chapter 9. This
work dates from the ninth century and played a major part in establishing
one of the two major schools of exegesis of the Guhyasamājatantra, one of
the most (if not the most) influential Tantric Buddhist scriptures. An Eng-
lish translation has been published by WEDEMEYER (cf. 2008: 291ff. for the
relevant part), which is, however, in need of revision.
The next important scriptural source is the Catuṣpīṭhatantra (ca. mid or
late ninth century), which does not explicitly mention the standard term

4
The word pratiṣṭhaṃ should be interpreted as a present participle. The reading
°occhiṣṭa° is my emendation, the ms. has °ontiṣṭha°.
5
The manuscript reads ādmoti, which I have corrected to āpnoti.
gaṇacakra or gaṇamaṇḍala, but it does have yogayoginīmaṇḍala, which in

the strange language of this text means “the circle of yogins and yoginīs.” It
does not give a precise description of what the rite consisted of, however, it
does teach several features which later became standard, most notably the
Apabhraṃśa songs intoned when gaining entry in the assembly and when
passing around the vessel with the transgressive substances as well as the
mantras to purify them (cf. SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 330ff. & 357ff.).
Later sources
Some of the later scriptures from the so-called Yoginītantras are also note-
worthy: the Hevajratantra (ca. 900 CE) passages are quite well-known
(II.vii.5–13 in SNELLGROVE 1959; there are some other details scattered
throughout this text), as is the eighth chapter of the Saṃvarodayatantra,
most likely a relatively late (eleventh to twelfth centuries?) Nepalese com-
position-compilation, one among the selected chapters published by TSUDA
(1974). The commentaries on these passages are also very rewarding to
consult (e.g. Padminī ms. fols. 15r–17r). Perhaps less well-known is a
chapter entirely dedicated to the subject, the twenty-third of the un-
published Mahāmudrātilaka (ms. fol. 47r ff.), a scripture probably com-
piled in the late eleventh century. This is almost entirely a copy of the six-
ty-second chapter of the Vajramālābhidhāna, a Guhyasamāja explanatory
scripture (Tōh. 445, 267a ff.; KITTAY 2011: 728–736), one of the many
parallels between the two texts.6
Further material in Sanskrit can be gathered from ritual compendia. The
Vajrāvalī of Abhayākaragupta does not teach the gaṇacakra, but the author
wrote a separate manual that survives only in Tibetan translation (Tōh. 2491).
Kuladatta’s version of the gaṇacakra ritual, which is heavily dependent on the
text we examine here, constitutes the final chapter of his Kriyāsaṃgra-
hapañjikā (edited by SAKURAI 2001). Dating this author is a tricky matter: he
must precede 1216 CE, the date of the oldest manuscript of his compendium,
but he could be as early as the middle of the eleventh century (TANEMURA
2004: 5–10). Jagaddarpaṇa, a Nepalese author from ca. the thirteenth century
who was heavily influenced by Abhayākaragupta, describes a number of

6
The historical aetiology of the Vajramālābhidhāna is very obscure, I will
therefore refrain from assigning it a date. Some parts must date from as early as the
ninth century.

Gaṇavidhis in his Kriyāsamuccaya, which probably demonstrates a local di-

versification among Newar Buddhists (ms. fol. 22v ff.7).
Some shorter but still noteworthy witnesses are the second half of the
ninth section (and various details elsewhere) in the initiation manual
Saṃvarodayā nāma maṇḍalopāyikā (ms. fol. 38v ff.) of Bhūvācārya, an
author active before 1054 CE at Ratnagiri in present Odisha, and the fourth
chapter of the anonymous and undatable Śiṣyānugrahavidhi (ms. A fols.
18v–19v, ms. B fols. 3v–5r), a short compendium on various subjects relat-
ed to the worship of the deity Cakrasaṃvara.
Gaṇacakra manuals
Besides the present text, the only other complete and self-standing manual
surviving in Sanskrit is to be found in the so-called Ngor Hevajrasādhana
collection as its last item (see ISAACSON 2009: §45). The manuscript is now
said to be in China, and the only way to access it for the time being is
through copies of Rāhula Sāṅkṛtyāyana’s photographs taken in Tibet (ms.
fols. 264v–271v). Appropriately for the collection, this text describes a
gaṇacakra for Hevajra initiates, although the influence of the Ca-
tuṣpīṭhatantra is substantial. The work is anonymous, has no identifiable
Tibetan translation, and has not been edited yet.
The manuscript NAK 1-1679 = NGMPP B 24/13, catalogued under the
misleading title “Samājatathānuṣārinī”, contains two fragments of one
folio each from works related to the gaṇacakra. The first fragment, penned
in the so-called hook-topped Nepalese script, is very corrupt, but from the
statement of purpose it can be made out that it is a manual based on the
Guhyasamājatantra. The available text amounts to a little more than ten
verses and contains descriptions of the ideal officiant (ācārya), his empow-
ering of the assistant (karmavajrin), and some preliminary purificatory acts.
The most striking feature of this text is its very existence. Āryadeva openly
admits that the Guhyasamājatantra does not contain injunctions concerning
the gaṇacakra (which he equates with “practices with elaboration,” sa-
prapañcacaryā), which is why he supplies the description from the
Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṃvara (cf. WEDEMEYER 2008: 291).
From this manual, as well as the Vajramālābhidhāna description mentioned

7
Note that the Tibetan translation in the Derge Canon omits a significant part, as
the parallel ceases after Tōh. 3305, 216a4, which is probably unintentional.
above, it would seem that followers of the Guhyasamāja thought they were
lagging behind and needed to update their ritual repertoire.
The second fragment from the same bundle (NAK 1-1679 = NGMPP B
24/13) is penned in a rather different, bolder, hook-topped script. Here we
have not the first, but the final page of a work styling itself a
Gaṇacakravidhi. About seven verses survive in this fragment, but none deal
with the rite proper. The penultimate verse, which is rather corrupt, de-
scribes either the author or the patron as the ruler of Dhavalapura,8 named
either Sumati or Udayacandra. The colophon also contains a date falling
within the reign of Abhayamalla, which can be converted to Friday, No-
vember 24, 1217 CE.
Another fragment, in this case of two folios, can be found in NAK 1-1679 =
NGMPP B 24/24, catalogued as “Mahāpratisarādhāriṇī”. Unfortunately, most
of the fragment is badly effaced. From what remains legible, it can be deter-
mined that the work once described a gaṇacakra of the Catuṣpīṭha cycle, or
that at the very least it was heavily influenced by that ritual system. There are
several parallel phrasings with works of that cycle, the meats usually styled
pradīpa (“lamps”) are here called aṅkuśas (“hooks”), and the mantras used to
empower them (śriṃ, hūṃ, ghruṃ, jriṃ, saḥ) are hallmarks of the Ca-
tuṣpīṭhatantra as well (SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 359–360).
A newly discovered manuscript
About half a decade ago, the aforementioned Shizuka, who can without
doubt be called the world’s foremost expert of Buddhist Gaṇacakra manu-
als, published a study of a canonical Tibetan text that is titled *Vajra-
bhairavagaṇacakra (Tōh. 1995) and attributed in the translators’ colophon
to Ratnākaraśānti, one of the most famous and influential Buddhist thinkers
from East India (floruit ca. late tenth to early eleventh century). In the Eng-
lish summary of his study, SHIZUKA (2011) stated the following: “In the
Sde-dge edition this manual amounts to only two and a half folios, and a
Sanskrit manuscript has not yet been reported.” I am happy to announce
that I have identified a Sanskrit witness of the manual (according to my
notes, in 2013), which is the main subject of this paper. Since ignorance of
Japanese is one among my many shortcomings, I may reproduce some of

8
Converted into Modern Indo-Aryan, this would sound something like Dholpur.
This is a fairly common toponym, but I do not find it impossible that here we have a
variant of Dhavalasrotas, for which see PANT & SHARMA 1977: 22–24.

Shizuka’s findings and claim them my own. Should this indeed occur, I
apologise profusely.
The witness in question is a manuscript kept at the National Archives in
Kathmandu under call number 5-7871. I had no opportunity to perform an
autopsy of the manuscript, but I was able to consult it from digital images
of the microfilm prepared by the Nepal German Manuscript Preservation
Project, reel no. B 104/10. I cannot tell how long the original manuscript
was; here we have only three initial folios, which contain the complete text
of the Gaṇacakravidhi and the beginning of a gloss calling or describing
itself as (a) Saṃkṣiptā Pañjikā, that is to say, “a short commentary on diffi-
cult points.”
The script is a rather unusual, headless devanāgarī, employed through-
out, except for the first two lines of fol. 2r and a single akṣara on fol. 3v.
This hand, or a very similar one, can also be seen in other manuscripts from
Nepal, both in the main text and in paratextual notes. A thorough palaeo-
graphical analysis would perhaps be aided by a hypothesis I wish to ad-
vance here: I think that this is the hand of a famous Nepalese scholar active
in the first half of the nineteenth century, a man called Sundarānanda.
Sundarānanda was not only an author and avid collector of manuscripts on
various subjects,9 but he also maintained a scriptorium10 and occasionally
copied manuscripts himself.11
From Shizuka’s wording in the aforementioned summary it seems to me
that he accepted the attribution to the great eleventh-century East Indian
scholar and perhaps even accepted the suggestion of the Tibetan title that
this work forms part of the Vajrabhairava corpus, i.e. the group of works,
both scriptural and exegetical, centred on the cult of the eponymous deity, a
Buddhicised form of Śiva-Bhairava. I would disagree on both counts. First,
it is quite impossible that Ratnākaraśānti, whose Sanskrit is beyond re-

9
His signature or ownership mark can be seen on the final folio of the only
Sanskrit witness of Kalyāṇavarman’s Catuṣpīṭhapañjikā (ms. fol. 45v), dated Nepāla
Samvat 132 = 1012 CE; see SZÁNTÓ 2012: I:116. In my thesis (ibid. and p. 85, n. 24),
I suggested that this may be Hara Prasād Śāstrī’s handwriting. I now wish to with-
draw that statement.
10
I thank Iain Sinclair for this information as well as for making me aware of
Sundarānanda’s importance and influence in the first place in personal communica-
tions (e-mail, June–July 2013).
11
For example a manuscript of the Śālihotra of Indrasena, a treatise on hippology –
further testimony for his wide-ranging cultural interests – with a Nepali translation and
commentary, dated Śaka Samvat 1765, Nepāla Samvat 963, that is to say, 1843 CE.
proach, would have perpetrated any of the “barbarisms” (mlecchita, mle-

cchabhāṣā) in diction I will point out in my notes. Second, there is not a
single word about the deity Vajrabhairava in the text or even the slightest
allusion in wording, or otherwise, to texts of that cycle. I suspect that the
work was grouped thus on account of its Tibetan translator, who identifies
himself in the colophon as “the monk rDo rje grags.” This is none other
than the famous and infamous translator of the Rwa clan, the foremost
propagator of Vajrabhairava teachings in the Land of Snows.12
Indeed, the text does not seem to affiliate itself to any Tantric cycle. On
the contrary, it seeks to stay as general as possible, allowing for particular
customisations according to the liturgy of whichever cycle the participants
followed. The strongest scriptural influence I could detect is that of the Ca-
tuṣpīṭhatantra. However, this scripture, which I tentatively date to the middle
or second half of the ninth century, cannot be accepted as the lowest terminus
post quem, since the present text also alludes to a cakra in the navel, a feature
completely missing from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra along with all other parapher-
nalia of so-called subtle body practices. The terminus ante quem is also
slightly difficult to determine. As I will point out in the notes, the text’s in-
fluence on Kuladatta’s description of the gaṇacakra in the final chapter of his
Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā is very clear, but Kuladatta’s dates are not fixed with
certainty. The date and authorship of the gloss is impossible to determine. I
find it very unlikely that the author was the scribe (Sundarānanda, if my hy-
pothesis is correct), since the gloss uses lemmata which sometimes differ
from the main text. It is also too corrupt for an autograph.
A few words about how I wish to proceed in presenting these two texts.
In September 2013, in the idyllic setting of the island of Procida in the Bay
of Naples during the Third Manuscripta Buddhica Workshop I had the
good fortune of submitting my preliminary draft to what may be described
without exaggeration as the most competent panel of experts of Tantric
texts in the world. During our reading, my understanding of the texts grew
considerably, but so did my despair. A host of new problems were pointed
out and some passages were declared beyond redemption. Our verdict was
unanimous that this is not the work of Ratnākaraśānti. Several emendations
were proposed, but in the heat of the moment I stupidly forgot to record
each and every person’s name who came to the rescue. Alexis Sanderson
and Harunaga Isaacson will stand behind most emendations and conjec-

12
For the life of Rwa lo, see CUEVAS 2015, a recent English translation of his
biography.

tures, but I also recall excellent suggestions by Kazuo Kano and Kenichi
Kuranishi. I wish to apologise to anyone who might feel left out. I also
wish to thank the editors of the present volume for their excellent sugges-
tions and gentle persuasion to include a translation, something I was initial-
ly reluctant to do. In spite of all this remarkable learning that came to my
aid and for which I feel forever grateful, I still think that a definitive edition
and precise translation cannot be attempted at this stage. I will therefore
give the text as it stands in the manuscript, accompanied by a highly tenta-
tive translation (where this is possible) and a running commentary, which
may point the reader in the right direction. Needless to say, all errors are
my own.
Annotated diplomatic edition and tentative translation
[1r] namo Vajrasatvāya || ||
Obeisance to Vajrasattva!
This is the scribal obeisance and does not form part of the text, although
most editions of Buddhist texts ignore this point. Vajrasattva is a kind of
undifferentiated main deity of Tantric Buddhism, portrayed with two arms
holding a vajra-sceptre (a symbol of means, upāya) and a bell (a symbol of
wisdom, prajñā), which are also the two chief implements of Tantric Bud-
dhist initiates. Most exegetes would agree that other Tantric deities (e.g.
Hevajra, Cakrasaṃvara) are, roughly speaking, “emanations” or forms of
Vajrasattva.
[1] Vajrasatvaṃ praṇamyādau bhāvābhāvātmakaṃ vibhuṃ ||

sarvakāmapradaṃ devaṃ vakṣye haṃ gaṇamaṇḍalaṃ ||
After having first bowed to Vajrasattva, the pervading Lord, embodying

both existence and non-existence (i.e., conventional and ultimate reality
or transmigration and liberation), the god bestowing all objects of desire
(or: the absolute object of desire), I shall teach the gaṇamaṇḍala.
This is the customary maṅgala (obeisance, auspicious utterance) and

pratijñā (statement of purpose). Both ādau and [’]haṃ are superfluous: the
meaning of the first is already implicit in the absolutive praṇamya, whereas
the meaning of the second can be gathered from the finite verb vakṣye. The
object of vakṣye – unless we understand it to mean “I shall describe” – is a
bhīmavat compound for gaṇamaṇḍalavidhim. The description
bhāvābhāvātmakaṃ is understood by the glossator as “embodying [both]
conventional/superficial and ultimate truth,” whereas sarvakāma° is inter-
preted as the absolute object of desire, i.e., great bliss (in this literature a
synonym of Buddhahood), and not “all objects of desire.”
[2] nirvikalpaparo maṃtrī sarvakālasamāhitaḥ |

sarvataṃtrānusārajño daśatatvavidāṃ varaḥ ||
The mantra-practitioner (here: the chief officiant), whose aim is the

non-discursive [state], who is composed at all times, who knows the in-
tent of all Tantras, who is a great expert in the ten fundamentals,
This verse describes the qualifications of the chief officiant. Here he is

simply called mantrin, but later (v. 10) more appropriately gaṇanāyaka.
anusāra° is best understood as a synonym of abhiprāya. There are several
lists for the ten tattvas (see KLEIN-SCHWIND 2012: 28 ff., she translates
tattva as “fundamentals”), essentially types of rituals a vajrācārya (i.e., a
Tantric Buddhist officiant, master) is expected to know, but none match the
one given by the glossator (see p. 307), which is most likely an ad hoc crea-
tion and not something supported by scriptural or exegetical authority. Note
his variants: nityakāla° for sarvakāla° and °vidhānavit for °vidāṃ varaḥ.
[3] gaṃbhīrodāradharmyarbhyā sārdravībhūtamānasaiḥ ||

nirābhimānaiḥ sacchiṣyaiḥ śuśrūṣaṇaviśāradaiḥ ||
with true disciples, whose minds are †...† in the profound and vast doc-
trine, who are free from pride, who are obedient [and] skilled,
This verse describes the disciples accompanying the chief officiant. The
second quarter must have begun with a cvī formation, otherwise the first
line is beyond repair. Perhaps the point is that the disciples should have
faith in or be versed in the profound and vast doctrine (i.e., the Buddhist
dharma). The ungrammatical lengthening in nirābhimānaiḥ seeks to avoid
the metrical fault of having both second and third syllables short.

[4] devatāgaṇasaṃkīrṇe paṃcakāmaphalaprade ||

vivikte ramyagehe smin nijapūjāṃ samārabhet ||
should undertake self-worship [as taught] in this [system] in a secluded,

lovely house, which is scattered with groups of deities and which be-
stows the five objects of desire (i.e., the five sensory objects).
The exact meaning of the first quarter is obscure. The glossator would want
the deities to mean “young women passionate about reality,” but this is
doubtful, unless he means yoginīs incarnated into young women. However,
in that case the author would have surely used that word, which is metrical-
ly equivalent. Perhaps the first line does not necessarily describe the house,
but the larger polity where the rite is to take place. In that case, devatā
might refer to local deities with a friendly disposition towards Buddhism.
Should the compound refer to the house after all, perhaps it means that the
consecrated ritual space was adorned by images of deities on scroll paint-
ings or sculpted. Privacy was crucial to the rite; Indrabhūti’s manual (Tōh.
1672, 196a) mentions two appointed door guardians. Āryadeva’s Sūtaka
mentions both elaborate, three-storied brick palaces and more humble cot-
tages as suitable locations (WEDEMEYER 2008: 294–295). Other manuals
(e.g. Tōh. 1231, 43a; Tōh. 1439, 238b; Tōh. 2491, 243b) list the usual plac-
es for practice (a cremation ground, the top of a mountain, a thicket, a
grove, banks of a river, etc.), but most stress that they should be isolated.
The glossator’s explanation is somewhat opaque: “where there are no bad
people [or] people” or perhaps “where there are no people, who are bad peo-
ple.” “Bad people” in this kind of literature are opponents of (Tantric) Bud-
dhism. It is perhaps not out of the question that the author used the pronomi-
nal locative ending, thus °gehesmin. The glossator, however, interprets
[’]smin as an equivalent of iha, meaning asmin tantre, “in this scripture.” The
collocation nijapūjā is unattested elsewhere, but nija° is sometimes men-
tioned in the sense of the chosen deity’s mantra, e.g. hūṃ. The deity and its
mantra are not separate, and one is supposed to visualise oneself as a deity,
therefore we are probably not far from capturing the intended meaning:
“worshipping oneself as the deity, who is the same as its mantra.”
[5] jyeṣṭhānukramayogena vaṃdanā pūjanā smṛtā ||

atha guṇamāhātmyād ātitheyatvagauravāt ||
Homage and worship are taught [to take place] according to the rule of
seniority; alternatively, according to the greatness of virtues or out of re-
spect for a guest.
This verse explains the rule of seniority, which was observed not only in
the order in which the participants are greeted and honoured, but also in the
order of entry and seating. For an elaboration on jyeṣṭhānukrama by Ku-
ladatta, see SAKURAI 2001: 18–19. Five kinds of seniority are listed there:
according to initiation (abhiṣeka), according to observance (vrata), accord-
ing to knowledge (jñāna), according to birth (janma), and according to
learning (vidyā). Our glossator acknowledges only the first. For atha we
should adopt the glossator’s atha vā, otherwise the line would be hypomet-
rical. The formation ātitheyatva° is excessive for ātitheya° or atithitva°; the
irregularity, however, allows for a metrical verse quarter. This last rule is
especially noteworthy, because it suggests that the list of participants was
not stable, but it could also include foreigners to the land, as the glossator
suggests, provided of course that they are initiates. The glossator’s variants
are matā for smṛtā and atitheyatva° for ātitheyatva°, provided that this lat-
ter is genuine.
[6] snānaṃ gaṃdhaṃ ca vastraṃ ca mālābharaṇalepanaṃ ||

arghaṃ dhūpaṃ yathāśaktyā gaṇamaṇḍalam ārabhet ||
[After having gathered] according to one’s means [articles for] bathing,

scented powders, cloths, garlands, ornaments, ointments, the guest wa-
ter, incense, one should begin the gaṇamaṇḍala [ritual].
This verse lists the articles of worship. Although not mentioned separately
here, later on (see v. 7) a sponsor (indeed, sponsors) is mentioned, so it
stands to reason that these are charged to him and that it is his duty to pre-
pare them. We should probably see an invisible absolutive meaning “after
having gathered/prepared” for the accusatives. Note the glossator’s variants
mālyaṃ ca vastrā° for vastraṃ ca mālā°.
[7] samāhitāya karaṇī proktaiṣā karmavajriṇī ||

karṇe kṛtvāṃjaliṃ mūrddhni dātā cāṣṭāṃgato namet ||

The gesture calling to order is taught to be this: the female chief assis-
tant, after having placed the folded palms on the ears [she should place
them] on the head. As for the sponsor, he should perform a prostration
of the eight parts [of the body].
Understand samāhitāya as samāhitatvāya. It is slightly unusual that the

absolutive and the finite verb have different subjects, but otherwise the
verse does not seem to make sense. It is also somewhat unusual that the
chief assistant (elsewhere, as in the Tibetan translation, karmavajrin) is
female, but this reading as well as its interpretation as instrumental is rein-
forced by the glossator. The point of her gesture (karaṇī) is to call the par-
ticipants to attention. This feature is not paralleled in any other manual
known to me.
[8] baliṃ ratnādibhāṇḍasthaṃ datvā lokottarān jinān ||

laukikān maṃtradevāṃś ca pūjayet tatvatatparaḥ ||
After having given the food offering, which is [to be] placed in a vessel
[made of some kind of] precious material [such as gold and silver] or
something else [such as clay], the one intent on reality (i.e., the chief of-
ficiant) should worship the supramundane Victors, the mundane [gods],
and the mantra gods.
The absolutive should probably be understood as a present participle. Al-

ternatively, offering the bali and worshipping the three groups are distinct.
The compound tattvatatparaḥ may suggest that the worshipper should be
aware of the ultimate nature of the mentioned deities. The last group, name-
ly the mantradevas, is interpreted by the glossator as genii locorum. The
word ratna is frequently translated as “jewel,” but the actual meaning is
simply “precious material,” including some metals.
[9] maṃtrābhiprāyayogena padmabhāṇḍe mahāmṛtaṃ ||

daśāṃkuśaṃ ca saṃjapya sarvās tān paritoṣayet ||
He should [then] satisfy all [participants] with the great nectar and the
ten hooks [which are placed] in a skull bowl and empowered by recita-
tion according to the intent of the Tantra.
The transgressive substances, normally referred to as samayas, here called

great (or “special”) nectars (mahāmṛta) and hooks (aṅkuśa) – both collec-
tive singulars – are placed in a skull cup (padmabhāṇḍa), empowered by
recitation, and distributed. Although not mentioned here, it is usually un-
derstood that the substances are provided in small quantities (usually fash-
ioned into a pellet) and dissolved in liquor (cf. SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 327 ff.;
SAKURAI 2001: 19). Correct sarvās to sarvāṃs. The recipients are not de-
scribed clearly; they could be the three groups mentioned above or, as the
glossator would have it and what seems more likely, the participants them-
selves. We should accept the Tibetan reading and emend to tantrā-
bhiprāya°; the glossator’s reading tattvābhiprāya° seems to be a corruption
of this. The substances are alluded to below by their acronyms (see v. 16).
Two points are noteworthy here. The first is that the meats are usually
called pradīpas (“lamps”), aṅkuśa is a somewhat less used term and inex-
tricably linked to the Catuṣpīṭhatantra (SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 315, 348–349).
The influence of that text is observable also in v. 17, which features the odd
word chiḍiṅga. The second interesting point is that here, as well as in v. 18,
the hooks are said to number ten, but in fact this is the total number of the
nectars and the meats (see commentary on v. 16). The glossator discreetly
ignores this problem.
[10] sarvāḥ sādhāraṇāḥ pūjāḥ sarvaguhyottarottarāḥ ||

mahāsukhapade sthitvā varteta gaṇanāyakaḥ ||
All common acts of worships and all [acts of worship which are] utterly
and ultimately secret should be performed by the leader of the assembly
[after having] established [himself] in the state of great bliss.
Perhaps it would make the verse more elegant to emend to sarvā guhyo°.
The medial optative varteta is a barbaric form, understand vartayeta.
[11] vinayanibhṛtanārī namravaktrāraviṃdā

vipulaguṇaviśālā tatvatas tatvayogyā |
hṛdi vigatavikalpā sarvanepathyayuktā
pṛthuṃtarakucayugmā sandade kāntibhāṇḍaṃ ||
The vessel with the charming [substances] should be presented by a shy

woman, whose lotus-face is bent, who is rich in extensive virtues, who
is truly suitable for truth, in whose heart discursiveness has disappeared,

who is wearing all kinds of makeup, and who has a pair of exceedingly
large breasts.
This verse in the mālinī metre picks up the ninth stanza. The vessel with the
consecrated transgressive substances is presented (understand: distributed?)
to the assembly. The usage kānti for the amṛtas and aṅkuśas in the vessel is
unknown to me from elsewhere, but this is what it must mean (see also v.
33). It is not clear who this attractive young woman is, perhaps the same as
the karmavajriṇī mentioned above (v. 7) or the officiant’s consort. We
must emend pṛthuṃtara° to pṛthutara°. The form sandade probably stands
for saṃdadet, another barbaric optative for saṃdadyāt. Kuladatta para-
phrases the verse thus (SAKURAI 2001: 20): īṣannamramukhapadmā (I
conjecture this reading for īṣattāmra° against Sakurai, his mss., and the
Tibetan translation) ghananirantaratuṅgastanayugalā (I prefer this, the
mss.’s reading, over Sakurai’s ghananirantarā tuṃgastanayugalā) sarvā-
bharaṇavibhūṣitā ativistaraguṇayuktā manovikalparahitā savinayā yoṣid
[…]; “A woman, whose lotus-face is slightly bent, who has a pair of breasts
which are firm, with no space in-between and very prominent, who is deco-
rated with various kinds of ornaments, who is endowed with extensive vir-
tues, who is free from mental conceptualisations, who is shy, [...]” There
she is also to recite a verse. Note that Kuladatta does not render the most
obscure of her descriptions, tattvatas tattvayogyā (the point is perhaps that
she must be suitable for nondual, antinomian practice), at the same time,
there is a striking parallel between his paraphrase and the glossator’s text,
which breaks off at this point.
[12] kāyeṃdhanaṃ samujvālya jñānasaptārciṣā svayaṃ ||

tatvahomāya vaktrādau pātaye[1v]d rasādikaṃ ||
After having kindled at will the firewood (here: constituents) of the

body (or: one’s person) with the fire of gnosis, one should drop the juice
etc. in the mouth etc. in order [to achieve] the fire sacrifice of reality.
We should either emend to pātayeta to fix the metre or read pātayed with a
slight pause after it. Also, samujvālya should be corrected to samujjvālya.
Juice (rasa) must mean the nectars (amṛta), in which case ādi stands for the
meats. The meaning of °ādau is beyond my understanding; perhaps we
have a double sandhi, that is to say, we must understand vaktre ādau,
where the word “first” is picked up by tato in the next verse. Alternatively,
ādau stands for the other points in the body which are reached by nectars.
Otherwise the general import of this and of the next two verses is fairly
clear: the tasting of the transgressive substances (normally amṛtāsvāda/na)
is framed here as an internalised fire sacrifice (tattvahoma), where the fuel
is the body, the fire is knowledge, and the oblation the aforementioned
substances. The word svayaṃ is also slightly difficult, perhaps it does not
mean more than “spontaneously” or “at will.” There are some similarities
with what the commentator Bhavabhaṭṭa calls guhyahoma in the Ca-
tuṣpīṭhatantra (see SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 452–453).
[13] tato hṛccaṃdramadhyasthaṃ biṃdudevaṃ mahāvibhuṃ ||

athavā sveṣṭadevādiṃ cakrābharaṇabhūṣitaṃ ||
Thereafter, the deity [in form of a] drop, the great pervasive Lord locat-
ed on a moon-disk in the heart, or one’s chosen deity, etc. adorned with
the retinue
The worshipped recipient of this internal homa is said to be the deity either
in an aniconic or iconic form. The former is in the shape of a drop (bindu)
atop a moon-disk in the heart. The latter appears in the fully visualised
form adorned either with a discus or, more likely (also cf. Kuladatta’s para-
phrase, māṇḍaleya°, below), his retinue (cakra). Kuladatta seems to con-
flate the two, since he writes (SAKURAI 2001: 21): tato mano-
’ntargatasūkṣmabudbudākārapratimaṃ (I conjecture this reading against
Sakurai’s °buddhabuddhākārapratimaṃ inspired by the reading of the
Cambridge ms., not consulted by the Japanese editor, which is itself corrupt
but more revealing: °budbuddhākāra°) mahāprabhuṃ (I disagree with Sa-
kurai’s mahāprabhu°) māṇḍaleyadevatāsahitam […] snāpayet; “Thereaf-
ter, he should bathe the great pervasive Lord accompanied by the deities of
the maṇḍala (i.e., his retinue) in the shape of a subtle bubble within his
heart.” budbuda, “bubble,” seems to paraphrase the word bindu.
[14] anāmāṃguṣṭhabiṃdvagrais tritatvonmathitabhāsuraiḥ ||

svalpajihvāgrasannyastaiḥ sudhādhārāṃbubhiḥ snapet ||
should be bathed by oozing streams of nectar [emitted from the sub-

stances blazing with] rays [owing to their] having been agitated by the
three realities (i.e., three mantras) placed on the tip of the tongue in a
small quantity by the [joined] tips of the ring finger and the thumb.

Taking the substances with the joined ring finger and thumb is a standard
and old feature, compare the section on the earliest textual sources above.
The reading °biṃdv° is very problematic, a (somewhat diagnostic) conjec-
ture °baddha° would solve the problem. The three tattvas must mean three
mantras, which purify (again?) the substances. The Catuṣpīṭhatantra teach-
es the triad ha, ho/hoḥ, and hrī/hrīḥ (SZÁNTÓ 2013: I: 331, 440), which
removes the disagreeable colour, smell, and potency respectively. Kuladatta
(SAKURAI 2001: 19) seems to teach aṃ/a, haḥ, and hoḥ to purify the liquor
holding the nectars and meats and the standard oṃ, āḥ, hūṃ to empower it.
He also uses the root math in the same context, but there it is taken literally
to mean mixing in with the ring finger and the thumb. We should probably
emend svalpajihvāgra° to svalpaṃ jihvāgra° and understand the irregular
simplex to stand for the causative snāpayet. The description is elliptical,
but perhaps we are not very far from the point: the substances are first
placed in a small quantity on the tongue, and as they are swallowed, they
turn into streams of nectar which then bathe the deity.
[15] nābhicakrotthitair nādair ākṛṣyākṛṣya tadrasaṃ ||

puṭikātrayataḥ pītvā mahāyogī sukhaṃ vaset ||
Gradually drawing in that nectar with subtle sounds (or: channels) aris-
ing from the discus in the navel, after having taken three sips, the great
yogin[s] should rest at ease.
The first line of this verse seems to describe this gradual journey aided by
subtle sounds (nāda) or perhaps channels (if we emend to nāla) issuing
from the cakra in the navel. Kuladatta (SAKURAI 2001: 21) has vital ener-
gies to correspond to this element: tato nābhimaṇḍalagatāyāmavāyubhis
tadrasam ākṛṣya […]; “Then, after having drawn in that nectar by means of
the restraining[-type] of vital energies located in the discus of the navel
[...].” The word puṭikā in this sense is unattested elsewhere (our standard
dictionaries give “bag” or “vessel”), save Kuladatta’s text as transmitted in
the Cambridge ms.; Sakurai accepted ghuṭikā° (ibid.). I am also inclined to
emend puṭikā° to ghuṭikā°, especially after having consulted TURNER’s
entry on ghuṭṭ, “gulp, swallow” (1962–1966: 242), a word ultimately of
Dravidian origin. The two letters pa and gha look very similar in Old
Newar and other East Indian scripts. The subject, mahāyogī, should be
understood as a collective singular.
[16] vimūmaraśu _ _ d anyac ca dahanagokupaṃcakaṃ ||

taṃtrataṃtrāṃtare proktam anyac cāpi mahāmṛtaṃ ||
[The substances are:] faeces, urine, meat, [menstrual] blood, semen as

well as [the meats of] a horse, an elephant, a human being, a cow, and a
dog. But there are other [such lists of] great nectars taught in various
Tantras.
This is a description of the transgressive substances by their acronyms. The

nectars are vi [faeces (viṣ)], mū [urine (mūtra)], mā [meat (māṃsa)], ra
[menstrual blood (rakta)], and śu [semen (śukra)]. The hooks are da [horse
or elephant (damya/dantin)], ha [elephant or horse (hastin/haya)], na [hu-
man (nara)], go [cow (go)], and ku [dog (kukkura)]. The second line seems
to state that there are other possible lists for the nectars. By this perhaps the
following is meant: the duplication of meat is usually taken for granted, but
there is another list, which incidentally tallies better with the Śaiva tradi-
tion, where māṃsa is replaced by phlegm (kheṭa), see, e.g., SZÁNTÓ 2012:
I: 358–359. It is not entirely clear why the scribe signals two lost/illegible
syllables in the first quarter. With lengthening °mā° (for māṃsa), the quar-
ter should read vimūmāraśum anyac ca.
[17] chiḍiṃgaṃ sarvato dadyād aṃtarīkṣasthitāya tat ||

vīro vīrāya devāya sarvadevīgaṇāya ca ||
The hero should offer sprinklings [of] that [mixture of substances] in all
directions to the hero (i.e., the chief officiant), to the gods, and to the as-
sembly of various goddesses [visualised] in the sky.
After tasting the substances, they should be offered to the officiant, the
deity, and the goddesses. It is only the latter two who should be visualised
in the sky, as the officiant is present. This happens through sprinkling,
which is the meaning of the odd and specifically Catuṣpīṭha word chiḍiṅga,
also spelt chiḍriṅga (SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 334).
[18] tatvaṃ daśāṃkuśaṃ prāpya dātṝṇāṃ cittaśuddhaye ||

pratipāta _ sākalyaṃ bāhyadevāya ḍhaukayet ||

After having obtained the ten hooks, reality, in order to purify the minds
of the sponsors †...† should be offered to the external gods.
This verse is corrupt, but perhaps the point is that some of the aforemen-
tioned offering is extended to outer gods, so that the minds of the sponsors
(note the plural) are purified. The connection between the two is not readily
apparent.
[19] bhūtānāṃ sarvabuddhatvaṃ siddhaye karuṇābalaiḥ ||

vajraghaṇṭānvitaiḥ stotraiś cakravartī tam arcayet ||
The one strong in compassion should propitiate the universal ruler (i.e.,
the deity) with praises accompanied by [shaking] the vajra-sceptre and
[sounding] the bell, so that all beings may achieve absolute buddhahood.
For bhūtānāṃ the Tibetan has sems can rnams la, which may suggest a
variant *sattvānāṃ. Emend °buddhatvaṃ to °buddhatva°. Since we are
lacking a subject and because the adjective is not apposite to stotra, we
must emend karuṇābalaiḥ to karuṇābalaḥ to describe the officiant. We
would have a subject in the final quarter, however, here there is nothing to
pick up the pronoun tam, therefore we are constrained to emend to
cakravartinam, meaning the deity, the object of the finite verb. Understand
vajraghaṇṭānvitaiḥ as an elliptical compound meaning “accompanied by
shaking the vajra-sceptre and sounding the bell,” alternatively, “accompa-
nied by sounding the vajra-bell,” so called because the bell is topped by a
half-vajra.
[20] śṛṃgārābhinayenaivaṃ datvā naivedyabhājanaṃ ||

pratyekaṃ sarvam ekaṃ vā śuddhyaśuddhaviparyayaiḥ ||
After having offered thus (?), with an (or: with the same?) erotic ges-
ture, a vessel [containing] food, either one each or the same to all, over-
turning [the concepts of] pure and impure,
This verse is also puzzling. We should probably understand that the nai-
vedya vessel presented here is not the padmabhāṇḍa with the transgressive
substances, but a new vessel with food. The third quarter seems to evoke
two scenarios: there is only one vessel and everyone eats from that (which
is of course highly impure by Indic standards) or there are as many vessels
as participants. At any rate, the text enjoins that conventional values of

purity-impurity should be suspended, indeed, overturned (we should emend
to śuddhāśuddha° or śuddhyaśuddhi°). The first quarter describes the ges-
ture with which the vessel is presented. This is elsewhere (e.g. in the Kriyā-
saṃgrahapañjikā, see SAKURAI 2001: 20; SZÁNTÓ 2012: I: 327) called the
kamalāvarttamudrā, an elegant gesture with which the vessel containing
the samayas is received and passed on. If we emend evaṃ to eva, this
would mean that the naivedya vessel is to be handled in the same way.
However, the gesture was not mentioned before.
[21] yatheṣṭhaṃ bhojanaiḥ pānair nānāpūjākadaṃbakaiḥ ||

yathāsukhaṃ yatheṣṭaṃ ca vaded dātā ca vajriṇī ||
[a vessel accompanied] with food and drink, as much as desired, [as

well as] a multitude of offerings, the sponsor should say to the initiates
“as you please” or “as you wish.”
The first line should probably be construed with naivedyabhājanam from

the previous verse (while correcting yatheṣṭhaṃ to yatheṣṭaṃ). Then, the
sponsor should utter the words “as you please” or “as you wish” (emend
the first ca to vā or understand it to have that meaning). We should also
emend vajriṇī to vajriṇām, i.e., the initiates addressed by him. The point of
this utterance seems to be that the strictly formalised part of the rite is over,
and the feasting can begin. This is a standard feature of the rite (e.g. the
Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā, see SAKURAI 2001: 21), although the older, scrip-
tural injunction does not make it clear who says the words (cf. SZÁNTÓ
2012: I: 341).
[22] iti vigatavikalpaḥ siṃhavan nirviśaṃko

bhavaśamapadasaṃsthas tatvasadbhāvayuktaḥ ||
svahṛdayasamaprajñaḥ kaiśikādīn pragāyan
sakalajinagaṇaughān pūjayen nṛtyato ’pi ||
Thus, [the officiant,] uninhibited like a lion [roaming at will], in whom

conceptualisation has waned, who is [equally situated] in transmigration
and liberation, who is merged with the true essence of reality, accompa-
nied by the consort pleasing to his heart, should worship the mass of all
Victors singing [in various musical scales] beginning with the kaiśika,
and also with dance.

There follows a session of song and dance as acts of worship. This part is
opened by the officiant accompanied by his consort (prajñā). kaiśika is a
kind of musical scale (rāga).
[23] yasya haste patet pātraṃ kramaśaḥ karavartanaiḥ ||

bhaven mohād avajñair vā tiraskārī sa daṇḍabhāk ||
Should the vessel drop from one’s hand [during] the gradual activity of
the arms (i.e., passing the vessel around) because of lack of attention or
disgust, that person is an offender liable for punishment.
The next two verses address the issue of fines or punishments meted out in
case of slight misdemeanours such as dropping the vessel or lack of deco-
rum. Emend haste to hastāt.
[24] kasyacid avinayotpanne manovākkāyakarmabhiḥ ||

yuktaṃ tasya prakalpeta daṇḍa gaṇḍādiśāṃtaye ||
[Gloss in lower margin:] kapardakapalacatuṣṭayaṃ
Should one commit indecorous thoughts, speech, or deeds, it is fitting to

mete out punishment in order to counteract [karmic retribution] such as
boils. [Gloss: four weights of cowrie shells]
Emend °otpanne to °otpannaiḥ and daṇḍa to daṇḍaṃ. The idea that one
will become infected with boils (gaṇḍa) as karmic retribution for indeco-
rous thoughts, speech, or deeds is otherwise unknown to me. The Tibetan
omits rendering this word. The gloss is a rather interesting detail: to my
knowledge, this is the only case in this kind of literature where a well-
defined penalty is mentioned. The amount, four palas of cowrie shells (on
the monetary use of which see GOPAL 21989: 213–214), seems rather mea-
gre. Unbecoming acts, according to, e.g., the Mahāmudrātilaka (ms. fol.
47v, the passage is copied from the Vajramālābhidhāna, Tōh. 445, 267b),
include chatting, quarrelling, expectorating, laughing, stretching the limbs,
getting up again and again, and singing or dancing without permission from
the officiant. Quarrelling during the gaṇacakra is singled out as a gross
trespass in several works containing lists thereof (e.g. LÉVI 1929: 268:
gaṇacakre vivādakāriṇaḥ […] sthūlāpattir bhavati), but it is not made clear
what the subject of such a quarrel may be.
[25] hastadvayena mudrābhir vidhivat tatvatāṃ varaḥ ||

anyonyatarpa[2r]ṇaṃ kṛtvā kelikrīḍārasotsavaiḥ ||
That best of experts, after having mutually propitiated [his consort] with
displays of gestures with the two hands [and] nectar[-like] merriments
of amorous sport and play, as prescribed,
For vidhivat tatvatāṃ varaḥ there are several possible emendations:

vidhivat tadvidāṃ varaḥ, vidhitattvavidāṃ varaḥ, less likely vidhivat
tattvatatparaḥ, since we have the same compound following the predicate
in the next verse.
[26] gaṃbhīrodārasāṃkathyaiḥ pūjayet tatvatatparaḥ ||

gītavādyādibhir nṛtyaiḥ prajñopāyaratottamaiḥ ||
the one intent on reality should worship with conversations on the pro-
found and vast [doctrine], with dance accompanied by singing, music,
etc., and most exquisite amorous acts [in which] Wisdom and Means
[unite].
The last quarter is an explicit mention of intercourse, since prajñā and

upāya are codewords for the female and male initiates.
[27] samādareṇa cānyonyaṃ samaśuśrūṣayā bhṛśaṃ ||

daśapāramitāyogair yajeta yajñavad vratī ||
The observer of the vow, who is an expert in propitiatory sacrifice,

should, with mutual respect and mutual reverence, sacrifice intensively
with meditation practices [embodying] the ten perfections.
Emend yajñavad to yajñavid. The precise meaning of the third quarter es-
capes me. An exegete, Mahāsukhavajra, states in his commentary to the
Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra (Padmāvatī ms. fol. 30r): suratayoga evaikasmin
ṣaṭ pāramitāḥ pūritā bhavanti |; “The six perfections become fulfilled in a
single place, the yoga of intercourse.” The list of six is older, but in later
literature both are used interchangeably. Achieving the perfections (of giv-
ing etc.) occurs through arduous and lengthy practice in the non-Tantric
Mahāyāna; the Tantric mode of practice has the same aim, but it offers a
“shortcut.”

[28] kṣamitvā gaṃtukāmo pi sāṃjaliṃ saṃmukhaṃ gataḥ ||

kāryaṃ kṛtvāgato dhīmān praviśet praṇato nataḥ ||
As for a person wishing to leave [the assembly temporarily], he should,

after having excused himself, depart with folded hands, facing [the offi-
ciant]. Having finished his business, the wise one should return and en-
ter bowing dutifully.
This verse contains the rule for excusing oneself to leave the assembly
temporarily. Emend sāñjaliṃ to sāñjaliḥ, and praṇato nataḥ to prayato na-
taḥ or praṇato ’bhitaḥ.
[29] sadā yogātmako bhūtvā sadā tatvaparāyaṇaḥ ||

sadā vinayasaṃpannaḥ sadā cakraṃ samācaret ||
One should consistently perform the [gaṇa]cakra, [and he should do so]

always intent on yoga, always dedicated to reality, and always with due
decorum.
A general injunction. The final sadā is perhaps superfluous, unless we are

to understand it as a call to celebrate the ritual periodically.
[30] pakvānnam iva vīrāṇāṃ mudrā sādhāraṇā smṛtā ||

tasmān niḥśeṣakāmena svaṃ parāṃś caiva pūjayeta ||
Just like (the?) cooked food, the mudrā[s] (consort[s]? hand gesture[s]?)
[are] taught to be common to [all] heroes (i.e., the male initiates). One
should therefore worship one’s private [mudrā], but also those of others,
with all objects of desire.
Understand the second quarter as collective singulars; alternatively, emend

to mudrāḥ sādhāraṇāḥ smṛtāḥ. I am forced to emend svaṃ parāṃś to svāṃ
parāś, and we must correct the predicate to pūjayet metri causa. The overall
meaning is somewhat obscure. The cooked food perhaps refers back to the
communal naivedya vessel. The verse might suggest that the female partic-
ipants must yield sexually to all.
[31] yāvat svechā sadānaṃdaṃ līlayā tatvalīlayā ||

tāvat tatvanijāṃ pūjāṃ kartavyaṃ prajñayānayā ||
The worship of reality as oneself (!?) should be performed together with

this (?) consort (wisdom?) until one so desires, with true bliss, with
grace, with the grace of reality (?).
We should correct to svecchā and emend to tattvanijā pūjā kartavyā. The

strange sadānandaṃ seems to be adverbial. The overall meaning is ob-
scure: the act of self-worship together with the consort (prajñā) should be
continued while it causes pleasure?
[32] cakṣurādiṃ mahopāyai rūpādi lalānāgaṇaiḥ ||

vijñānena mahānandaṃ bāhye nityaṃ pravartayet ||
[After having empowered] the eyes etc. (i.e., the sense faculties) and
form etc. (i.e., the respective objects of the sense faculties) [as] the host
of [divine] women together with their consorts, with this awareness (?)
one should constantly activate great bliss in the external [world].
This verse, too, is obscure. I conjecture that it may be an injunction to em-

power the senses (eyes etc.) as the goddesses (emend to °lalanā°), e.g.
Rūpavajrā etc., together with their male consorts (in which case we must
emend to sahopāyai) and thus, with this knowledge, one should experience
great bliss with respect to external sensory objects during ordinary activi-
ties, i.e., outside meditation sessions. At least this accords with general
Tantric practice.
[33] kuliśakamalakāṃtiṃ caṃdraśubhraṃ suśubhraṃ

ghṛṇivisarajinaughān niḥsvabhāvān svabhāvān ||
atitararatiramyāṃ prajñayā sājñayā ca
vihati mukhaśuddhyā sarvasatvaṃ susatvaḥ ||
This verse is beyond my comprehension.
[34] atha visarjane prāpte maṃgalāgītistotrataḥ ||

stavitvā sarvadevānāṃ cakrāṇāṃ ca samakṣataḥ ||

Next, once the time for dismissal has arrived, after having chanted
praises with hymns of auspicious songs, in the presence of all deities
and [the participants of] the assembly,
This is the last section proper of the rite, the dismissal of deities and the
participants. Understand maṅgalagītistotraiḥ: the irregular lengthening is
required by the metre (but note that the very same rule is broken in the first
quarter), whereas the suffix taḥ stands for a plural instrumental. stavitvā
means stutvā. cakrāṇāṃ must mean the participants of the cakra.
[35] dātṛṇābhyukṣarā śiṣyā saṃyojya jinasaṃvaraṃ ||

sarvabuddhāni buddhatve cānusaṃśya niruttare ||
[the officiant] should besprinkle the sponsors, then [re]appoint [his]

good disciples to the vow[s] of the Victors (i.e., buddhas), then praise
(i.e., foretell? pray for?) all beings [to reach] unsurpassed buddhahood,
I conjecture dātṝn abhyukṣya sacchiṣyān […] °saṃvare | sarvabhūtāni […]

cānuśaṃsya. For the plural “sponsors,” cf. v. 18 above. The Tibetan sug-
gests placing a flower on the head of the sponsor. The accusa-
tive °saṃvaraṃ is perhaps original; note, however, that the Tibetan does
not mirror disciples, but has another absolutive meaning “having uttered
auspicious words.” The second line is more obscure: note the irregular ac-
cusative neuter; the Tibetan also suggests plural °bhūtān.
[36] ucchiṣṭadevān saṃtuṣya samāsṛjya mahābaliṃ ||

dharmajñānātmako bhūtvā yuṃjīta matimān śubhaṃ ||
then propitiate the deities of the leftovers [by] having dispersed a great
food offering. Then the clever one should perform [this] auspicious
[practice] after having developed in himself the gnosis of the doctrine:
Understand or correct saṃtuṣya as/to saṃtoṣya. śubhaṃ should perhaps be

emended to śubhe with the meaning śubhāya, in which case the translation
would be: “the clever one should perform [the following] yogic exercise for
the sake of auspiciousness.” For this practice (vv. 36cd–39), we once again
have a parallel with the Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā (SAKURAI 2001: 21): tada-
nu nairātmyajñānātmako buddhimān svaśirasa (although widely attested, I
cannot make sense of svasvaśirasa, which I have corrected) ūrdhvaṃ vi-
tastimātropari sravadaparyantajñānāmṛtadhāraṃ (Sakurai reproduces the

present participle outside the compound) candramaṇḍalaṃ vibhāvya | tad-
madhye svasvadevatābījāni [|] sthire sati hṛdantaḥsuṣirasthacandra-
maṇḍalopari (Sakurai reads hṛdantaḥsvaśirastha°, which does not make
sense to me) svasvadevatācihnāni yavaphalapramāṇāni vibhāvya prīṇayet ||;
“Thereafter, the wise one, who has interiorised the gnosis of selflessness,
should visualise one span above his head a moon-disk oozing boundless
streams of gnosis-nectar. Then, in the middle of that [he should visualise]
each deity’s seed[-syllable]. When this [visualisation] has become stable,
he should visualise on a moon-disk situated within the subtle space in his
heart each deity’s implement measuring a barleycorn [each]. Then he
should propitiate [himself as the deity].” According to Kuladatta’s para-
phrase, dharmajñānātmakaḥ means nairātmyajñānātmakaḥ.
[37] kiṣkumātropari sūkṣmaṃ dhyātvā dharmālayaṃ jinaṃ ||

anantāmṛtavat tasmāt skravaṃtaṃ ciṃtayet svake ||
After having visualised one cubit above [his head] a subtle abode of the
doctrine, that of the Victors (i.e., a moon-disk), containing endless
[amounts of] nectar, he should think that [streams of nectar] ooze from
that onto his head.
Again judging from Kuladatta’s paraphrase quoted above, the dharmālayaṃ

jinaṃ anantāmṛtavat must be a moon-disk oozing nectar. The author could
not write jainaṃ for metrical reasons, but this is the meaning. Emend
skravaṃtaṃ to sravantaṃ. Note that kiṣkumātropari […] svake was some-
what reformulated in Kuladatta’s paraphrase. It may be significant that this
distance is twice as much as the dvādaśānta of the Śaiva tradition, note,
however, that Kuladatta’s vitasti could be equal to that length.
[38] siddhārthamātra[2v]sūkṣmaṃ tat cihnaṃ vā vajriṇaṃ svakaṃ ||

vajrāgre nāsikāgre vā dhyātvā sphārayate sthire ||
Or, after having visualised either the holder of the vajra (i.e., the deity)
himself or his [chief] implement (i.e., a vajra-sceptre), small in size like
a mustard seed, on the tip of the vajra (i.e., the penis) or the tip of his
nose. Once [the visualisation is] stable, he should emit [the nectar].

This verse is somewhat obscure. It seems to present alternatives for the

moon-disk visualised above the head. If this is correct, then Kuladatta rein-
terpreted the passage freely, since there is no mention of the insignia of the
deity (tat cihnaṃ should then be corrected to taccihnaṃ) or the deity him-
self (understand svakaṃ as svayam) as a suitable variant, nor does he give
alternatives for the locus of visualisation (alternatively, svakaṃ is perhaps a
corruption of svake, “on his head,” but that would be a repetition). For
sphārayate, we should probably understand sphārayet. We should also read
sthire as a locative absolute as in Kuladatta. Of course, there is a variety of
further ways in which one could emend the text, but this is the one that
seems most likely to me.
[39] hṛdayāmbaramadhyesminn akhaṇḍaśaśimaṇḍalaṃ ||

tatra dharmasamālīnaṃ sūkṣmavajraṃ sadā smaret ||
yavaphalapramāṇaṃ ca _ _ vajraṃ bhāvayet ||
In the middle of the subtle space in his heart, he should imagine a disk
[in the shape of a] full moon, and on that, joined with [that abode of] the
doctrine, [he should] always [visualise] a small vajra-sceptre †...†
measuring a barley corn †...†
This stanza too is obscure and corrupt. The compound dharmasamālīnaṃ is

somewhat puzzling (but we had dharmālaya in v. 37 describing the moon-
disk), as is the sixth verse quarter. The word sadā is a mere verse-filler.
[40] karuṇādirasopetaṃ trivimokṣaṃ manomayam ||

sarvākārārthasaṃyuktaṃ nirvikāramahāsukhaṃ ||
Endowed with the essence of foremost compassion, [having the nature

of] the three liberations, consisting of mind, endowed with †...† all as-
pects, unchangeable great bliss–
Here we have another parallel with the Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā (SAKURAI

2001: 21–22): tato yogatatparo yogī prajñopāyasvabhāvo mahākaruṇā-
rasasaṃyuktaṃ vimokṣatrayasvabhāvaṃ sarvavastusaṃśuddham avikāra-
paramārthasukhaṃ sarvakarmasu sarvaprakāreṇānantatathāgataparama-
rūpaṃ vicintayet ||; “Then, the yogin, dedicated to yoga, having the nature
of wisdom of and means, should contemplate [the resolve of enlighten-
ment] as being joined with the essence of great compassion, having the
nature of the three liberations, pure regarding all things (?), [equal to] the
unchangeable bliss of absolute truth, having the supreme form of endless
Tathāgatas, in all rituals, in all aspects.” If Kuladatta’s reading is correct,
beginning with v. 40 we have a new topic, a general injunction concerning
all rituals undertaken subsequently by the yogin. I suspect that Kuladatta’s
text is missing the actual object of contemplation, which is the resolve of
enlightenment, which is also semen in the Tantric tradition (bodhicitta), as
we have it here (41c). My interpretation of karuṇādi° is somewhat unusual
(not “compassion etc.”), but it is inspired by Kuladatta’s mahākaruṇā°. The
point is that this is not common compassion, but the compassion felt by the
Buddhist practitioner in spite of his/her knowledge that all beings and ex-
istents are ultimately empty (lacking an inherent nature). The three libera-
tions, also often called gateways thereof, are śūnyatā (emptiness), animitta
(causelessness), and apraṇihita (desirelessness). Kuladatta’s sarva-
vastusaṃśuddhaṃ seems to mirror manomayaṃ, but I do not quite see how.
Alternatively, it mirrors sarvākārārthasaṃyuktaṃ, an opaque expression.
Emptiness is frequently described as sarvākāravaropetaṃ, “endowed with
all best aspects.” Perhaps °artha° is a corruption for a synonym of °vara°.
Kuladatta’s °anantatathāgataparamarūpaṃ does not seem to have an
equivalent in our text, unless this is the way in which he intended to say
bodhicitta, which is not impossible.
[41] prajñopāyātmako yogī sarvakarmaṇi sarvathā ||

saṃbodhicittasadrūpaṃ ciṃtayet tatvatatparaḥ ||
[thus] should the yogin, who [unites] within himself wisdom and means
[and] is dedicated to reality, contemplate the true nature of the resolve
of perfect enlightenment in all [subsequent] rituals, at all times.
[42] prāṇamaṃtrākṣarair japtaṃ biṃdu prakṛtibhāsvaraṃ ||

dharmādharmair vinirmuktaṃ tatvataḥ paribhāvayet ||
He should contemplate the bindu, luminous by its very nature, recited

with the syllables of the mantras of the vital energies (?), as utterly free
of both dharma and adharma (?).
Emend to binduṃ. Judging from Kuladatta’s paraphrase, this verse and the
next one do not form part of the practice previously described. What exact-
ly the first quarter refers to is beyond my comprehension, since the bindu,

that is to say, the anusvāra crowning mantra-syllables, is not recited on its

own. In any case, we are assured in the next verse that this practice, what-
ever it may be, or practice in general, is conducive to liberation.
[43] tatkāle sarvakāle vā mokṣodyamaparāyaṇaḥ ||

kṛtvābhyāsaṃ sadākālaṃ sa labhen mokṣasaṃpadaṃ ||
Whether at that time (i.e., the gaṇacakra) or any other time, if the one
dedicated to the effort [which brings about] liberation performs the prac-
tice consistently, he will obtain the accomplishment of liberation.
[44] saṃpūjyaṃ jagatāṃ manorathaparaṃ sarveṇa dānādinā

piṣṭvā sarvavikalpamohanagaraṃ nairātmyavajrādinā ||
yaś cakraṃ prativartate jinaguror jñānodayaṃ mokṣadaṃ
tasyāryasya kṛpāparasya mahato nityaṃ bhṛśaṃ śreyase ||
The supreme wish of people should be honoured with everything, giving

etc. He, who after having destroyed with [weapons] beginning with the
vajra-sceptre of selflessness the city of delusion [founded on] various
conceptualisations, celebrates the knowledge-raising, liberation-giving
assembly of the Victor-Guru, for such a great, noble man, intent on
compassion, there will always be great success.
This somewhat obscure verse in the śārdūlavikrīḍita metre, which I have

translated rather freely, describes the benefits of the practice (phalaśruti).
Before jagatāṃ, the scribe first wrote sarva°, but then realised his mistake
and deleted it. Understand prativartate as simply vartayati or emend to
parivartate. The compound jinaguror is unusual and unparalleled. It is also
somewhat unclear who the intended beneficiary is. Perhaps it is the spon-
sor(s), but it is equally possible that all the participants are meant.
[45] gaṇāya gaṃbhīraguṇopayuktaye

vikalpakalpājitakleśahāriṇe ||
savāsanāvāsavimuktamuktaye
vibhāvabhāvāya namo stu yogine ||
Homage to the yogin[s], [members of] the assembly, endowed with pro-
found virtues, [they] who remove the obscurations acquired due to con-
ceptualisations [entertained] through the aeons, [they] who possess lib-
eration free from the abode of latent imprints, [they] who [are beyond
both] liberation and bound existence.
The work concludes with four verses of praise, and it is perhaps here that
the author’s idiosyncratic usage is most visible. Apparently, he strives to
achieve poetic effect through alliterative yamakas (vikalpakalpa°,
savāsanāvāsa°, vibhāvabhāvāya in the first verse) and by using somewhat
more sophisticated metres (vaṃśastha, upajāti, vaṃśastha, and svāgatā
respectively), much to the detriment of lucidity. We should most likely
understand °upayuktaye as simply °yuktāya. Emend °ājita° to °ārjita° or
°ācita° and understand the first members of the compound in reverse, that
is to say, kalpārjitavikalpa° or kalpācitavikalpa°. It is helpful to go into
“soft focus” while interpreting the third quarter. vibhāva probably stands
for abhāva, that is to say, nirvāṇa. The object of obeisance in this verse is
most likely the group of male participants (in which case we take gaṇāya
literally and understand yogine as a collective singular; this interpretation is
supported by the next verse) or, perhaps less likely, the officiant (in which
case we understand yogine literally and gaṇāya as gaṇanāyakāya).
[46] vibhūṣaṇair bhūṣitayāṃgayaṣṭyā

cakrāmbare caṃdrakaleva dhāmnā ||
karoti yā kṛtyakalāpakāya
namo stu tāyai lalanāgaṇāyai ||
Homage to that assembly of ladies, whose slender bodies are adorned

with ornaments, who resemble the digit of the moon because of their
lustre as they move through the sky that is the assembly, performing all
duties.
This somewhat freely translated verse describes and pays obeisance to the
female participants. The datives are at the very least irregular, note espe-
cially tāyai for tasyai.
[47] salaukikaṃ lokaguruṃ sacakriṇaṃ

vibhāvya bhāvyaṃ jagatāṃ vimuktaye ||
hitāśayā yo nukaroti maṇḍalaṃ
namo stu tasmai gaṇacakravartine ||

Homage to the leader (lit. universal monarch) of the assembly, who, af-
ter having visualised [all] that needs to be visualised – the teacher of the
world (i.e., the Buddha or Vajrasattva) together with the worldly deities
and the retinue – with the intention of [bringing spiritual] benefit [for
beings], imitates the maṇḍala for the liberation of the world.
This verse pays obeisance to the leader of the assembly. Understand

sacakriṇaṃ as sacakraṃ and hitāśayā as hitāśayena. For anukaroti, the
Tibetan reads *atra karoti (SHIZUKA 2011: 69). In this case, we should
translate: “who performs the maṇḍala[-rite] ... in this world.”
[48] sarvasatva[3r]gatinirmalabhāva-
bhāvanodbhavamahāsukhapiṇḍaṃ ||
piṇḍitottamaparārtham udāraṃ
dārayā saha name kṛtasarvam ||
I pay homage to him, together with [his/my] consort, who has per-
formed all, who [possesses] a heap of great bliss born from meditation
on the spotless nature of [he] who is the refuge of all beings (i.e., the de-
ity), who has distilled the supreme benefit for others, the lofty one.
The obscure final verse also eulogises the chief officiant. Alternatively, the
object of homage is in the first line, i.e., great bliss, in which case the obei-
sance is performed by the author together with his consort, which is per-
haps what the Tibetan translation suggests (SHIZUKA 2011: 69). Understand
°gati° as śaraṇam, alternatively emend to °gata° following the Tibetan.
The reading dārayā is guaranteed by the metre; ironically, the correct form
would be dāraiḥ.
|| gaṇacakravidhiḥ samāptaḥ ||
The Ritual Procedure for the Gaṇacakra is completed.

Diplomatic edition of the fragmentary gloss
|| namo buddhāya || ||
taṃtreṣv abhiṣiktānāṃ caryāyatayennānāṃ gaṇacakravidhānam aṃta-

reṇa siddhir na bhavatīti kṛtvā vighnotsāraṇāya mahate siddhaye prāpanā-
rthaṃ | sveṣṭadevamahāvajraṃdharanamaskārapūrvakagaṇacakravidhā-
nasya saṃkṣiptā paṃjikeyaṃ || ||
[ad 1] tatrādau tāvat || vajrasatvam iti || abhedyāyuktaparamārthasat-

vaṃ bhāvābhāvātmakam iti || saṃvṛtiparamārtharūpe | vibhuṃ prabhuṃ |
sabodhipakṣayogāt sarvakāma iti, mahāsukhakāmaṃ taṃ pradadātīti sa-
rvakāmapradaṃ, devam iti divyatīti devas taṃ praṇamyādau ahaṃ
gaṇamaṇḍalaṃ, yogayoginī<|dva|>dvayamaṇḍalaṃ vakṣye vadiṣyāmi ||
[ad 2] nirvikalpaparaḥ || nirvikalpasvabhāvaḥ | maṃtram asyāstīti

maṃtrī | nityakālasamāhitaḥ | niṣadyaca||karmayānaśayanāsanamaithu-
nādiṣu tatsvarūpeṇa samāhitaḥ, sarvataṃtrānusārajñaḥ, niravaśeṣa-
taṃtrānugataḥ | daśatatvavidhānavit | daśatatvam iti | bāhyaguhyābhiṣekī
1 nirvikalpaviśuddhī 2 bāhyaguhyamaṇḍalajñaḥ 3 vivekasamādhikovidaḥ 4
paramārthacaryābhirataḥ 5 mudrādisarvagamanāgamane sarvakarmānu-
sārajñaḥ 6 japahomapūjāpravartakaḥ 7 sarvatṛṣṇāvinirmuktaḥ 8 yathāya-
thāgocaradharmadeśakaḥ 9 advayasamatāvidhijñaḥ 10 iti || evaṃvidho
yogī gaṇamaṇḍalam ārabhed (= 6c) iti saṃbaṃdhaḥ ||
[ad 4] devatāgaṇasaṃkīrṇaḥ | tatvasadbhāvānuraktayuvatījanākule,

rūpādipaṃcaviṣayānuyukte vivikte, asajjanajanarahite, ramye gehe, mano-
jñe, asmiṃs taṃtre nije pūjyāḥ | para[3v]mārthapūjāṃ samārabhet || ku-
ryād ity arthaḥ |
[ad 5] jyeṣṭhānukramayogena vaṃdanā pūjanā matā || abhiṣekadīkṣā-

jyeṣṭhānukrameṇa vaṃdanāpūjanādikaṃ kartavyaṃ | atha vā guṇamāhā-
tmyaṃ guṇaprakarṣāc ca, atitheyatvagauravāt, deśāṃtaragato ’tithitva-
gauravāt ||

[ad 6] snānaṃ gaṃdhaṃ ca mālyaṃ ca vastrābharaṇalepanaṃ || artha

dhūpaṃ yathāśaktyā gaṇamaṇḍalam ārabhet || yathāśaktyā kubjaṃvo(?)-
payuktena gaṇacakraṃ kartavyaṃ || śeṣaṃ sugamaṃ ||
[ad 7] samāhitāya karaṇī prokteṣā karmavajriṇī || karṇe kṛtāṃjaliṃ

mūrddhnā kāyavākcittavikṣepārthaṃ yogakaraṇīṃ karmavajriṇyā gaṇā-
nāṃ pratyekamūrddhni aṃjaliṃ kṛtvā karṇe kartavyaṃ || paścād dātā cā-
ṣṭārgena cakraṃ praṇāmyate ||
[ad 8] baliṃ ratnādibhāṇḍasthaṃ khādyādikaṃ ratnābhāṇḍe sthāpayi-

tvā lokottarān jinān tathāgatādīn ādau datvā paścāl laukikān harihara-
hiraṇyagarbhādīn maṃtradevāṃś ca kṣetrādipratibaṃdhān pūjayet tatva-
tatparaḥ || arcayet tatvavidhānajñaḥ ||
[ad 9] tatvābhiprāyayogena samāyātitaṃtrakrameṇa padmabhāṇḍe

mahāmṛtaṃ || kapālādibhāṇḍe paṃcāmṛtādikam aṃkuśaś cādau samaya-
kuśaṃ ca saṃjapya maṃtrapūtaṃ kṛtvā sarvān tān gaṇān paritoṣayet ||
pradātavyaṃ ||
[ad 10] sarvāḥ sādhāraṇāḥ pūjyā sakalajagatsukhāvāptakāraṇāḥ sa-

rvaguhyogurottarā niravaśeṣaparamārtharahasyānāṃ rahasyatarā || ma-
hāsukhapade sthitvā prajñopāyasamarase sthitvā vartanta gaṇanāyakaḥ ||
taccakravartī
[ad 11] vineyanibhṛtanārī savinayā yoṣit namravaktrāraviṃdā īṣanna-

mramukhapadmā vipulaguṇaviśālā, ativistaraguṇayuktā tatvā tatvayogyā
paramārthataḥ paramārthaguṇayuktā, hṛdi viga [explicit ms.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manuscripts13
Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā
Ms. (one of many) Cambridge University Library, Add. 1697.12.
Kriyāsamuccaya of Jagaddarpaṇa
Ms. (one of many) Kyoto University Library no. 7.

13
NAK = National Archives, Kathmandu. NGMPP = Nepal-German Manu-
script Preservation Project microfilms.
Gaṇacakravidhi & Saṃkṣiptā Pañjikā

Ms. NAK 5-7871 = NGMPP B 104/10.
Catuṣpīṭhapañjikā of Kalyāṇavarman
Ms. NAK 3-360 = NGMPP B 30/37.
Padmāvatī of Mahāsukhavajra
Ms. NAK 3-402 = NGMPP B 31/7.
Padminī of Ratnarakṣita
Ms. Buddhist Library Nagoya, Takaoka CA 17.
“Mahāpratisarādhāriṇī”
Ms. NAK 1-1679 = NGMPP B 24/24.
Mahāmudrātilaka
Ms. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz Orientabteilung
Hs. or. 8711.
Śālihotra of Indrasena
Ms. NAK 4-1640 = NGMPP A 47/3.
Śiṣyānugrahavidhi
Ms. A six folios in Kaiser Library 139 = NGMPP C 14/16; ms. B nine
folios in NAK 1-1697 = NGMPP A 936/1.
“Samājatathānuṣārinī”
Ms. NAK 1-1679 = NGMPP B 24/13.
Saṃvarodayā nāma maṇḍalopāyikā of Bhūvācārya
Ms. Tokyo University Library no. 450.
Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṃvara
Ms. Collège de France, Institut d’Études indiennes, Lévi no. 48.
Hevajrasādhana collection of various authors
Ms. photographic copy in Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbib-
liothek, Göttingen Xc 14/39.
Editions, translation, and studies
CUEVAS, B.J. 2015. Ra Yeshé Sengé – The All-pervading Melodious Drum-

beat. The Life of Ra Lotsawa. New York: Penguin Books.
GOPAL, L. 21989. The Economic Life of Northern India, c. A.D. 700–1200.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
GRIFFITHS, A. & SZÁNTÓ, P.-D. 2015. Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinī-
jālaśaṃvara. In: J. Silk, V. Eltschinger, O. von Hinüber (eds.), Brill’s
Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Volume I: Literature and Languages. Lei-

ISAACSON, H. 2009. A collection of Hevajrasādhanas and related works in

Sanskrit. In: Ernst Steinkellner in cooperation with Duan Qing and
Helmut Krasser (eds.), Sanskrit Manuscripts in China: Proceedings of a
panel at the 2008 Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies October 13 to 17.
Beijing: China Tibetology Publishing House, pp. 89–136.
KITTAY, D.R. 2011. Interpreting the Vajra Rosary: Truth and Method
Meets Wisdom and Method. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Colum-
bia University.
KLEIN-SCHWIND, S.G. 2012. The Compendium of the Ten Fundamentals.
Daśatattvasaṃgraha of paṇḍita Kṣitigarbha. Critical Edition of the
Sanskrit Text with Introduction and Annotated English Translation. Un-
published Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hamburg.
LALOU, M. 1965. Préliminaires d’une étude des gaṇacakra. In: Studies of
Esoteric Buddhism and Tantrism. Koyasan: Koyasan University, pp.
41–46.
LÉVI, S. 1929. Autour d’Aśvaghoṣa. Journal Asiatique 215, pp. 255–285.
PANT, M.R. & SHARMA, A.D. 1977. The Two Earliest Copper-plate In-
scriptions from Nepal. Kathmandu: Nepal Research Centre.
SAKURAI, M. 2001. Kriyāsaṃgraha shosetsu no ganachyakura girei [Kri-
yāsaṃgraha 所説のカナチャクラ儀礼]. Chisan Gakuho [智山学報] 50,
pp. 17–40.
SANDERSON 2009. The Śaiva Age: An Explanation of the Rise and Domi-
nance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period. In: Sh. Einoo (ed.),
Genesis and Development of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Cul-
ture, University of Tokyo, pp. 41–349.
SHIZUKA, H. 2007. Ganachyakura no kenkyu: Indo koki mikkyo ga kaita
chihei [ガナチャクラの研究: インド後期密教が開いた地平]. Tokyo:
Sankibo Busshorin.
2008. An Interim Report on the Study of Gaṇacakra: Vajrayāna’s New
Horizon in Indian Buddhism. In: Editorial Boards ICEBS (eds.), Esoter-
ic Buddhist Studies: Identity in Diversity. Koyasan: Koyasan University,
pp. 185–198.
2011. Ratnākaraśānti no ganachyakura giki [ラトナーカラシャーン-
ティのガナチャクラ儀軌]. Mikkyo Bunka [密教文化] 224, pp. 51(78)–
83(46).
SNELLGROVE, D.L. 1959. The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study, Part 2:
Sanskrit and Tibetans Texts. London: Oxford University Press.
SZÁNTÓ, P.-D. 2012. Selected Chapters from the Catuṣpīṭhatantra. 2 vols.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oxford.
TANEMURA, R. 2004. Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā. A critical edi-

tion and annotated translation of selected sections. Groningen: Egbert
Forsten.
Tōh. Tibetan canonical material in the Derge (Sde dge) print according to
Ui Hakuju, Suzuki Munetada, Kanakura Yenshō, Tada Tōkan. A Com-
plete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons (Bkaḥ-ḥgyur and
Bstan-ḥgyur). Sendai: Tōhoku Imperial University, 1934.
TSUDA, Sh. 1974. The Saṁvarodaya-tantra: Selected Chapters. Tokyo:
The Hokuseido Press.
TURNER, R.L. 1962–1966. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan
Languages. London: Oxford University Press, including three supple-
ments published between 1969–1985. Online version:
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/soas/ (accessed July 4, 2018).
WEDEMEYER, Ch.K. 2008. Āryadeva’s Lamp That Integrates the Practices
(Caryāmelāpakapradīpa). The Gradual Path of Vajrayāna Buddhism
According to the Esoteric Community Noble Tradition. New York: Co-
lumbia University Press.



The recipient of the Tantric Buddhist funeral
Ryugen Tanemura1
Opening remarks
In the medieval period, Tantric Buddhism developed various ritual practic-

es not only in the form of private cults but also for patrons in the public
domain. One of the ritual practices of the latter is the funeral (antyeṣṭi).
Therefore, by examining the status of the recipient of such funerals, we can
to some extent infer what kinds of people were included in Tantric Bud-
dhist communities or were intended to become members of such communi-
ties through the funeral rite. Concerning the Buddhist Tantric funeral, I
have worked mainly on the following three texts: the Mṛtasugatiniyojana, a
manual of the funeral rite by Śūnyasamādhivajra,2 the final chapter (Anta-
sthitikarmoddeśa, “Instruction for the rite at one’s death”) of Padma-
śrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā,3 and the final chapter (Nirvṛtavajrācāryāntyeṣṭi-
lakṣaṇavidhi, “Rules of the funeral of a departed Tantric master”) of Jagad-
darpaṇa’s Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya.4 These texts do not explicitly prescribe

1
This is a revised English version of TANEMURA 2017.
2
The date of this Indian author is still unclear. On this author, see also
TANEMURA 2007. “The last two verses [of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana] say that he recei-
ved the great teaching of the funeral from Venerable Bhadra (Bhadrapāda)”
(TANEMURA 2007: 3).
3
We know little about this author. He calls himself Padmaśrī in the final verse. The
colophon of the single codex says that he is a maṇḍala master (maṇḍalācārya) at Khasar-
paṇa Monastery. For the Khasarpaṇa Monastery, see SANDERSON 2009: 95, n. 178.
4
I have presented a critical edition of the Sanskrit text of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana
in TANEMURA 2013a and an annotated Japanese translation in TANEMURA 2013b.
The latter also presents passages from Guhyasamājatantra commentaries of the
Jñānapāda school which are related to the Yoga of Resuscitation (mṛtasaṃjīvana-
yoga), thereby pointing out that the practice prescribed in the Mṛtasugatiniyojana is
closely related to the Jñānapāda school. With regard to the second manual, Pad-
maśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā, I have presented a preliminary edition and annotated
Japanese translation of the relevant chapter in TANEMURA 2012b. With regard to the
third manual, Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya, I have pointed out that the text is a borrowing
the beneficiaries of the funeral, but we can gather some information about its
recipients through the examination of various passages. The purpose of this
short paper is to examine such passages from these and related texts that
might provide clues about the recipients of the Tantric Buddhist funeral.
References to the recipients in funeral manuals
First, I will examine passages from Tantric Buddhist funeral manuals that
refer to the recipient of the rite, especially the colophons of some manuals
that refer to the status of the recipient. The first passage belongs to the final
chapter of Jagaddarpaṇa’s Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya: nirvṛtavajrācāryā-
ntyeṣṭilakṣaṇavidhiḥ (ms. K fol. 57v1). This chapter colophon indicates that
the primary beneficiary of the funeral rite is a Tantric master (ācārya).
Padmaśrīmitra states that the funeral prescribed in his manual should be
performed for Tantric masters and others who have practised the medita-
tion-rite of Vajrasattva or some other Tantric deity (SANDERSON 2009: 127,
n. 295):
On the basis of the rules at death (antasthiti), I shall explain the rite
(kṛtya) to show the path for departed masters and others5 who have
practised the meditation-rite of Vajrasattva or some other [Tantric
deity].6
The Vajrācāryanayottama, an anthology of Tantric ritual manuals closely

related to the Ārya School of the Guhyasamājatantra, contains the frag-
mentary text of a manual on the Tantric funeral.7 The text is entitled

from the whole Mṛtasugatiniyojana, except its two colophonic verses (TANEMURA
2004b, 2007).
5
The status of the recipient referred to by the word ādi is unclear here. Perhaps it
is a person who has been permitted to engage in the private practice but is not quali-
fied as an officiant.
6
Maṇḍalopāyikā v.1 (TANEMURA 2012b: 105): mṛtācāryādisattvā ye vajrasa-
ttvādiyoginaḥ | vakṣye cāntasthiteḥ kṛtyaṃ teṣāṃ mārganidarśanāt ||. I suppose that
here mārganidarśanāt is used for mārganidarśanāya for metrical reason. Showing the
departed the path to good states of existence is one of the purposes of the ritual
prescribed in this manual.
7
For the manuscript of this anthology, see TANAKA 1998. Unfortunately, the con-
dition of the NGMPP photograph is so bad that the actual foliation is unclear. I
follow the folio numbers given in TANAKA 1998. For the fact that the text of the
funeral manual is contained in fol. 7b, see TOMABECHI 2004: 49, n. 9. The relevant
RYUGEN TANEMURA 317
[Pari]nirvṛtavaryācāryasatkārakrama (f. 7b7),8 which also indicates that

the primary beneficiary of this rite is a Tantric master (ācārya). This frag-
mentary manual has a great affinity to the contents of the final chapter of
Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā, including some parallel passages.
Although the recipient of the funeral is not explicitly mentioned in the
Mṛtasugatiniyojana, it contains descriptions that inform us about his char-
acteristics. The following passage gives instructions on how the donor
should pay the fee to the officiant following the rite to prevent the dead
from going to inferior states of rebirth (*durgatipariśodhana):
Then [the officiant] holds a Tantric feast (gaṇacakra) in the night

and calls everybody there.9 If possible [= if the sponsor’s financial
ability is sufficient], he should construct the durgatipariśo-
dhanamaṇḍala following the rules and perform the rite [of the
gaṇacakra] following the instructions (yathoktāt). In addition, the
Tantric officiant should ask the heir (dāyāda) the fee. With regard to
the [heir], he should pay the fee according to his financial ability. He
should offer a washed robe to the same officiant. The following has
been taught.

part of the manuscript has been transcribed in TANEMURA 2012a: 1036–1035.
8
TOMABECHI reports that the colophon of the relevant section is nirvṛtava-
ryācāryasatkārakrama (2004: 49, n. 9). There are two illegible akṣaras preceding
nirvṛta- that look like pari.
9
There is a prescription of the order of precedence at the Tantric feast in the
Gaṇacakravidhi of the Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā. See Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā,
Gaṇacakravidhi (in chapter 8): jyeṣṭhānukrameṇa niveśya parikalpiteṣv āsaneṣu
niṣādayet. pañcavidho ’tra jyeṣṭhānukramaḥ, abhiṣekajyeṣṭhānukrama ekaḥ, vrata-
jyeṣṭhānukramo dvitīyaḥ, jñānajyeṣṭhānukramas tṛtīyaḥ, janmajyeṣṭhānukramaś
caturthaḥ, vidyājyeṣṭhānukramaḥ pañcamaḥ. (SAKURAI 2001: (18)–(19)) “[The
officiant] should cause [the members of the Tantric feast] to enter [the place] and sit
on the arranged seats in the order of precedence (jyeṣṭhānukrama). In this case, there
are five kinds of order of precedence: the first is the order of precedence by consecra-
tion, the second that by observance, the third that by knowledge, the fourth that by
age, and the fifth that by science.” Obviously, the first two jyeṣṭhānukramas are
applied only in the case that the members of the gaṇacakra belong to a Tantric Bud-
dhist community. The other three can be applied to non-Buddhist communities, alt-
hough the meanings of the jñānajyeṣṭhānukrama and the vidyājyeṣṭhānukrama
remain unclear. See also SZÁNTÓ in this volume.

That which is given to the officiant by the own relatives [of the de-
ceased] for the sake of the deceased should be understood as given to
him. It is a farewell given to the deceased.10
This passage indicates that the recipient of the funeral owns property and
has a relative who inherits this from him (most probably his son?).
The following quotation is a description of the funeral march to the
cremation ground. The officiant should visualise the participants as deities
in accordance with their roles.
Then [the officiant] should have the following strong conviction:

Those who carry the corpse are the guardians of the world; the one
who holds a parasol is the king of gods (Indra); the one who holds a
fly whisk is Brahman; the one who holds a sword is Viṣṇu; the one
who chants eulogies is Śaṅkara (Śiva); the one who performs the
practical things concerning the funeral is Yama; the one who holds a
vase is Varuṇa; the one who holds larger and smaller ladles is Vahni
(Agni); the one who holds solid and liquid food is Nairṛti; the one
who holds a flag is Vāyu; and the others are all gods, asuras, and
other [divine existences]...11
Three of the above-mentioned articles – a parasol, a fly whisk, and a sword

– are symbols of royalty. These items might indicate the status of the recip-
ient of the funeral envisaged in this manual.
There are funeral manuals which mention the status of the beneficiary
more clearly. One of the funeral manuals by Ānandagarbha, the *Sarva-
durgatipariśodhanapretahomavidhi12 (Ota. 3459, Toh. 2632), mentions a

10
Mṛtasugatiniyojana (TANEMURA 2013a: 121): tato rātrau gaṇacakraṃ kṛtvā
sarvaṃ saṃharet. sati saṃbhave durgatipariśodhanamaṇḍalaṃ yathāvidhinā pra-
vartya yathoktād vidhiṃ vidadhyāt. punar aparaṃ vajrācāryo dāyādaṃ dakṣiṇāṃ
yācet. so ’pi vibhavānurūpeṇa pradadyāt. prakṣālitaṃ ca vastram ācāryāyaiva
prayacchet. āha ca. mṛtam uddiśya yad dattam ācāryāya svabandhubhiḥ | tasmai
dattam iti jñeyaṃ pātheyaṃ svargatasya tat || 40 ||.
11
Mṛtasugatiniyojana (TANEMURA 2013a: 219) tato mṛtavāhakān lokapālān adhimucya,
cchatradharaṃ devarājam, cāmaragrāhakaṃ brahmāṇam, khaḍgadharaṃ viṣṇum,
stutipāṭhakaṃ śaṅkaram, ūrdhvadehikakriyākārakaṃ yamam, kalaśadharaṃ varuṇam,
pātrīsruvadharaṃ vahnim, bhakṣyabhojyadharaṃ nairṛtiṃ, patākādharaṃ vāyuṃ,
anyāṃś ca sarvadevāsurādīn adhimucya …
12
This is the Sanskrit title given at the beginning of the canonical translation, but
most probably it is a mistaken reconstruction of the colophon title Ngan song thams
RYUGEN TANEMURA 319
Tantric master, a monk (bhikṣu), a lay devotee, and a householder as bene-

ficiaries of the rite (P f. 189r3–189v6, D f. 158r6–158v6):13
Then [the officiant] should smear [the corpse] with camphor and oth-
er [fragrant substances]. In the case that [the recipient is] a house-
holder (khyim pa, *gṛhastha), he should cover the upper part and the
lower part [of the body] with white cloth and lap [the body with the
cloth]. He should visualise the white syllable su on the lunar disk
transformed from the syllable a in the heart of the [corpse]. He
should visualise a wish-fulfilling jewel transformed from the [sylla-
ble su]. He should visualise a jewel with a flame on the top of the
head of the lord of gods, Śakra decorated with all [kinds of] ornaments,
as a transformation of the [lunar disk and the wish-fulfilling jewel].14
In the case that [the recipient is] a lay devotee (dge bsnyen, upāsaka),
[the officiant] should cover the upper part and the lower part of the
corpse with a white cloth. He should decorate the head [of the
corpse] with a garland and make the palms of the hands joined in
front of the chest. He should visualise the yellow syllable muṃ on
the lunar disk in the heart of the [corpse] and then a yellow utpala-
lotus transformed from the [syllable]. As a transformation of the [lu-
nar disk and the utpala-lotus], he should visualise the [deceased]
himself as blessed Mañjuśrī, who is yellow, is decorated with every
ornament, holds an utpala-lotus in his hand, and gives protection.15

cad yongs su sbyong ba’i rgyud kyi rgyal po’i ro’i sbyin sreg gi cho ga. I suspect a
possibility that the Sanskrit equivalent to ro’i sbyin sreg is not pretahoma but
mṛtadahana.
13
For the passages quoted below, see also KAWASAKI 2003: 8–10.
14
(1) de nas yang *ga pur (D; ga bur P) la sogs pa’i dris byugs la khyim pa la ni
ras dkar po’i stod g-yogs smad g-yogs su bcas pas dkris la | de’i snying gar *a (P; ā
D) las zla ba’i dkyil ’khor la su dkar po’o || *de yongs su gyur pa las (D; de gyur pa
las P) yid bzhin gyi nor bu rin po che’o || de rnams yongs su gyur pa las lha rnams
kyi dbang po brgya byin rgyan thams cad kyis yongs su brgyan pa spyi bo’i gtsug na
nor bu rin po che ’bar ba dang ldan par bsam par bya’o ||.
15
(2) dge bsnyen la ni ras dkar pos stod g-yogs dang smad g-yogs byas la | mgo
la me tog gi phreng bas brgyan te | lag pa’i thal mo snying gar sbyar la de’i snying
gar zla ba la yi ge *muṃ (D; mu P) ser po | de gyur pa las *utpa la (P; autpa la D)
ser po | de dag yongs su gyur pa las de nyid bcom ldan ’das ’phags pa ’jam dpal sku
mdog ser po rgyan thams cad kyis brgyan pa | phyag na autpa la dang skyabs sbyin
mdzad par bsam par bya’o ||.

In the case that [the recipient is] a monk (dge slong, bhikṣu) or
someone else who keeps the vow imposed in the monastic code
(prātimokṣasaṃvara),16 [the officiant] should properly decorate [the
corpse] with the own costume [of the deceased] such as a Buddhist
robe and a garment, place the [corpse’s] left hand horizontally at the
navel, and form the [corpse’s] right hand [into the hand gesture of]
giving protection. He should visualise the red syllable hrīḥ on the lu-
nar disk in the heart of the [recipient] and a lotus as a transformation
of the [syllable]. As a transformation of these two [i.e., the lunar disk
and the lotus], he should visualise [the deceased] himself as Blessed
Śākyamuni, who is red, wears the costume of a Buddha (sugata),17
and is decorated with the [thirty-two] lakṣaṇas (major characteris-
tics) and the [eighty] vyañjanas (minor characteristics).18
In the case that [the recipient is] a Tantric master or someone else
who has faith in the scriptures of the Great Yoga of Mahāyāna and is
initiated into the Great Maṇḍala,19 [the officiant] should cover the
upper part and the lower part [of the corpse] with white cloth and
decorate it with the five kinds of ornaments beginning with a
crown.20 Blessed, Glorious Vajrasattva, Vajrapāṇi [i.e., the de-
ceased], should have his hand folded in the form of the seal (mudrā)
of the five-pronged [vajra]. [The officiant] should visualise the black
syllable hūṃ on the lunar disk in the heart of the [corpse] and a five-

16
The status of the recipient referred to by the word la sogs pa (ādi) remains un-
clear. Probably, a nun (bhikṣuṇī) is one of the alternatives.
17
I am unsure what exactly the costume of a Buddha refers to. Perhaps it means a
costume such as the ones seen in sculptures or reliefs of non-Tantric Buddhas.
18
(3) dge slong la sogs pa so sor thar pa’i sdom pa la gnas pa rnams la ni chos
gos dang sham thabs la sogs pa rang gi cha lugs kyis legs par brgyan pa lag pa g-
yon pa lte ba khong du mnyam pa nyid du bya’o || g-yas pa skyabs *sbyin (D; n.e. P)
mdzad du byas te | de’i snying gar zla ba’i dkyil ’khor la *hrīḥ (em.; hri P D) dmar
po | de gyur pa las padma’o || de dag yongs su gyur pa las de nyid bcom ldan ’das
shākya thub pa sku mdog dmar po bde bar gshegs pa’i cha lugs can mtshan dang
dpe byad kyis brgyan par bsam par bya’o ||.
19
As in the case of (3), the status of the recipient referred to by the word la sogs
pa (ādi) remains unclear. One of the possibilities is a type of initiate who engages in
Tantric practices for his own purpose (siddhi).
20
At present I am unsure what the other four ornaments are. Possible articles in-
clude earrings, a necklace, bracelets, armlets, and anklets.
RYUGEN TANEMURA 321
pronged vajra transformed from the [syllable]. As a transformation

of these two [i.e., the lunar disk and the five-pronged vajra], [the of-
ficiant] should visualise [the recipient] himself as Blessed, Glorious
Vajrasattva, who is white, holds a vajra and a vajra-bell in his hands,
is decorated with all kinds of ornaments, and looks like the full moon
in autumn.21
In the passages quoted above, the recipients of the funeral are classified
into four types, probably according to the precepts or observances that they
have kept during their lifetimes. The recipient is visualised as a deity: a
Tantric master is visualised as Vajradhara, a monk as Śākyamuni, a lay
devotee as Mañjuśrī, and a householder as Śakra. We see a hierarchy with
the householders at the bottom and the Tantric masters on the top. Perhaps
the householder (khyim pa) in the above-quoted passage refers to people on
the periphery of Buddhist communities. Theoretically, they were not mem-
bers of the Buddhist saṅgha, and, in this sense, they might have been at the
bottom of the soteriological hierarchy, since they are distinguished from the
upāsakas, lay members of the Buddhist saṅgha. Alternatively, it is possible
that in this case the householder is non-Buddhist, since he is visualised as
Śakra, who is a non-Buddhist deity and also the petitioner in the Sar-
vadurgatipariśodhanatantra, upon which the relevant manual is based. If
the latter is the case, some non-Buddhist householders were in some way
involved in Tantric Buddhist communities, or Tantric Buddhists might have
intended to convert non-Buddhist householders to Buddhism by means of
the funeral.
One of the manuals of Agrabodhi,22 the *Mañjuśrīmaṇḍalavidhigu-
ṇasaṃbhava (hereafter Guṇasaṃbhava), also clearly mentions the status of

21
(4) rdo rje slob dpon *la sogs pa (D; la sogs pa’i P) theg pa chen po rnal ’byor
chen po’i rgyud la mngon par dad pa dkyil ’khor chen po dbang bskur ba rnams ni
ras dkar pos stod g-yogs dang smad g-yogs su byas te | dbu rgyan la sogs pa rgyan
cha lngas nye bar brgyan pa | bcom ldan ’das dpal rdo rje sems dpa’i phyag na rdo
rje rtse lnga pa’i phyag rgya bcings te | de’i snying gar zla ba’i dkyil ’khor la hūṃ
sngon po | de gyur pa las rdo rje rtse lnga pa’o || de dag yongs su gyur pa las de
nyid bcom ldan ’das dpal rdo rje sems dpa’ sku mdog dkar po | rdo rje rtse lnga pa
dril bu dang bcas pa’i phyag rgya mdzad pa | rgyan thams cad kyis brgyan pa ston
ka’i zla ba gang ba lta bur bsam par bya’o ||.
22
In TANEMURA 2017, I state that Agrabodhi is another name of Vilāsavajra,
following SAKURAI (1987: 104, n. 4; 2007: 159). The colophon of one of the manu-
scripts of the Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, a commentary on the Nāmasaṃgīti by
Vilāsavajra, contains a small biography of Vilāsavajra (TRIBE 2006: 25–26). The

the recipient. The passage quoted below prescribes the caitya-like pile of
earthen bricks in which a corpse is placed for cremation. The number of
bases of the pile differs according to the status of the recipient:23
A pile of earthen bricks which is similar to a caitya should be made on

the [fire pit]. The [pile] should have four windows [i.e., holes for ven-
tilation]. In the case that [the recipient is] an ordinary man (dmangs
tha mal pa), [a pile] without base (bang rim) should be made. In the
case that [the recipient is] a minister (blon po) or a king, [a pile] with a
single base should be made. In the case that [the recipient is] a lay
devotee (dge bsnyen, upāsaka), [a pile] with two bases should be
made. In the case that [the recipient is] a monk (dge slong, bhikṣu), [a
pile] with three bases should be made. In the case that [the recipient is]
a vajra-holder [i.e., Tantric master], [a pile] with four bases should be
made. The corpse should be placed inside the dome. Fuel such as san-
dalwood or padmaka-wood should be placed there.24

following is Tribe’s translation of the Sanskrit as emended: “[Here ends] the work of
Ācārya Vilāsavajra, inhabitant of Ratnadvīpa, a son of the sister (-bhāgineya) of Śrī
Agrabodhi [and] whose name is [also] known as Śrī Viśvarūpa.” According to this,
Agrabodhi is a maternal uncle of Vilāsavajra. In the colophon of the Tibetan transla-
tion of the Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, the corresponding part to “of the sister of Śrī
Agrabodhi (śrīmadagrabodhibhāgineyasya)” can be reconstructed as *śrīmada-
grabodhibhāgin. TRIBE (2016: 26) says, “The Tibetan, however, misconstrues the
Sanskrit here, reading -bhāgineyasya as two words, -bhāgine yasya (skal ba dang
ldan pa gang gi), and taking dpal ldan byang chub mchog gi skal ba dang ldan pa
(‘*Śrīmadagrabodhibhāgin’) to be in apposition to sgeg pa’i rdo rje (Vilāsavajra),
leaving little alternative but to understand the expression as another name of
Vilāsavajra.” TRIBE (2016: 26) also says, “This mistranslation may well be the
source of the identification of Vilāsavajra with Agrabodhi accepted by Bu ston and
Tāranātha.” With regard to Vilāsavajra, TRIBE (2016: 22–25), after examining vari-
ous pieces of external and internal evidence, draws the conclusion that he was active
between the late eighth and early-to-mid ninth centuries.
23
For the passage quoted below, see also SAKURAI 2007: 164–165.
24
Guṇasaṃbhava (P f. 123r1–3, D f. 104r1–2): de’i steng du so phag las sreg khang
mchod rten dang ’dra ba brtsig par bya ste | skar khung bzhi dang ldan par bya’o ||
dmangs tha mal pa la ni bang rim med pa bya’o || blon po dang rgyal po la ni bang
rim gcig pa bya’o | dge bsnyen la ni bar rim gnyis pa bya’o || dge slong la ni bar rim
gsum pa bya’o || rdo rje ’dzin pa la ni bar rim bzhi pa bya’o || de’i bum pa’i nang du
ro bzhag la | tshandan dang shug pa la sogs pa’i bud shing la sogs pa gzhag go ||.
RYUGEN TANEMURA 323
The ordinary man (dmangs tha mal pa) in the above-quoted passage might
correspond to the householder in Ānandagarbha’s manual quoted above.
Compared to the passages of Ānandagarbha’s manual quoted above, a king
(rgyal po) and a minister (blon po) are added as independent categories to
the list of recipients. The short passage quoted above might also give us a
glimpse of the importance of royal patronage for Tantric religions.
The recipient inferred from the function of consecration

Next, I will examine the status of the recipient from a different viewpoint:
the function of the consecration (abhiṣeka) to be bestowed upon the depart-
ed. Tantric Buddhism is an initiatory religion, and one has to undergo the
consecration ritual in order to become qualified for the practice prescribed
in Tantric scriptures. Although the primary function of consecration is the
initiation of disciples, it also has some other functions. The first passage
which I will examine is the following verse of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana:
[The officiant] himself should bathe [the corpse] in the same way
with [water from the vase] which is filled with water empowered by
her mantra [= the mantra of the goddess Locanā]. He should place a
crown on the head [of the deceased] and a vajra and a vajra-bell in
the hands [of the deceased].25
The description of the consecration in the Mṛtasugatiniyojana is very con-

cise and the actual procedure is not stated very clearly. We can see, howev-
er, that the procedure ends with the bell consecration (ghaṇṭābhiṣeka) and
that no description of the procedure is given from the name consecration
(nāmābhiṣeka) onwards. There are two possible reasons for why the conse-
cration for the deceased ends with the bell consecration: (1) the recipient is
an initiate who has already been given an initiation name, and (2) the func-
tion of this consecration is different from or not limited to initiation.
In the former case, the recipient is a Tantric master, as confirmed by the
colophon of the final chapter of the Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya and the first
verse of the final chapter of Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā, or an initiate

25
Mṛtasugatiniyojana v.13 (TANEMURA 2013a: 131): tanmantrajaptasali-
lāpūrṇena nijena ca tathā siñcayet | dadyāc chirasi ca mukuṭaṃ hastayuge vajra-
ghaṇṭe ca ||.

who has received permission to engage in the Tantric practice.26 In the lat-
ter case, the purpose of the consecration in the Mṛtasugatiniyojana might
include the purification or removal of the effects of past actions that pre-
vent the departed from liberation.27 In the funeral prescribed in the Mṛta-
sugatiniyojana, the goddess Locanā is the object of visualisation and her
mantra is employed. The function of her mantra is the quelling of calami-
ties (śāntika).28 The officiant who performs the funeral wears a white robe
and ornaments. White is the colour for śāntika.29

26
Theoretically, the future Buddhahood of a Tantric master has been predicted
(vyākaraṇa) at the time of initiation and thus it is not necessary for him to be initiated
again at the time of death. The authors of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana, the Ācārya-
kriyāsamuccaya, and the Maṇḍalopayikā remain silent on this matter. In comparison,
in his Tantrāloka, chapter 24, which deals with the initiation at the funeral (antye-
ṣṭidīkṣā), the tenth-century Śaiva author Abhinavagupta teaches that the initiation
should be bestowed upon people of the lower religions (i.e., Vaiṣṇavas and others
according to the commentator Jayaratha) if the śaktipāta is seen, that is to say “the
descent of [Śiva’s] power” that indicates that the individual is ready for initiation.
People of the higher religions (i.e., Śaivas and others) receive an antyeṣṭidīkṣā if they
have transgressed the observances. See Tantrāloka 24.2–3 and Viveka ad loc.
27
I have not identified passages in primary sources that refer to this function of
consecration. The Guhyatantra (Sarvamaṇḍalasāmānyavidhiguhyatantra), an early
Tantric Buddhist scripture, teaches that there are four types of consecration. One of
the merits of the first consecration, whose purpose is the attainment of the status of
the master (ācārya), is that an initiate avoids entering bad rebirth states even if he
remains in transmigration (OTSUKA 2013: 955–957, especially 956). See Guhya-
tantra, chapter 12: dbang bskur dang po thob pa ni || […] ’khor ba na ni ’khor ba na ||
de ni ngan song ltung mi ’gyur || yan lag nyams dang dbul ba dang || smad pa rnams
su skye mi ’gyur || (P f. 226r4–7, D f. 116v3–5). “Those who have obtained the first
consecration [...] will not fall into inferior states of existence. They will be born not
as the disabled, the poor, nor those who are censured.”
28
The Guhyasamājatantra, one of the sources of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana’s sys-
tems of mantra-visualisation, teaches that Locanā resuscitates the departed
(TANEMURA 2013b: 22). See Guhyasamājatantra 14.1–2: oṃ ru ru sphuru jvala
tiṣṭha siddhalocane sarvārthasādhani svāhā. athāsyāṃ gītamātrāyāṃ sarvasampa-
nmanīṣiṇaḥ | tuṣṭā harṣaṃ samāpede buddhavajram anusmaran || 1 || buddhānāṃ
śāntijananī sarvakarmaprasādhanī | mṛtasañjīvanī proktā vajrasamayacodanī || 2 ||
(EM p. 60, ll. 4–9). “oṃ, roar! Flash! Blaze! Abide! O, you who are the lady with
perfected eyes! O, you who accomplish all purposes! svāhā! As soon as [this ‘wife,’
i.e., this mantra] was recited, all that sought fortune were satisfied and acquired joy,
remembering the vajra Buddha. It is taught that [this wife, i.e., the goddess Locanā]
produces the quelling of calamities for all Buddhas, accomplishes all ritual actions,
resuscitates the departed, and impels [a practitioner] to the vajra pledge.” The mantra
RYUGEN TANEMURA 325
Whereas the system of the first half of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana is based

on the Guhyasamājatantra, that of the latter half is based on the Sar-

(vidyā) of Locanā is taught in the Susiddhikaratantra (Taisho vol. 18, 603c13–19):
佛部之中. 用佛眼號爲佛母. 用此眞言爲扇底迦. 佛母眞言曰
曩謨婆去伽嚩姤瑟膩二合沙去也唵一嚕嚕娑普二合嚕二什嚩二合囉三底瑟吒二合四悉馱去路
者寧五薩囉嚩引二合囉他二合娑引馱寧六娑嚩二合訶. The function of her mantra is śānti-
ka. See GIEBEL’s translation of the relevant part (GIEBEL 2001: 130.23–30): “Within
the Buddha Family use the Buddha-Mother, who is called Buddhalocanā (Buddha-
Eye): use her mantra for the śāntika [rite]. The mantra of the Buddha-Mother is:
namo bhagavatoṣṇīṣāya, oṃ ru ru sphuru jvala tiṣṭha siddhalocani sarvārthasādhani
svāhā. (Homage to the Blessed One, to the Protuberance [on the crown of the Bud-
dha’s head]! oṃ, roar! Flash! Blaze! Abide! O, you with perfected vision! You who
accomplish all objectives! svāhā !” This mantra is not taught in the corresponding
part but in another chapter of the Tibetan translation (GIEBEL 2001: 312, n. 7); Susi-
ddhikaratantra (Tibetan Translation): gtsug tor padma’i rigs dag la || rig sngags
chen mo can dang ni || gos dkar can ni gang yin pa || de yis *de (D; da P) yi mdun du
bzlas || oṃ ru ru *sphu (D; sbu P) ru dzwa la ti ṣṭha si ddha lo tsa ni sa rba a rtha sā
dha ni swā hā || (P f. 237v 1–2, D f. 175r4–5). “In the families of Uṣṇīṣa and Lotus,
the Great Vidyā-holder (*Mahāvidyādhara) and Pāṇḍaravāsinī are accomplished.
One should recite the [following mantra] in front of them. oṃ, roar! Flash! Blaze!
Abide! O, you who are the lady with perfected eyes! O, you who accomplish all
purposes! svāhā!”
The same mantra is also taught in Vāgīśvarakīrti’s Mṛtyuvañcopadeśa. Vāgīśva-
rakīrti teaches that one can avoid death by this mantra even if the power of the previ-
ous actions arises. See Mṛtyuvañcopadeśa 3.44–45: pūrvottaraśikhādūrvāpra-
vālāyutahomataḥ | pūrvakarmaprabhāvottham api mṛtyuṃ nivārayet || oṃ ādau ruru
tato ’taḥ sphurupadam ataḥ param | jvala tiṣṭha tathā siddhalocaneti padatrayam ||
sarvārthasādhanāni svāhā mantro ’śokadale ’male | pradattadakṣiṇācāryair likhitaś
candanadravaiḥ || (ES p. 104). “Even if the power of the previous actions arises, one
can avoid the death by the oblation of sprouts of dūrvā grass into the fire whose
flame is pointing toward the north-east direction. [In this case one should recite the
following mantra.] First one should recite ‘oṃ,’ then ‘Roar!’ (ru ru), and after that
‘Flash!’ (sphuru). [Then he should recite] the three words, namely, ‘Blaze! Abide! O,
you who are the lady with perfected eyes!’ (jvala tiṣṭha siddhalocanā). [Then he
should recite:] ‘O, you who accomplish all purposes! svāhā! (sarvārthasādhani
svāhā).’ The officiant who has received the ritual fee write this mantra on an undefi-
led aśoka leaf with moistened sandal powder.”
29
According to KAWASAKI, in his *Sarvadurgatipariśodhanapretahomavidhi and
*Sarvadurgatipariśodhanamarahomavidhikarmakrama (Toh. 2633) Ānandagarbha
teaches that the fire pit for cremation should be round and white and that the funeral
should be done for the purpose of śāntika (KAWASAKI 2003: 7).

vadurgatipariśodhanatantra. The opening line of the latter half runs as

follows:
Even though they are impelled to go on the path to liberation, some

persons go on the wrong path because their roots of evil are very
numerous and powerful. In order to eliminate the wrong path too, for
eight days from that day [i.e., the day of the cremation], [the Tantric
officiant] should perform the rites for the elimination of inferior
states of existence and other [rites for the removal of their evil] fol-
lowing the rules taught in the Durgatipariśodhanatantra.30
The above quotation might suggest that the function of the preceding part is
the removal of the effects of past actions.
Whereas the consecration in the Mṛtasugatiniyojana seems to be only
partially performed, that in Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā seems to be
performed completely:
After that, the officiant himself, like a disciple, should enter [the
maṇḍala] and receive [the whole procedure], beginning with the con-
secration up to the permission [of the practice prescribed in the scrip-
ture] from his chosen deity in his visualisation. In the same way, hav-
ing observed that [the corpse] has consciousness (jñānasattvaka), he
should also bestow upon the corpse all consecrations up to the
[granting] permission [of the practice], using [water from] vases be-
ginning with the victory[-vase].31
The author, Padmaśrīmitra, states that all consecrations up to the permis-

sion should be bestowed upon the corpse. It should be noted that in the
consecration section of the Maṇḍalopāyikā the granting of the permission
(anujñādāna) precedes the higher consecrations, i.e., the secret consecra-

30
Mṛtasugatiniyojana § [6–1] (TANEMURA 2013a: 127): atha kecij janā mukti-
mārge niyojyamānā apy akuśalamūlasya bahutaratvād balavattvāc ca kumārgeṇa
gacchanti. atas tasyāpi kumārgasya parihārāya taddinam ārabhyāṣṭau dināni durga-
tipariśodhanatantroktena vidhinā durgatipariśodhanādikriyāṃ kuryāt.
31
Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā (Antasthitikarmoddeśa) vv. 24–25 (TANE-
MURA 2012b: 106–107): tatas tu svayam ācāryaḥ praviśya śiṣyavad dhiyā | ab-
hiṣekādiṃ *saṃgṛhyānujñāntaṃ (conj. saṃgṛhya anujñāṃ ed.) svādhipād iha || 24 ||
śavasyāpi tathā dadyāt sarvaṃ jayādikumbhakaiḥ | dattvābhiṣekam anujñāntaṃ
saṃvīkṣya jñānasattvakam || 25 ||.
RYUGEN TANEMURA 327
tion (guhyābhiṣeka) and the consecration of knowledge of wisdom

(prajñājñānābhiṣeka). If this order is also applicable to the consecration of
the corpse, the consecration in the funeral does not contain the higher con-
secrations.
The last passage I will quote is from Agrabodhi’s Guṇasaṃbhava,
where he teaches that the full consecration should be bestowed upon the
deceased:
[The officiant] should make an altar (maṇḍala)32 with the five prod-
ucts of cow in the south of the maṇḍala and place the corpse on it. In
the same way a [living] disciple is introduced into the maṇḍala, he
should place the corpse on the maṇḍala. He should completely be-
stow upon the corpse the abhiṣekas beginning with the following
rites: the request (gsol ba gdab pa, *adhyeṣaṇa), the accumulation of
merits (bsod nams kyi tshogs bsags pa), the possession by gnosis (ye
shes dbab pa, *jñānāveśa), the casting of a flower on the maṇḍala
(me tog dor, *puṣpapāta) and the removal of a blindfold, the intro-
duction to the maṇḍala and the showing the faces of the deities, the
knowledge consecration (rig pa’i bang, vidyābhiṣeka), and the secret
consecration (gsang ba’i dbang, guhyābhiṣeka).33
Concluding remarks
I have presented several passages from the Mṛtasugatiniyojana and other

funeral manuals. The colophon title of the final chapter of the Ācārya-
kriyāsamuccaya demonstrates that the primary beneficiary of the funeral is
the Tantric master. If the same context is understood also in the Mṛtasuga-
tiniyojana, the source of the relevant chapter of the Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya,
the primary recipient envisaged in the Mṛtasugatiniyojana is a Tantric mas-

32
This maṇḍala, which is often called maṇḍalaka, is an altar usually made with
soil and cow dung. This altar also represents a master or deities. See also TANEMURA
2004a: 220–221, n. 19.
33
Guṇasaṃbhava (P ff. 121v7–122r1, D f.103r1–2): dkyil ’khor gyi lho phyogs su
ba’i rnam lngas maṇḍala byas la de’i steng du ro bzhag ste | slob ma dkyil ’khor du
gzhug pa’i tshul du ro de dkyil ’khor du gzhag par bya’o || gsol ba gdab pa dang |
bsod nams kyi tshogs bsags pa dang | ye shes dbab pa dang | dkyil ’khor du me tog
dor te | gdong gyogs *dkrol ba (D; dgrol ba P) dang dkyil ’khor du bcug la lha ngo
bstan pa dang | rig pa’i dbang dang gsang ba’i dbang bskur ba la sogs pa ste dbang
rnams rdzogs par bskur bar bya’o ||.

ter. If we refer to the description of the payment of the ritual fee to the offi-
ciant, the beneficiary of the funeral is expected to have property, and the
heir of the property is the yajamāna. Ānandagarbha’s and Agrabodhi’s
manuals clearly mention the status of the recipient. The treatment of the
corpse differs according to his or her status. Perhaps the manuals of
Ānandagarbha and Agrabodhi mentioned people on the periphery of Bud-
dhist communities who were distinguished from lay members of the Bud-
dhist saṅgha. Possibly non-Buddhist lay persons were envisaged as a bene-
ficiary of the funeral in those two manuals. If that is the case, the relevant
passage might reflect the actual situation that Tantric masters performed the
funeral for non-Buddhist lay persons or that such masters intended to in-
clude non-Buddhist lay persons into their communities through the funeral.
I have also examined some passages concerning the consecration to be
bestowed upon the deceased. Probably the function of the consecration in
the funeral is not limited to initiation. If we refer to the above-mentioned
passages of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana, another function of the consecration
might be the purification or removal of the effects of past actions. If this is
correct, the Tantric Buddhist funeral can theoretically be applied to both
non-initiates and initiates.
The number of materials examined in this paper is limited. Examination
of the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra, the scriptural source of the second
half of the Mṛtasugatiniyojana, and its exegetical works, which probably
include rich information about Tantric Buddhist funeral, is a task left to
future research.
Abbreviations
D sDe dge edition.

n.e. not existent.
NGMPP Nepal German Manuscript Preservation Project
Ota. D. Suzuki (ed.) The Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition:
Kept in the Library of the Otani University, Kyoto: Re-
printed under the Supervision of the Otani University of
Kyoto: Catalogue & Index, Tokyo: Suzuki Research Insti-
tute, 1962.
P Peking edition. Taisho Taishō Shinshū Daizōkyō.
Toh. H. Ui, M. Suzuki, Y. Kanakura and T. Tada (eds.) A Com-
plete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Canons, Sendai:
Tohoku Imperial University, 1934.
RYUGEN TANEMURA 329
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
1. Sanskrit
Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya by a Jagaddarpaṇa
Manuscript preserved in the Kyoto University Library, no.7.
Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā by Kuladatta
The Gaṇacakravidhi is edited in SAKURAI 2001.
Guhyasamājatantra
EM: Himitsu Shūe Tantora Kōtei Bonpon. Ed. Yukai Matsunaga, Yukei.
Osaka: Tōhō Shuppan, 1978.
Tantrāloka by Abhinavagupta
Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta with Commentary by Rājānaka Jayaratha.
Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies 23, 28, 30, 35, 29, 41, 47, 59, 52,
57, 58. Ed. M.K. Śāstrī. Bombay and Srinagar, 1918–38.
Tantrālokaviveka by Jayaratha
See Tantrāloka.
Maṇḍalopāyikā by Padmaśrīmitra
See TANEMURA 2012b.
Mṛtasugatiniyojana by Śūnyasamādhivajra
See TANEMURA 2013b.
Mṛtyuvañcanopadeśa of Vāgīśvarakīrti.
ES: Vāgīśvarakīrtis Mṛtyuvañcanopadeśa, eine buddhistische Lehr-
schrift zur Abwehr des Todes. Ed. J. Schneider. Wien: Verlag der Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 2010.
Vajrācāryanayottama.
NGMPP Reel no. E920/12. Parinirvṛtavaryācāryasatkārakrama is tran-
scribed in TANEMURA 2012a.
2. Tibetan Translation
dKyil ’khor thams cad kyi spyi’i cho ga gsang ba’i rgyud. (*Sarvamaṇḍala-
sāmānya-vidhiguhyatantra.)
Ota. no. 429, rgyud, vol. tsha, ff. 202r4–227v1; Toh. 806, rgyud ’bum,
vol. wa, ff. 141r1–167v7.

(dPal) ngan song thams cad yongs su sbyong ba’i ro’i sbyin sreg gi cho ga.
Translation of Ānandagarbha’s *Sarvadurgatipariśodhanapretahomavidhi.
Ota. 3459, rgyud ’grel, vol. gu, ff. 187r6–201v3; Toh. 2632, rgyud, vol.
ju, ff. 157r1–168r2.
(’Phags pa) ’Jam dpal gyi dkyil ’khor gyi cho ga yon tan ’byung gnas.
Translation of Agrabodhi’s *(Ārya-)Mañjuśrīmaṇḍalavidhiguṇasaṃbhava.
Ota. 3409, rgyud ’grel, vol. i, ff. 99r3–125r8; Toh. 2582, rgyud, vol.
ngu, ff. 83r1–106r3.
Legs par grub par byed pa’i rgyud chen po las sgrub pa’i thabs rim par
phye ba. Translation of Susiddhikaramahātantrasādhanopāyikapaṭala (Su-
siddhikara).
Ota. 431, rgyud, vol. tsha, ff. 230r8–284v7; Toh. 807, rgyud, vol. wa, ff.
168r1–222v7.
3. Chinese Translation
Sūxīdì jiéluó jīng. Chinese translation of the Susiddhikaramahātantra-

sādhanopāyikapaṭala.
Taisho 893. Vol. 18.
Secondary Sources
GIEBEL, R.W. 2001. (transl.) Two Esoteric Sutras: The Adamantine Pinna-
cle Sutra. The Susiddhikara Sutra. Translated from the Chinese (Taishō
Volume 18, Numbers 865, 893). Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist
Translation and Research.
KAWASAKI, K. 2003. Indo Mikkyō ni okeru Sōsō Girei no Ichikōsatsu:
Akushushōjōtantora ni motoduku Dabi Goma Giki wo Chūshin ni. Buk-
kyōshigaku Kenkyū 46–2, pp. 1–16. (The Crematory Rite according to
the Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra. The Journal of the History of Bud-
dhism 46–2, pp. 1–16.)
OTSUKA, N. 2013. Indo Shoki Mikkyō Seiritsu Katei no Kenkyū. Tokyo:
Shunjūsha. (A Study on the Development of the Early Esoteric Bud-
dhism in India.)
SAKURAI, M. 1987. Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī wo Chūshin to shita Monju
Gimtsu Ryū no Kōsatsu (1). Mikkyōgaku Kenkyū 19, pp. 87–109. (A
Study on ḥJam dpal gsaṅ Idan School primarily based upon Nāma-
mantrārthāvalokinī (1). The Journal of Esoteric Buddhist Study 19, pp.
87–109.)
RYUGEN TANEMURA 331
SAKURAI, M. 2001. Kriyāsaṃgraha Shosetsu no Ganachakura Girei. Chi-

san Gakuhō 50, pp. 17–40. (On the gaṇacakra-ritual in the Kri-
yāsaṃgraha. Journal of Chisan Studies 50, pp. 17–40.)
SAKURAI, M. 2007. Monju Gumitsu Ryū no Tsutaeru Shisha Girei. (*The
Funeral of the hJam dpal gsan ldan School.) In: Taishō Daigaku, Shin-
gongaku Buzan Kenkyūshitsu, Katō Seiichi Hakase Koki Kinen Ron-
bunshū Kankōkai (eds.), Shingon Mikkyō to Nihon Bunka: Katō Seiichi
Hakase Koki Kinen Ronbunshū, Tokyo: Nonburusha, pp. 159–181.
SANDERSON, A. 2009. The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism
During the Early Medieval Period. In: Shingo Einoo（ed.), Genesis and
Development of Tantrism, Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, Univer-
sity of Tokyo = Tantra no Keisei to Tenkai, Tokyo: Sankibo Press, pp.
41–349.
TANAKA, K. 1998. Nepāru no Sansukuritto-go Bukkyō Bunken Kenkyū:
Dai 41 Kai Gakujutsu Taikai ni okeru Happyou Igo Dōtei sareta Danpen
ni tsuite. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 46–2, pp. 913–909. (“Newly
Indentified Buddhist Tantric Manuscripts from Nepal.” Journal of Indi-
an and Buddhist Studies 46–2, pp. 913–909.)
TANEMURA, R. 2004a. Kuladatta’s Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā: A Critical Edi-
tion and Annotated Translation of Selected Sections. Groningen: Egbert
Forsten.
2004b. Indo Mikkyō no Sōgi: Śūnyasamādhivajra Saku Mṛtasugatiniyojana
ni tsuite. Shisei Gaku Kenkyū 4 (2004 nen Aki-gō), pp. 349(26)–
328(47). (The Funeral Rite in Indian Tantric Buddhism: A Study of the
Mṛtasugatiniyojana of Śūnyasamādhivajra. Death and Life Studies 4, pp.
349[26]–328[47].)
2007. Mṛtasugatiniyojana: A Manual of the Indian Buddhist Tantric Funer-
al. Newsletter of the NGMCP, Number 4, May-June 2007, pp. 2–6.
2012a. Padmaśrīmitra Saku Maṇḍalopāyikā no Kitei suru Sōsō Girei ni
tsuite. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū 60–2, pp.1038–1033. (The Funeral
Rite Prescribed in Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā. Journal of Indian
and Buddhist Studies 60–2, pp.1038–1033.)
2012b. Padmaśrīmitra Saku Maṇḍalopāyikā no Antasthitikarmoddeśa: Pre-
liminary Edition oyobi Shiyaku. (*Antasthitikarmoddeśa of
Padmaśrīmitra’s Maṇḍalopāyikā: A Preliminary Edition and Annotated
Japanese Translation.) Gendai Mikkyō 23, pp. 103–121.
2013a. Śūnyasamādhivajra Chosaku no Sōgi Manyuaru Mṛtasugatiniyoja-
na: Sansukurittogo Kōtei Tekisuto oyobi Chū. Tōyō Bunka Kenkyūjo
Kiyō 163, pp. 136–110. (Śūnyasamādhivajra’s Mṛtasugatiniyojana: A

Critical Edition and Notes. The Memoirs of Institute for Advanced Stud-
ies on Asia 163, pp. 136–110.)
2013b. Śūnyasamādhivajra Chosaku no Sōgi Manyuaru Mṛtasugatiniyojana:
Shiyaku oyobi Chū. (Śūnyasamādhivajra’s Mṛtasugatiniyojana: An Anno-
tated Japanese Translation.) Acta Tibetica et Buddhica 6, pp. 21–60.
2017. Dare ga Sōgi no Taishō to narunoka?: Indo Mikkyō no Sōgi ni kan-
suru Ichi-Kōsatsu (*Who Are the Reciepients of the Funeral?: Some
Remarks on the Tantric Buddhist Funeral). Bukkyō Bunka Ronshū 12,
pp. 39–64.
TOMABECHI, T. 2004. Iwayuru Vajrācāryanayottama ni tsuite. Mikkyō Zuzō
23, pp. 40–45. (On the So-called Vajrācāryanayottama: Sanskrit Manu-
script of a Related Text. The Journal of Buddhist Iconography 23, pp.
40–45.)
TRIBE, A. 2016. Tantric Buddhist Practice in India: Vilāsavajra’s Com-
mentary on the Mañjuśrī-nāmasaṃgīti: a Critical Edition and Annotat-
ed Translation of Chapters 1–5 with Introductions. London/New York:
Routledge.

TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

Narratives as a medium for appealing to the royal

court: A look into the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā
Marion Rastelli
Introduction
There is ample evidence that Tantric communities not only strived to estab-
lish close relationships to rulers in order to gain support and patronage,
they were also quite successful in doing so.1 This is true also with regard to
the Pāñcarātra tradition: here we can clearly observe a development from
individual ritual worship for personal purposes in the earlier extant authori-
tative texts to emphasis on public temple worship for the sake of kings and
the kingdom in the later texts from about the eleventh century onwards.2 I
will not, however, speak directly about this phenomenon here, but will
rather examine a Saṃhitā, as the authoritative texts of the Pāñcarātra are
called, that is quite peculiar in many aspects, namely, the Ahirbudh-
nyasaṃhitā (AS).
The AS is one of the best-known Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās in the West,3 main-
ly because of its comparatively extensive philosophical, theological and cos-
mological passages. It is less known, however, for its comprehensive sections
dealing with rituals, mantras, yantras, and other matters expounding the ritu-
al worship of Sudarśana, the discus of Viṣṇu in an anthropomorphic form
with a varying number of arms. Ritual worship of Sudarśana is performed
mainly for the purposes of a king, as, for example, for military purposes (see
also BIANCHINI in this volume). It is neither a personal ritual performed indi-

1
See, e.g., SANDERSON 2004 and 2009.
2
For a more detailed exposition of this development, see RASTELLI 2006: 91–98.
3
The first monograph about the Pāñcarātra in a western language, published in
English by SCHRADER in 1916, is devoted to the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā. Another mo-
nograph on the same was published by MATSUBARA in 1994. There are also several
shorter studies dealing with this text by other authors, the majority by BOCK-RAMING
(1987, 1992, 2002).
vidually nor a public ritual, and usually it is performed not by the king him-
self, but by his personal priest (purohita, purodhas).
This means that the AS is a text that was composed, at least from its rit-
ual point of view, for kingly purposes – more precisely, for personal priests
in the office of a king – or to try to convince a king of the usefulness of
employing such priests. One means of convincing a ruler to employ a per-
sonal priest for the worship of Sudarśana was to include narratives. Indeed,
a comparably large number of narratives can be found in the AS. This pa-
per will focus on these narratives and what they can tell us beyond the sto-
ries they report.
The historical background of the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā
When was the AS composed? Most of the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās are com-
piled texts. Again and again parts of them were revised, complemented, and
perhaps abbreviated. This makes dating them extremely difficult since dif-
ferent passages can have different dates of composition. The AS has also
been partly compiled from various sources.4 However, it has an overall
systematic structure,5 which gives the impression of it having been re-
worked by a single final redactor, who gave the text a homogeneous ap-
pearance, at least superficially.
Today, scholars date the AS to between the eleventh and thirteenth centu-
ry. One of the reasons for this is the heavy influence of Śaiva traditions visi-
ble in the text. According to Alexis Sanderson, it must have been composed
after Kṣemarāja (1000–1050 CE) since it shows influences from him as well
as other Kashmirian Śaiva sources.6 According to BEGLEY (1973: 27f.), the
AS cannot have been composed much earlier than the twelfth or thirteenth
century for iconographical reasons: there is no evidence of images of Sudar-
śana in the form described in the AS before the thirteenth century.
Both scholars agree that the AS was composed in South India. The rea-
son SANDERSON gives are the Yajurveda mantras found in chapter 58 of
the AS, which are presented in the version of the Vedic branch of the Tait-
tirīyas, which is prevalent in South India.7 BEGLEY’s (ibid.) argument is

4
See, e.g., the analysis of AS 5 by BOCK-RAMING (2002: 21–56), in which he
demonstrates that the text of this chapter is based on various sources.
5
See also BOCK-RAMING 2002: 183f.
6
SANDERSON 2001: 36–38. See also SANDERSON 1990: 34, where he suggests the
eleventh century as the date of the AS’s composition.
7
SANDERSON 2001: 38. See BOCK-RAMING 1992: 82–85 for a detailed argumen-
MARION RASTELLI 337
that idols of Sudarśana in the form described in the AS appear only in

South India.8
South India of the thirteenth century experienced a great deal of political
turmoil. It was the period of the decline of the Cōḻas and the revival of the
Pāṇḍyas. Struggles between the two dynasties gave opportunities to other
major and minor rulers, such as the Hoysalas, the Cēras, the Kākatīyas, the
Eastern Gaṅgas of Orissa, and the Telugu-Cōḍas, for gaining power
through interventions and shifting alliances.9
Inscriptions from, for example, the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple in
Śrīraṅgam and the Varadarājasvāmī Temple in Kāñcī show that the Cōḻas,
Pāṇḍyas, and Hoysalas, although being Śaivas or preferring Śaivism, often
generously supported Vaiṣṇava temples as well. Also local rulers such as
the Telugu-Cōḍas, who nominally acknowledged the overlordship of the
Cōḻas, were influential and supported Vaiṣṇava temples. Further, these
inscriptions frequently mention commanders and generals from the Hoysala
army visiting the temples and giving donations.10 This means that on the
one hand the Vaiṣṇava temples faced continually changing rulers who sup-
ported them but often actually preferred Śaiva traditions. On the other hand,
the presence of military forces and their importance in deciding the shifting
powers was something that probably could not be ignored in daily life.
Against this background, it is no surprise that a text like the AS might
emerge, a text that propagates the worship of Viṣṇu’s discus for kingly and
above all military purposes and, while explicitly teaching Vaiṣṇavism, is
not particularly ill-disposed towards Śaivism.11

tation why the chapters treated in AS 58 derive from the Taittirīya branch.
8
Apart from the AS there is also other evidence that Sudarśana worship was popular
in South India in the thirteenth century. Veṅkaṭanātha, who is traditionally dated to 1270–
1369 and who knew the AS (see RASTELLI 2006: 51), composed two Stotras to Sudarśana
(BEGLEY 1973: 30–32). An inscription at the Raṅganāthasvāmī Temple in Śrīraṅgam
dated to about 1274 records a donation to Sudarśana (ibid.: 69f.).
9
For a detailed description of the political situation in South India at that time, see
NILAKANTHA SASTRI 1955: 365–444.
10
See HARI RAO 1976: 65–86, RAMAN 1975: 17–24.
11
Apart from the use of the Kashmirian Śaiva sources mentioned above, there are
several other indications of Śaiva influence in the AS; see, e.g., RASTELLI 2018.

The narratives of the AS
The AS contains many stories that in style and content remind one of
Purāṇic and epic narratives. The Saṃhitā starts with the śāstrāvatāra story,
the story of the “descent of the teaching” in chapter 1, which is characteris-
tic of almost all Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās (and also of Śaiva Tantras).12 There
are several cosmological accounts, of which some have a narrative charac-
ter (e.g., AS 11), and there is also a version of the story about the demons
Madhu und Kaiṭabha.13
There are ten stories which I would like to examine in this paper. In the-
se stories kings are the main protagonists. In nine of these stories, certain
kings are in various forms of distress and finally receive a solution to their
problem in the form of the six-syllable sudarśanamantra.14 In the tenth
story, a king behaves badly and is punished by being destroyed by Sudar-
śana.15 In eight of the nine stories just mentioned, the king receives the
sudarśanamantra from or with the help of a personal royal priest (purohi-
ta). It is often not the king who then performs a ritual with this mantra, but
the purohita, who performs it for the king’s sake. Only one of these nine
stories is antithetical: here, instead of a purohita, the king receives the su-
darśanamantra with the help of the deity Kubera and from the goddess
Mahālakṣmī.16 And in the story of the badly behaving king, no purohita
appears at all. We will see that this is also significant with regard to the role
of purohitas in the AS.
Thus, these stories have several similarities, in the sense that most of
them have comparable structures and almost all illustrate the eminent im-
portance of purohitas for kings. The function of most of them seems clear:
they demonstrate that in any sort of difficulty in which a king might find
himself, alone the purohita can help by using only a particular mantra, the
sudarśanamantra as taught by the AS. Thus, they pave the way to the royal

12
See OBERHAMMER 1994. For a translation of AS 1, see MATSUBARA 1994:
153–169.
13
AS 41. See BOCK 1987.
14
The wording of the six-syllable sudarśanamantra is sahasrāra huṃ phaṭ (AS
18.34–39b).
15
This story appears in the context of repelling such an enemy, concretely, the re-
pelling of malevolent magic (abhicāra) (AS 42.8–40b), since the malicious king
produces a female demon (kṛtyā) in order to destroy Kṛṣṇa; see below. Thus, it is also
a story about solving a problem by means of Sudarśana.
16
For a translation of this story and a detailed study of its function in the AS, see
RASTELLI 2015.
MARION RASTELLI 339
court for purohitas and strengthen their position there. What is special and
important in these stories with regard to the topic of this volume is that they
do not concern a standard Atharvavedic17 purohita trying to gain ground at
the royal court, but a purohita who has, albeit strongly affiliated with the
Atharvaveda,18 a Pāñcarātric background. Can these narratives provide
evidence about the process of the Pāñcarātrins trying to approach the royal
courts and the methods they chose for this purpose? Might they even pro-
vide evidence about the composer of the AS, about the Pāñcarātric purohi-
tas, who were the primary target audience of his text, or about the rulers at
that time, who can be seen as a kind of secondary target audience?
Let us look at the narratives more closely. Briefly, their contents are as
follows:19
AS 33.24–100: King Maṇiśekhara, son of Durdharṣa(ṇa) and grandson of
Pramaganda, reigns in Naicāśākha according to the dharma, i.e., the socio-
religious order as taught in the Brahmanical scriptures. However, a demon
(mahāsura) called Vikaṭākṣa and his offspring torment his kingdom and the
whole universe. Since the demon cannot be easily defeated because of a boon
that he has received from Brahmā, Maṇiśekhara asks his personal priest Kra-
tu for a solution. Kratu tells him that the demon can only be conquered by
Viṣṇu and advises him to take refuge with the god bearing the form of a dis-
cus, i.e., Sudarśana. Maṇiśekhara and Kratu go to the sage Durvāsas, whom
they ask for a means for obtaining Sudarśana. Durvāsas gives them the six-
syllable sudarśanamantra. He says that by means of this mantra and with the
help of the personal priest, the king can achieve everything he desires. Then
Durvāsas tells them that God is present in the form of Sudarśana in
Sālagrāma on the bank of the river Sarasvatī20. Maṇiśekhara and Kratu then
proceed to Sālagrāma. Maṇiśekhara has Kratu worship God in the form of
the discus for a month. Then Sudarśana with eight arms appears, kills the
demon, and disappears. Maṇiśekhara reigns again.

17
Personal priests of kings were traditionally Atharvavedins (SANDERSON 2007:
204–208), whose magic, healing, and invocation rituals were particularly suitable for
kingly needs, even if this was sometimes only an ideal (WITZEL 1986: 47f.).
18
On the strong position of the Atharvaveda in the AS, see RASTELLI 2018.
19
For a more detailed description of the contents of the narratives, see SCHRADER
1916: 132–141.
20
Actually, the famous place called Śālagrāma is not situated on the river Saras-
vatī, but is the source of the river Gaṇḍakī, see, e.g., MANI 1975 s.v. śālagrāma.

AS 42.40c–82: Śrutakīrti, king of Saurāṣṭra who reigns in Bhadraśālā

and worships Sudarśana, wishes to conquer the world of the Gandharvas.
However, this is not as easy as he thinks. He approaches his personal priest,
who advises him to take refuge with Sudarśana. He should visualise Sudar-
śana with 64 arms in a big discus (cakra) with 64 spokes and recite his
mantra. In addition, the priest teaches the king all weapon mantras (astra-
mantra). By this means, Śrutakīrti is able to win the battle, whereupon he
returns to Bhadraśālā. Amazed by the power of Sudarśana, he asks his per-
sonal priest if he could also reach liberation from transmigration with the
help of Sudarśana. The answer is positive, and the king, worshipping the
sixty-four-armed Sudarśana every day, finally reaches the supreme abode
(parama pada).
AS 43.21c–44.56: Indra, the king of the gods, is tormented by a demon
(dānava) called Jalaṃdhara21. He consults the Maruts, and Vāyu advises
him to send Bṛhaspati (who is the purohita of the gods; see SÖRENSEN
1904 s.v. Bṛhaspati) to Śaṅkara (i.e., Śiva) to ask for help. Bṛhaspati is sent
to the Kailāsa mountain, where he meets and praises Śaṅkara. Then he tells
Śaṅkara about Indra’s problem. Śaṅkara agrees to kill the demon by means
of the sudarśanamantra. Bṛhaspati asks for the mantra and Śaṅkara gives it
to him. Having gone to the Himālaya, Bṛhaspati recites the mantra and
causes Sudarśana to appear. Sudarśana teaches him about his various
forms. About Indra nothing more is reported.
AS 45: Kuśadhvaja, king of the Janakas, is afflicted by a “great delu-
sion” (mahāmoha) that causes bodily pain and disturbs his memory.22 Ini-
tially he ignores his affliction, but then, when it torments him more and
more, he approaches his family preceptor (kulaguru)23 Yājñavalkya to in-

21
Jalaṃdhara is a demon that appears in the myth of Śiva as Jalaṃdhara-
saṃhāramūrti. In this myth, the demon Jalaṃdhara is killed by means of the discus
Sudarśana, which, in some versions of the myth, is later given to Viṣṇu; see GILLET
2010: 210–221.
22
In Yoga and Sāṅkhya, mahāmoha is one of five types of “unreal cognition” (vi-
paryaya) (see, e.g., Yogabhāṣya ad Yogasūtra 1.8, Gauḍapāda’s commentary ad
Sāṅkhyakārikā 47). In AS 14.15c–17, mahāmoha is a term for the nigrahaśakti delu-
ding the individual soul (jīva). Here, in AS 45, it is described as a kind of illness.
23
In this paper I do not differentiate between gurus and purohitas, since I do not
find that the AS differentiates clearly between the functions of the two. In the stories
presented here, gurus and purohitas have the same function. Also in the following
passage describing a purohita, no clear distinction between the office of a purohita
and a guru is made: “Listen, if the king cannot perform [a ritual], a skilful personal
priest should perform [it]. Only he is the king’s entire property in effecting invisible
MARION RASTELLI 341
quire about the cause of this mahāmoha and its remedy. Yājñavalkya tells
him that the mahāmoha is the result of a crime (pāpa): in former times,
Kuśadhvaja had killed a virtuous king outside of a battle. Yājñavalkya pro-
poses “mastering”24 Sudarśana, because by means of his power the
mahāmoha will be destroyed. Kuśadhvaja has a pavilion (maṇḍapa) con-
structed on the bank of the river Sarasvatī, in which Yājñavalkya performs
a ritual in order to pacify (śāntika karman) the prārabdha karman, i.e., the

aims. (3) Acting according to the dharma, perfect with regard to Vedic learning,
well-conducted, truthful, pure, well-born, free of self-conceit, patient, having a good
memory, powerful, (4) knowing the divisions of space and time, an astrologer, un-
wearied, invincible, careful, bountiful, learned in polity, (5) knowing means and
ends, a counsellor/one who has mastered the mantras (both meanings are possible
and it is difficult to decide which one is meant), constantly sacrificing, free of desire,
knowing fate, speaking kindly, belonging to the Veda, endowed with [the quality]
sattva, a lord, (6) a devotee of Viṣṇu, an ascetic, knowing the rituals, eagerly engaged
in rituals, faultless, wishing the acquisition of good and the abandoning of evil, gene-
rally esteemed by kings, (7) such a personal priest who is competent for [being] a
guru for kings is difficult to find, because such a [personal priest] is able to keep
back a stream of evils for kings. (8) Therefore only this [personal priest] is entitled
[to use] the method of protecting kings. A king who has a guru of this kind can
become a universal ruler (samrāj), (9) live long, be without enemies, healthy, [and] a
slayer of hostile heroes. Indeed in his kingdom no pains such as drought etc. arise.
(10) [If] the king would have a guru or personal priest who is different than that,
[this] would undoubtedly be unfavourable for the king.” (AS 46.3–11: śṛṇu rājā na
cet kuryāt purodhāḥ kurutāt kṛtī | sa eva rājñaḥ sarvasvam adṛṣṭārthopapādane || 3
dhārmikaḥ śrutisampannaḥ suśīlaḥ satyavāk śuciḥ | abhijāto ’nahaṃkāras titikṣuḥ
smṛtimān vaśī || 4 deśakālavibhāgajñaḥ śāstradṛṣṭir atandritaḥ | apradhṛṣyo
’pramādī ca vadānyo nayakovidaḥ || 5 upāyopeyavin mantrī yāyajūko hy alolupaḥ |
daivavit priyavādī ca vaidikaḥ sattvavān prabhuḥ || 6 viṣṇubhaktas tapasvī ca kārya-
vit karmaṭho ’naghaḥ | hitāhitāptihānecchur nṛpāṇāṃ sarvasaṃmataḥ || 7 īdṛśo
durlabho rājñāṃ gurukalpaḥ purohitaḥ | īdṛśo hi kṣamo rājñām aghaughavinivāraṇe
|| 8 ataḥ sa eva rājñāṃ hi rakṣāvidhim athārhati | evaṃvidho gurur yasya sa samrāṇ
nṛpatir bhavet || 9 dīrghāyur niḥsapatnaḥ syād arogaḥ paravīrahā | avagrahādyā
jāyante pīḍās tadviṣaye na hi || 10 taṃ vinānyo bhaved rājño gurur vātha purohitaḥ |
viparītaṃ bhavet tasya mahībhartur na saṃśayaḥ || 11). See also the usage of the
term upādhyāya in Bhāgavatapurāṇa 10.66.27–28 in comparison to the other
Purāṇic passages quoted in n. 40 and BIANCHINI 2015: 36 and 56f.
24
Here the word sādhana is used (AS 45.32: tatsādhane yatnaṃ kuruṣva, “make
an effort with regard to his sādhana”). sādhana is a religious practice by which a
deity is worshipped and thereby subdued or “mastered,” in the sense that as a result
the deity is at the devotee’s command. See for this practice RASTELLI 2000.

karman that is already active in the present life and has caused the
mahāmoha in this case.
The following five stories in the AS should be considered a cohesive
group. They are introduced in AS 48.3–8 by mentioning five kings who
have reached their respective goals by means of a throne (āsana), a ring
(aṅgulīya), a mirror (darpaṇa), a banner (dhvaja), and a canopy (vitāna).
AS 48.9–50b: King Muktāpīḍa, son of Suśravas, does not care for his
kingdom but is only interested in women and drinking alcohol. As a conse-
quence, his subjects fall from the dharma and demons overcome the king-
dom. But the king still does not care. His ministers consult the personal
priest (purodhas) and conclude that only the personal priest can help. He
produces a throne that is furnished with a yantra25 (of Sudarśana) according
to the method of Vasiṣṭha and has the king sit on it. What follows in the
text is a detailed prescription for a ritual serving various purposes.26 After
this ritual having been performed for a mere month, the story ends with all
of the kingdom’s enemies being destroyed by diseases and the earth again
coming under the control of the king. Whether the king’s desire for women
and alcohol also disappears is not mentioned.
AS 48.50c–64b: In the town of Viśālā, a bodiless voice from the sky
speaks to the mother of the virtuous King Viśāla, telling her that her son
will die within four days. When she tells this to her son, he asks her not to
be afraid and goes to the hermitage of Pulaha, who is a purohita. Having
listened to the story of the incident, Pulaha gives Viśāla a ring bearing the
yantra of Sudarśana. When the servants of Death (here called Kāla) come
to take Viśāla’s life, they are unable to come near him. Various weapons
emerge from the discus and chase them away. Both the gods and Kāla are
astonished that Viśāla has successfully conquered death.27
AS 48.64c–109: One day, Sumati, son of King Sunīti of Śṛṅgāra, goes to
a grove to hunt. In the grove he meets a charming young woman. Passion-
ate about her, he becomes bewildered. The woman takes him to her home
and later to the Nāga world. Having reached Bhogāvatī, the capital of the
Nāga world, she gives Sumati to Anaṅgamañjarī, daughter of the Nāga
King Vāsuki. Anaṅgamañjarī wants to marry him, and also the amazed
Sumati is ready to marry the beautiful princess. In the meantime, Sunīti’s

25
yantras usually consist of diagram-like drawings and mantras made present in
them; see, e.g., RASTELLI 2003: 142ff. and especially for the sudarśanayantra
pp. 148–151.
26
This passage gives the impression of being a foreign body in the text.
27
For a translation of this and the next story, see BIANCHINI 2015: 67–71.
MARION RASTELLI 343
father misses his son and asks his ministers to find him. Spies and messen-
gers search for Sunīti but are unable to find him. The king is inconsolable
and no longer eats or sleeps because of his sorrow. Then the king’s personal
priest (purohita) goes to his guru Kaṇva, who lives on the banks of the river
Tamasā. Having heard the story, Kaṇva immerses himself in yoga, sees what
has happened, and relates it to the purohita. He says that only by means of
the power of Sudarśana it will be possible to bring Sunīti back, namely, with
a mirror furnished with a sudarśanamahāyantra. The purohita goes back to
the king and tells him everything. The king produces a mirror in the pre-
scribed manner, places it on a chariot, and drives to the entrance of a cave
that he has been able to find with the help of the mirror. He enters the Nāga
world and fetches his son (magically?). Sumati and his wife come, the king
lifts them into the chariot and wants to return with them to his own town.
Vāsuki, the father of the princess, is angry about this and, supported by his
army of snakes, asks the king to stop. The king asks the mirror to kill the
snake army. Two weapons come forth from the mirror, one that puts the
snake army to sleep and one that starts to burn the Nāga town. Seeing this,
Vāsuki begs for pardon, gives the king jewels, the princess, and other Nāga
women, asks him to withdraw the weapons and to go. The king agrees and
goes home with his son, the Nāga women, and the jewels.
AS 49: King Citraśekhara, son of Uparicara, reigns in the town of
Bhadravāṭī on the banks of the Sarasvatī. In former times, Uparicara, who
had received a divine flying chariot from Indra, killed the demon Śaṅku-
karṇa, who wanted to rob the chariot. After the death of Uparicara, Śaṅku-
karṇa’s son Amarṣaṇa wishes to avenge his father and beleaguers Ci-
traśekhara’s army and town. His aim is to kill Citraśekhara and to capture
the divine chariot. A long-lasting battle between the two armies begins, but
Citraśekhara is unable to defeat the demon. Reflecting on a solution, he
thinks that he will only be able to gain victory with the help of Śiva’s
(mahādeva) grace. He decides to please him by means of mortifications
(tapas) and leaves for Mount Kailāsa by means of the divine chariot, which
he has inherited from his father. However, the chariot stops above Mount
Mandara. Surprised, Citraśekhara walks around on the peak of the moun-
tain. He meets a beautiful young man who turns out to be Kubera. Ci-
traśekhara tells him everything that had happened, whereupon Kubera tells
him that Mount Mandara is the abode of the almighty goddess Mahālakṣmī.
It was she who stopped the movement of his chariot. Kubera tells Ci-
traśekhara that he will receive all that he desires after seeing her. Kubera
disappears, but one of his servants appears. The servant spends the night

with Citraśekhara and explains how to proceed towards where Mahālakṣmī

lives. Having arrived there, Citraśekhara enters a gorgeous palace. In the
centre of the palace he meets the magnificent Mahālakṣmī. He sings a long
hymn of praise, which is composed in various meters. Having heard the
hymn, Mahālakṣmī graciously tells him that she will fulfil his wishes. Ci-
traśekhara tells her about his problems and she gives him a banner with the
yantra of Sudarśana, telling him that she protects all who have taken refuge
with her by means of Sudarśana’s power. Citraśekhara goes back to the
battle and kills the demon.
AS 50: This story is about King Kīrtimālin, the son of King
Bhadraśṛṅga, in Viśālā. Roaming once through his kingdom in the darkness
in order to hear the conversations of the people, he meets a Brahmin who is
immersed in yoga meditation on Sudarśana. The king desires to ask the
Brahmin who he is, where he comes from, etc., but, being in deep medita-
tion, the Brahmin does not notice the king and thus does not reply. The
angry king wants to seize him, but the only result is that he is paralysed by
the Brahmin’s power. Surprised, he pays obeisance from all sides and ap-
peases him with praises. Being appeased, the Brahmin awakes and tells the
king about a place called Sālagrāma, where God Viṣṇu is present in the
form of the discus. There he has mastered all sādhanas (see n. 24) by
means of the power of Sudarśana, and now he is on the way to Puṣkara.
The king pays homage to the Brahmin and conveys him to a Viṣṇu temple.
The next day, when the Brahmin wants to leave for Puṣkara, the king asks
him how he might achieve happiness (sukha), also hereafter. The Brahmin
teaches him the six-syllabled sudarśanamantra and other mantras belong-
ing to it, such as weapon mantras, as well as its visualisation (dhyāna),
worship, and yantra. The king wishes to give many gifts to the Brahmin,
but the Brahmin refuses to accept them. The king insists on giving them to
him, and finally they agree on the king giving them to other Brahmins.
From that time onwards, the king reigns according to the dharma. One day
he asks his ministers which countries, kings, etc. are under his control.
They answer that the whole earth is under his control, but that the deities,
Gandharvas, Asuras, and Nāgas do not serve him. Hearing this, Kīrtimālin
also wants to conquer all these beings and asks his ministers for advice.
They tell him that he will be able to conquer them easily because of his
immense valour and because he has obtained divine weapons from the
Brahmin. Subsequently, Kīrtimālin conquers the Nāga world as well as the
Yakṣas, Gandharvas, Siddhas, and Vidyādharas. His next aim is to conquer
the deities. He thus sends a Gandharva messenger named Manojava to In-
MARION RASTELLI 345
dra to ask him to send him the elephant Airāvata, his thunderbolt (vajra),
and other things. Indra, confronted with this demand, laughs and tells the
messenger that he will send Airāvata and the thunderbolt. The other things
should be fetched by Kīrtimālin himself. Indra sends Airāvata and the
thunderbolt, which arrive at Kīrtimālin’s fortress and invisibly kill his ar-
my. This sudden death causes confusion. Kīrtimālin calls his personal priest
(purodhas) and asks for advice. Reflecting upon what has happened, the
personal priest assumes that it was caused by the anger of the deities. At
that moment, the messenger arrives and confirms this assumption. The king
consults the personal priest to find a means of revenge, whereupon he sends
one of his divine weapons forth, which paralyses Airāvata and the thunder-
bolt. Indra is angry and sends his dreadful army to Kīrtimālin’s town. See-
ing this, Kīrtimālin comes out of the town together with his army. In a first
battle, the deities win. Being angry, Kīrtimālin sends further divine weap-
ons forth, but Indra is able to ward them off. Kīrtimālin remembers that he
has a chariot among the weapon mantras from the Brahmin. He has such a
chariot produced (by the personal priest). It is endowed with the sudar-
śanamahāyantra and a canopy.28 Then he sits down in the shade of the
canopy and casts a viṣṇucakra, another weapon received from the Brahmin
(see AS 34.14c–16), which kills the deities. The angry Indra also casts var-
ious weapons and finally his thunderbolt, but all these weapons disappear
in the viṣṇucakra. Indra is surprised. He meets Kīrtimālin and asks why his
weapons are now successful. Kīrtimālin explains that this success is due to
the canopy. Indra and Kīrtimālin become friends.
AS 42.35–40b: The king of Vārāṇasī called Kāśīrāja worships Viśveśvara
Mahādeva and produces a female demon (kṛtyā) in order to destroy Kṛṣṇa.

28
These last two sentences are my interpretation of AS 50.112c–113: “Then
Kīrtimālin, having become despondent, remembered the chariot that he has received
from the Brahmin. Then he had it made in that way [as taught by the Brahmin (?)],
bound by the sudarśanamahāyantra and equipped with a canopy.” (tato nirvedam
āpannaḥ kīrtimālī dvijottamāt || 112 labdhaṃ vimānaṃ sasmāra tat tathākārayat
tataḥ | sudarśanamahāyantrayantritaṃ savitānakam || 113). These sentences are not
easy to understand. No chariot was mentioned in the story before; AS 50.29–31 sta-
tes that the king receives various mantras from the Brahmin. Indeed, AS 40.61ab
mentions a chariot (vimāna) among the many weapons that are forms of God, as
taught by the AS. Thus, we can conclude that the chariot given to the king by the
Brahmin is in the form of a weapon mantra. This could explain why a chariot that the
king has already received has yet to be produced, in the sense that it could have been
produced through a quasi-magic ritual by using the appropriate mantra. SCHRADER
(1916: 140) understands this passage in a similar way.

The female demon goes to Dvārakā to find Kṛṣṇa. As Kṛṣṇa becomes aware
that the flying demon is approaching, he casts Sudarśana. The female demon
flees, but the discus kills her and destroys Kāśīrāja and his town.
Names, places, and motives
In the following section I would like to examine the persons, places, and
motives that appear in the stories (see also the table on pp. 360f.). Can we
derive any information from them?
Let us first look at the names of the kings in the stories. Several of the
kings’ names are well-known from Vedic, epic, and Purāṇic Sanskrit literature.
The names Pramaganda, the grandfather of the main character
Maṇiśekhara in the story in AS 33.24–100, and Naicāśākha appear in a
Ṛgvedic hymn, namely, in ṚV III.53.14. Here they seem to have a negative
connotation. Indra is asked to bring the property of Prámaganda and to
subdue Naicāśākhá.29 According to Sāyaṇa’s commentary ad loc., Prama-
ganda is the name of an offspring of Maganda, who was a usurer.
Naicāśākha, according to Sāyaṇa, is the property of outcast (patita) peo-
ple.30 In the introduction to his Ṛgvedabhāṣya, Sāyaṇa simply states that
Naicāśākha is a town and Pramaganda a king,31 which agrees with the story
in the AS.
The main character of the story, Maṇiśekhara, is described in a fairly
positive way.32 However, being the child of a usurer and related to outcast

29
ṚV III.53.14: kíṃ te kr̥ ṇvanti kī́kaṭeṣu gā́ vo nā́ śíraṃ duhré ná tapanti gharmám |
ā́ no bhara prámagandasya védo naicāśākháṃ maghavan randhayā naḥ ||. “What do
the cows do for you among the Kīkaṭas? They do not milk out the milk mixture; they
do not heat the gharma[=hot]-drink. Bring here to us the possessions of Pramaganda.
Make the descendant of Nīcāśākha subject to us, bounteous one.” (Translation
JAMISON & BRERETON 2014: 539).
30
ṚVBh vol. 2, p. 435,1–6. In this interpretation, Sāyaṇa follows Yāska’s Nirukta
6.32, from which he also quotes in the subsequent passage (see also CHARPENTIER
1930: 336).
31
ṚVBh vol. 1, p. 6,7f.: “In the same way the non-eternal meanings ‘that which is
called naicāśākha is a town, that which is called pramaganda is a king’ are handed
down.” (tathā naicāśākhaṃ nāma nagaraṃ pramagando nāma rājā ity ete ’rthā
anityā āmnātāḥ.) CHARPENTIER (1930: 336) sees a contradiction between the two
statements of Sāyaṇa. I think that this is not necessarily a contradiction: also an
offspring of a usurer could perhaps be a king, and a town could perhaps also be seen
as a kind of property.
32
AS 33.27–28b: “When this aforementioned Maṇiśekhara had passed the first
MARION RASTELLI 347
people is perhaps a kind of karmic explanation of why a virtuous king is

tormented by a demon.33
Indra is the king of the gods and well-known (e.g., SÖRENSEN 1904 s.v.
Indra).
Kuśadhvaja, the king of the Janakas in the story in AS 45, is known
from the Rāmāyaṇa. He is the brother of King Janaka (Rām 1.69.1–2).
Another link to King Janaka is found in his kulaguru Yājñavalkya, who is
Janaka’s teacher in the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (e.g., BĀU 3.1.1–2).
King Viśāla from the story in AS 48.50c–64b and his town Viśālā are
mentioned in the Mahābhārata and in the Rāmāyaṇa.34 The father of King
Citraśekhara, the main character of the story in AS 49, Uparicara, is well-
known from the Mahābhārata (SÖRENSEN 1904 s.v. Uparicara).
The name Muktāpīḍa, appearing in the story in AS 48.9–50b, is men-
tioned in the Kashmirian chronicle Rājataraṅgiṇī. SCHRADER (1916: 96f.)
takes this fact as evidence for the Kashmirian origin of the AS. According
to BOCK-RAMING (2002: 20, n. 6), Muktāpīḍa was the fifth ruler of the
Karkoṭa dynasty (699–736 CE) in the Rājataraṅgiṇī. It is unclear, however,
if the king’s name in the story is really inspired by the name of the Kash-
mirian king.
Versions of the story about the Kāśīrāja who worships Viśveśvara in
Vārāṇasī appear in Viṣṇupurāṇa 5.34 ≈ Brahmapurāṇa 207, Padmapurāṇa
uttarakhaṇḍa 278, and Bhāgavatapurāṇa 10.66.35

state [of human life, i.e., childhood], he was a hero who had a charming appearance,
had obtained knowledge, [and] had subdued [his] enemies. When the illustrious one
had reached manhood, he found a wife [called] Prācī.” (so ’py avasthām atikramya
prathamāṃ maṇiśekharaḥ | ramaṇīyākṛtiḥ śūraḥ prāptavidyaḥ paraṃtapaḥ || 27
samprāptayauvanaḥ śrīmān prācīṃ bhāryām avindata |).
33
See DONIGER O’FLAHERTY 1980: 33–36 on the transfer of karman between pa-
rents and children.
34
According to Rām 1.46.11, Viśāla is the son of Ikṣvāku and Alambuṣā; in Rām
1.44.8–12 his town Viśālā is mentioned. In MBh 3.88.22–23 Viśālā is identified with
Badarī.
35
This story could provide evidence for dating this passage of the AS. According
to Peter Bisschop, a reference to the worship of Viśveśvara by a king in Vārāṇasī
cannot be earlier than the twelfth century, since “the name of Viśveśvara as the cent-
ral liṅga in Vārāṇasī is not attested before the twelfth century and represents a signi-
ficant departure from the period preceding it” (personal information from Peter
Bisschop to Robert Leach; see LEACH 2012: 156, n. 256). See also GUTSCHOW 1994:
194f. In the Purāṇa versions of the story, the deity is not called Viśveśvara but
Maheśvara.

The names of kings I have not yet been able to locate in Sanskrit litera-
ture are Śrutakīrti, king of Saurāṣṭra (AS 42.40c–82), Sunīti (AS 48.64c–
109), and Kīrtimālin (AS 50).
Let us now look at the names of the purohitas. Insofar as they are men-
tioned,36 they are all famous sages who are also well-known from the epics
and Purāṇas. For example, Kratu, Vasiṣṭha (see n. 36), and Pulaha are sons
of Brahmā. Durvāsas is a son of Śiva, born of his anger.37 Bṛhaspati is the
purohita of the deities. Yājñavalkya was already mentioned above. He is
also a well-known ṛṣi in the epics and the Purāṇas. Kaṇva is a ṛṣi that is
known already in the Ṛgveda (he composed its eighth maṇḍala) as well as
in the epics and Purāṇas.38
An interesting case, as already mentioned, is the story in AS 42.35–40b.
This story presents no purohita, and thus it seems irrelevant with regard to
the role of purohitas, all the more so since it follows a different scheme
than the others. In this story, the king is punished rather than saved by
means of Sudarśana. However, the non-appearance of a purohita is striking
if we compare this story with its Purāṇic versions previously mentioned. In
the Purāṇas, it is the son of a Kāśīrāja who worships Śiva because he de-
sires a means for revenging his father, who has been killed by Kṛṣṇa.39 In
all three versions of the Purāṇas, the son worships Śiva together with a
purohita.40 It could be by chance that the purohita does not appear in the

36
The stories AS 42.40c–82, 48.9–50b, and 50 do not mention the names of the
purohitas. However, AS 48.16 mentions that the purohita uses a method taught by
Vasiṣṭha (vasiṣṭhoktena mārgeṇa), meaning that he stands in the tradition of Vasiṣṭha,
who was the family priest of various kings, among others of the family of Ikṣvāku, see
MONIER-WILLIAMS 1899 s.v. Vasiṣṭha. On the story AS 42.35–40b, see below.
37
See, e.g., MANI 1975 s.v. Durvāsas. Durvāsas also appears in the śāstrāvatāra
story in AS 1.
38
For references to these sages in the MBh, see SÖRENSEN 1904 s.v. their names.
For Yājñavalkya in a Purāṇa, see, e.g., AgniPur 16.8; for Kaṇva in a Purāṇa, see,
e.g., BrahmaPur 26.10.
39
The Purāṇas also report the prelude to this story: Pauṇḍraka Vāsudeva errone-
ously considers himself to be the god Vāsudeva and requests Kṛṣṇa, the actual god
Vāsudeva, to give up his claim. In response, Pauṇḍraka Vāsudeva and his ally, the
king of Kāśī (in the Padmapurāṇa Pauṇḍraka, Vāsudeva, and the Kāśīrāja are one
and the same person), are killed by Kṛṣṇa.
40
ViṣṇuPur 5.34.29 (= BrahmaPur 207.29): “Having learned that he has been kil-
led by Vāsudeva, his son consequently pleased Śaṅkara together with a personal
priest.” (jñātvā taṃ vāsudevena hataṃ tasya sutas tataḥ | purohitena sahitas toṣayām
MARION RASTELLI 349
AS’s version, since it is a rather abridged version of the story. Given the
general importance of purohitas in the AS, however, the purohita may also
have been omitted from the story on purpose. In the Purāṇic versions, the
purohita appears in a bad light. He helps a king who wishes to kill Kṛṣṇa
and, above all, he does not succeed. It is possible that the AS’s redactor did
not want to present purohitas in this role and thus omitted the personal
priest in this story.
Now let us examine the places mentioned in the stories. The place men-
tioned most often, namely three times, is the river Sarasvatī. Twice it is the
place where Sudarśana should be worshipped: in AS 33.87 Sālagrāma is
considered to be located on its banks,41 and in AS 45.37 a pavilion
(maṇḍapa) for the worship of Sudarśana is constructed on its banks. In AS
49.2 Bhadravāṭī, the town reigned by King Citraśekhara, is situated on a
bank of the Sarasvatī.
Two places are mentioned twice, Viśālā and Sālagrāma. Viśālā is Badarī
(see n. 34), the well-known site, especially for a Pāñcarātrin, of Nara’s and
Nārāyaṇa’s hermitage in the Nārāyaṇīya.42 In the AS, it is the town that is
ruled by the Kings Viśāla (AS 48.50) and Kīrtimālin (AS 50.2).
Sālagrāma is one of the few places mentioned in the narratives that is
described in more detail. This is the case in both passages in which it is
mentioned. Sālagrāma or Śālagrāma is a place actually located on the river
Gaṇḍakī, not the Sarasvatī. Unusual black stones, also called śālagrāma,

āsa śaṃkaram ||). PadmaPur uttarakhaṇḍa 278.15: “Having heard that his father has
been killed by the Venerable Vāsudeva, Pauṇḍraka’s son, called Daṇḍapāṇi, com-
manded by [his] mother Mṛtyu [and] requested by his personal priest, worshipped
Śaṅkara by means of a sacrifice devoted to Maheśvara.” (tasya pauṇḍrakasya suto
daṇḍapāṇir itīrito vāsudevena bhagavatā nihataṃ svapitaraṃ śrutvā mātrā mṛtyunā
samādiṣṭaḥ svapurohitenābhiyukto māheśvareṇa kratunā śaṁkaram iyāja.) BhāgPur
10.66.27–28: “Having performed the cremation ceremony for the ruler, his son Su-
dakṣiṇa, having himself in view: ‘I will revenge [my] father by killing his murderer,’
worshipped Maheśvara together with [his] preceptor in supreme concentration.”
(sudakṣiṇas tasya sutaḥ kṛtvā saṃsthāvidhiṃ pateḥ | nihatya pitṛhantāraṃ yāsyāmy
apacitiṃ pituḥ || ity ātmanābhisandhāya sopādhyāyo maheśvaram | sudakṣiṇo ’rca-
yām āsa parameṇa samādhinā |).
41
See n. 20.
42
The Nārāyaṇīya is not only the earliest extant Pāñcarātra text, but it also had a
strong influence on the Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās, especially in their narrative passages,
which borrow many motives from it; see GRÜNENDAHL 1997: 362–370 and, with a
focus on the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, RASTELLI 2006: 161–168.

are found there. Containing a fossil ammonite, they are considered parts of
the discus Sudarśana and thus are sacred.43 This explains why Sālagrāma is
important for the AS. Everything present in Sālagrāma, including plants
and stones, is considered to be marked by the discus:
Having assumed the form of a boar in the boar-kalpa, the venerable

one, the supreme person, pulled the earth out of the ocean. Then the
goddess Earth, who was exceedingly exulted, spoke to the God
(78c–79): “In order to rejoice those who are fond [of you], you
should dwell in a territory on the earth forever, O lord of the world,
after having obtained a dear body.” (80) Thenceforth Keśava, to
whom the goddess had spoken in this way, dwelled in the auspi-
cious territory of the earth called Sālagrāma (81) with the body of
Sudarśana, the glorious one, the venerable one, the one who is kind
to [his] worshippers. Because of the majesty of the place, because
of the compassion for [his] worshippers, [and] because of the re-
quest of the earth, Hari is always present there even today. The aus-
terity that is performed in this place is multiplied thousandfold.
(82–83) Human beings, animals, insects, and birds that die in this
place are without doubt marked by the conch and the discus. (84)
The venerable one, the lotus-eyed one who bears the body of Su-
darśana is always present there, an ocean of good, auspicious quali-
ties. (85) The human beings, deities, animals, trees, and mountains
who live at his place are all marked by the seal of the discus. (86)44
The unsurpassed place of Viṣṇu is called Sālagrāma. There the lord
of the world in the form of the discus is always present. There eve-
rything that is immovable and moving is marked by the discus.

43
See, e.g., MANI 1975 s.v. śālagrāma.
44
AS 33.78c–86: vārāhaṃ rūpam āsthāya bhagavān puruṣottamaḥ || 78 ujjahāra
bhuvaṃ kalpe vārāhe salilāt tataḥ | tadāha paramaprītā devaṃ devī vasuṃdharā ||
79 priyārtham anuraktānāṃ sadā bhūmaṇḍale tvayā | vartitavyaṃ jagannātha
priyāṃ tanum upeyuṣā || 80 evam uktas tayā devyā tadā prabhṛti keśavaḥ | sāla-
grāmāhvaye puṇye nyavasan maṇḍale bhuvaḥ || 81 sudarśanavapuḥ śrīmān bhaga-
vān bhaktavatsalaḥ | adyāpi deśamāhātmyād bhaktānām anukampayā || 82 bhuvaḥ
prārthanayā tatra nityaṃ saṃnihito hariḥ | atra taptaṃ tapo yat tat sahasraguṇitaṃ
bhavet || 83 manuṣyāḥ paśavas tatra krimayaś ca patitriṇaḥ | ye mṛtāḥ śaṅkha-
cakrāṅkās te bhavanti na saṃśayaḥ || 84 bhagavān puṇḍarīkākṣaḥ sudarśanava-
purdharaḥ | saṃnidhatte sadā tatra sanmaṅgalaguṇārṇavaḥ || 85 taddeśavāsino
martyāḥ surās tiryañca eva ca | taravaś cācalāḥ sarve cakramudrāṅkitās tadā || 86.
MARION RASTELLI 351
(19c–20) There, by merely entering [it], creatures are free of any

blemish. There those who have given up their body reach supreme
extinction (nirvāṇa). (21) A Brahmin who is born at that place is
approved by the learned, by means of Sudarśana’s power he has
accomplished all sādhanas.45 (22)46
Other places mentioned in the AS’s narratives include a second sacred

place, namely Puṣkara, to which the Brahmin coming from Sālagrāma
wanders (AS 50.23 and 26); the Himālaya, where Bṛhaspati recites the su-
darśanamantra (AS 44.20); the river Tamasā47 upon whose banks Kaṇva
lives (AS 48.80); the town Bhadraśālā of the Saurāṣṭra king (AS 42.41);
and the town Bhadravāṭī of King Citraśekhara on the banks of the Sarasvatī
(AS 49.2). Some places belong to beings other than humans, such as Sva-
stika, the town of the Gandharvas (AS 42.46–50); the mountain Kailāsa,
where Śiva resides (AS 43.21, 32–33); and Bhogavatī, the town of the
Nāgas (AS 48.70, 83, 97). The town Śṛṅgāra of King Sunīti, whose son
falls in love with the Nāga princess, seems to bear a symbolic name rather
than that of a real place, since śṛṅgāra means “sexual passion.”
In conclusion, it is striking that all places, as far as they can be identi-
fied, are located in the northern part of India. As far as we can see, no place
in South India is mentioned, although the current view is that the AS was
redacted in the south. Not surprising is that several places that are consid-
ered sacred because of the presence of Viṣṇu or one of his forms are men-
tioned, including Badarī, Sālagrāma, and Puṣkara. Most of the places men-
tioned are known from the epics or Purāṇas.
At the end of this section, let us look at the problems the kings of the
stories suffer from. Most often mentioned, namely in four stories, is the
problem of demons beleaguering and tormenting the king and his kingdom
that cannot be conquered by ordinary military means.48 If one considers

45
See n. 24.
46
AS 50.19c–22: sālagrāma iti khyātaṃ viṣṇusthānam anuttamam || 19 nityaṃ
saṃnihitas tatra cakrarūpī jagatpatiḥ | tatra cakrāṅkitaṃ sarvaṃ sthāvaraṃ
jaṅgamaṃ ca yat || 20 tatra praveśamātreṇa jantavo vītakalmaṣāḥ | tatra tyaktaśarīrās
tu yānti nirvāṇam uttamam || 21 tasmin deśe samutpanno brāhmaṇaḥ śiṣṭasaṃmataḥ |
sudarśanaprabhāveṇa sādhitākhilasādhanaḥ || 22.
47
The river Tamasā is also mentioned in the epics; see MANI 1975 s.v.
48
This problem appears in the stories told in AS 33.24–100, 43.21c–44.56, 48.9–50b
(here the reason for the invasion of demons is the carelessness of the king), and 49.

these demons not real demons but demonised enemies and their troops, this
was indeed one of the main problems faced by kings, especially if we con-
sider the situation in South India in the thirteenth century (see above). This
thus fits the ritual repertoire that is offered by the AS, because here too, the
focus is on rituals for victory in battle (BIANCHINI 2015: 49–55, 60–62).
The other main aim of kings, mentioned in two stories, is not unrelated,
since it is the counterpart of defence against enemies, namely, the conquest
of further territories.49 Other problems and aims, each mentioned once, are
mental illness caused by a crime committed in a previous life (AS 45); the
threat of death (AS 48.50–64b); the kidnapping of a prince (AS 48.64c–
109); and liberation from transmigration (AS 42.40c–82). All of these were
probably dangers or aims that were really feared or striven for by kings,
indeed, in some cases not only by kings, but all human beings.
Conclusion
Reflecting on the AS, its narratives, and the historical circumstances of its
origin, has led me to the following thoughts:
1) Why did the AS’s redactor choose narratives as a means for convinc-
ing kings of the usefulness of worshipping Sudarśana?
The AS’s redactor, if indeed he was a single person, was deeply learned.
Just a few examples: He knew the philosophies of Kashmirian Śaivism and
of the Rāmānuja school, philosophical concepts of language, classical Yo-
ga, the Vedas, and, especially, the Atharvaveda.50 He knew the Purāṇas and
the epics and could imitate their literary style in a masterly way. The rich
contents of the AS demonstrate to us that its redactor did not include narra-
tives because he could not master more sophisticated texts. He chose narra-
tives for two reasons: First, kings would certainly be more easily convinced
by the practical usefulness of particular rituals than by philosophical or
theological reflections. In order to communicate the use of, for example, a

49
See the stories of AS 42.40c–82 and AS 50. Compare AS 29, which gives
prescriptions for rituals for the purpose of the conquest of further territories, inclu-
ding the upper world (ūrdhvaloka) and the world of the Nāgas (nāgaloka).
50
For the influence of Kashmirian Śaivism on the AS, see SANDERSON 2001: 36–
38; for the influence of the Rāmānuja school, see, e.g., the mention of the concept of
śeṣa and śeṣin in AS 52.6, which is a characteristic thought of this tradition (see
CARMAN 1974: 147–157); for that of Yoga, see AS 31–32; for the influence of the
Atharvavedic tradition, see RASTELLI 2018.
MARION RASTELLI 353
ritual for military purposes, a narrative would be much more appropriate

than a theoretical tract. Secondly, narratives with a simple structure and
entertainment value were an eligible means by which the author of the AS
could approach kings, who were not unlearned persons but certainly more
familiar with the Purāṇic and epic literature and their style than with philo-
sophical or ritual texts.
2) What strategies are used in the narratives and for what purpose?
The main characters of the stories, mainly kings and personal priests, are
often well-known persons from the epics and Purāṇas. The same is true of
the places mentioned in the narratives. This means that the audience of the
narratives most likely already knew these names and places before hearing
the story itself. The listeners considered them historical persons and real
existing places, since from the traditional Indian point of view the Purāṇas
and epics were considered historical documents, describing events, places,
and persons that once really existed.
One is more willing to believe a story about a person or a place that is fa-
miliar than a story about persons or places one has never heard of. Thus, to tell
a story about characters or places that the audience is already familiar with
increases its credibility. It improves the chances that the story will also be con-
sidered a report of a historical event. This is probably one reason the redactor
of these narratives mentions particularly well-known persons and places.
In addition, using the names of famous persons achieves a further effect.
The many famous kings who solved their problems by worshipping Sudar-
śana represent a very distinguished circle. The narratives insinuate to any
ruling king that by worshipping Sudarśana he could also belong to this
illustrious group. The same is true for the purohita. By relating a story like
this, a purohita places himself into a row of famous sages, whereby he pre-
sents himself as being like one of them.
3) The AS is currently considered to have been redacted in South India.

Nevertheless, the places mentioned in the narratives are located in India’s
northern region. One reason could be the one just mentioned: these are
places known from the epics and Purāṇas, which increase the credibility of
the story. However, a place in South India well-known to a southern king
would fulfil the same function.
So there may be other reasons: Was this part of the AS perhaps com-
posed in the north rather than in the south? However, the mere reference to
places in the north is not sufficient evidence for this conclusion. Perhaps it

is precisely the emphasis on places in North India, especially sites that are
classical places of Viṣṇu worship, which points to the fact that the AS was
composed in South India. Did the AS’s redactor emulate the North Indian
traditions because he considered them an ideal? Or was it a wish of the
kings at that time to take North India as an example, a wish that the AS’s
redactor tried to fulfil? Did the southern kings feel inadequate in compari-
son to kings in the north, wanting to be like them? Or were southern courts
generally oriented to the North Indian religious and literary traditions, with
the AS’s redactor reflecting this orientation? There is inscriptional evidence
that Sanskrit learning was highly valued in medieval South India. Inscrip-
tions report on the promotion of, for example, Vedic schools, settlements
for Brahmins, libraries, and other educational centres, and on the recitation
of the Mahābhārata (MADHAVAN 2013: 105–139). Perhaps places known
from Sanskrit literature received the same esteem as Sanskrit literature itself.
4) It is not possible to identify a particular historical king for whom the

AS was composed. Indeed, it is probable that the redactor of the AS did not
aim at a particular historical person. Considering the political situation in
South India in the thirteenth century, a period when the ruling king could
change any day, it would not have been wise to focus on a particular king.
Thus, the target of the AS, that is, the target of the purohitas who acted
according to the AS, were probably rulers in general. Their political distress
at the time may have been considered an exceptional chance for promoting
the Pāñcarātra.
MARION RASTELLI 355
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Agnipurāṇa (AgniPur)
Śrīmaddvaipāyanamunipraṇītam Agnipurāṇam. etat pustakam ānandā-
śramasthapaṇḍitaiḥ saṃśodhitam. tac ca Hari Nārāyaṇa Āpaṭe ity anena
(…) prakāśitam. Poona: Ānandāśramamudraṇālaya, 1900.
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā (AS)
Ahirbudhnya-Saṃhitā of the Pāñcarātrāgama. 2 vols. Ed. M.D. Rama-
nujacharya under the Supervision of F. O. Schrader. Revised by V.
Krishnamacharya. Adyar: The Adyar Library and Research Centre,
1916, 21986 (first repr.).
Ṛgveda (ṚV)
Die Hymnen des Ṛigveda. Ed. Th. Aufrecht. 2 vols. Berlin: Ferd.
Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1861, 1863, Hildesheim, New York:
Georg Olms Verlag, 1973 (repr.).
Ṛgvedabhāṣya (ṚVBh) of Sāyaṇa
Ṛgveda-Samhitā with the Commentary of Sāyaṇāchārya. Eds. V.K.
Rajwade et al. 2 vols. Poona: Tilak Maharashtra University Vaidic
Samshodhan Mandal, 1933, 1936.
Nirukta of Yāska
The Niruktam of Yāska Muni [in the Form of Nighaṇṭu Bhāṣya of
Kaśyapa Prajāpati] with the Niruktavivṛti and Exhaustive Notes. Crit.
ed. Mukund Jha Bakshi. New Delhi: Panini, 1982.
Padmapurāṇa (PadmaPur)
Mahāmuniśrīmadvyāsapraṇītaṃ Padmapurāṇam. 4 vols. etat pustakaṃ
(…) Viśvanātha Nārāyaṇa ity etaiḥ mahatā pariśrameṇa bahutarāṇi pus-
takāni melayitvā sapāṭhāntaranirdeśaṃ saṃśodhitam. Poona: Ānandā-
śramamudraṇālaya, 1893–1894.
Pāñcarātrarakṣā (PRR) of Veṅkaṭanātha
Śrī Pāñcarātra Rakṣā of Śrī Vedānta Deśika. Crit. ed. M. Duraiswami
Aiyangar and T. Venugopalacharya with an Introduction in English by
G. Srinivasa Murti. Madras: The Adyar Library, 1942.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (BĀU)
In: Eighteen Principal Upaniṣads. Vol. I. (Upaniṣadic Text with Paral-
lels from extant Vedic Literature, Exegetical and Grammatical Notes).
Eds. V.P. Limaye and R.D. Vadekar. Poona: Vaidika Saṁśodhana
Maṇḍala, 1958, pp. 174–282.

Brahmapurāṇa (BrahmaPur)
Sanskrit Indices and Text of the Brahmapurāṇa. Eds. P. Schreiner and
R. Söhnen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.
Bhāgavatapurāṇa (BhāgPur)
Bhāgavata Purāṇa of Kṛṣṇa Dvaipayana Vyāsa. With Sanskrit Com-
mentary Bhāvārthabodhinī of Śrīdhara Svāmin. (Containing Introduc-
tion in Sanskrit and English and an Alphabetical Index of Verses). Ed.
J.L. Shastri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983, repr. 1999.
Yogabhāṣya (YBh) of Patañjali. See YSū.
Yogasūtra (YSū) of Patañjali
Samādhipāda. Das erste Kapitel des Pātañjalayogaśāstra zum ersten Mal
kritisch ediert, von Philipp André Maas. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2006.
Rāmāyaṇa (Rām)
The Vālmīki-Rāmāyaṇa. Crit. eds. G.H. Bhatt et al. 7 vols. Baroda:
Oriental Institute, 1960–1975.
Viṣṇupurāṇa (ViṣṇuPur)
The Critical Edition of the Viṣṇupurāṇam. 2 vols. Crit. ed. M.M. Pathak.
Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1997, 1999.
Sāṅkhyakārikā (SK) of Īśvarakṛṣṇa
The Sánkhya Káriká by Íswara Krishna. Translated from the Sanscrit by
H. Th. Colebrooke, also the Bháshya, or, Commentary of Gaudapáda;
Translated, and Illustrated by an Original Comment, by H. H. Wilson.
Bombay: Tookaram Tatya, 1887.
BEGLEY, W.E. 1973. Viṣṇu’s Flaming Wheel: The Iconography of the Su-
darśana-Cakra. New York: New York University Press.
BIANCHINI, F. 2015. A King’s Best Weapon. Sudarśana’s Worship at the Royal
Court According to the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā. MA thesis, University of Vien-
na (http://othes.univie.ac.at/38142/1/2015-06-22_0846884.pdf, accessed
March 15, 2018).
BOCK, A. 1987. Die Madhu-Kaiṭabha-Episode und ihre Bearbeitung in der
Anonymliteratur des Pāñcarātra. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 137/1, pp. 78–109.
BOCK-RAMING, A. 1992. Zum Gebrauch vedischer Mantras in den Schluß-
kapiteln der Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde
Südasiens 36, pp. 71–89.
MARION RASTELLI 357
2002. Untersuchungen zur Gottesvorstellung in der älteren Anonym-

literatur des Pāñcarātra. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
CARMAN, J.B. 1974. The Theology of Rāmānuja. An Essay in Interreligious
Understanding. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, Bombay:
Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute (repr.).
CHARPENTIER, J. 1930. Naicasakha. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of
Great Britain and Ireland 2, pp. 335–345.
DONIGER O’FLAHERTY, W. 1980. Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and
Purāṇas. In: W. Doniger O’Flaherty (ed.), Karma and Rebirth in Classi-
cal Indian Traditions. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of
California Press, pp. 3–37.
GILLET, V. 2010. La création d’une iconographie śivaïte narrative. Incar-
nations du dieu dans les temples palla construits. Pondicherry: Institut
français de Pondichéry, École française d’extrême-orient.
GRÜNENDAHL, R. 1997. Parallelen des Nārāyaṇīya und Anmerkungen zu
seiner Wirkungsgeschichte. In: P. Schreiner (ed.), Nārāyaṇīya-Studien.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 296–378.
GUTSCHOW, N. 1994. Vārāṇasī/Benares: The Centre of Hinduism? A dis-
cussion of the meaning of “place” and space. With 6 figures and 5 pho-
tos. Erdkunde 48/3, pp. 194–209.
HARI RAO, V.N. 1976. History of the Śrīrangam Temple. Tirupati: Sri
Venkateswara University.
JAMISON, St.W. & Brereton, J.P. 2014 (transl.). The Rigveda. The Earliest
Religious Poetry of India. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
LEACH, R. 2012. Textual Traditions and Religious Identities in the
Pāñcarātra. PhD Thesis. Edinburgh.
MADHAVAN, Ch. 2013. Sanskrit Education and Literature in Ancient and Me-
dieval Tamil Nadu. An Epigraphical Study. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
MANI, V. 1975. Purāṇic Encyclopeadia. A Comprehensive Dictionary with
Special Reference to the Epic and Purāṇic Literature. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
MATSUBARA, M. 1994. Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās & Early Vaiṣṇava Theology
With A Translation and Critical Notes from Chapters on Theology in the
Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
MONIER-WILLIAMS, M. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Etymologically
and Philologically Arranged with special reference to Cognate Indo-
European Languages. New Edition, Greatly Enlarged and Improved with
the collaboration of E. Leumann, C. Cappeller And Other Scholars. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995 (repr.).

NILAKANTHA SASTRI, K.A. 1955. The Cōḷas. Madras: University of

Madras, 1955 (rev. ed.), 2000 (repr.).
OBERHAMMER, G. 1994. Offenbarungsgeschichte als Text. Religions-
hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Phänomen in hinduistischer Traditi-
on. Wien: Sammlung De Nobili.
RAMAN, K.V. 1975. Srī Varadarājaswāmi Temple – Kāñchi. A Study of its
History, Art and Architecture. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
RASTELLI, M. 2000. The Religious Practice of the Sādhaka According to
the Jayākhyasaṃhitā. Indo-Iranian Journal 43/4, pp. 319–395.
2003. Maṇḍalas and Yantras in the Pāñcarātra Tradition. In: G. Bühnemann
(ed.), Maṇḍalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions. Leiden, Boston:
Brill, pp. 119–152.
2006. Die Tradition des Pāñcarātra im Spiegel der Pārameśvarasaṃhitā.
Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
2015. Mahālakṣmī: Integrating a Goddess into the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā.
Indo-Iranian Journal 58, pp. 325-356.
2018. Considerations about Traditions Influential in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā.
Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 72/2, pp. 421–443.
SANDERSON, A. 1990. The Visualization of the Deities of the Trika. In: A.
Padoux (ed.), L’Image divine. Culte et Méditation dans l’hindouisme. Pa-
ris : Éditions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, pp. 31–88.
2001. History through Textual Criticism in the study of Śaivism, the
Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras. In: F. Grimal (ed.), Les sources
et le temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium, Pondicherry, 11–13 January
1997. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry, pp. 1–47.
2004. Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the King’s
Brahmanical Chaplain. Indo-Iranian Journal 47, pp. 229–300.
2007. Atharvavedins in Tantric Territory. The Āṅgirasakalpa Texts of the
Oriya Paippalādins and their Connection with the Trika and the Kālīku-
la. With critical editions of the Parājapavidhi, the Parāmantravidhi, and
the *Bhadrakālīmantravidhiprakaraṇa. In: A. Griffiths and A.
Schmiedchen (ed.), The Atharvaveda and its Paippalādaśākhā. Histori-
cal and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition. Aachen: Shaker Ver-
lag, pp. 195–311.
2009. The Śaiva Age. The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During the Ear-
ly Medieval Period. In: Sh. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of
Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, pp. 41–349.
SCHRADER, F.O. 1916. Introduction to the Pāñcarātra and the
Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā. Madras: Adyar Library.
MARION RASTELLI 359
SMITH, H.D. 1975, 1980. A Descriptive Bibliography of the Printed Texts

of the Pāñcarātrāgama. 2 vols. Baroda: Oriental Institute.
SÖRENSEN, S. 1904. An Index to the Names in the Mahabharata with Short
Explanations and a Concordance to the Bombay and Calcutta Editions
and P.C. Roy’s Translation. London: Williams & Norgate.
WITZEL, M. 1986. Regionale und überregionale Faktoren in der Entwick-
lung vedischer Brahmanengruppen im Mittelalter. (Materialien zu den
vedischen Schulen 5). In: H. Kulke & D. Rothermund (ed.), Regionale
Tradition in Südasien. Heidelberg: Steiner-Verlag-Wiesbaden-GmbH,
pp. 37–76.

Text passage Name of king Places mentioned
AS 33.24–100 Maṇiśekhara, son of Naicāśākha, Sālagrāma

Durdharṣa(ṇa), grand-
son of Pramaganda
AS 42.40c–82 Śrutakīrti, king of Bhadraśālā, Svastika

Saurāṣṭra (city of Gandharvas)
AS 43.21c–44.56 Indra, king of the gods Kailāsa (abode of

Śiva), Himālaya
AS 45 Kuśadhvaja, king of Sarasvatī

the Janakas
AS 48.9–50b Muktāpīḍa, son of

Suśravas
AS 48.50c–64b Viśāla Viśālā
AS 48.64c–109 Sunīti Śṛṅgāra
AS 49 Citraśekhara, son of Bhadravāṭī, Sarasvatī

Uparicara
AS 50 Kīrtimālin, son of Viśālā, Sālagrāma,

Bhadraśṛṅga Puṣkara
AS 42.35–40b Kāśīrāja Vārāṇasī, Dvārakā

MARION RASTELLI 361
Problem Name(s) of helper(s) Solution to problem
demon Vikaṭākṣa and purodhas Kratu, sudarśanamantra,

his offspring torment Durvāsas worship of Sudarśana
all beings in Śālagrāma for one
month
king wants to conquer purodhas (no name visualization of the 62-
the Gandharva world mentioned) armed Sudarśana,
and be liberated from recitation of his mantra
transmigration and ritual worship
Indra is tormented by Bṛhaspati Śiva promises to kill
the demon Jalaṃdhara the demon by means of
the sudarśanamantra
king is tormented by kulaguru Yājñavalkya sādhana of Sudarśana
mahāmoha in order to destroy
prārabdha karman
demons bring the purodhas a throne (āsana) with
kingdom under their Sudarśana’s yantra in
control because it is which the king is
neglected by the king seated, performance
of a ritual
king will die within purohita Pulaha a ring (aṅgulīya) with
four days Sudarśana’s yantra
chases death’s servants
away
son is kidnapped and purohita; his guru a mirror helps find the
taken to the Nāga Kaṇva Nāga world and
world conquer the Nāga king
demon Amarṣaṇa Kubera, Mahālakṣmī a banner that helps kill
cannot be conquered the demon
by the king
Kīrtimālin cannot brahmin, purodhas a canopy with Sudar-
conquer Indra śana’s yantra helps
conquer Indra and gain
his friendship
the Kāśīrāja attacks no helpers mentioned Sudarśana kills the
Kṛṣṇa by means of a kṛtyā and the Kāśīrāja,
kṛtyā and destroys his town

In case of emergency:
Addressing rulers in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā
Francesco Bianchini1
It is now generally accepted that one way in which Tantric communities

sought to increase their influence and power was by creating bonds with
royal courts. The present paper deals with a specific instance of this im-
portant issue, by investigating the Vaiṣṇava Pāñcarātra Ahirbudh-
nyasaṃhitā (AhS), probably redacted in South India around the thirteenth
century,2 and its many strategies designed to address a courtly audience.
Occasional comparisons with other scriptures will also be included in order
to clarify the specific character of the AhS.
As already observed by a number of scholars, one of the prominent fea-
tures of the present Saṃhitā is its great emphasis on the fulfilment of the
ruler’s desires and his special needs, particularly in times of danger and
natural calamities.3 Perhaps partly because of this, we witness an absence
of the dimension of calendrical rituals as well as of the many minor tasks
court officiants would be normally expected to perform.
A second general observation regards the alleged militaristic dimension
of the AhS. Very little can be found in the Saṃhitā which explicitly has to
do with actual war scenarios, battle strategies, empowerment of the sol-
diers’ weapons, and similar themes. Instead, it is the king who is at the

1
I would like to thank Marion Rastelli of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, who
shared with me the fruits of her extensive research on the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā while
wholeheartedly supervising my MA thesis in 2015, on which this article is based.
Sincere thanks also go to Karin Preisendanz of the University of Vienna for her help
with the intricacies of textual criticism. Of course, I am indebted to the organisers
Nina Mirnig, Vincent Eltschinger, and again Marion Rastelli for giving a student this
wonderful opportunity. My special thanks go to Katharine Apostle for her help with
the English language.
2
See RASTELLI in this volume.
3
See in particular BEGLEY’s informative study, which deals with the iconography
of the multi-armed Sudarśana and also touches upon aspects of his worship as depic-
ted in Pāñcarātra texts (1973: 65ff).
centre of attention and it is a certain ideal of kingship which eventually

emerges. The work portrays an idealised ruler who, thanks to the power of
Sudarśana, the personified discus of Viṣṇu, deployed by his priest, is per-
fectly capable of both conquering beyond limit and of protecting his territo-
ry against dangerous enemies. What the redactors of the work are advertis-
ing is precisely this ideal of empowered kingship, which is sometimes illus-
trated by means of stereotypical war or calamity scenarios4.
Regarding the editions used in this article, it should be noted that the
transmission of the text remains uncertain at this point. For the philological
choices of the author of this article, please consult the appendix, which
attempts to outline the policies of and manuscripts used by the editors of
the text and how these affect the readings.
Introductory remarks on the structure of the AhS

One of the main challenges of reading a work like the AhS is identifying
the changes the text underwent in the course of time. A reliable critical
edition is key to this process, yet how far back in history we can actually
reach depends on the stemmatic relations of the witnesses.
How many revisions did the AhS undergo? How old are the current di-
vision into adhyāyas (chapters) and the praising stanzas at their beginning?
For example, the adhyāyas at the end of the work could have easily been
added to the main text at some later point. Unfortunately, much of this re-
mains unclear at present (see appendix of this paper).
The portion of the text considered here is that between adhyāyas 16 to
50. The first significant mention of kings is found in adhyāya 16, where the
teaching about mantras begins. The last circle of narratives ends with
adhyāya 50, before the opening of an exegetical coda regarding various
specific mantras which carries on until the end of the work.
Interestingly, sections dealing with closely related topics are found scat-
tered throughout this portion of the work in a way that would appear ran-
dom. Schrader had to group some of these sections together when summa-
rising the contents of the work.5 This might be a drastic solution, but it is
also practical. The materials found in this portion could be brought together

4
BEGLEY had already observed that the themes of conquest and protection mirror
the distinction between Sudarśana’s offensive and defensive weapons (cf. BEGLEY
1973: 79).
5
Cf. SCHRADER 1916: 118.
FRANCESCO BIANCHINI 365
under the following thematic headings: mantras, yantras, rituals, narratives,

divine weapons (divya astras) and yoga.6 One can see that the adhyāyas
devoted to mantras contain a total of 269 stanzas (without counting the
coda after adhyāya 50), those on yantras a total of 508, those devoted to
specific rituals 435, those on narratives 694, those on divine weapons 308,
and finally those on yoga 123. Obviously, this data is not very precise,7 but
it can be used to point out the importance (at least in terms of space) given
to narratives and descriptions of yantras in the AhS.
Again on royal officiants and rulers
Rulers and members of the royal court occupy a prominent position and can
be said to be the main target audience. Particularly relevant from the histor-
ical point of view is the role played by officiants. Rastelli has identified and
translated passages dealing with the royal officiant, often called purohita in
the Saṃhitā, and his king.8 The main topics dealt with in such passages are:
the superiority of the king, the qualities of the ideal officiant, the fact that
he is necessary to the king, and that they ought to join forces for the welfare
of the kingdom as well as for their own. References to the Atharvaveda,
which is classically associated with the sphere of royal ritual, are also quite
frequent.9 These aspects are skilfully linked to a theological background.

6
The correspondences are as follows: mantras AhS 16–19; yantras I AhS 20–27;
rituals I AhS 28–29; astras I AhS 30; yoga AhS 31–32; narrative I AhS 33; astras II
AhS 34–35; yantras II AhS 36–37; ritual II AhS 38–39; astras III AhS 40; narrative
II AhS 41–45; ritual III AhS 46–47; narrative III AhS 48–50. See for details about
this categorisation BIANCHINI 2015: 18–24.
7
Not only are the “labels” (like yantras etc.) somewhat arbitrary, but in a few
cases they do not entirely correspond to full adhyāyas. For example, adhyāyas 42 to
46 constitute a good example for a section where the superstructure does not apply
without difficulty. At the beginning of AhS 42, a long description of calamities ari-
sing in a kingdom because of an enemy’s attack by means of hostile magic (abhi-
cāra) is not part of the main narrative occupying the rest of the adhyāya. The same
applies to the description of the perfect court officiant in adhyāya 46, quite separate
from the rest of the content (although still connected to the issue of ritual procedure).
In fact, even adhyāyas could be subdivided into smaller units, and in rare cases such
units would require special categories.
8
The passages translated by RASTELLI 2018 are AhS 16.10c–27; AhS 46.3–11;
AhS 33.60c–66; and 33.74b–77b.
9
Cf. RASTELLI 2018. Some of the main ideas are that the sudarśanamantra originated
from the Atharvaveda (AhS 20.21c–24b) and that a saṃskāra performed according to the

For example, the power of ritual action by means of mantras goes back to
Viṣṇu’s creative power (kriyāśakti), and Lakṣmī stands for the idea of “for-
tune” residing in the institutions represented by the king and the brāhmaṇa,
and this is also described as the basis of the kriyāśakti itself.10
The beginning of adhyāya 16 is a remarkable example of how these mo-
tifs can be brought together in a literary fashion. In order to avoid repeti-
tions, only part of the passage will be quoted here. The following example
is a statement about the king’s superiority:
The king is praised in revealed knowledge (veda) and systematised

bodies of knowledge (śāstra) as a double brāhmaṇa (i.e., as worth
twice as much as a brāhmaṇa). If one is hostile to him out of delu-
sion, that fool is hostile to Hari [himself].11
But a much more challenging passage that does not directly concern the
officiant and therefore was not included by Rastelli can be found further on
in the same context:
A ruler who is a universal sovereign is entitled to the first, a provin-

cial governor to the second, and a district governor to the third [level
of] creative energy (kriyāśakti), or a twice-born chief minister [too],
provided he is in charge of the protection of many people. No single
man is entitled to deploy it for [just] one other person.12

Atharvaveda can be substituted for the initiation ritual (AhS 20.47–48b).
10
Cf. AhS 16.12–16 on these topics.
11
AhS 16.16: dviguṇo brāhmaṇo rājā vedaśāstreṣu gīyate | yas tu taṃ dveṣṭi
saṃmohāt sa hariṃ dveṣṭi durmatiḥ || (16a brāhmaṇo [ed.] – brahmaṇo [A B C J]). It is
interesting to notice that SCHRADER’s (1916) remarks about stemma relations seem to
apply quite well to the present situation. The accepted archetypical reading might be
puzzling at first due to the series of three nominatives, and a copyist could be tempted to
simplify the reading by shortening the ā of brāhmaṇaḥ in order to form an ablative, which
could be easily constructed with dviguṇa. However, the reading with the nominative is
perfectly acceptable. The corruption is found in mss. ABC, which according to
SCHRADER (1916) are very close to each other and occupy lower positions in the (hypo-
thetical) stemma (ms. J was added in the second edition, cf. AhS Ed2: vii).
12
AhS 16.28–29: cakravartī nṛpaḥ pūrvāṃ dvitīyāṃ maṇḍaleśvaraḥ | adhikuryāt
kriyāśaktiṃ tṛtīyāṃ viṣayeśvaraḥ || 28 mahāmātro dvijātir vā yo bahvī rakṣati prajāḥ |
imāṃ naiko naraḥ kuryād ekasmai mānavāya tu || 29 (28c kriyāśaktiṃ [ed.] – imāṃ
śaktim [D]; 29c imāṃ naiko [ed.] – imām eko [B C E F J]).
A few points deserve attention here. These stanzas illustrate the concept
that rulers of varying power, who are arranged in a descending climax, hold
a corresponding degree of entitlement to the kriyāśakti, which in the pre-
sent context is related to the power of mantras. More importantly, the last
verse sets the lower limit to this entitlement, apparently stating that no (or-
dinary) man can use this power for a single other person. If this was the
case, then the whole passage would amount to limiting the context to the
public dimension, in opposition to the private one. However, as many as
five witnesses state exactly the contrary, reading imām eko instead of imāṃ
naiko. If we follow the reading imām eko, the passage amounts to stating
that what is really not accepted is that one uses the mantras for oneself
alone. However, other passages seem to support the idea that the people
entitled (adhikārin) to use the mantras are really members of the court,13
and there would be little point in mentioning all the qualified people in the
present passage (and even adding yo bahvī rakṣati prajāḥ) only to end up
saying that after all anyone is entitled to it. Also, if Schrader was correct in
taking dvijāti as an apposition to mahāmātra and not as a fourth entitled
person in his paraphrase of the passage, then jumping directly to a common
person would constitute a significant gap. Without direct access to the
manuscripts and with significant stemmatic uncertainties, such matters are
not easily settled. They also raise the question of how much consistency
one can actually expect in a work of this kind.
In search for more specific, and possibly historically relevant, descrip-
tions of not only kings but also officiants, the present author sought to ex-
amine whether a clear distinction was made in the AhS between two classes
of royal priests, the more “humble” class of royal chaplains (court officiant
stricto sensu) and the more prestigious one of the royal preceptors
(guru/rājaguru). That such a dichotomy might indeed be relevant was in-
stilled in the present author’s mind by Sanderson’s remarks in his important

Translating such terms as maṇḍaleśvara, viṣayeśvara, or mahāmātra with any preci-
sion is not an easy task, especially because their meaning changed according to time
and place, as often explained in the corresponding entries in SIRCAR’s (1966) Indian
Epigraphical Glossary, on which the renderings here heavily rely.
13
Cf., for example: “This mantra and yantra are truly prescribed for kings. O Nārada,
the collections of mantras serve all general purposes. If the earth-master’s ministers are
engaged in their worship, they protect the king even in the presence of bad omens [indi-
cating that his life is in danger].” (AhS 27.43–44: ayaṃ mantraś ca ya-ntraṃ ca rājñām
eva vidhīyate | sarvasādhāraṇārthāni mantrajātāni nārada || etadabhyarcanaparā ma-
ntriṇo yasya bhūpateḥ | abhirakṣanti rājānam ariṣṭamukhato ’pi te ||).

study of the royal chaplain of the Śaiva scripture Netratantra, where the
two figures are clearly distinguished.14 In this connection, let us consider
the following passage from the AhS, while also remembering that Atharva-
vedic motifs play a prominent role in the work:
Such a court officiant (purohita) who is [himself] like a guru to kings

is difficult to find. Such a one is verily capable of warding off the
flood of misdeeds [and their consequences] for kings. Therefore, he
alone is able to perform the rituals of protection of kings. He who has
such a guru [by his side] shall become a sovereign king, one with a
long life, one free of enemies and diseases, and a slayer of hostile he-
roes.
In his dominion there shall be no devastations such as droughts etc.

If the king, in the absence of [such a capable] one, has a different
(i.e., ordinary) guru or court officiant [at his side], that supporter of
the earth shall get the opposite [result] (i.e., unfavourable things),
there is no doubt about that.15
The first expression found is gurukalpaḥ purohitaḥ, “a court officiant (puro-

hita) who is [himself] like a guru.” Ad 9c the officiant is simply called guru
and ad 11b again the two are separated in gurur vātha purohitaḥ, “a guru or a
court officiant.” What are the reasons for this ambivalence? Is one to under-
stand that the officiant of Sudarśana’s cult is just like a guru, even if his
Atharvavedic legacy makes him technically a purohita? Is a group of purohi-
tas close to Atharvavedic circles trying to enhance their status by promoting
Tantric worship of Sudarśana in the context of the royal court? These are the
important issues at stake here, gleaming, as it were, through the terminologi-
cal choices of the redactors. In an attempt to avoid speculation, the quest for
further evidence was continued in a context which was more likely to shed
light on such details – the context of the narratives.

14
Cf. SANDERSON 2004: 233.
15
AhS 46.8–11: īdṛśo durlabho rājñāṃ gurukalpaḥ purohitaḥ | īdṛśo hi kṣamo
rājñām aghaughavinivāraṇe || 8 ataḥ sa eva rājñāṃ hi rakṣāvidhim athārhati |
evaṃvidho gurur yasya sa saṃrāḍ nṛpatir bhavet || 9 dīrghāyur niḥsapatnaḥ syād
arogaḥ paravīrahā | avagrahādyā jāyante pīḍās tadviṣaye na hi || 10 taṃ vinānyo
bhaved rājño gurur vātha purohitaḥ | viparītaṃ bhavet tasya mahībhartur na saṃśa-
yaḥ || 11 (8d aghaughavinivāraṇe [ed.] – aghaughasya nivāraṇe [A B E F]). The
passage is translated in RASTELLI 2018.
Despite the fact that the content of the narratives is basically fictional,
the present author was hoping to gain at least new insights into the func-
tions of different classes of royal priests and to subsequently build a typol-
ogy which could throw light on them as historical agents as well.
For example, one kind of officiant in the narratives is the one present at
the royal court, who has direct access to the king and ministers (as is the
first purohita mentioned in the story of Sunanda, AhS 48.64cff.). Some
narratives depict another character, which appears to reside outside of the
court, for instance in a hermitage (like Pulaha in the story of Viśāla, AhS
48.50ff.). This second character can be approached directly by the king or
by the court officiant. The fact that the court officiant goes to him for help
could imply that the latter is more powerful or more knowledgeable about
the deity Sudarśana. One would therefore be tempted to separate the char-
acters into the group of court officiants proper (i.e., rather humble “chap-
lains”) on the one hand and powerful sages (who are possibly also royal
preceptors) on the other.
However, two problems arise: First of all, the narratives do not present
sufficient details on the characters to clearly identify and separate the kind
of services they could provide. Secondly, the terms used to address them
are not clearly distinct. For example, in the story of King Viśāla (AhS
48.50ff.), the king himself goes to the hermitage of Pulaha, who thus seems
to be absent from the court. Nevertheless, Pulaha is called a purohita, the
same term commonly used in the narratives for the officiant present at the
court.16 But in the story of Muktāpīḍa (AhS 48.9ff.), the officiant at the
court is called both purodhas as well as guru, a term which we would ex-
pect to be linked to a sage or preceptor more than to an officiant.17 In the
story of Sunanda (AhS 48.64ff.), the officiant present at the court, called
purodhas, seeks the help of Kaṇva, who is performing asceticism on the
banks of a river. Kaṇva is here called “[the officiant’s] own guru” (sva-
guru), as could ideally be expected.18 Finally, in the story of Kuśadhvaja
(AhS 45), the king himself approaches Yājñavalkya, who does not live in a
forest but in his own palace (mandira). Yājñavalkya is called guru as well
as kulaguru (family preceptor).19
Due to the paucity of descriptions concerning the functions of these
characters and to the inconsistent use of their titles, it is very difficult to

16
Cf. AhS 48.58.
17
Cf. AhS 48.13–14.
18
Cf. AhS 48.80.
19
Cf. AhS 45.17.

clearly separate the two categories of officiants. After all, it is not unlikely
that this difficulty is the result of a carefully conceived strategy on the part
of the redactor(s) of the narratives, who wished to convey the idea of the
respectability and relative independence of the cult’s officiant.
This being the case, the only possible way to further investigate the
court officiants of the AhS is to examine the actual ritual repertoire. This
subject will be further discussed below in the section on notes on the ritual
repertoire.
Getting the king’s attention
Among the adhyāyas devoted to the topic of yantra,20 adhyāyas 26–27 and
36–37 are particularly rich in descriptions of the benefits of yantra worship
for rulers. Here motifs of expansion and protection of the kingdom, alt-
hough virtually ubiquitous, are found side by side with many other possible
attainments on the part of rulers. A key passage found in adhyāya 26 ad-
dresses these issues:
One desirous of a kingdom, one who has been deprived of it, or one
conquered by [other] rulers, after having paid respect with large
masses of wealth to the supreme guru, the giver of Sudarśana's yan-
tra, considering [him] superior to all, should propitiate God
Nārāyaṇa – who has large eyes like lotuses, is [of] a dark [complex-
ion], clad in a yellow garment, adorned with all ornaments, and with
four arms – following the rules given by the teacher.
He should have the supreme yantra constructed out of refined gold,
with decorations of gems and coral and with all [the necessary]
adornments. Just by doing this, he shall obtain a kingdom free of dis-
order. Having [properly] installed it, he should respectfully worship
this [yantra] which bestows all accomplishments. Then he shall ob-
tain the [whole] earth with its seven divisions and cities. Siddhas,
Gandharvas, and Dānavas will be forever subdued. On earth he will
rule over the entire kingdom of the three worlds. [The demons born
of] the aggressive magic (abhicāra) of [his] enemies, having failed to
take hold of him, frightened, will possess the performer [of the ritual]

20
yantras could be tentatively described as diagrams that represent the deity and
catalyse its powers. An overview of their use in the Pāñcarātra context can be found
in RASTELLI 2003: 142–151.
(i.e., the enemy himself), like a river[’s fury] blocked by a mountain.

Droughts will end and enemies will run away. In his kingdom there
will be no dangers in the form of untimely deaths, wild animals,
beasts of prey, thieves, illnesses, etc. and strength shall reside in his
lineage.21
Right at the beginning, the text expresses the two main concerns of rulers in
the AhS: the wish to either increase one’s power and dominion or to retain
it, for example by protecting it from enemies. The next stanza clearly im-
plies how instrumental the officiant is for the ruler’s success. This is fol-
lowed by the actual worship, with the implication that it is the king who
sponsors the construction of any solid substratum (an idea expressed by the
causative kārayet).
After this come the actual benefits. Note how the theme of expansion
comes first and is divided into two phases: the kings are first promised the
conquest of the earth and subsequently even that of the complex of three
worlds (trailokya). Then the description shifts to the theme of protection,
which is related to hostile magic, enemy troops, and calamities. Finally, the
expression vidyate tatkule balam (“strength shall reside in his lineage”)
could be taken to include other benefits such as freedom from diseases, a
long life, wealth, etc.
One should also notice how the deity and its worship are given great
prominence. A deity like Sudarśana is already perfectly suitable in this
context, yet the redactors felt the need to state this as clearly as possible:

21
AhS 26.82c–91b: rājyārthī hṛtarājyo vā paribhūto ’thavā nṛpaiḥ || 82 saudarśa-
nasya yantrasya pradātāraṃ guruṃ param | sarvebhyo hy adhikaṃ matvā tam abhya-
rcya mahādhanaiḥ || 83 tato nārāyaṇaṃ devaṃ puṇḍarīkāyatekṣaṇam | śyāmalaṃ
pītavasanaṃ sarvābharaṇabhūṣitam || 84 ārādhayec caturbāhum ācāryeṇoktavi-
dhānataḥ | taptajāmbūnadamayaṃ maṇividrumacitritam || 85 sarvālaṃkārasaṃyuktaṃ
kārayed yantram uttamam | etatkaraṇamātreṇa rājyam āpnoty anāmayam || 86
pratiṣṭhāpyārcayed etat sādaraṃ sarvasiddhidam | tato bhūmim avāpnoti saptadvīpāṃ
sapattanām || 87 vaśyā bhavanti satataṃ siddhagandharvadānavāḥ | trailokyarājyam
akhilaṃ pālayaty avanītale || 88 abhicārāḥ parakṛtāś cainam aprāpya bhīṣitāḥ | pra-
viśanti prayoktāram āpagevācalāhatā || 89 avagrahāś ca naśyanti śatravo vidravanti
ca | apamṛtyumṛgavyālacorarogādibhir bhayam || 90 na tasya rājye bhavati vidyate
tatkule balam | (89b bhīṣitāḥ [ed.] – dīpitāḥ [D, the first edition, adds a question mark
to this reading (AhS Ed1: 246)]). An English translation of a part of this passage can be
found in RASTELLI 2003: 149.

“Without the propitiation of this deity [i.e., Sudarśana] there simply cannot
be a king.”22
Let us look at the alleged benefits more closely. Beginning with exam-
ples where promises of easy territorial expansion are prominent, the follow-
ing passage found in the context of the dhārakayantra, “the yantra of the
bearer [of the sudarśanayantra],”23 deserves mention. One should keep in
mind that this is neither the only nor the first passage found in the AhS
which connects yantras with conquest, but merely an example.24
The king shall obtain a kingdom, victory, wealth, a long life, and
freedom from diseases. A king who regularly worships shall conquer
this whole earth, with its seven divisions and her garment of seas.25
Clearly, the central theme is that of the attainment of universal sovereignty

(cakravartitva). But even if new territory and victory are mentioned at the
beginning of what seems to be a reverse climax, other benefits of a personal
nature also found their way into the list. A similar list is found in the con-
text of the daily ritual, but there the ritual “bestows long life, freedom from
diseases, victory, and territory” and also “gives wealth and grains”
(āyurārogyavijayabhūpradaṃ dhanadhānyadam, AhS 28.1). This points to
the fact that the above is not a fixed formula but inflected according to the
context. It would also appear that on certain occasions the choice of an
order is influenced by stylistic criteria. These include not only the metre but
alliterations26 as well as poetic expressions, which can also be appreciated

22
AhS 36.46cd: devam enam anārādhya na kaścij jāyate nṛpaḥ ||.
23
RASTELLI explains the use of this kind of yantra as follows: “The power of the
saudarśanayantra is considered to be so great that a human being cannot wear it
without additionally having a dhārakayantra” (2003: 150f.).
24
Cf., for example, AhS 25.24 as well as the following passage: “Therefore the
king who worships this [yantra], being imbued with devotion, will very quickly
obtain universal sovereignty over the earth. The king, his attendants, or ministers or
others, wishing the benefit of the king, should all worship this supreme [yantra].”
(AhS 36.24c–26b: tasmād abhyarcayed etad yo rājā bhaktisaṃyutaḥ || so ’cireṇaiva
kālena cakravartitvam āpnuyāt | rājā vā rājabhṛtyā vā mantriṇo vāthavā pare ||
rājñāṃ hitaiṣiṇaḥ sarve pūjayeyur idaṃ param |).
25
AhS 27.33c–34: rājā rājyaṃ jayaṃ bhūtim āyur ārogyam āpnuyāt || 33 nityam
arcayato rājñaḥ saptadvīpavatī mahī | samudravasanā caiṣā viśvā vaśyā bhaviṣyati ||
34 (33c jayaṃ [ed.] – priyam [A B C E F]; 34c samudravasanā [ed.] – sasa-
mudravanā [A B C E F]).
26
For example in the following passage, where one could notice the alliterative
in this passage itself: note the sequence viśvā vaśyā bhaviṣyati and the ex-
pression samudravasanā, “garment of seas,” preserved by D (a manuscript
occupying a high position in the hypothetical stemma, although often im-
precise) but changed in the other witnesses.27
The term cakravartin was already found in the adhyāya 16 in the context
of the important discussion about the officiant and the king. The theme re-
ceives further attention in the description of a specific ritual to aid the king’s
conquest of all directions, including the upper and lower worlds and all the
beings dwelling in them (AhS 29) as well as the story of Śrutakīrti (AhS 42).
While there can be no doubt that the theme of conquest receives much
attention in the AhS, it also lacks practical connotations. More interesting
in terms of relevant details is the theme of protection. As seen above, dan-
ger can come from enemy troops, black magic, and calamities. A remarka-
bly vivid description, given that it is not found in one of the narratives but
in the later section on yantras, tells of a difficult situation caused by enemy
troops:
When kings are overpowered by enemies with an army (or: by strong

enemies), when cities are burnt down and the king’s army is driven
away, when people in various districts do not have access to food [and
other goods] – if the kingdom is thus oppressed by the enemies’ army,
O great sage, and if in this inadequate situation the king’s enemies are
unimpeded, he should have a sixteen-armed Sudarśana constructed
[and properly installed, for his power is] without obstacles.28
The above description was used by Begley to illustrate how the sixteen-
armed Sudarśana is closely connected to the theme of warfare.29

beginning in nīroga and niḥsapatna (as well as in rājā rājyam): anena kṛtakṛtyas tu
rājā rājyam avāpnuyāt | nīrogo niḥsapatnaś ca dīrghāyuś ca bhaviṣyati || (AhS
27.39), “The king who has fulfilled his obligations by means of this shall attain king-
dom and he shall be free of diseases, without enemies, and with a long life.”
27
This might be further evidence for the existence of a common ancestor of ABC
and EF, as proposed above.
28
AhS 37.4–6: parair abhibhave prāpte rājñāṃ balasamanvitaiḥ | nagareṣu
pradagdheṣu rājñāṃ vidrāvite bale || 4 uparuddheṣu bhogeṣu tattadviṣayavāsinām |
pīḍyamāne parabalair itthaṃ rāṣṭre mahāmune || 5 sthitāv anupapannāyāṃ rājño
’vyucchinnavairiṇaḥ | kārayet ṣoḍaśabhujaṃ sudarśanam avāritam || 6 (4c prada-
gdheṣu [ed.] – prabhinneṣu [A B E F]; 4d rājñāṃ [ed.] – rājye [D]; 4d bale [ed.] –
balaiḥ [D]).
29
Cf. BEGLEY 1973: 73.

A remarkable passage is found outside the adhyāyas on yantras, in chap-

ter 42, which is mostly devoted to a single narrative. However, the opening
of the adhyāya is not part of such a narrative. The passage is a good example
of how calamities and war may be associated with black magic.
An abnormal modification (vikṛti) caused by an aggressive ritual (ab-
hicāra) against kings, occurring at an improper time, dreadful and all-
reaching, is characterised by these signs:
Horses, elephants, and ministers suddenly perish; the king himself

suffers from a serious illness which has seized [his] body; terrifying
thunderbolts strike his dominion; the earth produces less grains and
multitudes of cows fall dead; his dominion suffers from droughts
again and again; the earth-master’s queens are seized by serious ill-
ness; snakes and ants appear in the palace, at the main gate, and in
the pavilion (maṇḍapa); meteors fall violently with dreadful sounds;
ministers fight with each other out of greediness; a terrifying rainbow
shines in the night, even if there are no clouds; great danger because
of fire arises here and there in the city; frightful jackals enter the in-
nermost of the temple unimpededly and howl loudly during the
[morning and evening] twilights, when the sky is lit up; enemies
proud of their strength besiege the king’s [capital] city; [the king] is
so deluded that he himself forgets what is to be done and not done; in
a dream he sees himself with a shaven head and clad in a dark blue
garment, travelling towards the southern direction on a cart pulled by
a donkey;30 from such and other signs he should understand that the
enemy is performing an aggressive ritual.
If the hostile spirit (kṛtyā) born of the enemy’s aggressive ritual takes
possession of the king, the latter would die on the spot, simply after
having seen her, there is no doubt about that. [The king’s] sons, min-
isters, chief queen as well as the city itself – the hostile spirit, clad in
a garland of flames, destroys everything in just a second.31

30
All these images are notoriously negative, especially the southward journey,
i.e., to Yama’s region.
31
AhS 42.15–26: lakṣyate lakṣaṇair etair nṛpāṇām ābhicārikī | vikṛtiḥ prastutākāle
dāruṇā sarvagocarā || 15 akāṇḍa eva naśyanti vājivāraṇamantriṇaḥ | tīvrāma-
yaparītāṅgaḥ pīḍyate nṛpatiḥ svayam || 16 patanty aśanayas tasya viṣaye ghorada-
rśanāḥ | alpasasyā vasumatī vinaśyanti gavāṃ gaṇāḥ || 17 bhavanti tasya viṣaye punaḥ
punar avagrahāḥ | tīvrāmayagṛhītāś ca mahiṣyas tasya bhūpateḥ || 18 prabhavanty
Once again, as expressed in the following lines, it is the worship of Sudar-

śana which will save the kingdom and the members of the royal court. De-
scriptions of bad omens or calamities are a common topos in literature of
this kind. They are also found in the second part (khaṇḍa) of the
Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa32 as well as in the Netratantra.33 The passage
presented above amounts to the statement that calamities can be caused
and/or manipulated through ritual action. In the narratives too, kings nor-
mally protect themselves against powerful demons,34 and this contributes to
the idea that the AhS is not really concerned with actual politics (or war-
fare) but rather with giving kings a means of dealing with the unexpected as
well as the inexplicable.
As previously mentioned, benefits of a more personal kind are also prom-

ised to rulers. One could interpret some of them, such as freedom from
diseases or attainment of a long life, as an extension of the theme of protec-
tion. Other benefits, such as attainment of wealth, can be connected with a
different theme, that of the fulfilment of desires, which receives considera-
ble attention, since a whole complex ritual is devoted to it (the mahābhiṣe-
ka ritual of adhyāya 39, see below).

ahivalmīkāḥ prāsāde dvāri maṇḍape | nipatanti maholkāś ca bhṛśaṃ bhīmasvanā-
nvitāḥ || 19 mantriṇaś ca virudhyante matsareṇa parasparam | rajanyāṃ rājate
bhīmam aindraṃ dhanur anabhrajam || 20 itas tato vahnibhayaṃ nagare jāyate
bhṛśam | praviśya garbhabhavanaṃ kroṣṭāraś cānivāritāḥ || 21 krośanti saṃdhyayor
bhīmā dīptāyāṃ diśi visvaram | rundhanti nagaraṃ rājñaḥ śatravo baladarpitāḥ || 22
kṛtyākṛtyaṃ na jānāti svayaṃ staimityam āsthitaḥ | svapne ’pi paśyaty ātmānaṃ
muṇḍitaṃ nīlavāsasam || 23 rathena gardabhayujā vrajantaṃ dakṣiṇāṃ diśam | ityā-
diliṅgair jānīyād abhicāraṃ sapatnajam || 24 parābhicārajā kṛtyā rājānaṃ praviśed
yadi | tāṃ dṛṣṭvā kṣipram evāsau vinaśyati na saṃśayaḥ || 25 putrāṃś ca mantriṇaś
cāpi mahiṣīṃ nagaraṃ tathā | jvālāmālāvilā kṛtyā sarvaṃ nāśayati kṣaṇāt || 26 (19a
prabhavanty ahi [ed.] – prabhavanty api [A B E F]; 20c rājate [ed.] – jāyate [D]; 20d
anabhrajam [ed.] – anabhrakam [A B E F]; 23b āsthitaḥ [ed.] – āśritaḥ [A B E F]).
32
Cf. Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa, khaṇḍa 2, adhyāya 136ff. The description is qui-
te detailed and explicitly refers to kings, speaking of how their safety as well as that
of their kingdoms might be at risk in the presence of certain bad omens. As could be
expected, much space is devoted to unusual natural phenomena. There is also a sec-
tion on interpreting animal behaviour (cf. 2.143). As in the AhS, there are also refe-
rences to a decline in people’s ability to behave according to social standards and
regulations (cf. 2.144).
33
Cf. SANDERSON 2004: 262.
34
Cf., for example, the story of Indra (AhS 43–44) and that of Citraśekhara (AhS 49).
For summaries of the stories, cf. SCHRADER 1916: 132ff. and RASTELLI in this volume.

Promising benefits and illustrating them by means of narratives35 can

thus be seen as the main strategy, but the redactors of the work resorted to
other strategies as well. One of these is threatening the court with disaster
in case Sudarśana’s worship is not conducted properly:36
Having had constructed [an image of] Sudarśana with such various
aspects, [but] not having installed [the image properly], the kings and
ministers will at once lose [all their] wealth and be defeated by
[their] enemies. Because of the absence of worship, they will [even-
tually] be banished from the kingdom and persecuted.37
Other strategies include mentioning kings of the past, usually known from
the epics, who apparently would have immensely profited from the worship
of Sudarśana,38 or explaining that the method of worship of the AhS is the
perfect one for the current degenerated age.39
Notes on the ritual repertoire

So far, the main focus of this papers has been on the adhyāyas on yantra
worship. Now we move on to those concerned with specific rituals, where
we find the same basic thematic patterns of offence/defence followed by
the fulfilment of desires (kāmya).
Besides the ritual of initiation (dīkṣā, AhS 20) and the daily ritual
(ārādhana, AhS 28), which are quite clearly connected to a courtly con-
text,40 the repertoire of the AhS includes: a ritual to aid the conquest in all

35
For further considerations on the functions of narratives in the AhS, see
RASTELLI’s contribution in this volume.
36
Cf. also AhS 37.18.
37
AhS 37.50–51: evaṃ bahuvidhai rūpair upetaṃ taṃ sudarśanam | kṛtvā tam
apratiṣṭhāpya rājāno mantriṇo ’pi vā || 50 vinaṣṭasaṃpadaḥ sadyaḥ paribhūtāś ca
śatrubhiḥ | arcanābhāvato rājyād bhraṣṭāś ciram upadrutāḥ || 51.
38
Cf., for example, AhS 47.9ff. The identification of the kings of the narratives with
those found in the epic is a central issue in RASTELLI’s contribution in this volume.
39
Cf. the beginning of adhyāya 25.
40
In the case of the dīkṣā ritual description, the courtly dimension is inferred
from a passage at the end of the chapter: “The practice is to be performed for the
protection of the three worlds, for the sake of the [welfare of the] earth, for the sake
of the kingdom, the king, or a royal officer. [It should be done] only for [their]
good, never for evil [purposes].” (AhS 20.50b–51: trailokyasyātha rakṣāyai bhuvaś
cakrasya vā kṛte || 50 rāṣṭrasya vātha rājño vā rājamātrasya vā kṛte | bhāvāyaiva
directions, including the heavens (digvijaya, AhS 29), a ritual to cure vari-
ous illnesses (roganivṛtti, AhS 38), one to fulfil all desires (mahābhiṣeka,
AhS 39), and a pacificatory ritual (śānti, AhS 47). The aims attached to
these rituals in the corresponding adhyāyas are generally quite straightfor-
ward.41 The description of the pacificatory ritual’s aims includes both the
theme of protection as well as that of conquest.
Is there anything we can say about this repertoire of rituals? The method
adopted here follows the one used by Sanderson in his study of the Śaiva
officiant of the Netratantra. He compared the repertoire outlined in that
work with a list of the purohita’s duties from the Atharvavedapariśiṣṭa
(3.1.10), which, in his rendering, include:
(1) Rituals to ward off dangers and ills of every kind from the king and
his kingdom (śāntikaṃ karma), some of them simple rites to protect the
king’s person to be performed at various times every day, others much
more elaborate ceremonies to be performed periodically, (2) rituals to re-
store his health and vigour (pauṣṭikaṃ karma), (3) rituals to harm his ene-
mies (ābhicārikaṃ karma), (4) the regular and occasional rituals (nityaṃ
karma and naimittikaṃ karma) required of the king, (5) reparatory rites

vidhiḥ kāryo naivābhāvāya karhicit || 51). In the case of the daily ritual this is
slightly less explicit. Notice, however, that its benefit include victory, gaining
territory, and dealing with enemies (AhS 28.1–2).
41
The description of the pacificatory ritual’s aims includes both the theme of pro-
tection as well as that of conquest. It also attempts to appear more convincing by
listing the names of “rulers of old” who had performed the ritual: “[This rite] should
be employed by utterly glorious sovereigns of various births – [for this rite] removes
all the three kinds of sorrow which begin with the one relating to oneself; causes the
destruction of all afflictions; has auspicious marks; destroys all enemies; pacifies
(i.e., removes unwanted consequences of ritual mistakes etc.); is the cause of great
triumph; kills the demons; brings about prosperities; subdues all, O sage; bestows the
longest of lives; is meritorious; [and] was performed by ancient kings. Ambarīśa,
Śuka, Alarka, Māndhātṛ, Purūravas, King Uparicara, Dhundhu, Śibi, and Śrutakīrtana
– those kings of old attained universal sovereignty after performing this. They beca-
me free of diseases and free of enemies. Their fame was widely spread and blamel-
ess.” (47.5c–10b: mahārājair mahābhāgaiḥ prayojyaṃ vyastajātibhiḥ || 5 ādhyā-
tmikādiduḥkhānāṃ trayāṇām api nāśanam | ādhīnāṃ cāpy aśeṣāṇāṃ nāśanaṃ śubha-
lakṣaṇam || 6 sarvārināśanaṃ śāntaṃ mahāvijayakāraṇam | rakṣohaṇaṃ puṣṭikaraṃ
sarvavaśyakaraṃ mune || 7 paramāyuḥpradaṃ puṇyaṃ pūrvair nṛpatibhiḥ kṛtam |
ambarīṣaḥ śuko ’larko māṃdhātā ca purūravāḥ || 8 rājoparicaro dhundhuḥ śibiś ca
śrutakīrtanaḥ | kṛtvaitac cakravartitvaṃ purā prāpur amī nṛpāḥ || 9 nirāmayā
niḥsapatnā vistīrṇāmalakīrtayaḥ |).

(prāyaścittīyaṃ karma), and (6) postmortuary rites (aurdhvadehikaṃ kar-

ma) in case the king or any other member of the royal family dies.42
A mere glimpse at the passage above is sufficient to notice that many
ritual duties of the traditional Atharvavedic officiant are not part of the
repertoire of the AhS. Annual festivals are not considered, and rituals in-
cluding minor personal services are poorly represented.43 The procedure for
curing various illnesses (AhS 38) could be seen as an exception. Interest-
ingly, postmortuary and reparatory rituals are also not covered by the
AhS.44 In other words, it would appear that much of what makes up the
daily routine of a courtly officiant is not dealt with in the AhS, whereas
special or extraordinary situations and needs receive most of the attention.
One possible explanation for this could be that the intention of the re-
dactors is really to portray an officiant of quite a high standing, essential to
a ruler in truly difficult situations.
Another missing element in the AhS is the practical side of warfare.
Annual ceremonies celebrating military power, worship of weapons or
horses, battle strategies – none of this is dealt with. The only hint at a di-
mension which goes beyond those of courtly rituals or literary fancy is the
idea that yantras or divine weapons could be of actual help in difficult situ-
ations if one meditates on them. Explicit evidence for this is difficult to find
outside of the narratives proper.45 Nevertheless, a couple of passages in the
AhS are very interesting in this regard, and their very existence points at a
much wider background of the practice of magic for practical military pur-
pose.46 Again, both the Viṣṇudharmottara and the Netratantra are quite
explicit about this dimension.47

42
43
It is interesting to note that calendrical rituals and even minor services of the
purohita figure prominently both in the Viṣṇudharmottara and the Netratantra (cf.
SANDERSON 2004: 256.).
44
Reparatory rituals are not entirely absent from Pāñcarātra scriptures addressing
kings. Saṃhitās which include this kind of procedures are mentioned in CZERNIAK-
DROŻDŻOWICZ 2003: 142ff.
45
Cf., for instance, the story of Sumati (48.64ff.), where the “soporific” weapon
(prāsvapana) and the “fiery” one (āgneya) are deployed by the king in order to win
the battle.
46
Cf., for example, this interesting statement: “He who remembers this at the time
when fear comes about or in battle or during a debate has victory in his hand. One
should not doubt this.” (AhS 26.80: bhayāgame ca saṃgrāme vāde vā yaḥ smared
idam | vijayas tasya hastastho nātra kāryā vicāraṇā ||). Also relevant is a variant
reading found in a passage about divine weapons. While the edition reads eṣāṃ
Another source which deserves mention is the Sāmrājyalakṣmīpīṭhikā

(SLP), a manual for royal ritual from ca. the sixteenth century in which
Lakṣmī is given special prominence. This South Indian work presents vari-
ous similarities with the AhS. More specifically, the militaristic idioms are
very close to those found in the AhS, comprising both conquest as well as
protection of the state against enemies or natural disasters as benefits aris-
ing from ritual worship.48 Yet the SLP goes further since it addresses a
more pragmatic dimension as well, in the sense that it devotes a number of
sections to regular rituals and festivals, some of which are particularly
charged with warfare-related imaginary.49 Remarkably, it includes descrip-
tions of fortresses, horses, and weapons, potentially opening a window on
realia as well.50
Despite their similarities, the SLP as a whole seems to be the outcome
of a different agenda, one not only concerned with marketing a cult but
with setting guidelines for the court’s daily life as well. The AhS aims in-
stead at illustrating the notion of empowerment as such.
Final remarks
The AhS is quite an extraordinary source of information about the strate-
gies set in place by a certain community to captivate the attention of rulers.
In the present case, the efficacy of ritual as a means of dealing with emer-
gency situations is brought into focus. The ritual repertoire as well as the

darśanamātreṇa vinaśyanty arisainikāḥ ||, “Merely at their (i.e., of the divine wea-
pons) sight, the hostile soldiers will perish” (AhS 40.7cd), ABE and F read eteṣāṃ
dhyānamātreṇa, “by the mere concentration on these,” which makes the idea of a
deliberate deployment of their power more explicit.
47
Cf. SANDERSON 2004: 248 and 255ff.
48
I am grateful to Somadeva Vasudeva and Péter-Dániel Szántó for pointing this out
to me. The presence of such idioms is virtually found throughout the work. Particularly
striking is the fact that enemies are placed at the top of a long list of threats found in chap-
ter 10. For a statement concerning control over the entire earth, one could turn to SLP
29.30. The work also knows of the need to counter hostile magic (cf. 30.23).
49
Particularly striking in this regard are the chapters on Vijayadaśamī (108) and
Kumārīpūjā (110).
50
The final chapters of the work (starting with 128) are rich in such descriptions
and convey a more detailed picture of ritualised warfare at the court. The section on
fortresses starts with chapter 31, whereas mention of the worship of weapons can be
found embedded in the description of various rituals and festivals, as for example ad
SLP 105.10.

descriptions of its benefits seem to be the outcome of a well-conceived

agenda. Once established inside the court, royal officiants expert in the cult
outlined in the AhS would certainly enjoy an elevated status and command
the fear and respect of those around them.
The important question of the actual historical impact of the cult could
not be addressed in the preceding pages. The reader is reminded that some
important references to epigraphical sources are given in Begley’s study
quoted above. Nevertheless, a narrower focus on scriptural materials can
potentially still have significant impact on our understanding of the larger
context. We had a glimpse at this every time we dealt with variant readings
or raised a question about the history of the text’s formation. Moreover,
even a brief look at other texts which deal with rituals at the royal court had
significant impact on the way we interrogate a work like the AhS.
Appendix: remarks on the

Adyar Library edition of the AhS51
The second edition of the AhS (a critical revision by V. Krishnamacharya)
includes neither details regarding the stemma of the considered witnesses
nor information about the policies adopted in the composition of the appa-
ratus. Only a reduced description of the individual manuscripts is provided.
The first edition, however, includes a manuscript description in Sanskrit
which addresses the issue of the relation of some of the witnesses and also
gives estimations of their dates. These approximate (-deśīya) estimations
were dropped in the new edition.52
The apparatus of both editions is a negative one, which enhances the
chances of committing mistakes while recording the variants.53 Distinctions
between omissions and actual loss of the substratum (entire leaves or pag-
es) seem to follow (in the second edition) the nomenclature of “omission” /

51
General remarks about Schrader’s difficulties in supervising the editorial work
during the years of the First World War are found in the introductory lines to both
editions.
52
However, the adjective “old” figures in the descriptions of A, C, and D.
53
Obviously, a siglum could be easily omitted. It is the knowledge of the stemma
which helps detect the possibility of such mistakes. Unfortunately, in the case of the
AhS the relations between the manuscripts are far from clear. An easily detectable
mistake is made instead when a siglum is assigned contemporarily to two different
readings, as it has happened with B ad AhS Ed2: 319.
“gap.”54 A case of transposition is also clearly recorded.55 Concerning lo-

calised damage of the substratum, the only (possible) indication was found
once in the first edition, when the editor adds to what could be a missing
akṣara of a variant atra granthalopaḥ saṃbhāvyate, or “here damage of the
manuscript is likely.”56 The first edition also adds a number of question
marks in cases where the readings are considered ambiguous. This and the
preceding features would now usually be indicated by different sets of
brackets. However, the second edition does not include any of these poten-
tially useful indications. It might therefore be advisable to cross-check with
the first edition, when confronted with a puzzling variant reported in the
apparatus, in order to see whether the first editor found the manuscript easi-
ly legible at that given point.
A description of the stemma can be found in Schrader’s “Introduction to
the Pāñcarātra and the Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā”:
Unfortunately, as can be seen from a few common omissions and er-

rors, all of these MSS. go back to one already corrupted original.
Still, on the whole the Saṃhitā is well preserved. The two oldest and
best MSS. are those called E and D. The former is a Grantha MS.
from Kalale in Mysore, the latter a MS. written in the Malayālam
character and belonging to H.H. the Mahārāja of Travancore. E is
more accurate than D. From E descend the four Melkote MSS. F to
H, all of them written in Grantha characters and so completely iden-
tical that the common symbol F could be used for them. From D (or
a similar MS.) descend C, A and B (in this order); C being the Adyar
Library paper MS. in Grantha characters (with large omissions), A
the Adyar Library palm-leaf MS. in Grantha characters, and B the
Telugu MS. belonging to the Mysore Government. The badly dam-
aged Tanjore MS. described in Burnell’s catalogue could not be bor-
rowed and was, on inspection, found to be not worth taking into ac-
count.57

54
Cf., for example, AhS Ed2: 296 and 345. The apparatus reports the loss of folios
of ms. C, which is correctly described as “incomplete” in the manuscript description.
55
Cf. AhS Ed2: 89.
56
Cf. AhS Ed1: 153.
57
SCHRADER 1916: 94.

These remarks are very important but are also somewhat ambiguous. Based
on the evidence adduced in the apparatus, it would seem that the relations
between the witnesses are indeed rather complex.
Sometimes, when confronted with one isolated and puzzling variant, it
is possible to assume a mistake in the recording of that variant. If a feature
appears more than once, the possibility of its being genuine increases.58
Without having the possibility to consult the manuscripts themselves, it
is safer to focus on relations which are well-attested in the apparatus, such
as certain repeating patterns in the lacunae of the various witnesses.
For example, as many as 25 of D’s omissions and additions (which run
throughout the work and which do not seem to be related to a loss of the
substratum) are not found in either A, B, or C.59 Also, ABC share as many
as nine omissions with EF,60 where D seems to read the proper text. One of
these omissions is found in the adhyāya 28. In the middle of the description
of the daily ritual, ABCEF end abruptly only to begin again 49 stanzas
later, which means that D is the only extant witness for a significant part of
the adhyāya. Although one cannot reach conclusions without a thorough
assessment of the original documents, it seems prudent to keep these as-
pects in mind for a critical reading of the AhS.
Another aspect regards the use of sigla to refer to more than one manu-
script. SCHRADER (1916) writes: “[...] the four Melkote MSS. F to H, all of
them written in Grantha characters and so completely identical that the
common symbol F could be used for them.” The four manuscripts are actu-
ally F, G, H, and I, with I being coupled with H in the manuscript descrip-
tion of both editions. As far as evident to the present author, manuscripts H
and I are never found in the apparatus, probably because the siglum F,
which appears regularly in the work, was indeed used to indicate them.
However, on a few occasions G is actually found in the apparatus of both
editions. G appears to be mentioned only at the beginning of the first vol-
ume and to always follow F.61 Nevertheless, the siglum F is found alone for
other variants on the very same pages. Again, one would be tempted to
have a look at the originals.

58
For instance, when only A and E omit a text portion (AhS Ed2: 567) or even
supply the same text (AhS Ed2: 569).
59
Cf. AhS Ed2: 5, 29, 35, 71, 91, 117, 121, 127, 146, 149, 152, 156, 159 (twice),
168, 195, 210, 251, 252, 263, 265, 273, 278, 324, and 381.
60
Cf. AhS Ed2: 124, 149, 194, 198, 205, 255, 258, 322, 587.
61
Cf., for example, AhS Ed2: 34, 36, and 47.
In the preceding pages the text was reported as found in the second edi-
tion. The apparatus was added for increased transparency (including also
the ways in which variants are reported in the first edition) along with ten-
tative discussions on particularly relevant variant readings.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Atharvavedapariśiṣṭa
The Pariśiṣṭas of the Atharvaveda. Ed. George Melville Bolling and Julius
von Negelein. Vol. 1, 3 parts. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909-1910.
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā (AhS)
Ahirbudhnya-Saṃhitā of the Pāñcarātrāgama. 2 vols. Ed. M.D. Rama-
nujacharya under the Supervision of F.O. Schrader. Revised by V.
Krishnamacharya. Adyar: The Adyar Library and Research Centre,
1916, 21986 (first repr.).
Netratantra
The Netra Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja. Ed. Madhusudan
Kaul Shāstrī. 2 vols. Bombay: Tatva Vivechaka Press 1926, 1939.
Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa
Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa. Ed. Kṣemarāja Kṛṣṇadāsa. Delhi: Nag Pub-
lishers, 1985 (first ed. 1912).
Sāmrājyalakṣmīpīṭhikā (SLP)
Samrajya Lakshmi Pithika (The Emperor’s Manual). Ed. Vasudeva Sastri
and K.S. Subrahmanya Sastri. Tanjore: Sarasvathi Mahal Library, 1952.
BEGLEY, W.E. 1973. Viṣṇu’s Flaming Wheel: The Iconography of the Su-
darśana-Cakra. New York: New York University Press.
BIANCHINI, F. 2015. A King’s Best Weapon. Sudarśana’s Worship at the Royal
Court According to the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā. MA thesis, University of Vien-
na (http://othes.univie.ac.at/38142/1/2015-06-22_0846884.pdf, accessed
March 15, 2018).
BOCK-RAMING, A. 2002. Untersuchungen zur Gottesvorstellung in der
älteren Anonymliteratur des Pāñcarātra. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

CZERNIAK-DROŻDŻOWICZ, M. 2003. Pāñcarātra Scripture in the Process

of Change. A Study of the Paramasaṃhitā. Vienna: De Nobili Research
Library.
MATSUBARA, M. 1994. Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās & Early Vaiṣṇava Theology
RASTELLI, M. 2003. Maṇḍalas and Yantras in the Pāñcarātra Tradition. In:
G. Bühnemann (ed.), Maṇḍalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions.
Leiden, Boston: Brill, pp. 119–152.
2018. Considerations about Traditions Influential in the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā.
Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques 72(2), pp. 421–443.
SANDERSON, A. 2004. Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Terri-
tory of the King’s Brahmanical Chaplain. Indo-Iranian Journal 47, pp.
229–300.
SCHRADER, F.O. 1916. Introduction to the Pāñcarātra and the
Ahirbudhnya Saṃhitā. Madras: Adyar Library.
SIRCAR, D.C. 1966. Indian Epigraphical Glossary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Damanotsava: On love in spring,

on what Jñānaśambhu wrote, and on the
spread of public festivals into the Mantramārga
Studies in the Saiddhāntika Paddhatis II1
Dominic Goodall2
The principal concern of this paper is the emergence of festivals (mahot-

sava) within the Mantramārga. It is well-known that elaborate mahotsavas
involving numerous processions, typically with different vehicles on every
day and attended by a socially diverse community of actors, are taught in
several South Indian Temple Āgamas.3 But such events are not mentioned
at all in pre-twelfth-century sources of the Śaivasiddhānta, whose focus is
the religion of individual initiates aspiring to liberation (or, particularly in
the earlier sources, aspiring first to enjoy supernatural powers before reach-

1
This is the second of a planned series of articles about Paddhatis of the Śaivasid-
dhānta, the first, about Rāmanātha, being GOODALL 2014.
2
This article is the revised version of a conference paper entitled “A note on da-
manotsava (a spring rite of reparation) and on the twelfth-century Saiddhāntika ritual
manual called the Jñānaratnāvalī” given at the international symposium Tantric
Communities in Context: Sacred Secrets and Public Rituals, organised at the Austri-
an Academy of Sciences in Vienna on February 5–7, 2015 in the context of an SFB
project called “Visions of Community.” I am grateful to Diwakar Acharya for having
informed me about the Nepalese manuscripts that transmit Damana-related material
that I have quoted in this paper and to Shaman Hatley and Harunaga Isaacson for
having offered numerous improving suggestions to the editions that figure in the
appendix when I prepared them for a handout. Unfortunately, because I was in a
rush, I seem not always to have noted which improvements were made by whom.
3
For an excellent recent study of an account attributed to the twelfth-century
South Indian exegete Aghoraśiva, see DAVIS 2010. For the improbability of this
attribution, see PADOUX 2014: 427, quoting GOODALL 1998: xiii–xvii, n. 24.
ing liberation). We do occasionally encounter the term mahotsava in pre-

tenth-century scriptures, but only as an allusion, without any particulars, to
a celebration that is to mark a moment of achievement of a significant ritu-
al. For example, at the culmination of an installation (pratiṣṭhā) in the
Devyāmata, we read that “With food and the like, one should satisfy the
singers and dancers, the naked, the miserable, the blind, the wretched, chil-
dren, and, having satisfied them, ask their forbearance [for any shortcom-
ings]. At night, a great festival (mahotsavam) should be held, with the
sounds of singing and instrumental music.”4
But even though we have no detailed evidence from the early scriptures
of the Mantramārga, we do know that great processional celebrations must
have been part of Śaiva festivals from at least the time of the Śivadhar-
maśāstra,5 whose description of temple processions in 8.11–17, even if it is
not entirely clear, sounds extremely lavish:6
[11] He who, on the calendrical festival days (parvan), performs the

organisation of great pūjās, or of chariot-processions for Śiva by
processing inside the town,
[12] with great multi-coloured flags, parasols with bells and capes,
rows of flags on canopies, with bells, yak-tail whisks and mirrors,
[13] with the sounds of conches, drums and the like, mixed up with
singing and instrumental music and such, with the Mothers, yakṣas,
gaṇas7 and others [in the form of (?)] puppets (yantraiḥ?) made of
painted wood,
[14] with machines that produce water and fire and with many mar-
vels in plenty, and with swings [for?] women, and wheel-machines
(?), [and] adorned (°śobhitām) with chariot-palaces,

4
Devyāmata, NGMPP A 41/15, f.56r: gāyakān nṛtyakān nagnān dīnā-
ndhakṣapaṇān śiśūn | (emended from gāyakā nṛtyakā nagnā dīnāndhakṣapaṇāśiśūn)
bhakṣabhojyādibhis tarpya tarpitāṃs tān (emended from tārpitas tāṃ) kṣamāpayet |
rātrau mahotsavaṃ kāryaṃ gītavāditranisvanaiḥ |.
5
HAZRA (1985: 296) has proposed dating the Śivadharmaśāstra to between 200
and 500 CE. BISSCHOP (2010: 243) cautiously remarks that “this early dating remains
to be confirmed.”
6
The text here is based on a collation of NGMPP A 3/3 [Nepal] samvat 321 [scil.
1201 AD], f.27v–28r (= A); NGMPP B 7/3 [Nepal] samvat 290 [scil. 1170 AD], f.26r–
26v (= B); IFP T. 32 (C20th transcript of a Grantha palm-leaf ms.) (= T); and the Nepa-
lese “print” (hand-written by the editor for these verses) of Naraharinath (= E).
7
Mothers (mātṛ), nature spirits (yakṣa), and Śiva’s “troops” (gaṇa) are three clas-
ses of potentially threatening semi-divine creatures.
DOMINIC GOODALL 387
[15] with gardens, earthworks, drinking spots (?),8 with large ma-
chinery (?), busy with important people, arranged in accordance with
their wealth,
[16–17] such an excellent man, having attained the merit of all acts
of giving, the fruits of all sacrifices, the merit of extreme acts of as-
ceticism, and the fruits of [visiting] all sacred sites, possessed of glo-
ry from organising a Śiva-procession, will constantly delight in great
enjoyments, like Śiva [himself], in Śivaloka.
[18] At the end of that time, he will attain the status of a king among
the gods for a long time, and after that in turn he will become the
glorious overlord of Jambūdvīpa9.10

8
The South Indian reading here (beginning dadhyanna°) sounds as though it
might be referring to the contemporary practice of setting up stalls of food and drink,
in particular buttermilk, on or near processional routes, such as one may witness, for
instance, in Pondicherry at the festival of Mācimakam.
9
In Purāṇic geography, Jambudvīpa is the central continent. It is further divided
into nine subcontinents and it is surrounded by seven concentric bands of ocean that
are separated from each other by further continents. See, e.g., Parākhyatantra 5.61ff,
translated in GOODALL 2004: 294ff.
10
Śivadharmaśāstra 8.11–17: yaḥ kuryāt parvakāleṣu mahāpūjāpravarttanam |
śivasya rathayātrāṃ vā nagarāntaḥparikramāt || 11 || mahācitradhvajaiś chatraiḥ kiṅki-
ṇīvarakānvitaiḥ | vitānadhvajamālābhir ghaṇṭācāmaradarpaṇaiḥ || 12 || śaṅkhabhe-
ryādinirghoṣair gītavādyādisaṃkulaiḥ | lepyadārumayair yantrair mātṛyakṣagaṇādibhiḥ
|| 13 || udakāgneyayantraiś ca bahvāścaryair anekaśaḥ | strīdolācakrayantraiś ca ratha-
mandiraśobhitām || 14 || udyānakhānapānaiś ca mahāyantraiḥ samāyutān | mahājanasa-
mākīrṇān yathāvibhavakalpitān || 15 || sa sarvadānapuṇyāni sarvayajñaphalāni ca | atyu-
gratapasāṃ puṇyaṃ sarvatīrthaphalāni ca || 16 || labdhvā naravaraḥ śrīmān śivayātrā-
pravartanāt | śivaloke mahābhogaiḥ śivavan modate sadā || 17 || tasyānte devarājatvaṃ
suciraṃ kālam āpnuyāt | jambūdvīpādhipaḥ śrīmāṃs tasyānte ca bhavet punaḥ || 18 ||.
11b mahāpūjāpravarttanam] BT; mahimāyā pravarttanaṃ A; mahāpūjāprava-
rddhanam E 11c nagarāntaḥ°] E; nagarātaṃ A; nagarāntaṃ B; nāgarāntaḥ° T 12a
°citradhvajaiś chatraiḥ] ABE; °citraiḥ dhvajaiś citraiḥ T 12b kiṅkiṇīvarakānvitaiḥ]
ET; kiṃkinīravakānvitai A; kiṃkiṇīravakānvitaiḥ B 12d °darpaṇaiḥ] BTE;
°bhūṣitaḥ A 13b °vādyādisaṃkulaiḥ] ABE; °nāṭyādisaṃyutaiḥ T 13c lepya° ABE;
lekhya° T 13d mātṛyakṣagaṇādibhiḥ] BTE; nirmānaturagādibhiḥ A 14a uda-
kāgneyayantraiś] BE; udakāgneyamantraiś A; udakāntoyayantraiś T 14b bahvāśca-
ryair anekaśaḥ] BTE; varuṭai(?)yeraṭe(?)kapāḥ(?) A 14c °dolā°] BE; °dolāś AT
14d rathamandiraśobhitām] B; gajanārībhiḥ sobhitāḥ A; rathamandiraśobhitaiḥ T;
rathamandiraśobhitaṃ E 15ab udyānakhānapānaiś ca mahāyantraiḥ samāyutān]
BE; udyānakhānapādāndaimmahāsaṃbhogasaṃyutāḥ A; dadhyannapānakhānā-
dyaiḥ mahāsatrasamāyutaiḥ T 15c °samākīrṇān] E; °padākīrṇṇā A; °samākīrṇṇā B;
°samākīrṇaṃ T 15d °kalpitān] ABE; °vistaram T 16a sa sarvadāna°] ABE; sarva-

What this paper will touch upon is one of the first annual festivals, albeit one
without processions, to be found described in works of the Mantramārga.
The primary purpose of this paper when it was first conceived, however,
was to examine a Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript that transmits a small
portion of the Jñānaratnāvalī, a twelfth-century ritual manual written in
Benares by Jñānaśambhu, a Saiddhāntika guru from the Cōḻa country, with
a view to explaining why it should seem almost entirely different from
what purports to be the same section of the same text as transmitted in two
South Indian manuscripts.11 It so happens that the portion in question treats
the annual spring rite known as damanotsava, a rite that appears to have
been introduced into the liturgy of the Śaivasiddhānta from elsewhere and
that seems to duplicate another festive annual rite of reparation prescribed
for three months later in the year, in the month of āṣāḍha, known as pavi-
trotsava. Instead of using threads braided by maidens that are called pavi-
tras as expiatory offerings, Śiva is here worshipped with the various parts
of the damana plant (Artemisia indica or some other variety of Artemisia).
Now it might seem at once that the question that most obviously raises
itself here might have been: how did a spring festival come to be adopted as
a rite with an expiatory structure into the liturgy of a primarily soteriologi-
cal system? So I should explain why this patent and curious problem was
oddly not what first aroused my interest.
I was first intrigued to see that a Paddhati from as late as the twelfth
century, describing Saiddhāntika practices that appear gradually to have
died away after the twelfth century from every part of the Sanskritic world
except the Tamil-speaking South, should have been copied in Nepal. Se-
cond, I was excited by the possibility that a Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript,
written probably several centuries earlier than all the surviving South Indi-
an witnesses, should transmit a better text of Jñānaśambhu’s rich work. It is

dānāni T 16c atyugratapasāṃ puṇyaṃ] TE; atugratapasāṃ puṇyāṃ A; atyugra-
tapasā puṇyaṃ B 17a labdhvā naravaraḥ] E; lavdhā navaraḥ A (unmetrical); la-
bdhā naravaraḥ BT 17c mahābhogaiḥ] AB; mahābhāgaiḥ TE 17d sadā] BTE;
ciraṃ A 18a devarājatvaṃ] ABT; devarājasya E.
11
For the date, provenance, and place of work of Jñānaśiva, see GOODALL 2000:
209–212. For remarks on the manuscript of the Jñānaratnāvalī then known to me
(IFP T. 231) and on two manuscripts which might appear to transmit the work but do
not (IFP T. 106 and 107), see n. 11 on p. 209. For the two principal manuscripts, both
from South India, namely Madras GOML R 14898 (from which IFP T. 231 was
copied) and Mysore ORI P. 3801, see GOODALL 2004: cx–cxi.
DOMINIC GOODALL 389
well-known, after all, that many ancient Sanskrit works have survived in a
much older state of text in palm-leaf manuscripts kept in the cool, dry cli-
mate of the Kathmandu valley.
It was a worrying surprise to me to discover that the account of the rite
in the Nepalese text of the Jñānaratnāvalī is much shorter than that of the
two southern manuscripts, containing none of the discussions and justifica-
tory quotations. Why? Could this have been because the southern text had
been expanded by interpolations? The matter is of some importance be-
cause the southern sources present Jñānaśambhu’s work as a rich, digest-
like manual that is interesting to the historian of religion largely because of
the wide range of material it quotes and thereby helps to date and contextu-
alise. If the much shorter style of the Nepalese fragment is authorial, then
the value of the Jñānaratnāvalī for historians is diminished. Instead of be-
ing a large corpus of ordered material that can be confidently dated to the
twelfth century or earlier, it becomes a hotchpotch of quite undatable snip-
pets that could have been added piecemeal at any time over the course of
the transmission of the work in South India.
⌘⌘⌘
Now that we have introduced the various issues at stake that are alluded to
in the title of this paper, let us turn first to the first appearance of a
damanotsava rite in the Mantramārga. The first known account appears to
be that of Somaśambhu in the eleventh century,12 and the way in which it is
introduced plainly adverts to the rite’s extraneous character.
Formerly [a] Bhairava called Damana was born from Hara’s anger. He
subdued all the gods and the mighty Dānavas. Being pleased, Śiva said
to him: “Be a plant on earth! Having taken this embodiment, you will
serve for my pleasure. Those mortals who worship God [scil. me] with
your shoots and other parts will reach the highest state, O Damana,
thanks to your power. But for those men who do not observe the ca-
lendrical festival (parva) of Damana, all the fruits of their meritorious

12
On the perhaps still changing front of evidence fixing the completion of Soma-
śambhu’s Kriyākāṇḍakramāvalī at different dates (namely 1048/49 CE, 1073 CE, and
1095/6 CE), suggesting perhaps that the work was released in more than one “edition”
in the eleventh century, see SANDERSON 2007: 420–421, GOODALL 2014: 172–173 and
177–179, and SANDERSON 2014: 21 (quoting a lecture-handout of 2011).

deeds belonging to the month of Caitra will be given to you.” Alt-

hough this [ritual] is taught in the Svacchandabhairava, nonetheless,
because that work is [of] shared [scriptural stock] with this [system]
(iha),13 it is practised also in the Siddhānta.14
We observe here that this myth, which in this extremely abridged form
makes no allusion to anything vernal, seems not really coherent, and that
the purpose of the ritual, namely to make sure that merit accrued in the
month of Caitra does not pass to Bhairava, is odd, since there is no evident
reason why anybody’s karman, good or bad, should be transferred to that
particular god.15 Striking too is that no account of a damanotsava has been
found in the various versions known to us of the Svacchanda: has
Somaśambhu chosen a fictional scriptural affiliation to “justify” an eclectic
borrowing? The fact that he includes an apology at all might seem to sug-
gest that he is either responsible for introducing the festival into the ritual

13
BRUNNER (1968 [SP2]: 202) translates samānatvāt with “puisque [les deux éco-
les] sont dans la même position;” but it is perhaps more likely that Somaśambhu uses
the expression in the way that Aghoraśiva often does in his commentary on the Sar-
vajñānottaratantra: there, when he draws on passages from other recensions of the
Kālottara, he mentions that they are Tantras that are samāna, in other words “[from
a] shared scriptural [stock]” (e.g. IFP RE 47852, p. 5). Cf. also Rāmakaṇṭha’s use in
the Paramokṣanirāsakārikāvṛtti of the expression samānatāntrika to refer to those
who share a common scriptural tradition (for which, see WATSON, GOODALL &
ANJANEYA SARMA 2013: 18).
14
SP2 2.1–5 (From volume 2 of Brunner’s edition [1968: 196ff]. In the Kashmiri-
an edition [KSTS], these verses are 496–501.): harakopāt purā jāto bhairavo da-
manāhvayaḥ | dāntās tena surāḥ sarve dānavāś ca mahābalāḥ || 1 || prītenātha
śivenokto: viṭapo bhava bhūtale! | tāṃ tanuṃ tvam anuprāpya madbhogāya
bhaviṣyasi || 2 || pūjayiṣyanti ye martyā devaṃ tvatpallavādibhiḥ | te yāsyanti paraṃ
sthānaṃ damana tvatprabhāvataḥ || 3 || ye punar na kariṣyanti dāmanaṃ parva
mānavāḥ | teṣāṃ te caitramāsotthaṃ dattaṃ puṇyaphalaṃ mayā || 4 || svacchanda-
bhairave tantre yady apīdam udāhṛtam | tathāpīha samānatvāt siddhānte ’py upa-
yujyate || 5 ||. 1c tena surāḥ] Brunner; tenāsurāḥ KSTS 4c te] Brunner; na KSTS 5d
upayujyate] Brunner; upapadyate KSTS.
15
Cf. verse 24 of Appendix III, which contains the same odd justification for the
performance of the rite.
Kacchapeśvara’s commentary on Aghoraśiva’s Kriyākramadyotikā recounts a
myth that takes into account the elements mentioned by Somaśambhu (see BRUNNER
1968 [SP2]: 198–199), but this may well be the result of Kacchapeśvara joining up
the dots to “explain” Somaśambhu’s allusion, rather than of Kacchapeśvara
recounting the myth that Somaśambhu actually knew.
DOMINIC GOODALL 391
calendar or that he considers himself to be close in time to the moment of

its introduction. But we should be wary of putting much weight on such a
supposition, for we find the apology echoed in the Jñānaratnāvalī a century
later. Furthermore, Trilocanaśiva’s twelfth-century commentary on
Somaśambhu’s work quotes a half-verse attributed to the tenth-century
paddhati of Brahmaśambhu that alludes, according to Trilocana, to the pos-
sibility of performing an initiation ceremony on the occasion of the
damanotsava on the first day of the second month of spring.16 Of course
this need not mean that Brahmaśambhu prescribed a Śaiva version of this
rite: it might simply mean that Brahmaśambhu recognised the existence of
a popular spring festival and mentions the occasion as a possible suitable
moment for conducting a dīkṣā. Trilocana also quotes from a description of
damanotsava in another Saiddhāntika work, the Bṛhatkālottara,17 but that
text appears to have been unknown to the Kashmirian commentators of the
tenth century and may have been contemporary with the Somaśambhupad-
dhati or composed just after it, for the first quotations we know of it are
those of Jñānaśambhu and his South Indian contemporaries. Brunner was
troubled not only by the existence of this Saiddhāntika account that belied
Somaśambhu’s claim that the damanotsava was not Saiddhāntika, but also
by those taught in certain Temple Āgamas, since she had at that time
(1968) only begun to suspect them of being later South Indian composi-
tions (SP2, p. 202):18
… mais aucune référence n’est faite aux Āgama ou Upāgama dont

nous avons dit plus haut qu’ils avaient le même chapitre que nous (ce
qui, entre parenthèses, peut faire naître des doutes quant à
l’ancienneté de l’Uttara-Kāmika et de l’Acintyaviśvasādākhya). Quoi
qu’il en soit, le fait même que Somaśambhu soulève le problème de
la légitimité de ce rituel pour les Śaivasiddhāntin, montre qu’à son
époque au moins il n’était pas couramment pratiqué dans ce milieu
śivaïte, et que les sectes du Trika (où Bhairava joue un rôle infini-

16
Madras GOML M. 14735, p. 89: … ata eva brahmaśambhupādaiḥ pavitrotsave
damanotsave ’pi dīkṣā kāryety uktam “cāturmāsyanimittāni vaiśākhīdamanotsavaḥ”
iti. For the date of the composition of Brahmaśambhu’s work in 937/938 CE, see
GOODALL 2004: xx and SANDERSON 2014: 20.
17
The passage in question is quoted by BRUNNER 1968 (SP2): 203.
18
Cf. BRUNNER 1968 (SP2): xiv: “[...] il serait bien téméraire de notre part de dé-
clarer sans autre preuve que ces deux textes, ou tout au moins quelques-uns de leurs
chapitres, sont postérieurs à Somaśambhu.”

ment plus important) en avaient pratiquement le monopole, sous une

forme que nous ignorons.
Brunner had, in other words, begun to ask many of the questions addressed
in this article, but she had not yet come to the firm conclusion that the
South Indian Temple Āgamas must have borrowed from Somaśambhu, and
she suspected that the ultimate source of Somaśambhu’s account might
have been a spring festival belonging to a Bhairava-centred current of the
Mantramārga. Nonetheless, she credits Somaśambhu with having assured,
by including the rite in his manual, the continued popularity of the
damanotsava in South India down to the present day.19 Although Brunner
may well be right that the ritual spread across the traditions of temple wor-
ship in South India under the influence of Somaśambhu’s Paddhati,20 there
seems to be little trace of the worship in South India today: Brunner, writ-
ing in 1968, implies that she knew of numerous South Indian temples
where the rite was practised, but Mr. Sambandhaśivācārya, priest of a
Vināyaka temple in Cuddalore and employee for many decades of the IFP,
has told me today (2015) that it is extremely rarely observed and could cite
no instance known to him in the contemporary temple-scene in the Tamil-
speaking South of the observance of damanotsava.
But let us now turn to the Jñānaratnāvalī’s account. Rather than give the
whole text of Jñānaśambhu’s chapter here, which would involve giving a
complete translation and would therefore in turn mean getting wrapped up
in the intricacies of interpretation of all its many ritual elements, I have

19
BRUNNER 1968 (SP2): xiv: “… la décision de Somaśambhu a eu des
conséquences durables puisque Aghoraśiva, dont on sait que ses livres font encore
autorité, devait reprendre la damanapūjā dans son manuel de rituel privé, et surtout
dans son manuel de rituel public, si bien que nombreux sont encore de nos jours les
temples du Sud qui célèbrent ce festival printanier.”
20
I speak of “traditions” in the plural, because I mean to include also Pāñcarātra
temple worship. It seems natural to suspect borrowing from the Śaivas by the
Pāñcarātra in this case, since the border between the Śaiva and the Vaiṣṇava Temple
Scriptures seems to have been porous in the post-twelfth-century period and there are
many other instances of shared notions and terminology that must have developed in
the shared South Indian temple milieu. Examples that come to mind that illustrate
this are, for instance, the practices referred to as diśāhoma and nityotsava (q.v. in
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA 3), and terminology that occurs in the South, such as
mūlabera (“principal image of worship”).
DOMINIC GOODALL 393
given the chapter in its entirety in an appendix (Appendix I), beginning

from the concluding verse of the immediately preceding verse, which wraps
up the account of the pavitrotsava. I shall translate here only the opening,
which contains some elements that are relevant to our discussion. (Readers
interested in the details of a similar Śaiva version of this festival may of
course find a full, annotated translation of Somaśambhu’s account in
BRUNNER 1968: 196–221.)
In the Svacchandabhairava-tantra, Bhairava is known to be [the]

Damana [plant]. Elsewhere (kvacit), [we learn that this plant] arose
from the ashes of Kāmadeva when they were watered by the tears of
[his consorts] Rati and Prīti. (JR 1)
In the Siddhānta, no attention is accorded to it, even by those devoted
to expiatory rites. Nevertheless, there is a shared [scriptural] identity
here too [scil. in the Siddhānta]. But its performance is taught here
because it is mentioned in the chapters on flowers and because it is
taught by earlier ācāryas. (JR 2–3b)
On the seventh or the thirteenth day in [either of] the two fortnights
in the month of Caitra, having performed his daily duties, he should
in the evening approach a Damana plant. (JR 3c–4b)
Among the numerous points to comment upon here, we see that although
there is the same allusion to the Svacchanda, borrowed no doubt from
Somaśambhu, Jñānaśambhu refers also to another aetiological myth from
some other source. Whereas the myth to which Somaśambhu alludes is
incomprehensible to us (and perhaps also to Jñānaśambhu, since he gives
no further clues about it), the other myth can be guessed at, not because we
know the source from which Jñānaśambhu knew it, but because the
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati contains what must be a related tale (kriyāpāda
22). There is no need to give that passage in full here, since Brunner has
furnished a parallel text and translation of the whole chapter (SP2 Appen-
dix II), but we may outline the story as follows: When Kāmadeva attacked
Śiva, Śiva’s anger came out as fire from his third eye, which took form as
Bhairava; Bhairava reduced Kāma to ashes; Śiva, pleased, told Bhairava
that since he had “tamed” (dāntaḥ) the triple world, he would henceforth be
called the “tamer” (damana); Rati, Kāma’s spouse, who was among the
goddesses waiting upon Gaurī, fainted away, whereupon Gaurī furiously
cursed Damana to become a plant:

And he, being cursed by Ambikā, accordingly at once then became a

plant, called Damana, [rooted] in the ashes of Kāma’s body, of sweet
fragrance and with tender parts, watered by the flow of Rati’s tears.21
One difference from Īśānaśiva’s account is clear: in Jñānaśambhu’s version

the tears of both Kāmadeva’s spouses, Rati and Prīti, water his ashes.
As for the plant Damana, it is clear that it is some sort of wormwood or

mugwort (Fr. armoise, Ger. Beifuß, Tam. marikoḻuntu/marukoḻuntu, etc.).
Giving a more precise Latin identification than Artemisia is tricky, for it is
possible that slightly different fragrant plants may be identified with dama-
na in different regions, as Zotter has remarked.22
Once again, as for Somaśambhu, the detailed rite that follows consists
essentially in the identification and uprooting of the Damana plant, which is
held to be a transformation of Bhairava, and the use of its sprouts, roots,
and various parts for worshipping Śiva and his pantheon in a manner that is
parallel to the annual autumnal festival known variously as pavitrotsava,
pavitrārohaṇa, pavitrāropaṇa, etc. For a succinct description of this rite,
see TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA 3 (s.v. pavitrāropaṇa), whose article begins
as follows:
This is an annual rite of reparation for all omissions and mistakes

committed in rituals. Whereas a given prāyaścitta*, an exculpatory rite
taught for a particular transgression, is of course only to be performed
after committing such a transgression, the pavitrārohaṇa is an annual
ceremony. The rite is thus logically to be classed as a regular obligato-
ry one (nitya*), but some works treat it as naimittika*, e.g. SP2 1.7. As
for the time of its performance, certain days in the four-month period

21
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, kriyāpāda 22.14: tathā sa śapto ’mbikayā
tathābhavat kṣaṇena vīrud damanāhvayas tadā | smarāṅgabhasmany abhirāmasau-
rabhaḥ sukomalāṅgai ratibāṣpasekajaḥ ||.
22
ZOTTER 2010*: 179 and 203: “In der Literatur wird damanaka durchweg als
Artemisia vulgaris L. (Syn. A. indica WILLD; fam: Asteraceae) identifiziert. Eine
solche Identifikation wurde aber von allen von mir befragten Ritualspezialisten abge-
lehnt. Newars benutzen heutzutage eine wohlriechende, buschige Pflanze […], deren
botanisches Äquivalent ich bislang noch nicht bestimmen konnte. Es könnte sich
dabei um eine regional begrenzte Identifikation handeln, denn diejenige Pflanze, die
man mir in Benares als damanaka präsentierte, war wiederum eine andere.”
DOMINIC GOODALL 395
in which Viṣṇu is said to sleep are typically recommended, particularly

the month of Āṣāḍha (see SP2 1.2–4 and notes).
The focus of the ceremony is the offering of knotted rings of woven
cotton thread (pavitraka [2]*) and the offering of a collection of
things used in religious undertakings (vratāṅga*) and sometimes also
a collection of things conducive to pleasure (bhogāṅga [2]*).
We cannot delve here into the origins or early history of the pavitrāropaṇa
rite, which is similarly to be found also in Pāñcarātra sources (once again,
see Rastelli’s contribution to the same article of the TĀNTRIKĀ-
BHIDHĀNAKOŚA) and in Purāṇic ones (KANE V/1: 339–340 cites some of
these, mediated through various Dharmanibandha works). It is sufficient
for our purposes here for the moment to state that the pavitrāropaṇa rite
entered (or emerged within?) the Mantramārga at a much earlier stage,
since we find versions of it already detailed in the Kiraṇatantra (chapter
36) and in the Mohacūḍottara.
Now we saw above that Somaśambhu mentioned a curious benefit as
the reward for observing the damanotsava, namely being able to keep all
merit accrued in the month of Caitra rather than losing it to Bhairava. We
can see that this further underlines the parallelism with the pavitrārohaṇa,
which repairs ritual faults of omission and commission over the preceding
year. Jñānaśambhu, by contrast, seems to make no clear statement of the
purpose of the damanotsava, but we can see in the passage just cited that he
too probably regards it as having an expiatory or reparatory function, since
he observes that it is not typically followed in the Siddhānta, “even by
those devoted to expiatory rites.”
So in Saiddhāntika accounts, the Damana-rite is a sort of reparatory one,
and I have implied (following BRUNNER, e.g. 1968 (SP2): xii, who made
the same observation23) that this is because both its shape and purpose were
calqued upon the reparatory pavitrārohaṇa. To understand why it is clear
that they were so calqued, further evidence must be drawn into the picture:
Damana-related rituals are, it turns out, to be found in other medieval reli-

23
Brunner was in turn following what the primary sources themselves more or
less explicitly allude to: even in the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, a work of the Pāñcarātra,
we find a reflection of the awareness that damanotsava was strictly parallel to pavi-
trārohaṇa (17.565c–566a): tasmiṃs tu śukladvādaśyāṃ kuryād damanakotsavam |
pavitrārohavat kuryāt. (The same passage occurs in the Īśvarasaṃhitā [12.63abc],
which, as MATSUBARA (1994: 28–30) and RASTELLI [e.g., 2006: 59] have shown, is
largely based on the Pārameśvarasaṃhitā.)

gious traditions, and in those traditions they seem unrelated to the Śaiva
ones in every particular other than in that they involve the Damana plant
and that they typically occur on or close to the thirteenth day of a fortnight
in the month of Caitra (a date to which we shall return below).24
Let us consider, for example, the damanapūjā taught in a sixteenth-
century Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava digest, the Haribhaktivilāsa (vilāsa 14, verses
105ff in the 1848 edition, pp. 491–493).25 (The erratic verse-numbering is
that of the edition.)
Next, the festival of festooning with the Damana. On the twelfth day
of the brightening fortnight of Caitra, one should perform the festival
of festooning with the Damana. Its performance, taught in such
works as the Baudhāyana, is written next.
On the eleventh day of the brightening fortnight of Caitra
(madhoḥ) after completing his morning duties, he should go to the
garden of the Damana plant and there worship an Aśoka tree [as] the
god of love (/worship the sorrow-free god of love).
[Here is] the mantra for that: “Obeisance to you Aśoka (/sorrow-
free), O Kāma, O destroyer of the sorrow (śoka) caused by women.
Remove the suffering of sorrow from me; bring about joy for me

24
I should state at once that it is in no way my intention to give a complete list of
textual accounts of spring festivals, since these may be found referred to in other
works, such as that of ANDERSON (1993), nor even of all accounts of Damana-related
worship in the month of Caitra. References to many more such accounts may be
found given, for instance, in the Jayasiṃhakalpadruma (pp. 440–445), which men-
tions (p. 440) that it draws upon the Madanaratna, the Brahmapurāṇa quoted in the
Nirṇayāmṛta, the Nṛsiṃhaparicaryā, and the Rāmārcanacandrikā. Of course one
may also consult KANE (V/1: 310–311), who quotes particularly from other Dharma-
nibandha works, and the work of MEYER (1937). (My attention was drawn to
MEYER’s remarkable, richly referenced, and extremely stimulating book, in which he
devotes a large section to damanaka called “Kāmadeva als Beifuß” (1937: 38–53),
by ZOTTER’s thesis (2010*). Only a few lesser known accounts and ones that are
especially relevant to our theme are treated here.
25
I am grateful to Dr. Måns Broo for kindly drawing my attention to this passage
(after seeing online the abstract for this paper before it was delivered in Vienna in
February 2015) and for sending me pages of a Bengali-script edition. For a useful
characterisation of the Haribhaktavilāsa, which appears to have been composed in
1534, see BROO 2003, in particular pp. 20–23.
DOMINIC GOODALL 397
every day (nityam). I shall take you [home], O tree, you who give joy
to Kṛṣṇa, in order to perform worship.”26
Having thus asked and bowed he should take the bright Damana
plant, sprinkle it with the five products of the cow, wash it with wa-
ter, venerate it, cover it with a cloth, and take it home to the auspi-
cious sound of Vedic recitation and the like.
Now the instruction for the incubation of the Damana plant. He
should raise up in front of Kṛṣṇa the Sarvatobhadra-maṇḍala; placing
the Damana on that, he should let it incubate there at night.
[Here is] the mantra for that: “In order to worship the god of
gods, Viṣṇu, the spouse of Lakṣmī, the Lord, come here, O Damana,
be present; obeisance to you.”
And upon the Damana, in the eight directions beginning with the
East, he should venerate, using their seed-syllables,27 (1) Kāmadeva,
(2) Ash-bodied, (3) Ānanda, (4) Manmatha, (5) Friend of Spring, (6)
Smara, (7) Sugar-Cane-Bow, and (8) Flower-Bow,28 in due order,
accompanied by Rati, in accordance with the rules.
Having recited over him the Kāmagāyatrī 108 times and having
given a handful of flowers, he should venerate Kāmadeva using
mantras.

26
There are a couple of doubtful points here. If one begins with worship of the
Aśoka tree, it seems odd that the end of the ritual speech is addressed to the Damana
plant, which is to be taken away according to the text that follows. Perhaps aśoka,
“griefless,” is intended rather to be a description of the Damana plant? And yet
Kāmadeva, as well as being identified with the Damana, is evidently also identified
with the Aśoka tree in the previous verse, as well as frequently elsewhere (see
MEYER 1937, in particular pp. 33–38, in which he comments in particular on
Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, uttaraparvan 135). A related problem is that of vṛkṣa, which we
have taken to be a vocative, even though we do not expect Damana to be any larger
than a small shrub. But should we instead understand it to be part of a compound,
vṛkṣapūjārthaṃ?
The size and type of plant Damana is, by the way, not referred to with any degree
of consistency in our sources: some texts refer to the Damana with expressions such
as taru and vṛkṣa (see, e.g., verses 20 and 22 of Appendix III) and others, like for
instance chapter 2.45 of the Vaiṣṇavakhaṇḍa of the Skandapurāṇa, refer to it consis-
tently as a sort of grass (tṛṇa).
27
Perhaps each has a mantra that involves a seed-syllable based on the first letter
of his name: KĀṂ, BHAṂ, ĀṂ, MAṂ, VAṂ, etc. ?
28
All these are conventional names of Kāma and they presumably refer therefore
here to manifestations of the god of love.

And this is the mantra:

“Obeisance be to [you] whose arrows are flowers, who give de-
light to the world, to Manmatha, the eye of the world, who bestow
affection upon Rati.”
“You have been called, O Lord of gods, ancient one, best of
souls. I shall worship you in the morning. Be present, O Keśava. I of-
fer you in the morning the bright Damanaka. Obeisance be always
and in every way to you, O Viṣṇu. Be kindly disposed towards me.”
Having thus addressed the Lord of gods he should again give him a
handful of flowers. With singing and dancing and the like he should
joyfully observe vigil through the night.
Next, the rite of offering the Damanaka: Having accomplished
ablutions and the like in the morning, and having performed regular
obligatory worship, he should conduct a great pūjā for the purpose of
festooning with the Damanaka-[plant]. Then he should reverentially
take the Damanaka in his hands and offer it up to Śrī Kṛṣṇa, to the
accompaniment of [auspicious] sounds of instrumental music, bells
and the like.
The mantra for this is: “God of gods, Lord of the universe, be-
stower of desired boons, fulfil all my desires, O Kṛṣṇa, who are the
beloved of Kāmeśvarī! Receive this Damanaka, O God, to favour
me. O Lord, make this annual pūjā here complete!”
Then offering the garland of Damana, as well as incense and the
like, having conducted a festival with singing and such, he should
make this plea to Śrī Kṛṣṇa:
“May this annual worship, [performed] with garlands of jewels
and coral and with Mandāra flowers and the like, be yours, O
Garuḍa-bannered [Lord]! Just as [you wear], O God, the [garland
known as the] Vanamālā and the Kaustubha [jewel] constantly
against your heart, so too wear this garland of Damana and its pūjā
next to your heart!”29

29
Haribhaktavilāsa (vilāsa 14, verses 105ff in the 1848 edition, pp. 491–493):
atha damanāropaṇotsavaḥ | caitrasya śukladvādaśyāṃ damanāropaṇotsavam |
vidadhyāt tadvidhir baudhāyanādyukto ’tha likhyate || madhoḥ sitaikādaśyāñ ca
prātaḥkṛtyaṃ samāpya ca | gatvā damanakārāmaṃ tatrāśokaṃ smaraṃ yajet | tatra
mantraḥ | aśokāya namas tubhyaṃ kāma strīśoka*nāśana (°nāśana] conj.; °nāśanaḥ
ed.) | śokārttiṃ hara me nityam ānandaṃ janayasva me iti || 105 || neṣyāmi vṛkṣa
pūjārthaṃ tvāṃ kṛṣṇaprītikārakam | iti saṃprārthya natvā ca gṛhṇīyād damanaṃ
śubham || 106 || prokṣya taṃ pañcagavyena prakṣālyādbhiḥ prapūjya ca | va-
DOMINIC GOODALL 399
There are several observations to be made here about how this account
differs from Śaiva accounts of a rite of the same name, and perhaps we
should begin with that name. The rite is repeatedly referred to as one of
damanakāropaṇa, even though there seems in this case to be no ritual par-
allel to the pavitrāropaṇa/pavitrārohaṇa, as there is in the Śaiva case. I
have, for want of better ideas, translated ārohaṇa/āropaṇa with “festoon-
ing,” since I take it to mean “raising up and laying upon” and that it refers
to the way in which the pavitra-threads are laid like garlands upon the sub-
strate in which a deity is worshipped. The Damana plant here, however,
seems not to be divided up into garland-like parts to parallel the different
pavitra-threads, and it is not wholly clear whether it is used to garland
Kṛṣṇa. So the use of the collocation damanakāropaṇa might itself perhaps
be evidence of a Śaiva influence, since the name might only be supposed
fully to make sense if it describes a rite parallel to the pavitrāroha-
ṇa/pavitrāropaṇa.

streṇācchādya vedādighoṣeṇa gṛham ānayet || 107 || atha damanakādhivāsavidhiḥ |
kṛṣṇasyāgre samuddhṛtya sarvatobhadramaṇḍalam | nidhāya damanaṃ tatra rātrau
tam adhivāsayet | tatra mantraḥ | pūjārthaṃ devadevasya viṣṇor lakṣmīpateḥ pra-
bhoḥ | damana tvam ihāgaccha sānnidhyaṃ kuru te namaḥ | iti || 108 || sabījaṃ
kāmadevañ ca tathā bhasmaśarīrakam | ānandaṃ manmathañ caiva vasantasakham
eva ca | smaraṃ tathekṣucāpañ ca puṣpabāṇañ ca pūjayet | *prāgādidikṣu
(prāgādidikṣu] conj.; pragādidikṣu ed.) ratyāḍhyaṃ vidhivad damane kramāt || 109 ||
aṣṭottaraśataṃ kāmagāyatryā cābhimantrya tam | dattvā puṣpāñjaliṃ kāmadevaṃ
vandeta mantravat | mantraś cāyam | namo ’stu puṣpabāṇāya jagadāhlādakāriṇe |
manmathāya jagannetre ratiprītipradāyine iti | āmantrito ’si deveśa purāṇa
puruṣottama | prātas tvāṃ pūjayiṣyāmi sānnidhyaṃ kuru keśava | nivedayāmy ahaṃ
tubhyaṃ prātar damanakaṃ śubham | sarvathā sarvadā viṣṇo namas te ’stu prasīda
me | ittham āmantrya deveśaṃ dattvā puṣpāñjaliṃ punaḥ | gītanṛtyādinā rātrau
kuryāj jāgaraṇaṃ mudā || 110 || atha damanakārpaṇavidhiḥ | prātaḥ snānādi nirva-
rttya nityapūjāṃ vidhāya ca | damanāropaṇārthañ ca mahāpūjāṃ samācaret | tato
damanakaṃ bhaktyā pāṇibhyāṃ parigṛhya ca | ghaṇṭādivādyaghoṣeṇa śrīkṛṣṇāya
samarpayet || 111 || tatra mantraḥ devadeva jagannātha vāñchitārthapradāyaka |
kṛtsnān pūraya me kṛṣṇa kāmān kāmeśvarīpriya | idaṃ damanakaṃ deva gṛhāṇa
madanugrahāt | imāṃ sāṃvatsarīṃ pūjāṃ bhagavann iha pūrayeti || 112 || tato
dāmanakīṃ mālāṃ gandhādīni samarpya ca | gītādinotsavaṃ kṛtvā śrīkṛṣṇaṃ
prārthayed idam || 113 || maṇividrumamālābhir mandārakusumādibhiḥ | iyaṃ sā-
mvatsarī pūjā tavāstu garuḍadhvaja || 114 || vanamālāṃ yathā deva kaustubhaṃ
satataṃ hṛdi | tadvad dāmanakīṃ mālāṃ pūjāñ ca hṛdaye vahetyādi |.

There are, however, a couple of considerations that seriously weaken

such an assumption. One is that we find that the Damana plant is explicitly
used to fashion a garland to be laid upon Kṛṣṇa, both here and in more than
one of the different Vaiṣṇava versions of this festival related in the Jaya-
siṃhakalpadruma (e.g. on p. 442, where the Damana plant is used to make
a vanamālā, and p. 444, where we have a clearer version of the last of the
declaratory mantras: vanamālāṃ yathā deva kaustubhaṃ vahase hṛdi |
tadvad dāmanakīṃ mālāṃ pūjāṃ ca hṛdaye vaha30 ||). For this, the expres-
sion damanakāropaṇa might be said to fit perfectly. The second considera-
tion is that, in contemporary practice in Nepal and in Orissa, the festival
apparently includes the planting of Damana plants,31 an act which could

30
“Just as you wear the Vanamālā and the Kaustubha, O Lord, on your heart, in
the same way bear this garland of Damana and these offerings [of Damana] on your
heart!”
31
I have not observed this practice myself, nor have I seen it described in a Sansk-
rit text, but it is alluded to as being part of the ceremony in Puri on this website:
www.iskcondesiretree.com/page/damanaka-ropana-dvadasi (accessed November 14,
2015):
“Damanaka Ropana Dvadasi
Damanaka Chori or Dayanalagi
The following days the following is observed in Jagannath Puri. This festival is
celebrated on the thirteenth and fourteenth days of the bright fortnight of Chaitra
(April). Deities of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are taken in procession to the Jagan-
nath Ballava Math. There the Deities get Their Dayana leaves from the garden at the
math. On the fourteenth, the leaves are offered to Lord Jagannath, Lady Subhadra
and Lord Balarama.
‘Damanaka is a particular type of flowering tree, Artemisia indica. In modern
Oriya it is called da-aNA. It is one of the two favorite flowers of Lord Jagannath, the
other being campaka. It is said that Lord Jagannath comes to the Jagannath Vallabh
garden in Puri to steal these flowers. Aropana means to plant. On this dvAdazI there
is a ritual planting of the da-aNA tree.’”
Such planting is not mentioned as forming part of the damanabhañjikā rite
described as taking place in Puruṣottamakṣetra (Puri) on the night of the thirteenth of
the bright half of Caitra in chapter 2.45 of the Vaiṣṇavakhaṇḍa of the Skandapurāṇa,
where Viṣṇu, accompanied by Śrī and Satyabhāmā, are worshipped on a lotus-
maṇḍala and Damana grass (tṛṇa) is put in his hand so that he may enjoy crushing it
(2.45.5–11), and the following day a garland of Damana is taken to Jagannātha and
placed upon his head (2.45.12–15). In this case, the garland is compared not to the
Vanamālā, but to a garland made from the entrails of the defeated demon
Hiraṇyakaśipu, since Damana, according to this text, was once a demon defeated by
Viṣṇu.
DOMINIC GOODALL 401
also be naturally described as damanakāropaṇa, for it would be parallel

with the expression aṅkurāropaṇa, “the planting of sprouts” (for this ritual
act, see TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA 1, s.v. aṅkurārpaṇa). In other words,
there are other ritual actions that could naturally be described as dama-
nakāropaṇa and we cannot be certain that the expression originates as a
calque upon pavitrāropaṇa. Nonetheless, I know of no old attestation for
the practice of planting Damana plants as part of the festival,32 and the old-
est attestations of the expression damanāropaṇa/damanakāropaṇa seem to
be in Śaiva contexts where the ritual appears to have been calqued upon the
pavitrāropaṇa. It therefore seems more likely to me that applying it to the
“planting of Damana” would be an inventive repurposing of the term, ra-
ther than that it originally referred to planting and was repurposed by the
Śaivas to describe a ritual that is parallel to their pavitrāropaṇa.
In one respect the Haribhaktivilāsa certainly preserves here something
that is surely old and that has been effaced from Somaśambhu’s ritual,
namely its essentially vernal character because of the integral involvement
of Kāma: From the declaratory mantras here, we learn that the Damana
plant is first identified with Kāmadeva and then offered to Kṛṣṇa. It makes
much more sense that a sweet-smelling plant culled for spring-time worship
should be identified with Kāma than that it should be a form of Bhairava!
No Śaiva influence is acknowledged, of course, for the rite is instead pre-
sented here as a Brahmanical one of hoary antiquity; but the mention at the
beginning of “such works as the Baudhāyana” as an ancient authority for
this ritual looks suspicious. Just as Śaiva sources cannily give the Svac-
chanda, a vast scripture that claims several “versions,” as a probably fic-
tional locus of attribution for this rite, it looks as though this Vaiṣṇava work
has also sought to mention a textual authority and it has done so in such a

As for Damana-planting in the Kathmandu valley in Nepal, it is alluded to in
ZOTTER’s thesis (2010*: 336): “Sehr bekannt ist im Kathmandutal […] die Verwen-
dung von damana(ka) im Frühling. Zum Pflichtprogramm der jährlich in den großen
Tempeln zu verrichtenden Rituale gehören das Säen von damana (damanāropaṇa)
und das Verehren von Gottheiten mit dessen Blüten.”
32
There are descriptions that involve a rite of planting sprouts (aṅkurāropaṇa)
some days before the Damana-festival (see, for example, Viśvāmitrasaṃhitā 26.4,
part of a Pāñcarātra account), but this is a standard prognosticatory procedure before
most festivals in South Indian Temple Āgamas, whether Śaiva or Vaiṣṇava, and there
is no indication in these cases that the seeds involved (the reference to “sprouts” in
the compound aṅkurārpaṇa/aṅkurāropaṇa is of course proleptic: it is seeds that are
planted) are those of the Damana plant.

vague way that no reader could know quite where to check: after all, per-
haps there is somewhere some work that can be styled Baudhāyana which
describes a Damana-festival?33
While Śaivas appear to have colonised this spring festival by calquing
its structure on another annual reparatory rite and by making the Damana
plant into a transmogrified Bhairava rather than a form of Kāmadeva, there
may seem at first blush to have been no Vaiṣṇavisation here, for Kāmade-
va, who is in any case no enemy of Kṛṣṇa,34 is a central figure. But the
choice of lunar date for the festival might be a trace reflecting Vaiṣṇava
assimilation. In the correlation of lunar days (tithi) with particular deities
that began to involve in the Gṛhyasūtra literature (see EINOO 2005: 101–
111), the thirteenth day of the lunar fortnight is typically associated with
Kāmadeva. The twelfth day, by contrast, is very frequently associated with
Viṣṇu and the fourteenth with Śiva. Exactly these correspondences (Viṣṇu,
12th; Kāmadeva, 13th; Śiva, 14th) may be found in another relatively early
account to which Einoo in 2005 did not have access, namely the Niśvāsa-
mukhatattvasaṃhitā (3.127ff., in KAFLE 2015; see also the tabulation of
Devīpurāṇa 61 below). It seems likely that a popular tradition of Kāmadeva
worship would have been widely associated with the thirteenth day
(Kāmadeva’s day) of the month of Caitra (Kāmadeva’s month), and that
this festival was sometimes tugged towards the twelfth by Viṣṇu-devotees,
as here, and sometimes to the fourteenth by devotees of Śiva. We find the

33
The same vague ascription is recorded by the Jayasiṃhakalpadruma (p. 440) as
being mentioned in one of its sources, the Rāmārcanacandrikā: rāmārcanaca-
ndrikāyāṃ tu dvādaśyāṃ damanotsavaḥ kārya ity uktam:
dvādaśyāṃ caitramāsasya śuklāyāṃ damanotsavaḥ
baudhāyanādibhiḥ proktaḥ kartavyaḥ prativatsaram
(The contrast alluded to here by the particle tu is with the other sources reported,
the Madanaratna, the Brahmapurāṇa quoted in the Nirṇayāmṛta, and the Nṛsiṃha-
paricaryā, all of which prescribe beginning the rite on the eleventh, keeping vigil at
night, rather than on the twelfth.)
34
The Sanskrit commentary (the Digdarśinīṭīkā, which, according to BROO 2003:
21, is by Sanātana Gosvāmin) that is printed with the Haribhaktavilāsa even suggests
the possibility of identifying Kāmadeva with Kṛṣṇa, as was pointed out to me by
Måns Broo in an e-mail of February 4, 2015, for its commentary on 14.105 begins
tatra damanakārāme aśokavṛkṣarūpaṃ smaram akṣatacandanādinā pūjayet. atra ca
kāmarūpeṇa śrībhagavata eva pūjādikaṃ jñeyam. yad vā … : “In this grove of the
Damana plant, one should worship Smara in the form of the Aśoka tree, using un-
husked [rice], sandal, and so forth. And here we may understand that the worship and
such is of the glorious Lord in the form of Kāmadeva. Alternatively…”
DOMINIC GOODALL 403
fourteenth, prescribed for instance in the Jñānārṇavatantra, in chapter 26.35

Similarly, we find a spring festival (vasantotsava) involving the worship of
Skanda with, among other things, Damana (dāmaiḥ in 39.44) enjoined on
the sixth day of the bright fortnight of Caitra or Vaiśākha in the Kumāra-
tantra (39.41–74), the sixth day being typically that of Skanda.
Since we find Śaiva-inflected, Vaiṣṇava-inflected, and Kaumāra-
inflected accounts of damanapūjā, it will perhaps be no surprise to discover
that the rite was also adapted by devotees of the goddess. Rather than quote
and translate another long passage as evidence here in the body of this arti-
cle, particularly since the text in question is not easy to edit because of
doubts about which of its many anomalies of grammar and sense are autho-
rial and which transmissional, I have added part of an unpublished account
(kindly brought to my attention by Diwakar Acharya) of Devī-related da-
manapūjā to an appendix, so that interested readers may have an impres-
sion of the work. The text affects the style of a Tantra36 and, once again, it
begins (verse 1), with what looks like a fictional locus of attribution: The
rite is said to have been taught in a scripture vaguely named the
Pārameśvara. Here it is the goddess who, in response to a question of Ma-
heśa, recounts an aetiological myth in which it is explained that Damana
was an overweening Asura whom she fought and felled and who, trans-
formed into a plant, has since been used for the worship of Hara. The story
is plainly influenced by that best-known of all works of goddess-
mythology, the Durgā-Saptaśatī (or Devīmāhātmya), of which, as Diwakar
Acharya has pointed out to me, there are close verbal echoes (see, e.g.,
verse 16).
But might there be any accounts of Damana-pūjā that have not been in-
flected by Śaivism or Vaiṣṇavism or devotion to the goddess or to some

35
Cf. also Epigraphia Indica 23, “No 29. Fragmentary Stone Inscription of Queen
Uddalladevī: V.S 1294” (NĀGAR 1940: 188): …śrī-uddaladevyā … saṃva-
[tsa][rāṇāṃ] dvādaśaśateṣu caturnnavatyadhikeṣu damanaka-caturdaśyāṃ [gu-
ru]vāre śrīvindhyeśvaradevasya … [prā]sādoyaṃ kāritaḥ pratiṣṭhāpitaś ca. My
attention was drawn to this passage by KANE V/1: 310.
36
Its colophonic concluding statement, however, on f. 5r, appears to read
anaṣṭayacchandasā proktaṃ ṣaṣṭhiśokerudāhṛtaḥ | nirṇītaṃ śrīkamalākhyena pa-
rvvadāmanasaṃjñitaḥ || 0 || damanārohaṇavidhi samāptaḥ || 0 || The verse, once
adjusted for metre and sense, might have been intended to read anuṣṭupchandasā
proktaṃ ṣaṣṭiślokair udāhṛtam | nirṇītaṃ kamalākhyena parva dāmanasaṃjñitam.
“This [account of the] calendrical rite called dāmana, proclaimed in anuṣṭubh metre
in 60 ślokas, was composed by Kamala.”

other divinity? Various works of classical literature, notably the Ratnāvalī

and the Kuṭṭanīmata,37 allude to spring festivals of Kāmadeva, but perhaps
there is no surviving detailed prescriptive account of such an uninflected
Damana-related festival of love in Caitra because there may never have
been a community – of monotheistic Kāmadeva worshippers, for example –
who would have felt the need to set down in writing the niceties of such a
public festival in the way that, for instance, Saiddhāntikas did. Neverthe-
less, it is possible that the mentions in some Purāṇas capture details of prac-
tices that predate the appropriation of Damana-pūjā by the monotheistic
devotional religions.
It is conceivable, for instance, that the Devīpurāṇa contains a faint trace
of a barely inflected worship of Kāmadeva involving the Damana plant, but
it is unfortunately not particularly rich in detail. Its chapter 61 lists the dei-
ties who are to be worshipped on each tithi of the month of Caitra. One of
these is Kāmadeva:
On the thirteenth day, Kāmadeva is to be worshipped in accordance

with the rules, together with Rati and Prīti, [and] adorned with amu-
lets of Aśoka.38 [He is to be worshipped] in a pot, or drawn upon a
white cloth, using leaves and fruits and the like, [and] with offerings
of rice cooked with sugar-cane; [if one worships him in this way],
one will attain incomparable sexual prowess.39
Now there is no mention of any Damana here, but worship with Damana-
sprigs (damanaiḥ) figures explicitly in the prescriptions for the worship of
six of the other deities in Caitra, as the table below shows, so its use here
should probably simply be understood from the use of the expression
yathāvidhi, as has been suggested by MEYER (1937: 53).

37
These accounts are discussed at length, along with much else besides, by
MEYER 1937: 11–59, as part of a long treatment entitled “Der altindische Liebesgott
als Vegetationsdämon und sein Fest,” covering pp. 12–38.
38
I had been inclined to guess that aśokamaṇi referred to “gem[-like buds] of the
Aśoka,” but “amulet” is the interpretation, no doubt correct, of MEYER (1937: 44),
when he translates the same line when it appears in another work.
39
Devīpurāṇa 61: kāmadevas trayodaśyāṃ pūjanīyo yathāvidhi | ratiprīti-
samāyukto hy aśokamaṇibhūṣitaḥ || kumbhe vā sitavastre vā lekhyaḥ pattraphalādi-
bhiḥ | khaṇḍaśarkaranaivedyaiḥ saubhāgyam atulaṃ labhet ||.
DOMINIC GOODALL 405
tithi deity verses substances used rewards

1 Brahmā 1 Damana, gandha, dhūpa, fruits of all tīrthas
homa and abhiṣekas
2 Umā, Śiva, 2-3b haviṣya, naivedya
Fire
3 Devī with 3c-7 Damana, swing, vigil and saubhāgya and
Śaṅkara many other offerings children for women
4 Gaṇeśa 8 Laḍḍus, etc vighnanāśa,
sarvakāma
5 Ananta and 9 Milk, ghee, naivedya Removal of the
other serpents effects of all poisons
6 Skanda 10 Happiness (sukha)
and saubhāgya and
attainment of Skanda-
pura after death
7 Sun 11 Damana, etc. bhoga, conquest of
enemies, great tapas
8 Mothers 12 Damana desired siddhi
9 Mahāmahi- 13-14b Damana, incense, banners, victory
ṣamardinī mirrors
10 Dharmarāja 14c-15b conquest of enemies
and the supreme
pada after death
11 Vṛṣa 15c-16b wealth, sons and the
world of Vṛṣa after
death
12 Viṣṇu 16c-17b incense, sandal, oblations Viṣṇupada
13 Kāmadeva 17b-19b To be worshipped in a pot or saubhāgya
with Rati drawn on a white cloth, with
and Prīti leaves and fruits, sugar-cane,
naivedya
14 Śiva 19c-22b Damana, bathing in milk, the fruit of a hundred
incense, flowers, oblations, aśvamedha sacrifices
clothes, vigil, etc.
15 Indra with 22c-23b all desires
Śacī

Much more interesting, however, is this snippet attributed to the

Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, quoted in the detailed twentieth-century commentary
printed in Tripathi’s edition of the Kuṭṭanīmata (ad verse 907), for it may
reflect an ancient custom of burning the Damana plant in echo of the burn-
ing of Kāmadeva by Śiva:40
On the thirteenth of the brightening fortnight of Caitra, having fash-

ioned [an image of] Madana made of Damana and having wor-
shipped it in accordance with the rules, he should fan [it into flames]
with a fan. Kāma being burnt in this context causes the increase of
sons and grandsons. On the thirteenth day, Kāmadeva is to be wor-
shipped in accordance with the rules, together with Rati and Prīti,
[and] adorned with amulets of Aśoka.41
MEYER (1937: 44), after examining such evidence, combined with that of
European practices of burning Artemisia plants at the summer solstice (Jo-
hannisfest) to assuage unhappiness in love (1937: 44ff.), indeed assumed
that the burning of mugwort was an ancient custom.
Wir sehen also: Der Beifuß ist eine Form, eine Urform des Liebes-
gottes, und an seinem Fest wird der Beifuß mit dem vollen Bewußt-
sein dieser Identität v e r b r a n n t. Der innige Zusammenschluß der

40
The same verses, with minor variations, occur elsewhere, for instance at the be-
ginning of chapter 122 of pāda 4 or the pūrvabhāga of the Nāradapurāṇa (with the
corruption candanātmakam in place of damanātmakam). Neither Meyer nor I have
been able to find this passage in the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, but MEYER records (1937: 42)
that he has found the first three half-lines of it attributed to the Pādmapurāṇa in
Hemādri’s Caturvargacintāmaṇi and to the Kūrmapurāṇa in the Smṛtisāroddhāra.
As we have just seen above, the last pair of half-lines is to be found in the De-
vīpurāṇa, and MEYER (1937: 53) also points to other places in which they occur. We
should note that the fact that the verses are not found in the extant Bhaviṣyapurāṇa is
not necessarily an indication that they did not once belong there, for it is clear that
much that is quoted with attribution to the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa by commentators and
compendium-compilers is no longer to be found there (see HAZRA 1940: 167–173).
41
Kuṭṭanīmata ad verse 907:
caitraśuklatrayodaśyāṃ madanaṃ damanātmakam
kṛtvā saṃpūjya vidhivad vījayed vījanena tu
tatra saṃdhukṣitaḥ kāmaḥ putrapautravivardhanaḥ
kāmadevas trayodaśyāṃ pūjanīyo yathāvidhi
ratiprītisamāyukto hy aśokamaṇibhūṣitaḥ
DOMINIC GOODALL 407
beiden drückt sich auch darin aus, daß der damanaka aus der Asche
des Kāma, in der späteren indischen Vorstellung gewiß des von
Çivas Augenfeuer verbrannten, enstanden sein soll.42
⌘⌘⌘
Having now discussed the various traditions of damanapūjā that we have

encountered, let us return briefly to the text-critical problem concerning
Jñānaśambhu’s work. When we compare the South Indian and Nepalese
versions that purport to be Jñānaśambhu’s text (compare appendices 1 and
2), the most obvious difference is that the Nepalese version is in prose,
punctuated with just a few verses. These verses are common to the South
Indian text, excepting one, which is presented as a quotation from another
source, the Mohacūḍottara. At first blush, there is nothing here to surprise
a reader familiar with other parts of the Jñānaratnāvalī, for although this
particular section of the work in the southern sources is entirely in verse,
most other sections are in a mixture of prose and verse and contain numer-
ous marked and unmarked quotations from scriptural sources that justify or
complement or contrast with what Jñānaśambhu prescribes.43 But when we
stop to look, we see that the shared verses are in this case, with one excep-
tion, simply part of the ritual: they are formulae that are to be addressed to
the Damana plant and to Śiva in the course of the rite. The one exception is
the verse right at the beginning that alludes to Jñānaśambhu’s authorship
and concludes the previous section of the text. In other words, no distinc-
tive formulation is shared, other than the authorship-verse: what the two
versions have in common is just the sequence of rites that are prescribed.
The sequence is formulated in one case in verse and contains aetiological
and other discussions – a sort of auto-commentary – and in the other case in
prose with little comment. It thus seems clear that to transform the Nepa-
lese version into the southern one would have required a vast intellectual
effort of versification and reflection, an effort little different from fresh
composition; to arrive at the Nepalese text from the southern one, however,

42
ANDERSON (1993: 136–137), who seems not to have been aware of Meyer’s
work, refers to anthropologists’ accounts of such rituals of the burning of effigies of
Kāma in South India in recent times.
43
Of the three other hitherto edited sections of the Jñānaratnāvalī of which I am
aware, those edited by MIRNIG (2018), namely the antyeṣṭividhi and the śrā-
ddhakarmavidhi, are almost entirely in verse, but the treatment of Caṇḍeśa worship
(edited and translated in GOODALL 2009: 360–366) is in a mixture of prose and verse.

would have been a relatively simple enterprise, requiring cutting out what-
ever was not necessary for ritual performance and restating the ritual acts in
straightforward prose. The Nepalese text bears the appearance of a true
“handbook,” a guide that an officiant might hold or lay beside him while
performing the rite, designed only to cover the parallel Śaiva festivals of
pavitrotsava and damanotsava and consciously based on the much more
literary and reflective scholastic work of Jñānaśambhu.
Conclusions
Two conclusions are in order here. The first concerns the issue of transmis-
sion. It seems clear, when we juxtapose the Nepalese and South Indian
texts of the Jñānaratnāvalī, that it is, fortunately, likely to be the more lit-
erary South Indian version – full as it is of quotations, discussions, and
versified instructions – that is primary, rather than the Nepalese version,
which makes the impression of being a stripped down prose version that
can, as it were, be held in the practitioner’s hand while he conducts the
ritual. This means that we can continue to consider the rich compendium
that is the South Indian text, compiled by a South Indian living in Benares,
as an indicator of which scriptures were and were not available to
Saiddhāntika authors in the second half of the twelfth century.
The second conclusion concerns the subject matter of the various pas-
sages we have drawn upon, namely the damanotsava. What can explain this
profusion of conflicting details in ritual performance, deity of worship,
conception of purpose, and contradictory mythological explanations for the
involvement of a certain plant or genus of plants? It is clear that we have
with the damanotsava a widely practised rite associated with spring and
with love that has been adapted by several different medieval religious
communities and then coloured to suit their particular needs. In most cases,
this has meant crafting a fresh aetiological myth44 and imagining a scriptur-

44
We have referred above to passages that mention or narrate myths in which
Damana is variously to be identified with Kāmadeva, with Bhairava, and with a
demon felled, like Mahiṣāsura, by the Goddess, but we have not hitherto made refe-
rence to a passage in which Damana is the transformation of a watery demon whom
Viṣṇu sought out from the ocean, thrashed and transformed into a grassy plant. This
is briefly narrated in 2.38.113ff. in the Vaiṣṇavakhaṇḍa of the Skandapurāṇa:
purā damanakaṃ daityaṃ samudrodakacāriṇam |
bādhitāraṃ janānāṃ vai māyābalaparākramam || 113
DOMINIC GOODALL 409
al source of authority (Svacchandatantra, Baudhāyana, Pārameśvara) to

which an account of the rite and myth could be attributed; but it has also
meant altering profoundly the structure of the ritual. In the Śaiva case, the
model of an expiatory rite, the pavitrotsava, has been adopted wholesale,
leading in turn to the rather odd solution of making the ostensible purpose
of the rite into something that prevents those who perform it from “losing”
the merits that they would otherwise have acquired during the month of
Caitra because of their being passed over to Bhairava.
We have seen above that Brunner, misled by the probably fictional as-
cription of an account of the rite to the Svacchandatantra, suspected that
the Saiddhāntika damanotsava had its origin in a Bhairava-oriented tradi-
tion of the Mantramārga. But it seems much more likely that the roots of
Damana-worship were to be found in a spring festival of Love that be-
longed to popular, non-sectarian social religion of the kind termed laukika
by the Niśvāsamukhatattvasaṃhitā.
It seems, in other words, as though the Śaivas who worked the
damanotsava into their ritual calendar may have started with a popular rite
that was irrelevant to them in every way: the event was devoted to
Kāmadeva and to the celebration of spring and it promised no rewards that
could easily be connected to the often emphasised Mantramārga goals of
attaining liberation or supernatural powers. So why did they bother to in-
clude the damanotsava? It seems to me that we should think in terms of a
tension between the soteriological focus of the early religion on the one

bhagavān api māyāvī pitāmahanideśataḥ |
matsyāvatāreṇa vibhuḥ praviśya varuṇālayam || 114
anviṣyākṛṣya velāyāṃ niṣpipeṣa mahītale |
madhoḥ śuklacaturdaśyāṃ patito dānavottamaḥ || 115
bhagavatkarasamparkāt sugandhir abhavat tṛṇam |
“Formerly [there was] a demon [called] Damanaka who moved in the waters of
the ocean and killed people, powerful because of the force of Māyā. At Brahmā’s
command, the immanent Lord, who is also possessed of Māyā, entered the ocean in
his piscine form, searched [Damanaka] out, dragged him to the shore and pummelled
him on the ground. The great Dānava was felled on the fourteenth of [the month of]
Caitra (madhoḥ). By contact with the Lord’s hands, he became a fragrant grass.”
There is perhaps a trace of a slightly different version of this myth a few chapters
later in the same text when the festival (of damanabhañjikā) is described, since there
the plant is said to sprout out from Damanaka’s body (2.45.7): purā niśīthe ’pi vibhur
babhañja damanāsuram | bhaṅktvā lebhe parāṃ prītiṃ tadaṅgotthaṃ ca tat tṛṇam ||:
“It was also at night that the Immanent Lord formerly broke the demon Damana. He
took great delight in breaking him. This grass rose from that [demon’s] body.”

hand and its outreach into a growing community of followers on the other.
We may imagine śaivācāryas seeing their sphere of authority being further
and further widened by the broadening of scope of their religion that result-
ed from admitting larger categories of people to initiated life, a tendency
that is suggested, for instance, by the creation of the category of a “seedless
initiation” (nirbīja-dīkṣā), an initiation for people such as “women, fools,
and kings,” in other words, those who for different reasons were held to be
unable to follow the time-consuming post-initiatory rituals and religious
activities of regular initiates.45 As the social base broadened, so too did the
liturgy, which could naturally be expanded by adapting the calendrical
feasts of popular religion.
Early literature of the Mantramārga shows little interest in socio-
religious rituals of any kind and appears, as we have seen, to describe no
utsavas at all. We have seen that this is not because utsavas did not exist at
the time of the early scriptures, and so it must be assumed that this is be-
cause such utsavas had no soteriological function. The first utsava to figure
in the canon of rites, if one does not include the celebratory rituals sur-
rounding a pratiṣṭhā, appears to be the pavitrotsava, which we find de-
scribed, for instance, in the Kiraṇatantra and in the Mohacūḍottara. The
inclusion of this festival before all others is perhaps to be explained by its
being something that could be given a soteriological function: that of repa-
ration of expiable offences of which one might not be aware. The
damanotsava seems to be the next to have been roped in, after first being
rewritten upon the model of the pavitrotsava. The motive for its inclusion
was, I propose, to harness the popularity of a people’s festival that, in the
early Siddhānta, would have been of no interest to those composing scrip-
tures – to harness this popularity while reducing to an absolute minimum
the relevance of spring and the god of love in the festival! Such a broaden-
ing of the ritual canon prefigures the total transformation of the religion
that begins to be reflected a century later, in the twelfth century, in the
South Indian Temple Āgamas, a huge corpus of literature that attempts to
describe every aspect of the socio-religious life of a large South Indian
temple. This literature, while purporting to belong to the Śaivasiddhānta, in
fact pays almost no further attention to soteriologically important rituals
such as nirvāṇadīkṣā (salvific initiation), and discusses instead at great

45
For more detailed reflections on the gradual social broadening of the current of
the Mantramārga that became the Śaivasiddhānta, see GOODALL, SANDERSON,
ISAACSON et al. 2015: 47–59 and, with a particular focus on the growing prominence
of women, GOODALL 2015: 23–49.
DOMINIC GOODALL 411
length the courtly protocol of rites and processions for temple images. The
Śaivasiddhānta had, it seems, by then become so “mainstream” in South
Indian society that it became transformed, almost beyond recognition, by the
popular temple-based religious traditions that it had engulfed and swallowed.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati of Īśānaśiva
Isanasivagurudevapaddhati of Isanasiva Gurudeva Ed. by M. M. T.
Gaṇapati Sāstrī with an Elaborate Introduction by Dr. N.P. Unni. Del-
hi, Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1990 [first printed, without in-
troduction, in 1920].
Kiraṇatantra
Kiraṇāgamamahātantram. Ed. Pañcāpageśa. Devakoṭṭai, 1932.
Kuṭṭanīmata of Damodara Gupta
Kuttani-matam or Shambhali-matam. A Didactic Poem Composed about
A. D. 755–786 by Damodara Gupta, the Chief Minister of King Jayapi-
da of Kashmir, edited with a New Commentary Rasa-Dipika by Tanasu-
khram Manasukhraram Tripathi. Varanasi: Krishnadas Academy, 1991
[reprint of the Bombay edition of 1924].
Kumāratantra
Kumāratantram. Ed. E.M. Kandaswami Sarma. Madras: South Indian
Archaka Association, 1974.
Kriyākramadyotikā of Aghoraśiva, with the commentary of Nirmalamaṇi
Aghoraśivācāryaviracitā Kriyākramadyotikākhyā Paddhatiḥ. Nirmala-
maṇiguruviracitā Prabhākhyā Kriyākramadyotikāvyākhyā. Ed.
Rāmaśāstrin and Ambalavānajñānasambandhaparāśaktisvāmin Cidam-
baram, 1927.
Jayasiṃhakalpadruma of Ratnākaradīkṣita
Jayasiṃhakalpadruma of Ratnākaradīkṣita or Devabhaṭṭātmaja-
Pauṇḍarīkayāji-Ratnākara. Ed. Harinārāyaṇa Śarman. Bombay, 1903.
Jñānaratnāvalī of Jñānaśambhu (JR)
South Indian manuscripts: Madras GOML R 14898 (from which IFP
T. 231 was copied) and Mysore ORI P. 3801. Nepalese manuscript cov-
ering instructions relating to pavitrāropaṇa and damanāropaṇa only:
NGMPP A 49/7.

Jñānārṇavatantra
Īśvaraproktaṃ jñānāmṛtatantram. ānandāśramapaṇḍitaiḥ saṃśodhitam.
Poona: Ānandāśrama Press, 1952.
Durgāsaptaśatī
Devī-māhātmyam: The Glorification of the Great Goddess. Ed. and
transl. Vasudeva S. Agrawala. Varanasi: All-India Kashiraj Trust, 1963.
Devīpurāṇa
Devī Purāṇam (First Critical Devanāgari Edition). Ed. Puṣpen-
drakumāraśarman. New Delhi: Śrīlālabahāduraśāstrīkendriyasaṃskṛta-
vidyāpīṭham, 1976.
Devyāmata
NGMPP A 41/15.
Nāradapurāṇa
Atha Nāradīyamahāpurāṇaṃ prārabhyate. Ed. Śrīkṛṣṇadāsa Khemarāja.
Bombay: Śrīveṅkaṭeśvara Steam Press, 1867.
Niśvāsamukhatattvasaṃhitā
See KAFLE 2015.
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā govindācāryaiḥ saṃskṛtā, anekavidhādarśādibhiḥ
saṃyojitā ca. Ed. Govindācārya. Śrīraṅgam, Tiruchi: Kodandaramar
Sannidhi, 1953.
Bhaviṣyapurāṇa
Khemarāja śrīkṛṣṇadāsena sampāditasya mumbaī śrī veṃkaṭeśvarasṭīm
mudraṇālayena prakāśitasya punarmudraṇam. śrībhaviṣyamahāpu-
rāṇam. The Bhaviṣyamahāpurāṇam. dillī viśvavidyālayastha hindū-
mahāvidyālayasya ḍā° rājendranāthaśarmaṇā bhūmikā pāṭhaśodha-
nābhyāṃ pariṣkṛtam nāgaśaraṇasiṃhasampāditaślokānukramaṇyā sa-
hitam. Ed. Rajendra Nath Sharma. Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1984.
Viśvāmitrasaṃhitā
Viśvāmitra Saṁhitā. Ed. Undemane Shankara Bhatta. Tirupati: Kendri-
ya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, 1970.
Śivadharmaśāstra
Printed in: Paśupatimatam: Śivadharmamahāśāstram, Paśupatinātha-
darśanam. Ed. Naraharināth. Kathmandu: Bṛhadādyātmikapariṣadaḥ,
Kāṣṭhamaṇḍapaḥ Gorakhāhinduraṣṭram, 1999.
– Also NGMPP A 3/3 [Nepal] samvat 321 [scil. 1201 AD], f.27v–28r (=
A); NGMPP B 7/3 [Nepal] samvat 290 [scil. 1170 AD], f.26r–26v (=
B); IFP T. 32 (C20th transcript of a Grantha palm-leaf ms.) (= T).
DOMINIC GOODALL 413
Sarvajñānottaravṛtti of Aghoraśiva
IFP RE 47852 (paper manuscript in Grantha script).
Somaśambhupaddhati (SP1, SP2, etc. = BRUNNER 1963, 1968, etc.)
See BRUNNER 1963–1998.
Somaśambhupaddhatiṭīkā of Trilocanaśivācārya
Forthcoming edition of S.A.S. Sarma, based on, among other manuscripts,
Madras GOML M. 14735 (paper manuscript in Devanāgarī script).
Skandapurāṇa
The Skandamahāpurāṇam. 7 vols. Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1986–1987
[Reprint of Veṅkaṭeśvara Steam Press edition].
Haribhaktivilāsa
Śrīśrīharibhaktivilāsaḥ saṭīkaḥ mahāmahopādhyāya paramabhāgavata
śrīgopālabhaṭṭa saṃgṛhītaḥ … śrīyuktamuktārāma vidyāvāgīśena śodhi-
taḥ. Kālikātā: Pūrṇacandrodayayantra, 1845. [Digital copy of this Ben-
gali-script edition downloaded from the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek on
November 29, 2015]
ANDERSON, L. A. 1993. Vasantotsava. The Spring Festivals of India. Texts

and Traditions. New Delhi: D.K. Printworld.
BISSCHOP, P. 2010. Once Again on the Identity of Caṇḍeśvara in Early
Śaivism: A rare Caṇḍeśvara in the British Museum? Indo-Iranian Jour-
nal 53, pp. 233–249.
BROO, M. 2003. As Good as God. The Guru in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. Åbo:
Åbo Akademi University Press.
BRUNNER, H. (ed. and transl.) 1963, 1968, 1977, 1998. Somaśambhupad-
dhati. 4 vols: Première Partie. Le rituel quotidien dans la tradition
śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somaśambhu; Deuxième Partie. Rituels
Occasionnels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon
Somaśambhu I : Pavitrārohaṇa, Damanapūjā et Prāyaścitta; and
Troisième Partie. Rituels occasionels dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde
du Sud selon Somaśambhu II : dīkṣā, abhiṣeka, vratoddhāra, antyeṣṭi,
śrāddha; and Rituels dans la tradition śivaïte selon Somaśambhu.
Quatrième partie : rituels optionnels : pratiṣṭhā. Pondicherry: Institut
Français d’Indologie.
DAVIS, R.H. 2010. A Priest’s Guide for the Great Festival. Aghoraśiva’s
Mahotsavavidhi Translated with Introduction and Notes. New York:
Oxford University Press.

EINOO, S. 2005. Ritual Calendar. Change in the Conventions of Time and

Space. Journal Asiatique 293.1, pp. 99–124.
GOODALL, D. (ed. and transl.) 1998. Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Commentary on
the Kiraṇatantra. Volume I: chapters 1–6. Critical edition and annotat-
ed translation. Pondicherry: Institut français de Pondichéry / École fran-
çaise d’Extrême-Orient.
2000. Problems of Name and Lineage: relationships between South Indian
authors of the Śaiva Siddhānta. A review article of Somaśambhupaddhati :
rituels dans la tradition sivaïte selon Somaśambhu. Quatrième partie : ritu-
els optionnels : pratiṣṭhā. texte, traduction et notes. Hélène Brunner-
Lachaux. 1998. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 10, pp. 205–216.
2004. The Parākhyatantra. A Scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta. A critical
edition and annotated translation. Pondicherry: Institut Français de
Pondichéry / École française d’Extrême-Orient.
2009. Who is Caṇḍeśa? In: S. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of
Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, pp.
351–423.
2014. Saiddhāntika paddhatis I. On Rāmanātha, the Earliest Southern Au-
thor of the Śaivasiddhānta of Whom Works Survive, and on Eleventh-
century Revisions of the Somaśambhupaddhati. Cracow Indological
Studies 16, pp. 169–201.
2015. Introduction to Sathyanarayanan & Goodall 2015.
GOODALL, D, with A. SANDERSON & H. ISAACSON, et al. 2015. The
Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra. Volume 1. A
Critical Edition & Annotated Translation of the Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra
& Nayasūtra, in collaboration with Alexis Sanderson & Harunaga Isaac-
son, with contributions of Nirajan Kafle, Diwakar Acharya & others.
Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO/Asien-Afrika-Institut, Universität Hamburg.
HAZRA, R.C., 1940. Studies in the Purāṇic Records on Hindu Rites and
Customs. Dacca: University of Dacca.
1985. The Śiva-dharma. Purāṇa 27, pp. 282–299.
KAFLE, N. 2015*. The Niśvāsamukha, the Introductory Book of the
Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. Critical Edition, with an Introduction and Anno-
tated Translation Appended by Śivadharmasaṅgraha 5–9. Doctoral the-
sis defended at the University of Leiden in October 2015.
KANE, P. V. 31994. History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediæval Reli-
gious and Civil Law). Volume V, Part I (Vratas, Utsavas, and Kāla,
etc.). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
DOMINIC GOODALL 415
MATSUBARA, M. 1994. Pāñcarātra Saṃhitās & Early Vaiṣṇava Theology.

MEYER, J. J. 1937. Trilogie indischer Mächte und Feste der Vegetation.
Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Religions- und Kulturgeschichte, Fest-
und Volkskunde. Zürich/Leipzig: M. Niehans.
MIRNIG, N. 2018. Liberating the Liberated. A History of the Development
of Cremation and Ancestor Worship in the Early Śaiva Siddhānta. Anal-
ysis, Texts and Translations. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
NĀGAR, M.M. 1940. No. 29. Fragmentary Stone Inscription of Queen
Uddalladevi: V.S. 1294. Epigraphia Indica 23 (1935–36), pp. 186–189.
PADOUX, A. 2014. Review of Davis 2010, BEFEO 99 (2012–2013),
pp. 427–431.
RASTELLI, M. 2006. Die Tradition des Pāñcarātra im Spiegel der
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
SANDERSON, A. 2007. The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir. In: Dominic
Goodall and André Padoux (eds), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire
d’Hélène Brunner. Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Pon-
dicherry: IFP/EFEO, pp. 231–442.
2014. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies 24 & 25 (2012–
2013), pp. 1–113.
SATHYANARAYANAN, R. & D. GOODALL, 2015. Śaiva Rites of Expiation.
A First Edition and Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s Twelfth-century
Prāyaścittasamuccaya (with a transcription of Hṛdayaśiva’s Prāyaścit-
tasamuccaya), critically edited & translated by R. Sathyanarayanan,
with an introduction by Dominic Goodall. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA I, 2000, Tāntrikābhidhānakośa I. Dictionnaire
des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique. A Dictionary
of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature. Wörterbuch zur
Terminologie hinduistischer Tantren, sous la direction de H. Brunner,
G. Oberhammer et A. Padoux. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA 3, 2013, Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III. Diction-
naire des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique. A Dic-
tionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature. Wörterbuch
zur Terminologie hinduistischer Tantren, sous la direction de Dominic
Goodall et Marion Rastelli. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften.

WATSON, A., GOODALL, D. & ANJANEYA SARMA S.L.P. 2013. An Enquiry

into the Nature of Liberation. Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Paramokṣa-
nirāsakārikāvṛtti, a commentary on Sadyojyotiḥ’s refutation of twenty
conceptions of the liberated state (mokṣa). Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO.
ZOTTER, A. 2010*. Von Blüten, Göttern und Gelehrten. Die Behandlung
von pūjā-Blüten im Puṣpacintāmaṇi: Text, Herkunft und Deutung eines
nepalischen Kompendiums. Doctoral dissertation defended at the Uni-
versity of Leipzig in 2010.
Appendix I
Jñānaśambhu's Jñānaratnāvalī (C12th). From Madras GOML R 14898

(=M1, pp. 202ff) and Mysore ORI ms. P 3801 (=MY), a palm-leaf ms. in
Nandināgarī. (Also, for first verse only, NGMPP A 49/7 (=N).)
śrīcoladeśasambhūtabhūsureṇa46 tapodhinā
śrīmajjñānaśivenāyaṃ47 pavitrakavidhiḥ kṛtaḥ48
svacchandabhairave tantre bhairavo damanaḥ smṛtaḥ49

ratiprītyaśrusaṃsiktasmarabhasmabhavaḥ kvacit50 1
siddhānte nādaras tasya51 prāyaścittāśayair api52
tathāpīhāpi sāmānyaṃ53 puṣpādhyāyeṣu kīrtanāt54 2
pūrvācāryoditatvāc ca tadvidhānaṃ tu55 kathyate

46
śrīcoladeśasambhūta°] MY; coladeśasamudbhūta° N; śrīcoḷadeśasaṃbhūtā M1
47
°śivenāyaṃ] M1N; śivena MY (unmetrical)
48
There follows in M1: śrīmahāgaṇapataye namaḥ; in MY: śrīmatkāverīka-
pilāṣṭaradakkisarovara-
triveṇīsaṃgamaśrīmatrima-
kūkpuravarādhīśvaraśrīpūrṇamaṃgalakāmākṣidevīsametaśrī agastyeśvarāya namaḥ
// — // śrīvaidyaliṅgāya namaḥ //.
49
bhairavo damanaḥ smṛtaḥ] em.; bhairavoditamantrataḥ M1; bhairavo damana
smṛtaḥ MY
50
ratiprītyaśrusaṃsiktasmarabhasmabhavaḥ kvacit] conj.; iti prītyaśrusaṃsikta-
smarabhasmabhavaḥ kvacit M1; ratiriprītyāsusaṃsaktasmarabhasmabhayakvacit MY
(unmetrical). For this conjecture, cf. Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, kriyāpāda 22.14.
51
nādaras tasya] M1; nāradas tasya MY
52
°śayair api] conj.; °śrutair api M1; °śrayair api (?) MY
53
tathāpīhāpi sāmānyaṃ] em.; tathāpi bhāvasāmānyaḥ M1; tathāpi hāpi sāmānyaṃ MY
54
puṣpādhyāyeṣu kīrtanāt] em.; puṣpāndhyāyeṣu kīrtanāt M1; puṣpādhyāye
prakīrtanāt MYpc; puṣpādhyāye prakīrtanam MYac
DOMINIC GOODALL 417
saptamyāṃ vā56 trayodaśyāṃ caitre māsi dvipakṣayoḥ 3

kṛtāhnikas tu sāyāhne gatvā damanakāntikam57
saṃprokṣyāstreṇa saṃśodhya pūjayet saṃhitāṇubhiḥ 4
gandhapuṣpapavitrādyaiḥ dhūpadīpādibhiḥ sudhīḥ
praṇamya ca yathāśāstraṃ dāmam āmantrayet tadā58 5
oṃ haraprasādasambhūta tvam atra sannidhībhava59
śivakāryaṃ samuddiśya netavyo ’si śivājñayā60 6
punaś cābhyarcya saṃrakṣya utpāṭya61 svagṛhaṃ nayet
yadi dūraṃ tad ānītaṃ62 samāropya samīpataḥ 7
tatpūrṇapātreṇāropya gṛhe ’py āmantrapūrvavat63
yāgaṃ pūrvoktavat kṛtvā pavitrāṇīva śodhayan64 8
phalaṃ65 puṣpaṃ ca patraṃ ca mūlaṃ nālaṃ tadudbhavam66 9
gavyaughaṃ dantakāṣṭhaṃ ca bhasmabhṛddhātakīphalam
īśānādyuttarāntāsu dikṣu67 pātreṣu vinyaset 10
gandhaṃ damanam āropya68 sūryādīnām anukramāt
devan damanakair iṣṭvā pañcāṅgair avikhaṇḍitaiḥ 11
sāṅgaṃ damanakaṃ dhūpaṃ69 dūrvāpuṣpākṣatānvitam
vidhāyāñjalimadhyastham70 idam āmantraṇaṃ vadet 12
āmantrito71 ’si deveśa prātaḥkāle mayā prabho72

55
tu] M1; ca MY
56
saptamyāṃ vā] M1; saptamyāyāṃ MY
57
gatvā damanakāntikam] em.; kṛtvā damanakāntikam M1; gatvā damanikāṃti-
kaṃ MY. Cf. SP2, 2.6 (of which 3c–4 in Jñānaśambhu’s text seem to be an expanded
version): saptamyāṃ vā trayodaśyāṃ gatvā damanakāntikam | śodhayitvāstrama-
ntreṇa pūjayet saṃhitāṇubhiḥ ||.
58
dāmam āmantrayet tadā] M1; damāmaṃtreṇa tadyathā MY
59
°sambhūta tvamatra sannidhī°] em.; °saṃbhūta atra sannihito MY; °sambhūtā
tvamatra sannidhī° M1
60
netavyo ’si] em.; tenavyosi MY; netavyāsi M1
61
utpāṭya svagṛhaṃ] M1; yāmādyai svagṛhaṃ MY
62
tad ānītaṃ] MY; tathānītaṃ M1
63
°ṇāropya gṛhe ’py āmantra°] conj.; vāropya gṛhe vyāmantra° M1; māropya
gṛhe pyāmaṃtra° MY
64
śodhayan] MY; śodhayet M1
65
phalaṃ] M1; phala° MY
66
mūlaṃ nālaṃ tadudbhavam] MY; mṛṇālaṃ tattadubhavam M1
67
°ttarāntāsu dikṣu] MY; °ttarāntasya triṣu M1
68
gandhaṃ damanam āropya] MYac; gaṃdhaṃ damamanam āropya MYpc;
gandhādamanam āropya M1
69
sāṅgaṃ damanakaṃ dhūpaṃ] MY; sadaṅgamanakandhūpaṃ M1
70
°madhyastham] M1; °madhyasthām MY

kartavyaṃ tu yathākālaṃ73 dāmaparva tavājñayā 13

atra sadyodhivāsaś cet74 sadyaḥkāle ’bhyudīryatām
śivāntaṃ75 mūlam uccārya sāṅgāyeśāya dīyatām76 14
dhūpadīpādinaivedyais toṣayitvā puroktavat
dattvāgnaye ca taccheṣaṃ kumbhādhastāt puroktavat 15
avaśiṣṭaṃ ca nirvartya rātrau jāgarayed iti77
adhivāsavidhiḥ khyātaḥ prātar nityād anantaram 16
sāḍambaraṃ78 yajed īśaṃ dvāradikpaghaṭādibhiḥ79
puṣpadūrvākṣatair80 dhūpaiḥ kṛtvā damanakāñjalim 17
ātmavidyāśivais tattvair81 mūlādyair īśvarāntakaiḥ82
namontais tryañjaliṃ dattvā83 caturdhāñjalinārcayet 18
oṃ hauṃ makheśvarāya makhaṃ pūraya pūraya84 śūlapāṇaye †dama-na-
kaṃ† namaḥ
aṅgebhyaś ca śivāgneś ca dattvā85 kṛtvā balidvayam
śeṣaṃ pūrvavad atrāpi86 kṛtvā gatvā87 śivāntikam 19
oṃ bhagavann atiriktaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā yan mayā kṛtam
sarvaṃ tad astu sampūrṇaṃ88 parva dāmanakaṃ mama89 20

71
āmantrito] M1; oṃ āmaṃtrito MY
72
prabho] M1; vibho MY
73
yathākālaṃ] M1; yathālābhaṃ MY
74
°vāsaś cet] MY; °vāsaṃ cet M1
75
śivāntaṃ] MY; śivānta° M1
76
sāṅgāyeśāya dīyatām] M1; sāṃgeśāyamudīryatāṃ MY
77
jāgarayed iti] conj.; jāgaraṇaṃ kuryāt iti MY (unmetrical); jāgayayāditi M1
78
sāḍambaraṃ] MY; sāśambare M1
79
dvāradikpaghaṭādibhiḥ] M1ac; dvāradikpaghaṭā * bhiḥ M1pc; dvāradi Xkṣu?X k
pa kpa ghaṭāṇubhiḥ MY (The capital X-s here bracket an uncertain cancelled syllable.)
80
puṣpadūrvākṣatai°] M1; dūrvāpuṣpādānai° MY
81
ātmavidyāśivais tattvair] MY; āvidyāni śivaistadvaiḥ M1
82
°kaiḥ] M1; °gaiḥ MY
83
namontais tryañjaliṃ dattvā] MY; nomnaistryañjalirdatvā M1 (unmetrical)
84
makheśvarāya makhaṃ pūraya pūraya] conj.; makheśvarāya makhapūrāya
MY; magheśvarāya maghaṃ pūraya pūraya M1
85
śivāgneś ca dattvā] M1; śivāṃge X?X ś ca kṛtvā MY
86
śeṣaṃ pūrvavad atrāpi] em.; śeṣaṃ pūrvadatrāpi MY (unmetrical); ∪ ṣaṃ pū-
rvavadatrāpi M1
87
gatvā] M1; datvā MY
88
tad astu sampūrṇaṃ] M1; tadasrasaṃpūrṇaṃ MY
89
parva dāmanakaṃ mama] em.; sarve dāmanakarmaṇaḥ M1; pārvadāmanakaṃ
mama MY. This verse (20), with this emendation, is the same as verse 25 of the da-
manapūjāvidhi of the Somaśambhupaddhati.
DOMINIC GOODALL 419
iti vijñāpya deveśe karmātmānaṃ samarpya ca

yāgaṃ visṛjya caṇḍeṣṭiṃ90 kṛtvāthāvabhṛthaṃ91 caret 21
sarvayajñeṣu yat puṇyaṃ tapaḥsarveṣu yat phalam
tat phalaṃ koṭiguṇitam abhiṣekād avāpyate 22
atra śrīsomaśambhupādair92 yo viśeṣaḥ
evaṃ dāmavidhiṃ93 kṛtvā kurvīta gurupūjanam
paritoṣakaraṃ94 paścād dvijādīn api tarpayet 23
gṛhastho brahmacārī vā ya imaṃ kurute vidhim95
japapūjādikaṃ96 tasya saphalaṃ caitramāsajam97 24
iti
golakīvaṃśajātena śrīmatā jñānaśambhunā
kṛpāvatā munīndreṇa98 dāmaparvavidhiḥ kṛtaḥ 25
Appendix II
Transcription of part of NGMPP A 49/7 (ff. 20r–21r), an apparently com-
plete palm-leaf Nepalese manuscript of 24 folios, numbered 1–24, whose
index-card gives it the title Pavitrakavidhi (Diwakar Acharya kindly drew
this manuscript to my attention):
coladeśasamudbhūtabhūsureṇa kṛpāvatā
śrīmajñānaśivenāyaṃ pavitrakavidhiḥ kṛtaḥ
murāmāṃsī vacā kuṣṭaṃ śaileyaṃ rajanīdvayaṃ
śaṭhī caṃpakamustaṃ ca sarvauṣadhigaṇaḥ smṛtaḥ99

90
caṇḍeṣṭiṃ] M1; vaṃdegniṃ MY
91
kṛtvāthāvabhṛthaṃ] em.; kṛtvāthāvabhṛtaṃ MY; kṛtvādāvabhṛthañ M1
92
śrīsoma°] MY; śrīśambhusoma° M1
93
dāma°] M1; dāna° MY
94
°karaṃ] M1; °guruṃ MY
95
vā ya imaṃ kurute vidhim] em.; vā ya imāṃ kurute vidhiṃ MY; va ∪ te vidhiḥ M1
96
japapūjādikaṃ] em.; japahomādikaṃ MY; japaṃ pūjādikaṃ M1
97
saphalaṃ caitramāsajam] MY; sa calaṃ caitramāsanam M1. This verse (24) is
reproduced from the Somaśambhupaddhati: only the words gṛhastho and brah-
macārī are interchanged in Brunner’s edition (SP2, 2.26–27).
98
munīndreṇa] M1; vinītena MY. With this verse (25), cf. SP2, 2.28: paropakāraśīlena
śrīmatā somaśambhunā | kriyākāṇḍakramāvalyāṃ dāmapūjāvidhiḥ kṛtaḥ ||.
99
This is a corrupt version of a verse of the Mohacūḍottara that is quoted, e.g., in
Nirmalamaṇi’s commentary on the Kriyākramadyotikā:
tathā śrīmanmohaśūrottare
murāvāṃsī vacā kuṣṭhaṃ śaileyaṃ rajanīdvayam |

atha damanakavidhiḥ| caitraśuklakṛṣṇapakṣayoḥ saptamyāṃ trayo-

daśyāṃ vā kṛtāhnikadvayaḥ san damanakāntikaṃ gatvā astramantreṇa sa-
ṃśodhya ṣaḍaṅgena sampūjya śivavākyena damanakam abhimantrayet|
haraprasādasambhūta tvam a(f. 20v)[tra sannidhībhava

śiva]kāryaṃ samuddiśya netavyo si śivājñayā [=verse 6 of Appendix I]
anenābhimantrya kavacāstrābhyāṃ saṃrakṣya svagṛhaṃ yāyāt.100 dūraṃ

cet, samūlaṃ mṛttikāsahitaṃ damanakam ānīya mṛtpūrṇapātre nikṣipya| astra-
mantreṇa vāriṇā saṃsicya pūrvavad gṛhe py āmantrya sāyāhnasamaye yāga-
maṇḍapam alaṃkṛtya pavitrakavidhivad adhivāsanaṃ kṛtvā dvāralokapāla-
vāstvadhipatibrahmamahālakṣmīlokapālakalaśavardhanyādīn saṃpūrya vi-
dhivad vistareṇa pañcāmṛtādibhiḥ parameśvaraṃ sampūjya kuṇḍasaṃskārā-
dipūrṇāntaṃ karma kṛtvā vahnihṛdaye vidhivac chivaṃ pūjya mūlenāṣṭotta-
raśataṃ hutvā pūrṇāñ ca dattvā mantratarpaṇadīpanaṃ vidhāya pavitra-
kavidhivat damanakaṃ catuḥsaṃskāraśuddhaṃ sampā-tāhuti(f. 21r) śodhi-
taṃ kṛtvā devasya paścime mṛdanvitaṃ damanakamūlaṃ sadyojātena hṛdā
vā dadyāt| tannālam āmalakaphalaṃ vāmena śirasā vā uttare| tatpatraṃ
bhasma cāghoreṇa śikhayā vā dakṣiṇe tatpuṣpaṃ dantakā-ṣṭhaṃ101 tatpuru-
ṣeṇa102 kavacena vā prācyāṃ tatphalasandhi(?) pañcagavyaṃ aiśānyāṃ mū-
lena gāyatryā vā dadyāt| tadanu ādityadvāradikpālakumbhavarddhanikāsu
gandhadamanakaṃ dattvā dvāradikpālagaṇagurvvādiṣu gandhadamana-
kaṃ103 nivedya pañcāṅgair damanakaiḥ śivaṃ sampūjya dūrvāpuṣpākṣatā-
nvitaṃ gandhadhūpayutaṃ paṃcāṃgadamanakam aṃjalimadhyasthaṃ kṛ-
tvā104 devaṃ vijñāpayet|105
āmantrito si deveśa prātaḥ kāle mayā prabho|

kartavyaṃ tu yathālābhaṃ dāmaparva tavājñayā|| [=v. 13 of Appendix I]106
iti vijñāpya …

musalī caiva mustaṃ ca sarvauṣadhigaṇas smṛtaḥ |
It also appears in the preceding chapter of the Jñānaratnāvalī, on the pavitrakavidhi.
100
yāyāt] conj.; yāt ms.
101
danta°] ms.pc; tatta° ms.ac
102
tatpuruṣeṇa] em.; tatpuruṣe ms.
103
°gurvvādiṣu gandha°] conj.; °gurvvānmasu gandhaṃ ms.
104
kṛtvā] conj.; kṛ * ms.
105
The immediately preceding prose corresponds to verses 11 and 12 in Appendix I.
106
Note that it is also the same formula as that given in SP2, 2.16.
DOMINIC GOODALL 421
Appendix III
Text of a goddess-related account transcribed from an unidentified work,

parts of which are transmitted by an apparently complete Nepalese palm-
leaf manuscript of ten folios numbered 1–10, namely NGMPP A 49/5,
whose index card titles it Damanārohaṇa-pūjā (Diwakar Acharya kindly
drew this manuscript to my attention). Much further work would be re-
quired to make an edition of this text, for there are many doubts about
which of its many anomalies of grammar and sense are authorial and which
transmissional. I have silently corrected a number of dental sibilants to
palatal ones and vice versa.
[siddham] oṃ namaḥ śivāya|

praṇamya pārvatīnāthaṃ pārvatīṃ śaṅkarapriyām107 |
procyate dāmanaṃ parvva yad uktaṃ pārameśvare|| 1||
śāstroktam api sāmānyam aduṣṭa[ṃ?] parikīrtitaṃ|
prakṛṣṭaṃ tyajyate sadbhiḥ śuddhasiddhāntakāribhiḥ|| 2||
kimarthaṃ kriyate devi vidhyuktaṃ kena hetunā|
ity ādiṣṭaṃ maheśena gaurīdaṃ vākyam abravīt|| 3||
śṛṇu deva jagannātha damanotpattim uttamām|
yāṃ vai śrutvā kathāṃ divyāṃ108 prāpyate padam akṣayam|| 4||
adhobhuvanam ākramya saṃsthitaḥ109 kālasaṃjñakaḥ|
tasmā te aṅga vā śaktir damano nāma viśrutā|| 5||
āsīt tatra110 pure ramye krīḍate saha yogibhiḥ|
asurānāṃ pure divye ramate muditātmanā111|| 6||
divyadānavagandharvai rakṣoyakṣorageśvaraiḥ|
kinnarāmarasaṃsiddhaiḥ krīḍānandasamudbhavaiḥ|| 7||
nityaṃ pramuditādbhiś ca madāścaryakāribhiḥ(?)|
divyakrīḍāvinodena divyamelāpakotsavaiḥ112 || 8||
tasmā[t] kāryā purā jāto bhīṣaṇo bhīmavikramaḥ|
krāntās tena surāḥ sarve113 dānavāḥ pṛthivītale|| 9||
bahukālāvyatī(f. 2r)tena darpeṇātīvasaṃyutaḥ114 |

107
śaṅkara°] em.; saṅkara° ms.
108
yāṃ vai śrutvā kathāṃ divyāṃ] conj.; yāvai śrutvā kathāṃ divyā ms.
109
saṃsthitaḥ] conj.; saṃsthitā ms.
110
āsīt tatra] conj.; āśītatra ms.
111
muditātmanā] conj.; suditātmanā ms.
112
°tsavaiḥ] ms.pc; °tsavai ms.ac
113
surāḥ sarve] em.; surā sarvve ms.

pātāla mathitaṃ sarvaṃ bruvan vākyaṃ yadṛcchayā|| 10||

sa nāsti matsamo loke trailokye sacarācare|
puraṃ gṛhnāmy aśeṣaṃ115 hi brahmaviṣṇvendra kā kathā|| 11||
martyalokaṃ samusthāya catuḥsāgaramekhalam|
bhavāmi tīrthasaṃsevī116 saṃkrīḍāmi yathecchayā|| 12||
yāvad evaṃ vaded dhṛṣṭaḥ pṛthivyāṃ ko mamādhikaḥ|
trailokye kaḥ pumān tiṣṭhet samāgadāyataḥ punaḥ(?)|| 13||
krīḍayā tatpuraṃ gatvā duṣṭātmakanmuyaṃ kilaḥ(?)|
devikāvacanaṃ śrutvā ruṣṭo ’sau damanāsuraḥ|| 14||
tataḥ kopaparādhīnaḥ khalo daityaḥ117 pratāpavān|
pātayami na saṃdehaś carvvayāmi na saṃśayaḥ|| 15||
tato yuddham atīvāsīd devyasurayoś cobhayoḥ|118
damanāsuraḥ119 saṃkruddhaḥ prayayau hantum ambikām|| 16||
vistāravadanā120 devī jihvālalanabhīṣaṇā|
sopaiti121 raktanayanā nādenākrāntadigmukhā|| 17||
devyā saha tato yuddhaṃ ghoraṃ rudhirakardamam|
saṃjātaṃ vatsarārddhena tadāsau patito bhuvi|| 18||
śūlaṃ122 nipātya tatpṛṣṭhe123 hūṃkāroccaiḥ samāhatam|
asṛgviliptā bhū(f. 2v)mayaḥ patito ’yaṃ mahītale|| 19||124
tasmād vṛkṣāḥ samutpannāḥ puṣparūpāḥ sugandhinaḥ|

114
darpeṇā°] em.; darppenā° ms.
115
aśeṣaṃ] conj.; aśeṣā ms.
116
°sevī] em.; °śevī ms.
117
kopaparādhīnaḥ khalo daityaḥ] conj.; kopaparādhīnakhalādaitya ms. Cf.
Durgāsaptaśatī 8.2ab: tataḥ kopaparādhīnacetāḥ śumbhaḥ pratāpavān.
118
Unmetrical. Cf. Durgāsaptaśatī 9.7ab: tato yuddham atīvāsīd devyā śumbha-
niśumbhayoḥ.
119
damanāsuraḥ] conj. (unmetrical); damanāsura° ms. Alternatively one could
retain the transmitted reading and treat it as a metrically constrained use of the prāti-
padika for a nominative. Cf. Durgāsaptaśatī 9.15: tasmin nipatite bhūmau niśumbhe
bhīmavikrame | bhrātary atīva saṃkruddhaḥ prayayau yoddhum ambikām.
120
vistāra°] conj.; vistora° ms. Cf. Durgāsaptaśatī 7.7: ativistāravadanā jihvālalana-
bhīṣaṇā | nimagnāraktanayanā nādāpūritadiṅmukhā.
121
sopaiti] em.; sopeti ms.
122
śūlaṃ] conj.; sūraṃ ms.
123
tatpṛṣṭhe] conj.; ta pṛṣṭe ms.
124
The syntax is irregular, but the verse can perhaps be interpreted (without
further repairs) to mean: “Once she had driven down her trident onto his back – [the
back of] him who had been struck down by shrill cries of hūṃ – the ground-surfaces
were smeared with blood [there where] he fell down on the earth.”
DOMINIC GOODALL 423
ato devī susaṃtuṣṭā varaṃ dātuṃ samudyatā|| 20||125

yāvad vai tiṣṭhate candro yāvad devo divākaraḥ|
tāvad damanaka medinyāṃ harapūjā bhaviṣyasi|| 21||126
tataḥ prasādenādiṣṭo martyaṃ gaccha tarur bhava|127
pauṣpīyatanutāṃ prāpya mama bhogyo bhaviṣyasi|| 22||128
arcayiṣyanti ye martyā damanāṃgasamudbhavaiḥ|
yāsyanti te paraṃ sthānaṃ yatra devo maheśvaraḥ|| 23||
pālayanti na ye parvva dāmanaṃ nāma mānavāḥ|
teṣāṃ puṇyādikaṃ dattaṃ mayā te vai nu māsikam|| 24||
kṛtaṃ tasyotsavaṃ pūrvaṃ caitraparvanisaṃbhavaḥ|
prokta vai devadevena damanasya mahātmanaḥ|| 25||
damanābhañjanaṃ pūrvaṃ saṃkṣiptaṃ vidhivistaram129|
sāmprataṃ procyate devi yāgapūrvādhivāsanaṃ|| 26||
caitrasya śuklapakṣe tu trayodaśyāṃ samāhitaḥ|
jalasnānādikaṃ śuddho nityāhnikakriyāparaḥ|| 27||
aparāhnikavidhi kṛtvā yāyan nārusamīpakam|
kedārike suvistīrṇe upaviśya tataḥ punaḥ|| 28||
vīkṣaṇādisuvi(f.3r)śuddham āmantrokādaśānubhiḥ(?)|
taroḥ sambodhanaṃ kuryāt śivavākyena mantriṇaḥ|| 29||
devyāḥ prasādasaṃpūrṇaṃ māmārthe saṃnidhībhava|
harayajñaṃ samuddiśya gṛhṇāmi130 tvāṃ harājñayā|| 30||
…

125
Once again, the phrasing could be clearer, but we may understand as follows:
“From him/there, blossoming fragrant shrubs sprang up. Thereupon the goddess,
being pleased, began to give [this] boon.”
126
This is hypermetrical, unless we emend damanaka to damana. The meaning
appears to be: “For as long as the moon and the sun-god remain, you, O Damana,
will be upon the earth [for the sake of] worship of Śiva.”
127
tataḥ prasādenādiṣṭo martyaṃ gaccha tarurbhava] conj.; tataḥ
praśādenādiṣṭo martyaṃ gaccha XpunaX tarur bhavat ms. “And so, being ordered
out of [my] grace, go to [the world] of mortal[s] and become a tree.”
128
“Once you have become flowery-bodied, you will be a means for my enjoyment.”
129
°vistaram] conj.; °vistaran ms.
130
samuddiśya gṛhṇāmi] em.; samuddisya gṛhnāmi ms.

Hanumān worship under the kings

of the late Malla period in Nepal
Gudrun Bühnemann1
In the late Malla period (1482–1768 CE), the Kathmandu Valley was divided
into the three independent kingdoms of Kathmandu, Patan, and Bhaktapur.
The rulers of these kingdoms mainly worshipped the goddess Taleju. But the
list of titles of many of these kings characterised them not only as Taleju’s
foremost servants but also as hanumaddhvaja (“with Hanumān in their ban-
ner”).2 That this title, which attests to the importance of the divinity at that
time, was no mere flourish is borne witness to by surviving royal banners
with an image of Hanumān on them, such as the one (Fig. 1) preserved in the
National Museum of Nepal, Kathmandu. It features a fierce-looking, two-
armed Hanumān in militant stance.
A painting completed in 1704 shows the standard of a king surmounted
by a figure of a two-armed Hanumān standing in militant stance with his
arms spread out (Figs. 2a-b).3 The standard featuring the hero Hanumān is
well-suited for a king, since it promises victory in battle. Hanumān banners
have a fairly long history: the twelfth-century Narapatijayacaryāsvarodaya
(chapter 5, stanzas 138–191), for example, describes rituals for Hanumān
which involve the making of a banner (patākā) featuring Hanumān’s image
and mantra, for purposes of protection and the destruction of an enemy’s
army. The Pāṇḍava Arjuna is also known by the epithet “monkey-bannered”

1
I would like to thank Kashinath Tamot for help with reading the inscriptional
material. I would further like to thank Gerd Mevissen, Manik Bajracharya, Iain Sin-
clair, Philip Pierce, Purushottam Lochan Shrestha, Alexis Sanderson, Péter-Dániel
Szántó, Suresh Man Lakhe, Doris Jinhuang and Ulrich von Schroeder for helpful
suggestions and/or for providing photographs. I also thank Dr. Claudio Cicuzza and
the Lumbini International Research Institute for their support.
2
See REGMI 1965–1966, part 2: 395 for more information on the titles used by
the kings of the late Malla period of Nepal.
3
The painting is reproduced here from PAL 2003: 85. It is described in PAL 2003:
84, and the text inscribed on it is transcribed, translated, and commented on in PAL
2003: 283.
Fig. 1 A Hanumān banner preserved in the National Museum of Nepal,

Kathmandu. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
GUDRUN BÜHNEMANN 427
Fig. 2a A painting showing a royal standard surmounted by a figure of Hanumān

in the upper left corner. After PAL 2003: 85.

(kapidhvaja)4 since his standard in the battle of Ku-

rukṣetra is said to have featured Hanumān. Hanumān
standards were also used by Harihara I and Bukka I,
the founding kings of Vijayanagara, in the fourteenth
century.5
But Hanumān was not only featured on mobile
banners. In one case his effigy was placed on a column
(also called dhvaja) and set up on a roof, and in anoth-
er case on metal banners positioned on either side of
finials (gajura). King Pratāpamalla of Kathmandu (r.
1641–1674) installed stone columns (dhvaja) on the
roofs of the four corners of the Mohan courtyard in his
palace in 1655.6 The columns are surmounted by
Fig. 2b Detail:
Hanumān
sculptures of successively Hanumān (Fig. 2c),7 a fish,

4
This epithet is found, for example, in Bhagavadgītā 1.20. The Pāṇḍava standard
with a figure of Hanumān is also depicted in art. It can be seen, for example, in a
painting in a sixteenth-century illustrated Nepalese manuscript (kalāpustaka) il-
lustrating scenes from the Mahābhārata. The manuscript is preserved in the Univer-
sity Library, Cambridge (Add. 864; see PAL 1970: 98 with Fig. 65). On beliefs
associated with the kapidhvaja, see THAPLIYAL 1983: 71.
5
See LUTGENDORF 2007: 61 for more information. LUTGENDORF (2007: 84) also
refers to the use of Hanumān standards by the Dadu Panthi Nagas in the second half
of the eighteenth century.
6
The chronicle Nepālikabhūpavaṃśāvalī (vol. 1: 106) refers to the columns coll-
ectively as koṭidhvajas. The passage reads: “Since Kavīndra (Pratāpa Malla) was
accomplished in all the teachings, he, following the Śāstras, collected four crores of
wealth, buried them under Mohana Coka, that he had built according to the
Vāstucakra, and secured it with four koṭidhvajas. He invoked Hanumān, Matsya,
Garuḍa, and a lion in the koṭidhvajas in order to pacify the small-pox deity and to
prevent accidents, and various misfortunes and dangers from various ghosts.” The
expression koṭidhvajas may be derived from the fact that the dhvajas were set up
after the performance of a ritual termed koṭyāhutiyajña, which involved the offering
of ten million (koṭi) oblations (āhuti) into the fire and took more than one week to
complete.
The date of the setting up of the columns surmounted by the figure of Hanumān
and a fish is recorded as the thirteenth day of the dark half of the month of mārga in
N.S. 775 (see inscriptions no. 23 and 24 in VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976: 212). It is equivalent
to Tuesday, January 5, 1655.
7
The column surmounted by a figure of Hanumān is termed hanūma<d>dhvaja
(see inscription no. 23 in VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976: 212) and referred to as hanumanta-
dhvaja in manuscripts of the later ritual text in the Newari language titled Mohana-
a Garuḍa, and a lion and can still be seen

on the palace roof. (However, the two
shorter columns surmounted one each by
a four-armed Hanumān and a fish, which
are installed on either side of the
Hanumānḍhokā palace, right behind the
statues of two lions mounted one each by
Śiva and Pārvatī, are likely much later,
possibly nineteenth-century additions to
the palace design.) Small figures of a
four-armed Hanumān (Figs. 3a–3b) sur-
mount the metal banners set up on either
side of the three finials (gajura) on the
roof of the Golden Gate (sunḍhokā) of
the Bhaktapur Palace, constructed (or
rather embellished) by King Raṇa-
jitamalla in 1754. It is uncertain whether
these banners were part of the original
design. It is possible that the two figures
of the five-headed Hanumān (Figs. 16–
17) commissioned by King Bhūpatīndra-
malla and his son, Raṇajitamalla, discussed Fig. 2c The column (dhvaja)
below were once installed here. surmounted by a figure of
It is very likely that the Hanumān fig- Hanumān at the Hanūmānḍhokā
ures on the roofs of the royal palaces of Royal Palace in Kathmandu.
Kathmandu and Bhaktapur were meant to Photograph courtesy of the De-
serve an apotropaic purpose. The Hanu- partment of Archaeology, Kath-
mandu.
mān statue (Fig. 4a–b) placed on the
8
roof of the (former) royal palace in Patan must have functioned in a simi-
lar capacity. Oral tradition, however, associates the statue with a different
purpose. It is said9 that King Bhūpatīndramalla of Bhaktapur (r. 1696–
1722) pretended to offer his help with the restoration and improvement of
buildings of the royal palace in Patan, where King Yoganarendra-

cukayā hitiyāta busādhanasa āhuti biya vidhi.
8
We do not know whether the statue was originally placed on a column or metal
banner. A photograph taken by Kurt Boeck in 1899 and exhibited in Gallery H (His-
toric Views of Nepal) of the Patan Museum shows the sculpture without a pedestal in
its current position on the palace roof.
9
For this account, see HAGMÜLLER 2003: 31.

Fig. 3a The Golden Gate of the Bhaktapur Palace. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
Fig. 3b Detail: The figures of a four-armed Hanumān surmounting the metal

banners on either side of the three finials on the roof of the Golden Gate of the
Bhaktapur Palace. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.

Fig. 4a The royal palace in Patan with the Golden Window, Golden Gate,
and the Hanumān statue on the roof. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
Fig. 4b Detail: The Hanumān statue on the roof.

malla (r. 1684–1705) ruled. Allegedly, he presented Yoganarendramalla

with the gilt image of Hanumān, which he arranged to have placed on the
upper ridge of the west wing of the Patan palace above the king’s bedroom
for destructive purposes. It was believed that this statue actually represent-
ed the heavenly body Saturn (śani) and thus functioned as a source of ill
fortune.10
It is evident from these examples that Hanumān banners and standards
were popular in the late Malla period both in mobile form and as installa-
tions on the roofs of palaces for protective purposes. With the same goal in
mind, the Malla kings set up two- or four-armed Hanumān statues near the
entrances of their palaces and placed sculptures of the Tantric five-headed
form of the deity on lintels of entranceways and at the apex of tympana.
The aforementioned King Pratāpamalla of Kathmandu, a Tantric practi-
tioner and great patron of the arts, set up two statues of Hanumān close to
his palace in 1672. One of these statues is found at the left side of a gate
(Fig. 5a-b). At a later time, the royal palace was named after this gate
(ḍhokā) with the Hanumān figure and so came to be known as the
Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace. For ritual purposes, however, another gate
marked by two lions (the lion gate [siṃhaḍhokā]), which leads to the Taleju
Temple, is used.
The Hanumān statue next to the palace gate11 is placed atop a column of
about two meters in height. Layers of vermilion paste are regularly applied to
it, as is customary in popular worship, making it difficult to discern the
iconographic features (Fig. 5a). An older photograph of the statue12
(Fig. 5b) shows the statue’s facial features more clearly. In this location close
to the gate, Hanumān was considered a powerful guardian deity, a function
well-attested in earlier times.13 The nineteenth-century chronicle Nepālika-
bhūpavaṃśāvalī (vol. 1: 106) specifies that the statue of Vajaraṅga (Hanumān)

10
HAGMÜLLER (2003: 31) asserts that “[a]s its restoration revealed, the statue is
held upright with a bar of iron and iron indeed represents the planet Saturn.”
11
The inscription on the statue’s pedestal (see no. 33 in VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976: 224–
225) specifies the date of installation as the eleventh/twelfth day in the dark half of
the month of vaiśākha in N.S. 792. This date is equivalent to Monday, May 23, 1672.
The inscription is covered by the deity’s long robe. A part of it is reproduced in a
photograph published in ARYĀL 2014: 17, but details cannot be discerned.
12
The photograph – which circulated on a postcard and is also reproduced in
ARYĀL 2014: 16 – was taken in 1908 (ARYĀL 2014: 15).
13
For a brief discussion of Hanumān’s role as a gatekeeper, see LUTGENDORF
2007: 41 and 60.
Fig. 5a The Hanumān statue near the gate of the

Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace in Kathmandu. Photo-
graph: Gudrun Bühnemann.

had been installed at the gate “in order to prevent all the dangers.” The
inscription on the statue’s pedestal14 summarises as the three objectives of
Hanumān worship the destruction of the enemy, victory in battle, and do-
mestic protection when it states: “In frightful wars [he] brings destruction
on the enemy and victory to us and defends the home.”15 The same inscrip-
tion (with one minor varia lectio) is also found on the pedestal of the se-
cond statue of Hanumān16 (Fig. 6a-b), which was installed by King
Pratāpamalla on the southwestern side of the palace, opposite the Big Bell,
on the same day. Currently the statue’s pedestal is not visible (Fig. 6a), but
Fig. 5b A photograph of the Hanumān statue near the gate of the Hanūmānḍhokā
Royal Palace in Kathmandu taken in 1908. Photograph: Private collection.

14
See inscription no. 33 in VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976: 224–225. See also the discussion
of the inscription in PANT 1964: 26 and SLUSSER 1982, vol. 1: 192. The relevant part
of the inscription reads: viṣamasaṃgrāmaśatrusaṃhāraṇaraṇe jayati gṛhe rakṣati.
15
The translation is quoted from SLUSSER 1982, vol. 1: 192.
16
See also the discussion of the inscription in PANT 1964: 26.
the inscription can clearly be discerned in an older photograph (Fig. 6b).

In addition to Hanumān, Pratāpamalla installed yet another deity for
protection close to the palace gate in 1673. The king set up a statue of
Narasiṃha (Fig. 7), which is now found immediately to the left after pass-
ing through the gate and entering Nāsalcok. Narasiṃha is shown in fierce
form in the act of disembowelling the demon Hiraṇyakaśipu. An inscription
on the pedestal17 states that the king had participated in a dance-drama. At
that time Narasiṃha entered the king’s dance costume and did not leave.
For this reason (i.e., to dismiss the deity) the stone sculpture was installed.
However, it is likely that the king had also intended to install the sculpture
to function as a gatekeeper. The Hanumān statue at the palace gate and the
Narasiṃha in Nāsalcok must have originally formed a pair of guardian
deities before the palace gate was relocated when the palace was renovated.
Statues of Narasiṃha and Gaṇeśa guarded the entrance to the royal palace
of Patan. A figure of Hanumān (Fig. 8) was added later, following the ex-
ample of King Pratāpamalla of Kathmandu (RAU 1984: 259). It is a simple
two-armed Hanumān, kneeling on one knee and displaying the gestures of
protection and wish-granting. Old photographs show Narasiṃha and
Gaṇeśa, placed on pedestals of about the same height, flanking the palace
entrance.18 Next to the statue of Gaṇeśa, the sculpture of Hanumān, which
is obviously a later addition, is installed on a pedestal of a different height
and design.19 Since then, possibly after the 1934 earthquake, the sculptures
were rearranged and the Hanumān statue was placed between Narasiṃha
and Gaṇeśa, which is the arrangement we see today.

17
The date of installation is recorded in the inscription on the pedestal (see no. 36
in VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976: 230–231) as the eighth day of the dark half of the month of
āṣāḍha in N.S. 793. The date corresponds to Friday, July 7, 1673.
18
See the photograph taken by Ganesh Man Chitrakar around 1900 and exhibited
in the Patan Museum and the photograph taken by Dirgha Man Chitrakar around
1920, reproduced in HEIDE 1997: 34.
19
The statues of Gaṇeśa and Hanumān can also be seen in an old photograph in
LE BON 1893: Fig. 388.

Fig. 6a The Hanumān statue opposite the Big Bell near the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal
Palace in Kathmandu (2015). Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
Fig. 6b An older photograph of the Hanumān statue opposite the Big Bell
near the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace in Kathmandu. Photograph courte-
sy of the Department of Archaeology, Kathmandu.

Fig. 7 The Narasiṃha statue at the entrance to Nāsalcok of the Hanūmānḍhokā

Royal Palace in Kathmandu. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
Fig. 8 The statues of Narasiṃha and Hanumān in front of the royal palace, Patan.
Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
King Bhūpatīndramalla of Bhaktapur also set up sculptures of Hanumān

and Narasiṃha (Fig. 9a) at the entrance to his palace. The year of the in-
stallation, recorded in a stone inscription, is equivalent to 1698.20 The ico-
nography of the Hanumān sculpture (Fig. 9b) is more complex than that of
the sculptures installed at the entrances to the royal palaces of Kathmandu
and Patan. The four-armed, fierce-looking deity, endowed with sharp teeth,
is standing in militant stance on an animated corpse whose position of the
arms and curls of hair are reminiscent of Garuḍa. (Copies of the two statues
were installed at the entrance gate to Bhaktapur’s Tekhā Pokharī in circa
2012. Here the head of the Hanumān statue’s mount resembles that of an
animated corpse rather than that of a Garuḍa.) The stone inscription records

20
The exact date of the stone inscription corresponds to February 9, 1698 (VAIDYA &
SHRESTHA 2002: 91 and 152–158 [inscription 6 in the Appendix]). The inscription is
translated in part in the chronicle Nepālikabhūpavaṃśāvalī (vol. 1: 93–95).

Fig. 9a The statues of Hanumān and Narasiṃha in front of the (former) Mālatīcok
of the Bhaktapur royal palace. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.
details of the regular worship of the two statues that Bhūpatīndramalla insti-
tuted. In association with Ugramalla, he made a land grant to a newly formed
trust or guthi. Such guthis, defined as “association<s> of Newārs of the same
caste for the performance of an agreed religious or social act” (CLARK 1957:
176), have played an important role in the social life of the Newar communi-
ty. From the annual proceeds the guthi was obligated to purchase the material
needed for the regular worship of the deities and remunerate the priest and
his assistants. The services to be performed include the application of a fixed
quantity of oil on the sculptures of Hanumān and Narasiṃha. Such detailed
prescriptions are of great interest, since they provide a window onto the reli-
gious practices of the Newar community at this time.
Fig. 9b Detail: The sculpture of Hanumān. Photograph: Gudrun

Bühnemann.

In addition to setting up statues of two- or four-armed images of

Hanumān as gatekeepers in front of the entrances of their royal palaces, the
Malla kings placed the Tantric five-headed form of the deity on lintels of
entrances leading to the temple of the goddess Taleju and at the apex of
tympana above the doors of the temples of the goddess.
A small sculpture of the five-headed Hanumān is carved on the lintel be-
low the wooden arched gateway (toraṇa) leading to the temple of the god-
dess Taleju in Mūlcok of the (former) Bhaktapur royal palace (Fig. 10a-b).
The toraṇa was made by King Jitāmitramalla in 1694.21 Some details of the
iconography cannot be clearly discerned and the iconography of the five-
headed Hanumān will be discussed later.
A small wooden image of Hanumān (Fig. 11b) is found in the unusual
position above the tympanum of the lion gate (siṃhaḍhokā) (Fig. 11a) of
the Hanumānḍhokā Royal Palace in Kathmandu, which is the entrance
leading to the Taleju Temple. This image is a replacement of an older im-
age which replaced yet older images. I assume that, as in Bhaktapur, the
original image was placed on the lintel of the lion gate but was moved to its
current location during renovation efforts. This image has only eight arms
and four heads, which is likely the result of a mistake of the artist who was
commissioned to prepare a replacement on the basis of a defective sculp-
ture which had lost two arms and one of its five heads. VAJRĀCĀRYA
(1976: 83) assumed the figure to be Kumāra. However, a close examination
shows that the central head is that of a monkey and the other heads are
those of Garuḍa, Narasiṃha, and Varāha. Above the Hanumān figure a
kīrtimukha is seen. It is hard to assign a date to this Hanumān since the
figure has been painted and is likely to have been replaced more than once
in the course of renovations.
The Tantric five-headed Hanumān images in the important position on
lintels of entranceways to the temples of the goddess Taleju in the palaces
of Bhaktapur and Kathmandu appear to function as protectors of the god-
dess. They functioned in the same capacity when placed at the apex of
tympana above the doors of Taleju temples.

21
The exact date of the tympanum is recorded as Saturday, the ninth day of the
dark half of the month of mārga in N.S. 815 (see VAIDYA & SHRESTHA 2002: 164,
inscription 13). This date corresponds to Saturday, December 11, 1694.
Fig. 10a The tympanum and lintel of a door leading to the Taleju Temple in
Bhaktapur’s Mūlcok. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.

Fig. 10b Detail: The five-headed Hanumān on the lintel. Photograph: Gudrun
Bühnemann.
Thus, the five-headed Hanumān is featured at the apex of the tympanum

(Fig. 12a) of the eastern door of the Taleju Temple in Mūl courtyard22 of
the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace. The figure (Fig. 12b) has ten arms (two
of them are hardly discernible) and treads on an animated corpse (pre-
ta/vetāla). The five heads are those of a monkey (main head), an eagle
(Garuḍa, left), a boar (Varāha, right) and topped by that of a lion (for Nara-
siṃha) and surmounted by what seems to be a horse’s (or Hayagrīva’s)
head. A comparison with other images shows that the heads of the five-
headed form of Hanumān can be arranged in one, two, or three tiers, and
one head may also be positioned at the back. The iconography of this
composite form suggests an integration of Viṣṇu’s Garuḍa mount and
three of Viṣṇu’s avatāras with the figure of Hanumān. While this five-headed

22
The location of the image is indicated in DHANAŚAMŚER 1979: 157 and the
entire tympanum depicted in plate 135.
Fig. 11a The lion gate of the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace in Kathmandu.

Fig. 11b Detail: The four-headed and eight-armed Hanumān above the tympanum
of the lion gate of the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace in Kathmandu. Photograph:
Gudrun Bühnemann.
Fig. 12a The tympanum of the eastern door of the Taleju Temple, Hanūmānḍhokā
Royal Palace, Kathmandu. Photograph courtesy of the Department of Archaeology,
Kathmandu.

Fig. 12b Detail: The five-headed Hanumān. Photograph courtesy of the Depart-
ment of Archaeology, Kathmandu.
form with the topmost head of a horse (haya) is recorded in descriptions in

printed texts,23 unedited texts in manuscript form from Nepal reveal a vari-
ant of this iconography according to which the top head is that of a donkey
(khara).24 More manuscript material would need to be examined to deter-

23
For a detailed iconographic description, see the following passage attributed to
the Hanumadgahvara in Śrīvidyārṇavatantra, vol. 2, p. 766, 15–24:
pañcavaktraṃ mahābhīmaṃ tripañcanayanair yutam |
bāhubhir daśabhir yuktaṃ sarvakāmyārthasiddhidam ||
pūrvaṃ tu vānaraṃ vaktraṃ koṭisūryasamaprabham |
daṃṣṭrākarālavadanaṃ bhrukuṭīkuṭilekṣaṇam ||
atraiva dakṣiṇaṃ vaktraṃ nārasiṃhaṃ mahādbhutam |
atyugratejovapuṣaṃ bhīṣaṇaṃ bhayanāśanam ||
paścimaṃ gāruḍaṃ vaktraṃ vajratuṇḍaṃ mahābalam |
sarvarogapraśamanaṃ viṣaroganivāraṇam ||
uttaraṃ saukaraṃ vaktraṃ kṛṣṇaṃ dīptaṃ nabhonibham |
pātālānilabhettāraṃ jvararoganikṛntanam ||
ūrdhvaṃ hayānanaṃ ghoraṃ dānavāntakaraṃ param |
ekavaktreṇa viprendra tārakākhyaṃ mahābalam ||
kurvantaṃ śaraṇaṃ tasya sarvaśatruharaṃ param |
khaḍgaṃ triśūlaṃ khaṭvāṅgaṃ pāśam aṅkuśaparvatam ||
dhruvamuṣṭigadāmuṇḍaṃ daśabhir munipuṅgava |
etāny āyudhajālāni dhārayantaṃ yajāmahe ||
pretāsanopaviṣṭaṃ taṃ sarvābharaṇabhūṣitam |
divyamālyāmbaradharaṃ divyagandhānulepanam ||
sarvāścāryamayaṃ devam anantaṃ viśvato mukham | ...
The same passage, with some variants, is found in the Śrītattvanidhi, where it is
ascribed to the Sudarśanasaṃhitā; see Śrītattvanidhi 1 (Viṣṇunidhi, no. 72 [p. 59])
and Śrītattvanidhi 2 (vol. 2: Viṣṇunidhi; stanzas 188–195; no. 114; p. 36 [text], pp.
104–105 [translation]; fol. 85A/3 [manuscript painting]). NAGAR (2004, vol. 1: 307)
cites a part of this description (with variants) from a manuscript of the Pañcamukha-
hanumatkavaca (manuscript no. 5035 in the Ranabiresvara Library, Jammu); the
manuscript is reproduced in NAGAR 2004: vol. 2: 493–494.
24
See the Hanūbhairavadevārcanavidhi ascribed to the Vaihāyana Saṃhitā. This
text prescribes the performance of a fire ritual (homa) involving offerings of different
kinds of meat and liquor for each of the five heads of the deity. I would like to thank
Péter-Dániel Szántó for sending me a transcript of the manuscript. The donkey head
instead of the horse head is also specified in the description of the five-headed
Hanumān in the manuscript Navarātrapūjāvidhi, which describes the Hanūbhairava-
pūjā (fols. 26v11–29v5) as embedded in the Kaumārīpūjā of Navarātra. I would like
to thank Alexis Sanderson for providing a copy of the manuscript. VAJRĀCĀRYA
(1976: 98) also mentions an unpublished manuscript in a private collection according
to which the topmost head of the five-headed Hanumān is a donkey’s.

mine how widespread this iconography was and whether it is limited to

specific ritual contexts; this is, however, beyond the scope of the present
paper. Moreover, in works of art, a horse’s head cannot be distinguished
easily from a donkey’s head. I assume that the horse head became a stand-
ard in the iconography of this deity because it is more auspicious and was
already a familiar iconographic feature of Hayagrīva. Similarly, Rāvaṇa’s
tenth head is either described or depicted as that of a horse or of a donkey.
A metal figure of the five-headed Hanumān is also seen at the apex of the
tympanum (Fig. 13a) of the Golden Door of the Taleju shrine in Mūlcok of
Patan’s royal palace. The tympanum was made by King Ṛddhinarasiṃha-
malla (r. 1715–1717) in 1716.25 The figure of Hanumān (Fig. 13b) is a re-
placement prepared around December 2012 on the basis of an older photo-
graph,26 in which the position of the figure on the tympanum can be dis-
cerned clearly, but not all of the iconographic details. The original image –
along with the others on the central panel of the tympanum – was stolen in
the 1970s.
The five-headed Hanumān is also found among the sculptures in the
sunken stepped fountain (hiti) built by Pratāpamalla in 1652 in the
(Man)mohan courtyard, the residential courtyard of the Malla kings (Fig.
14a). It is, however, possible that the sculpture was not part of the original
group of deities installed in the fountain but was brought here later from
another location. The sculpture is damaged but the missing details may be
gleaned from a line drawing (Fig. 14b) in a circa nineteenth-century con-
certina-type manuscript catalogued as Nānāstotracitrasaṃgraha, which
either copies this sculpture or shows a similar iconographic type. This is
clearly a fierce (ugra) form, as indicated by the garland of severed heads.
The sculpture is framed by a rim of skulls and one of flames.
The same king built a special temple for the deity (Fig. 15) in his palace
in Kathmandu in circa 1655.27 This temple (which is only accessible to the

25
An inscription on the base of the toraṇa (see REGMI 1965–1966, part 4: 263,
no. 122) records the dedication of the golden tympanum by King Ṛddhinarasiṃha-
malla to his iṣṭadevatā on the first day of the bright half of the month of āśvina in
N.S. 836. This date corresponds to Wednesday, September 16, 1716.
26
The photograph, taken by N.R. Banerjea between 1966 and 1972, is exhibited
in the Patan Museum.
27
See VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976: 97. The exact date of the construction of the temple is
unknown.
Fig. 13a The tympanum of the Golden Door of the Taleju shrine, Mūlcok, Patan
Palace. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.

Fig. 13b Detail: The five-headed Hanumān at the apex of the tympanum.
Fig. 14a The sculpture of the five-headed Hanumān in the stepped fountain in
Mohancok in the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace, Kathmandu. Photograph: Gudrun
Bühnemann.

Fig. 14b A line drawing of the five-headed Hanumān in a

circa nineteenth-century concertina-type manuscript cata-
logued as Nānāstotracitrasaṃgraha. Photograph courtesy of
Rajan Shrestha.
Fig. 15 The five roofs of the Pañcamukhahanumān Temple, Hanūmānḍhokā Royal

Palace in Kathmandu. Photograph: Gudrun Bühnemann.

officiating priest) stands out because of its circular structure with five su-
perimposed roofs.
A beautifully carved stone sculpture of the five-headed Hanumān was
noticed inside Kumārīcok,28 a courtyard of the Bhaktapur Palace which is
inaccessible to the public.
Three important inscribed and dated copper-gilt figures of the five-
headed Hanumān are also associated with the kings of Bhaktapur. The first
one (Fig. 16a) was recently auctioned at Bonhams.29 The inscription30 rec-
ords that King Bhūpatīndramalla dedicated the sculpture on the occasion of
a specific ritual, the siddhāgni-koṭyāhuti-yajña, in 1702. A ritual manual
confirms the date of the performance of a siddhāgni-koṭyāhuti sacrifice
(yajña) on the occasion of the consecration of the Nyatapola Temple at
Taumadhi Tole in Bhaktapur. The ritual, which entails the offering of ten
million oblations into the fire, started on Sunday, the ninth day of the bright
half of the month of jyeṣṭha (the date also specified in the inscription of the
Hanumān statue) and continued for 48 days (VAIDYA 1990: 76).
The second one (Fig. 16b) was previously on sale at Sotheby’s31 but its
current whereabouts are unknown. According to the description in the cata-

28
See the detailed description in DEVA 1984: 61 and the mention in VAIDYA &
SHRESTHA 2002: 45 and 89. VAIDYA & SHRESTHA (2002: 89) note that the sculpture
is located on the northwestern side of the open verandah (dalān).
DEVA (1984: 66 and 67) also describes two four-armed (apparently one-headed)
Hanumān figures in the Kumaricok. Three four-armed Hanumān statues are found in
the Mahādeva Temple in Sundarīcok of the Hanūmānḍhokā Royal Palace, Kath-
mandu; a photograph of one of them is reproduced in ARYĀL 2014: 16.
29
The sculpture was purchased by William O. Thweatt in Kathmandu between
1958 and 1962. It was auctioned by Sotheby’s New York on September 24, 2004 (lot
74) and subsequently became part of the collection of Dr. Helga Wall-Apelt, Florida.
It was again auctioned by James D. Julia Auctioneers, Maine, on March 23, 2015 (lot
184) and by Bonham’s on March 13, 2017 (lot 3049). For an image, see also Hi-
malayan Art Resources, item no. 2351 (http://www.himalayanart.org/items/2351;
accessed July 20, 2017).
30
The text inscribed on the shaft reads: (siddhi sign) svasti || śrīśrījayabhūpatī-
ndramalladevasana siddhāgni koṭyāhuti yajñayātaṃ dayakā || saṃvat 822 jyeṣṭha
sudi 9 śubha ||
“Hail! (This sculpture) was made by the Twice-Blessed victorious King
Bhūpatīndramalla on the ninth (day) of the bright (half of the month) of jyeṣṭha in
samvat 822 for (the occasion of) the siddhāgni-koṭyāhuti-yajña. Let it be well.”
31
The five-headed Hanumān statue was offered for sale at Sotheby’s London on
April 4, 1990, lot 57. It had previously been offered at Sotheby’s New York on De-
cember 18, 1981, lot 209.
logue, the inscription on the long shaft of the sculpture records the dedica-
tion of this statue in the temple of the Goddess Taleju in Bhaktapur by King
Bhūpatīndramalla in 1706.32
The inscription33 on the third sculpture (Fig. 17), which is now in the
Patan Museum,34 records that King Bhūpatīndramalla’s son, Raṇajitamalla,
set up the sculpture on the Golden Gate of the Bhaktapur Palace in 1754.
The year 1754 is also commonly assumed to be the year in which Raṇajita-
malla constructed (or rather, embellished) the Golden Gate. The Hanumān
figure appears to be a copy of the sculpture commissioned by his father.
Both sculptures wear a garland of severed human heads and are treading on
an animated corpse. It is possible that these two Hanumān figures with their
long shafts were placed on the roof the Golden Gate, possibly in place of
the two four-armed Hanumān statues referred to in the beginning of this paper.

32
Only a part of the inscription can be discerned in the photograph published in
Sotheby’s catalogue. It reads: (Bhūpatīndrama)llasana dayakā, saṃ 826 jyeṣṭha
kṛṣṇa catu(rdaśī) (misread in the text of the catalogue as āṣāḍha kṛṣṇa ...). The date
was erroneously converted to 1708 in Sotheby Parke Bernet Inc [1981], no. 209.
“(This sculpture) was made by King (Bhūpatīndrama)lla on the four(teen)th (day) of
the dark (half of the month) of jyeṣṭha in (N.)S. 826.”
The description in the catalogue erroneously specifies the eighth day of the dark
half of the fifth month of the year N.S. 826 as the date of the consecration of the
sculpture. The correct date is likely the fifth day of the dark half of the month of
jyeṣṭha in the year 826, which is equivalent to Wednesday, June 30, 1706. The eighth
day of the dark half of the month of jyeṣṭha of the same year would be equivalent to
July 3, 1706.
33
The inscription reads: (siddhi sign) svasti || śrī 3. sveṣṭadevatā prītina pāra-
dhvākāsa gajuli chāna koṭayāhuti yajña yāṅāva | śrīśrījayaraṇajitamalladevasana
dutā || saṃ 874 pau va 6 śubham ||
“Hail! Out of love for his Thrice-Blessed favourite deity (sveṣṭadevatā), the
Twice-Blessed King Raṇajitamalla set up (this sculpture), after performing a sacrifice
with ten million oblations at the time of (the ritual) offering of the finial of Pālad-
hvākā (i.e., the Golden Gate). (Dated N.S.) 874, the sixth (day) of the dark (half) of
(the month of) pauṣa. Let it be auspicious.” The date converts to January 14, 1754.
34
The sculpture was assigned the accession no. 598 (see SLUSSER 2002: 120).
SLUSSER (ibid.) assumed that the sculpture was “installed as a guardian on a Bhakta-
pur rooftop.”

Fig. 16a A five-headed Hanumān (Bonhams, March 13, 2017, lot 3049).
Dated to N.S. 822 [1702 CE]. Photograph courtesy of Bonhams.
Fig. 16b A five-headed Hanumān (Sotheby’s London, April

4, 1990, lot 57). Dated to N.S. 826 [1706 CE]. Reproduced
from the catalogue.

Fig. 17 A five-headed Hanumān, Patan Museum.

It is said35 that the mural of the cosmic form (viśvarūpa) of Śiva in the
Fifty-five Windows Palace on Bhaktapur’s Darbar Square, which is actual-
ly a hidden portrait of King Bhūpatīndramalla (r. 1696–1722) and his wife
completed between 1702 and 1722, features in one of several rows of heads
that of the five-headed Hanumān. However, such detail is difficult to dis-
cern in the painting.
The Tantric five-headed Hanumān was obviously considered an im-
portant form of Hanumān by the Malla kings. The many extant representa-
tions from Nepal36 and the proliferation of devotional texts37 dedicated to
the deity indicate the popularity of this form in seventeenth- and eight-
eenth-century Nepal.
The five-headed Hanumān is also known as Hanū-Bhairava, as attested
by inscriptions on paintings and line drawings and in devotional and other
texts. The name Hanūbhairava is inscribed, for example, on a painting (Fig.
18) in a scroll from Nepal, commissioned under King Jayaprakāśamalla of
Kathmandu (r. 1735–1768) and dating from 1765, and in line drawings.38

35
Oral information provided by Purushottam Lochan Shrestha on July 19, 2015.
36
For other sculptures of this form of Hanumān from Nepal not discussed in this
paper, see, for example, DEVA 1984, plate 30A (erroneously labelled Narasiṃha),
MISHRA 2014: 59, SLUSSER 2002: 118, 120–121, SINGH 1968: 214 (misidentified as
a “manifestation of Vishnu” in the caption and on p. 223), Christie’s New York
12/1/1982, lot 123 (erroneously labelled as a Tantric form of Mañjuśrī), and Chris-
tie’s New York 3/20/2012, sale 2640, lot 106 (previously in the Doris Wiener Gal-
lery, New York). The stone sculpture of the five-headed Hanumān installed in a
roadside shrine in Pulcok, Patan, which is still an object of worship (MISHRA 2014:
59), is very similar to the one depicted in DEVA 1984, plate 30A; minor details, how-
ever, vary. Both representations are without a vāhana. A roadside shrine with a statue
of a five-headed Gaṇeśa is located next to the shrine of the five-headed Hanumān in
Pulcok. For a painting of the five-headed Hanumān, see NAGAR 2004, vol. 3: 128,
plate 140.
37
See the online title list of the Nepalese-German Manuscript Cataloguing Project
(NGMCP) for more information on the large number of devotional and ritual texts in
manuscript form, including such titles as Hanū(mad)bhairavapūjāvidhi, Hanū-
bhairavastotra, Hanūbhairavakavaca, and Pañcamukhīvīrahanūbhairavastotra.
38
For a line drawing inscribed Hanūbhairava (“Hanūbhailava”), see, for example,
BLOM 1989: 21, Fig. 22 and BÜHNEMANN 2013: 471, Fig. 17. Note that in the dra-
wing the topmost head is labelled sarā (for salā, Newari: horse) and not “snake” as
noted in BLOM 1989: 22.

Fig. 18 A five-headed Hanumān labelled “Hanū-Bhairava;” painting from manu-

script 10054 in the collection of the Bhārat Kalā Bhavan, Varanasi.
Photograph courtesy of the Bhārat Kalā Bhavan.
One of three copperplate inscriptions39 at the Tathunāsaḥ (also called

Nāsadyo) Temple in Bhaktapur’s Kvāthaṃdau area records the dedication
of a wooden tympanum to Hanūbhairava in 1713. In the context of reli-
gious ritual, the worship of the five-headed Hanūbhairava (hanūbhairava-
pūjā) became an integral part of the Tantric Navarātra rituals, being em-
bedded in the Kaumārīpūjā.40
The name Hanūbhairava indicates that in Nepal Hanumān began to be
considered a Bhairava and underwent a transformation similar to that of the
epic hero Bhīmasena who became known as Bhīmabhairava in seventeenth-
century Nepal.41
In this paper I focused mainly on the Hanumān worship under royal pat-
ronage in mid-seventeenth- to mid-eighteenth-century Nepal. The visual

39
The text of the inscription is published in RĀJĀ 1999: 15, no. 26 and is also re-
ferred to in GUTSCHOW 2011, vol. 1: 73 in his description of the temple. The inscrip-
tion records as the date of the tympanum Sunday, the full-moon day of the bright
(half of the month of) śrāvaṇa in N.S. 833, which converts to Sunday, August 6,
1713. This tympanum is no longer extant.
40
I would like to thank Alexis Sanderson for this reference (e-mail message dated
February 23, 2015). See also n. 23.
41
I have discussed Bhīmasena’s transformation into Bhīmabhairava in BÜHNEMANN
2013.
and textual material from this time provides a window onto the socio-
religious milieu in the late Malla period. There is clear evidence that
Hanumān had gained considerable importance as a guardian deity. The
amalgamation of the five-headed form of Hanumān and Bhairava as
Hanūbhairava is a specific Nepalese development of this time.
Artistic representations of the five-headed Hanumān are also found in
India, where a few specimens have been dated to the fifteenth and early
sixteenth centuries.42 However, more research is needed to confirm the
dating of the material. The representations from India usually do not exhibit
the fierce (ugra) traits of the Nepalese manifestation. A prominent devotee
of the benevolent five-headed form of Hanumān was the South Indian
Madhva saint Rāghavendra Svāmī (1595–1671), a contemporary of King
Pratāpamalla of Kathmandu.
In recent decades Hanumān has evolved into a widely worshipped deity
in India, and some popular god-posters and monumental statues of him also
feature the Tantric five-headed form.43 The Indian diaspora opened the first
temple of the five-headed Hanumān outside South Asia in leased premises
in Torrance, California, in 2012. The influence of this trend can also be
seen in Nepal, where a seven-foot-tall statue of a benevolent five-headed
Hanumān was set up in the village of Chhaling on the Telkot-Changu Road
a few years ago.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Narapatijayacaryāsvarodaya of Daiviña Narapati

Narapatijayacaryāswarodayaḥ of Daiviña Narapati. Ed. with Jaya-
laksmī Sanskrit and Prajñāvardhinī Hindi Commentaries by S. Mishra.
Varanasi: Chaukhamba Subharti Prakashan, 2009.
Navarātrapūjāvidhi
Manuscript from a private collection. Nepalese-German Manuscript
Preservation Project (NGMPP), reel no. E 88/11.

42
See LUTGENDORF 2001: 273–274, 2003: 81, and NAGAR 2004, vol. 1: 303. Re-
presentations of the five-headed form in Rajasthani and Pahari painting appear to
postdate the ones from Nepal.
43
Philip Lutgendorf has discussed the phenomenon in several publications; see
LUTGENDORF 1994, 2001, 2003, and 2007.

Nānāstotracitrasaṃgraha
Concertina-type manuscript in the National Archives, Kathmandu, ac-
cession no. 3/40 (= Nepalese-German Manuscript Preservation Project
[NGMPP], reel no. A 1174/24).
Nepālikabhūpavaṃśāvalī
Nepālikabhūpavaṃśāvalī - History of the Kings of Nepal: A Buddhist
Chronicle. 3 vols. (Vol. 1: Introduction and Translation by M. Bajra-
charya and A. Michaels, vol. 2: Edition by M. Bajracharya and A.
Michaels, vol. 3: Maps and Historical Illustrations, edited by N.
Gutschow). Kathmandu: Himal Books, 2015.
Bhagavadgītā
The Bhagavadgītā, being a reprint of relevant parts of Bhīṣmaparvan
from the B.O.R. Institute’s Edition of the Mahābhārata for the first time
critically edited by S.K. Belvalkar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Re-
search Institute, 1968.
Mohanacukayā hitiyāta busādhanasa āhuti biya vidhi
Manuscript A.
Manuscript in the National Archives, Kathmandu, accession no. 8 (1-
1696)/1994 (= Nepalese-German Manuscript Preservation Project
[NGMPP], reel no. A 1252/16).
Manuscript B.
Manuscript in the possession of Niran Jvalanand (Rajopadhyaya) Shar-
ma, Patan. Reproduced in SHRESTHA 2013.
Śrītattvanidhi 1
Śrītattvanidhiḥ mummaḍikṛṣṇarāja-oḍyar-prabhuvaryeṇa viracitaḥ.
Bombay: Śrīveṅkaṭeśvar Steam Press, 1901.
Śrītattvanidhi 2
Śrī Mummaḍi Kṛṣṇarāja Woḍeyar’s Śrītattvanidhi. Vol. 2: Viṣṇunidhi.
Ed. K.V. Ramesh. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute, 2002.
Śrīvidyārṇavatantra
Shrividyarnava Tantra. Eds. R.C. Kak, H. Shastri. 2 vols. Srinagar:
Kashmir Mercantile Electric Press, 1932–1937.
Hanūbhairavadevārcanavidhi
Manuscript in the National Archives, Kathmandu, accession no. 1-220
(= Nepalese-German Manuscript Preservation Project [NGMPP], reel
no. A 1252/18).
ARYĀL, M. 2014. Hanumān ra hanumānḍhokā darbār. In: S. Siṃha (ed.),

Smārikā 2071. Kathmandu: Hanumānḍhokā darbār saṃgrahālaya vikās
samiti, pp. 13–17.
BLOM, M.L.B. 1989. Depicted Deities: Painters’ Model Books in Nepal.
Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
BÜHNEMANN, G. 2013. Bhīmasena as Bhairava in Nepal. Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 163/2, pp. 455–476.
CLARK, T.W. 1957. The Rānī Pokhrī Inscription, Kāṭhmāṇḍu. Bulletin of
the School of Oriental and African Studies 20, pp. 167–187.
DEVA, K. 1984. Images of Nepal. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of
India.
DHANAŚAMŚER, R. 1979. Kāmakalārahasya. Kaṭhmāḍauṃ: Nepāl ra
Eśiyālī Anusandhāna Kendra.
GUTSCHOW, N. 2011. Architecture of the Newars: A History of Building
Typologies and Details in Nepal. 3 vols. Chicago: Serindia Publications.
HAGMÜLLER, G. et al. 2003. Patan Museum: The Transformation of a Royal
Palace in Nepal. London: Serindia, in association with the Patan Museum.
HEIDE, S. von der 1997. Changing Faces of Nepal – The Glory of Asia’s
Past: An Exhibition at UNESCO of Photos Taken by the Chitrakars of
Bhimsen Sthan, Photographers for a Century. Kathmandu: Ratna Pustak
Bhandar.
KALIDOS, R. 1991. Pañcamukha Āñjaneya in Canonical Literature and Art.
East and West 41, pp. 133–151.
LE BON, G. 1893. Les Monuments de l’Inde. Paris: Librairie de Firmin-
Didot et Cie.
LUTGENDORF, P. 1994. My Hanuman is Bigger than Yours. History of
Religions 33/3, pp. 211–245.
2001. Five Heads and no Tale: Hanumān and the Popularization of Tantra.
International Journal of Hindu Studies 5/3, pp. 269–296.
2003. Evolving a Monkey: Hanuman, Poster Art and Postcolonial Anxiety.
In: S. Ramaswamy (ed.), Beyond Appearances? Visual Practices and
Ideologies in Modern India. New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 71–112.
2007. Hanuman’s Tale: The Messages of a Divine Monkey. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
MISHRA, A. 2014. The Lost God of Kathmandu. ECS NEPAL Magazine
(Kathmandu) October 2014, pp. 50–59.

NAGAR, S. 2004. Hanumān through the Ages. 3 vols. Delhi: B.R. Publish-
ing Corporation.
PAL, P. 1970. Vaiṣṇava Iconology in Nepal. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.
2003. Himalayas: An Aesthetic Adventure. Chicago: The Art Institute of
Chicago.
PANT, N. 1964. Hanūmānko sthāpanā garnāmā hetu. Pūrṇimā (itihās-
pradhān-traimāsik patrikā) 1/1, pp. 26–30.
RĀJĀ, Y. 1999 (ed.). Suthāṃ abhilekha prakāśa. Part 1. Khvapa: Suthāṃ.
RAU, H. 1984. Nepal: Kunst- und Reiseführer. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.
REGMI, D.R. 1965–1966. Medieval Nepal. 4 Parts. Parts 1–3: Calcutta:
Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay; part 4: Patna: ‘by the author.’
SHRESTHA, S.S. 2013. Busadhana Manuscript of Mohanchowk Hiti. In: M.
Aryāl et al. (eds.), Smārikā 2069. Kathmandu: Hanumānḍhokā darbār
saṃgrahālaya vikās samiti, pp. 11–19.
SINGH, M. 1968. Himalayan Art. Greenwich, Conn.: New York Graphic
Society.
SLUSSER, M.S. 1982. Nepal Mandala: A Cultural Study of the Kathmandu
Valley. 2 vols. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2002. Patan Museum Guide. Lalitpur: The Patan Museum.
SOTHEBY PARKE BERNET INC. 1981. Highly Important Tibetan, Nepalese,
Indian and Southeast Asian Works of Art. New York: Auction Cata-
logue, Sale 4789Y.
THAPLIYAL, U.P. 1983. The Dhvaja (Standards and Flags of India – A
Study). Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.
VAIDYA, J.V. 1990. Historic Significance of Siddhagni Kotyahuti Devala
Pratistha (Nyatapola Temple Construction Work and Consecration Func-
tions. Abhilekha (published by Rāṣṭrīya Abhilekhālaya) 8/8, pp. 69–77.
VAIDYA, T.R. & P.L. Shrestha 2002. Bhaktapur Rajdarbar. Kirtipur,
Kathmandu: Centre for Nepal and Asian Studies, Tribhuvan University.
VAJRĀCĀRYA, G. 1976. Hanūmānḍhokā rājadarbār. Kāṭhmāḍauṃ: Nepāla
ra Eśiyālī Adhyayan Saṃsthān, Tribhuvan-Viśvavidyālaya (Nepālī).

BEYOND TANTRIC COMMUNITIES:

THE INTERFACE WITH LAY COMMUNITIES

“Rudras on Earth” on the eve of the Tantric Age:

The Śivadharmaśāstra and the making of
Śaiva lay and initiatory communities
Nina Mirnig1
Introduction: Religious and historical context
The fifth to seventh centuries of the Common Era see the beginning of the
production of Sanskrit Śaiva religious literature, reflecting the increasing
popularity of the Śaiva religion – also on a religio-political level – across
the Indic world.2 One of the products of this time is the Śivadharmaśāstra
(ŚDh), a popular and widely transmitted work3 that was composed some-
time in the sixth or seventh century,4 probably in the North of the subcon-

1
I am very grateful to Peter Bisschop and Timothy Lubin for carefully reading
through my paper and their invaluable suggestions and corrections.
2
For works addressing these larger developments within the Śaiva world at this
time, see, for instance, SANDERSON 2009, BISSCHOP 2010, and BAKKER 2014.
3
The ŚDh and Śivadharmottara (ŚDhU) have been transmitted in manuscripts
from Nepal, Kashmir, Bengal as well as in South India. See SANDERSON 2012–2013:
86, especially n. 220 and n. 221. For references to the recitation of the ŚDh in epigra-
phical material, see HAZRA 1952: 14 and 16, DE SIMINI 2016b, and SANDERSON
2012–2013: 85.
4
The dating of the ŚDh and ŚDhU is problematic and remains subject to debate.
The first scholar to advance a hypothesis was HAZRA (1952), who proposed a date of
composition sometime between 200 and 500 CE. He arrived at this estimation by,
firstly, placing the text before the composition of Śaiva Tantras on the grounds that
the ŚDh is free of any Tantric influence, and, secondly, he argues that the kind of
astrological and astronomical terminology employed in the ŚDh is indicative for a
date between the composition of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti as the terminus post quem and
the Bṛhatsaṃhitā of Varāhamihira as the terminus ante quem. However, evidence
collected by Bisschop has demonstrated that such an early date is unlikely for the
ŚDh, or at least for the entire text as it has been preserved. In his study of Caṇḍeśa
and other deities in early Śaivism, BISSCHOP (2010: 244) discusses material of the
sixth chapter of the ŚDh and draws attention to the fact that the deity
Gaṇeśa/Vināyaka is described as Śiva’s son, a relationship that came to be well-
tinent.5 It is amongst the earliest extant texts to systematise and canonise

Śaiva devotional activities centred on the practices of the lay householder.6
These include various forms of liṅga and idol worship, religious obser-
vances (vrata) as well as the many ways in which the Śaiva devotees can
support religious institutions through offering their services and donating
land grants, valuables, or money for religious infrastructure.7

known but was popularised only relatively late, being even entirely absent in de-
monstrably early Purāṇas such as the Vāyupurāṇa and the original Skandapurāṇa,
which contains the earliest systematisation of Śiva mythology (TÖRZSÖK 2004: 19).
The Skandapurāṇa, in turn, has been suggested to date to sometime between 550 and
650 (ADRIAENSEN et al. 1998 and YOKOCHI 2013). If this dating is correct and the
close relationship of both texts is applicable, this would indicate that it is unlikely
that the ŚDh has reached its final form before the sixth century, and perhaps even as
late as the seventh century.
5
See HAZRA 1952: 16–17. However, the issue of provenance remains to be
further investigated. So far, HAZRA’s assessment from the 50ies has not been impro-
ved upon. He ascribes the work to the North on the basis of the sacred sites featured
therein (ibid.). He even more specifically hypothesises that it was conceived either in
Southern Kashmir or Northern Punjab due to the mention of the “Devikā, a small
river in Southern Kashmir, and of the Chandrabhāga” in the Nepalese manuscripts. A
full evaluation of such specific claims, however, will need to wait for the critical
edition of the chapter in question (chapter 12).
6
Other texts of this period that concern the forms of lay Śaivism are the follo-
wing: (1) First, the ŚDhU, a work closely related to the ŚDh and often transmitted
together. The ŚDh and the ŚDhU constitute a closely-knit network of information on
early Śaiva devotional activities and institutions. Composed in the sixth or seventh
century, the two works cover the wealth of Śaiva devotional practices carried out by
lay devotees, in particular the worship of the śivaliṅga, particular observances (vra-
ta), and meditative practices as well as rituals to target the king as a client. While the
first two are covered mainly in the ŚDh, the latter two feature as topics of the ŚDhU
(see DE SIMINI 2016). Given the complementarity of these two works, the hypothesis
has developed amongst Śivadharma scholars that both texts were composed close in
time, if not even at the same time. Personally, I currently assume that there is a se-
quence in their composition, with the ŚDh having been put together first, since many
of the theological conceptions and strategies developed in the ŚDhU appear to be a
continuous afterthought and build on it. (2) Second, the old Skandapurāṇa, the ear-
liest extant systematisation of Śiva-mythology. (3) And third, the Niśvāsamukha,
which itself is part of the earliest extant Tantric corpus but contains chapters on the
various forms of concurrent Śaivism, including the form of lay Śaivism as we find it
propagated in the ŚDh (for an edition and translation, see KAFLE 2015).
7
A brief overview of the ŚDh’s topics is found in HAZRA 1952.
NINA MIRNIG 473
Regarding the socio-religious milieu around the ŚDh, with its date of
composition the work falls within a period in which the Brahmanical socio-
religious order (varṇāśramadharma) was firmly established under royal
patronage across the subcontinent,8 paired with an increase of religious
systems favouring devotion to a deity (bhakti) over Vedic ritualism. At this
time, it was in particular the Vaiṣṇava devotional movement – centred on
the worship of the god Viṣṇu – which enjoyed a long-standing popularity in
the royal sphere as well as amongst the mainstream, a circumstance record-
ed in literature, inscriptions, and iconography. These Vaiṣṇava groups were
the Śaiva’s main competitors for royal patronage and support from the
mainstream within the Brahmanical fold.9 Outside this Brahmanical fold,
Buddhist communities also counted amongst their competitors. By the time
of the sixth century, Buddhism in its manifold manifestations had already
been a major religious force on the subcontinent for many centuries, with
its religious life structured around monastic networks and with support
from the royal sphere.
As for the Śaiva world at the time, there is plenty of material evidence
for Śaiva lay devotional practices – such as liṅga shrines – from as early
as the beginning of the Common Era, as well as inscriptions attesting to
these activities as early as the fourth century.10 Thus, material and epi-
graphical evidence for Śaiva modes of worship predate the ŚDh by some
centuries, but are only marginally visible in earlier religious literature (see
below, p. 490). Leading up to and including the ŚDh’s date of composition,
two major developments within Śaiva circles took place: First, members of
some Śaiva ascetic groups that were originally at the margins of society had
started to increasingly appear in public and institutionalised religious life as
temple priests and recipients of religious donations in epigraphical rec-
ords.11 Second, Tantrism emerged as a larger phenomenon in both Śaiva
and Buddhist circles,12 and propagators of this new religious trend gradual-
ly stepped out from the purely esoteric sphere into the public domain.13

8
See, e.g., SANDERSON 2013 for epigraphic references to the king’s duty to main-
tain the varṇāśramadharma.
9
See, e.g., BAKKER 2014.
10
See, e.g., SANDERSON 2013.
11
12
See GOODALL and ISAACSON 2016.
13
SANDERSON 2009.

It is against the backdrop of these developments that we can attempt to

interpret the literary activities of the ŚDh’s redactors and try to determine
its role within early Śaiva history. Responding to this religious milieu, we
can identify two agendas at work: First, the ŚDh offers a normative model
for a Śaiva community that synthesises Śaiva practices with the Brahmani-
cal socio-religious substratum, recasting the varṇāśramadharma into their
devotional framework – a development addressed by Lubin.14 Second, there
is the contemporaneous attempt to create a socio-religious model that has
the potential to transcend this Brahmanical order by seemingly foreground-
ing devotion over caste status. As is typical with this kind of work, there is
no single thread that ties all expressed soteriological and spiritual concepts
together into a coherent whole, and we are probably confronted with a work
that aimed to synthesise several agendas relating to different Śaiva groups.
Overall, we will see that the advocated ideals oscillate between a conformi-
ty to and the transcendence of Brahmanical norms, just as they do between
those of the ascetic and the householder.
In this contribution, it will be argued that a cornerstone of the dual
agenda characteristic of this newly emerging Śaiva socio-religious order
propagated in the ŚDh is the divinisation of the Śaiva devotee (śivabhakta),
a novel feature specific to the time of the ŚDh that anticipates similar dis-
courses on divine embodiment by the devotee in popular Śaiva and
Vaiṣṇava devotional movements centuries later.15 It will be shown how this
link between devotion and divinisation of the śivabhakta acts as a strategic
device to advocate the spiritual superiority of the community of practition-
ers. As such, it will be argued that in addition to recruiting the Brahmanical
base into the Śaiva devotional fold, the socio-religious model advocated by
the ŚDh also plays a critical role in the spread of the Śaiva teaching into
new areas and in creating a socio-religious environ that eventually facili-
tates the participation of Śaiva initiatory traditions in public religious life
on the eve of the “Śaiva Age.”16 In this context, also the relationship be-
tween the ŚDh and the initiatory traditions will be investigated: on the one
hand, it will be traced how certain practices and concepts of the ascetic
Atimārgic traditions are adapted for the householder milieu, despite their

14
See, for instance LUBIN’s unpublished paper “On feeding Śivabhaktas and
other rules of Śivāśrama-Dharma” (AOS 2017) (LUBIN forthcoming). I thank Prof.
Lubin for sharing his paper with me prior to publication.
15
E.g., see PRENTISS 2000 and HOLDREGE 2015.
16
The expression “Śaiva Age” alludes to SANDERSON’s monumental work
(2009) on the rise of Śaiva Tantric groups throughout the early medieval period.
NINA MIRNIG 475
originally esoteric and eccentric nature. On the other, it will be addressed

how certain notions of the ŚDh continue into the newly emerging Tantric
traditions, the so-called Mantramārga,17 suggesting that some ideals advo-
cated in the ŚDh may also have influenced the formation of Tantric practices.
The Śivadharmaśāstra’s new concept of

śivabhaktas as divine beings on earth
Prior to the composition of the ŚDh, discourses on the devotee were al-
ready well-known in the milieu of Vaiṣṇava devotionalism as, for instance,
expounded upon in the Bhagavadgītā (BhG) in the early centuries of the
Common Era.18 Here, the conceptualisation of the bhakta tends to revolve
around the deep bond between the devotee and Viṣṇu,19 sometimes ex-
pressed in terms of mutual love and dependence on each other, and the
devotee serving the deity.20 The community of worshippers is thus defined
by their shared love and longing for Viṣṇu. Their socio-religious duty is to
carry out their svadharma, that is to say, the duties incumbent on the devo-
tee according to their inherent socio-religious status related to the
varṇāśrama system.21 The directive is that these duties must be carried out
permeated by the love for the deity and without attachment to the fruits of
the action.22 In this way, the devotional framework is synchronised with the
Brahmanical socio-religious order, which the devotee must maintain.23

17
For the emic distinction between the Śaiva Atimārga, referring to the early ini-
tiatory ascetic Śaiva traditions, and the Mantramārga, the traditions now commonly
referred to as Tantric, see SANDERSON 2013: 212–215.
18
The dating of the BhG is still subject to debate, moving between the fourth
century BCE and the fourth century CE (MALINAR 2007: 14). MALINAR herself
estimates that the text in its final redaction dates to the first century CE (ibid.: 15).
On the various views regarding the date of the BhG, its textual layers, and the questi-
on whether it is to be considered as a separate work or part of the Mbh’s narrative,
see MALINAR 2007: 29–34.
19
See, e.g., MALINAR 2007: 9.
20
See, e.g., MALINAR 2007: 11–12, discussing the subordination of the bhakta to
the deity in the royal context.
21
For an overview of the development and principles of the varṇāśrama system,
see OLIVELLE 1993.
22
Cf., e.g., EDGERTON 1997 (19441): 161 and 175–176.
23
See also the large sections on those outside this system, the pāṣaṇḍas, in
Vaiṣṇava Dharma literature. Cf. G RÜNENDAHL 1983: 44–45 on the prominence
of discourses on pāṣaṇḍas in the Viṣṇudharma.

Accordingly, the spectrum of worshippers stretches from the householders of

the various varṇas to the Brahmanical renouncer, for each of whom different
ways to reach liberation channelled through devotion (bhakti) are offered, all
consolidated into a single system famously propounded by the BhG. The
centrality of the dharma and the socio-religious structures implicit in the
concept of these forms of Vaiṣṇava devotionalism is also emphasised
through the often-used trope that Viṣṇu incarnates on earth as the saviour to
reestablish the dharma at its decline. Similar sentiments of conformity to the
varṇāśrama system are further expounded upon in the works closer in time
to the ŚDh, such as the Viṣṇudharma,24 the Kashmirian Vaiṣṇavadharmaśās-
tra, also known as Viṣṇusmṛti,25 as well as another Vaiṣṇavadharmaśāstra26
transmitted as part of the Mahābhārata in the southern recensions.
There is evidence that certain well-established tenets of Vaiṣṇava devo-
tionalism as expressed in Sanskrit literature continue into the ŚDh. For
instance, the theme of mutual dependency between God and the devotee as
taught in the BhG is paralleled in the first chapter of the ŚDh.27 However,

24
See, e.g., GRÜNENDAHL 1983: 64. For editions and studies on the Viṣṇudharma,
see GRÜNENDAHL 1983, 1984, 1989. Note that studies on the comparison between
the Viṣṇudharma and the ŚDh are currently being undertaken by Timothy Lubin and
Nirajan Kafle and have been presented at various conferences.
25
See OLIVELLE 2010, in particular the introduction.
26
This work is known by the same name as the Kashmirian work above, but it is
classified as part of the southern recension of the Mahābhārata. See Mbh, Appendix,
no. 4, lines 168–227. The text is also preserved in a single early Nepalese palm-leaf
manuscript, as identified by GRÜNENDAHL (1984: 52–54). Studies about the religi-
ous context of the Vaiṣṇavadharmaśāstra are currently being carried out by Mari-
on Rastelli.
27
Compare BhG 6.30 (yo māṃ paśyati sarvatra sarvaṃ ca mayi paśyati |
tasyāhaṃ na praṇaśyāmi sa ca me na praṇaśyati ||. “He who sees me everywhere and
who sees everything in me, for him I do not disappear and he does not disappear for
me.”) and BhG 9.26 (patraṃ puṣpaṃ phalaṃ toyaṃ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati | tad
ahaṃ bhaktyupahṛtam aśnāmi prayatātmanaḥ ||. “He [who offers] me leaves, flowers,
[and] fruits with devotion, from [this] devoted soul I accept what was offered with
devotion.”) with ŚDh 1.30–32 (patraṃ puṣpaṃ phalaṃ toyaṃ yo me bhaktyā prayac-
chati | tasyāhaṃ na praṇaśyāmi sa ca me na praṇaśyati || yo māṃ na sarvagaṃ
paśyen na ca sarvaṃ mayi sthitam | sa māṃ parvatadurgeṣu mārgamāṇo vipadyate ||
yo māṃ sarvagataṃ paśyet sarvaṃ ca mayi saṃsthitam | tasyāhaṃ nityaṃ ātmasthaḥ
sa ca nityaṃ mayi sthitaḥ ||. “He who with devotion offers me leaves, flowers, [and]
fruits, for him I do not disappear and he does not disappear for me. He who does not
see me everywhere and not everything established in me, he seeks in inaccessible
mountains (?) and fails. He who sees me everywhere and everything established in me,
NINA MIRNIG 477
in addition to such well-established notions, the ŚDh also introduced as-

pects to the conceptualisation of the bhakta and his spiritual status that
were novel within the Brahmanical sphere. First of all, unlike the contem-
poraneous Sanskrit Vaiṣṇava sources, the ŚDh does not stress adherence to
the Brahmanical order nor includes discourses on the devotee’s svadharma
or the fate of heretics (pāṣaṇḍas) (see n. 23 and p. 492). Instead, Śaiva de-
votion is foregrounded, even to the extent that in some passages on this
topic Brahmanical norms are openly challenged. The most radical state-
ment to this effect is found in the opening chapter of the ŚDh. Here, in an
often-quoted passage, it is stated that through devotion even those who are
considered the most extreme kinds of social outsiders according to the
Brahmanical order attain a spiritual status equal to a learned Brahmin:
Even a foreigner (mleccha), in whom this eightfold devotion28 exists, is

[equal to] the foremost of learned Brahmins, a glorious sage, an ascetic,
and a scholar. I do not care that someone knows the four Vedas; if he is
devoted to me, even if he is a dog-eater, to him should be given, from
him should be taken, for he should be worshiped just as I am.29
Vaiṣṇava devotional literature features similar sentiments, but the subtle

difference in framing on this point becomes evident when comparing the
above verses with the following passage of the BhG:

for him I always remain in [his] soul and he always remains in me.”).
28
This eightfold devotion is explained just prior to theses verses and features the
cornerstones of Śaiva bhakti. It is specified as (1) affection towards Śiva’s devotees,
(2) rejoicing in the worship others offer Śiva, (3) worshipping Śiva with devotion, (4)
carrying out physical work for Śiva, (5) listening to the recitals of Śiva’s deeds, (6)
being visibly affected by the devotion to Śiva (e.g., trembling), (7) thinking of Śiva at
all times, and (8) not living off his revenue; ŚDh 1.26–27: madbhaktajanavātsalyaṃ
pūjāyāś cānumodanam | svayam abhyarcanaṃ bhaktyā mamārthe cāṅgaceṣṭitam ||
matkathāśravaṇe bhaktiḥ svaranetrāṅgavikriyā | mamānusmaraṇaṃ nityaṃ yaś ca
mām upajīvati ||. This passage and the one quoted in the next note will become fre-
quently quoted, sometimes in modified form, in both Śaiva- and Vaiṣṇava-centred
literature, cf., e.g., Śivapurāṇa 7.2.10.68–71, Gāruḍapurāṇa 1.227.6b–11, and Ha-
ribhaktavilāsa 11.616–619.
29
ŚDh 1.28–29: bhaktir aṣṭavidhā hy eṣā yasmin mlecche ’pi vartate | sa viprendro
muniḥ śrīmān sa yatiḥ sa ca paṇḍitaḥ || na me priyaś caturvedo madbhaktaḥ śvapaco
’pi yaḥ | tasmai deyaṃ tato grāhyaṃ sa ca pūjyo yathā hy aham ||. Note that ŚDh 1.29
is frequently quoted, e.g., Abhinavagupta ad Tantrāloka 4.203.

Even if a very evil doer reveres me with single devotion, he must be

regarded as the righteous in spite of all; for he has the right resolu-
tion. Quickly his soul becomes righteous, and he goes to eternal
peace. Son of Kuntī, make sure of this: no devotee of mine is lost.
For if they take refuge in Me, son of Pṛthā, even those who may be
of base origin, women, men of the artisan caste, and serfs too, even
they go to the highest goal. How much more virtuous brahmans, and
devout royal seers, too!30
Here too, devotion is foregrounded so that even someone of lower social

standing or a person who has carried out misdeeds can attain the highest
spiritual goals through this path.31 However, the BhG’s focus rests on social
groups within the varṇa system and does not explicitely feature outsiders
such as the foreigner (mleccha) or the outcaste (e.g., the dog-eater). Nor is
there a sentiment in the BhG that those of lower castes rise to the status of a
Brahmin through their devotional practice and may be worshipped like a
god. Rather, the passage states that the religion is also accessible to those of
lower social standing. In contrast, we have seen that the ŚDh explicitly, and
perhaps provocatively, features the epitomes of social outsiders and goes as
far as to propose that through Śaiva devotion they themselves become wor-
thy of worship, a position reserved for Brahmins in the Brahmanical reli-
gion. The ŚDh’s view expressed in the above verse is thus more radical in
its approach towards the Brahmanical socio-religious system at the time of
its composition, and it is only subsequently that we see similar sentiments
adopted in other Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava works.32 However, it must be kept in
mind that such principles as the ones expressed in the ŚDh did not neces-
sarily translate fully into the practiced religion. Nor does the ŚDh propose
to completely dismantle the Brahmanical socio-religious structures. Quite
the contrary, other parts of the work foreground alignment with the Brahmani-

30
Transl. Edgerton 1997 [19441]: 49. BhG 9.30–33b. api cet sudurācāro bhajate mām
ananyabhāk | sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ samyagvyavasito hi saḥ || kṣipraṃ bhavati
dharmātmā śaśvacchāntiṃ nigacchati | kaunteya pratijānīhi na me bhaktaḥ praṇaśyati ||.
māṃ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye ’pi syuḥ pāpayonayaḥ | striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās te ’pi
yānti parāṃ gatim || kiṃ punar brāhmaṇāḥ puṇyā bhaktā rājarṣayas tathā |.
31
See also MALINAR 2007: 9. MALINAR (ibid.: 13) argues even further that the
Bhakti tradition as described in the BhG is not to be regarded as a form of religion
associated with “folk” religion or lower strata of society, but rather as a form of eso-
teric knowledge targeting also for higher classes of society.
32
See above, n. 28 and n. 29.
NINA MIRNIG 479
cal system and the promotion of the Śaiva Brahmin devotee, aspects, which, as
mentioned above, also form part of the strategies to establish the Śaiva religion
and its institutions in broader society, as discussed by Lubin (see also p. 491).33
Nevertheless, the ŚDh seemingly pushes multiple agendas, and passages
such as the one quoted above undeniably signal that the propagators sought
to create ways of potentially including the social outsider and elevate him
on the spiritual hierarchy. The ŚDh goes even further in its rhetoric of spir-
itual superiority, and throughout the work we find passages that promote
the devotees not only as comparable to God but as actual divine beings on
earth, as we see here in a passage from the opening chapter:
Those calm-minded Śiva devotees who have as their goal Śiva and
worship the supreme dharma, they are Rudras, there is no doubt.
Those who meditate on Virūpākṣa once, twice, three times, or al-
ways, they are Gaṇeśvaras.34
Here, intense devotion to Śiva is considered as indicative of the devotee’s

divine status in this world as a Rudra, that is to say, as a divine being com-
parable to Śiva in his manifestation as Rudra.35 Less often, such devotees
are also portrayed as Gaṇeśvaras, the divine chief attendants of Śiva.

33
See LUBIN forthcoming. Thus, as we will see below, we also find that despite
the claim of bhakti transcending caste-boundaries and introducing social equality, the
lay devotee Śūdra is still differentiated from the rest in terms of practice and status.
34
ŚDh 1.13–14: yair ayaṃ śāntacetaskaiḥ śivabhaktaiḥ śivārthibhiḥ | saṃsevyate
paro dharmas te rudrā nātra saṃśayaḥ || ekakālaṃ dvikālaṃ vā trikālaṃ nityaṃ eva
vā | ye smaranti virūpākṣaṃ vijñeyās te gaṇeśvarāḥ ||. For further examples of the
promotion of the devotee as a divine being, see ŚDh 3.76c–77b: kuśāpsu tarukuḍye vā
apy aṅgulyāpi (corr. aṅgulyāpi?) yo likhet || krīḍayā sāyutaṃ kalpaṃ bhavet so ’pi
gaṇeśvaraḥ |. “Even if someone draws [a liṅga] with the finger on kuśa water or on a
tree wall, or playfully makes a suitable resemblance with half-melted butter, he too is a
Gaṇeśvara.” ŚDh 12.2 (T32, p. 142 and T72a, p. 141): kvacid gacchan yadā *paśyet
(T32, payśyaṃ T72a) śivaliṅgam *apūjitam (T72a, prapūjitam T32) | *tadā (T72a,
sadā T32) *saṃpūjya (T32a, tat pūjya T72a) yo gacchet sa rudro nātra saṁśayaḥ ||.
“When going anywhere, he who sees a śivaliṅga that is not worshipped [and] then only
proceeds after having worshipped it, that [person] is a Rudra, there is no doubt.”
35
This would potentially result in the existence of multiple Rudras; this under-
standing may build on earlier beliefs and myths of Rudras being followers of Rudra,
already found in Vedic literature (e.g., Śatarudrīya), which appears to have been a
common perception at the time (note the reference to this concept even in BhG 10.23).

The ŚDh offers several approaches on explaining this divine nature of

Śaiva devotees on earth. The first is associated with the then well-
established trope that on account of their meritorious activities on earth, the
worshippers will achieve divine existence in heaven. In the case of Śaiva
devotees, the ŚDh specifies that they become Rudras in Rudra’s heaven
(rudraloka) due to their acts of Śaiva devotion. The concept of the divine
devotee implies that after having exhausted all their merit, they return to
earth, not only in the form of some auspicious rebirth but also while retain-
ing their divine identity.36 Thus, continuing the passage quoted above, the
ŚDh teaches the following:
Those who always worship Rudra are not ordinary men [but] Rudras
descended (paribhraṣṭa) from Rudraloka. They are Rudras, there is
no doubt.37
This theme of descending from Rudra’s heaven upon earth is often encoun-
tered throughout the work,38 at times paired with the idea that the devotee

36
Note that in the 11th/12th-century Vāyavīyasaṃhitā of the Śivapurāṇa, we find
the same sentiment of Rudras descending to earth, but here it is linked with the idea
that they do so out of compassion, almost reminiscent of Buddhist Bodhisattva ide-
als; Vāyavīyasaṃhitā 7.2.11.32: madbhaktānāṃ hitārthāya mānuṣaṃ bhāvam āśritāḥ |
rudralokāt paribhraṣṭās te rudrā nātra saṃśayaḥ ||. “They are Rudras, who have
come down from Rudraloka and taken on a human existence for the benefit of my
devotees, there is no doubt.”
37
ŚDh. 1.16: ye ’rcayanti sadā rudraṃ na te prakṛtimānuṣāḥ | rudralokāt pari-
bhraṣṭās te rudrā nātra saṃśayaḥ ||. The same sentiment, but with the specification
that the devotees are Gaṇeśvaras, is found in ŚDh 7.1: ye smaranti sadākālam
īśānaṃ pūjayanti vā | rudralokaparibhraṣṭā vijñeyās te gaṇeśvarāḥ ||. “Those who
meditate or worship the Lord at all times, they should be known as Gaṇeśvaras, who
have come down from Rudra’s world.” Cf. ŚDh 1.13–14 above (n. 34).
38
The term paribhraṣṭa usually has a negative connotation in brahmanical litera-
ture and implies failure of practice or losing one casts (e.g. Viṣṇudharma 57.3: yas tu
vipratvam utsṛjya kṣatriyatvaṃ niṣevate | brāhmaṇyāt sa paribhraṣṭaḥ kṣatrayonyāṃ
prasūyate ||. “He who abandons the status of a Brahmin and becomes a Kṣatriya, he
has fallen from the status of being a Brahmin and is born in the womb of a
Kṣatriya.”). However, given the context of divine descent on earth, the term appears
to have also a positive connotation in the ŚDh. The amiguity in phrasing may be
inspired by a concept in the BhG, according to which a yogin who has failed in his
practice (yogabhraṣṭa) is not punished for trying but rather – due to his already ele-
vated spiritual status – only “falls” in as much as that he reaches the heavenly worlds
after death and thereafter obtains an auspicious rebirth, in which he can continue his
NINA MIRNIG 481
passes through several inferior heavens before an auspicious rebirth.39 This

essentially suggests that the devotee is divine because prior to his current

quest for perfection, see BhG 6.41–43: prāpya puṇyakṛtāṃ lokān uṣitvā śāśvatīḥ
samāḥ | śucīnāṃ śrīmatāṃ gehe yogabhraṣṭo ’bhijāyate || athavā yoginām eva kule
bhavati dhīmatām | etad dhi durlabhataraṃ loke janma yad īdṛśam || tatra taṃ bud-
dhisaṃyogaṃ labhate paurvadehikam | yatate ca tato bhūyaḥ saṃsiddhau kuru-
nandana ||, “Someone who has failed in his yogic practice (yogabhraṣṭo) reaches the
heavens for meritorious people [and] after dwelling [there] for a long time (lit. eter-
nally) is reborn in a house of pure and noble people. Alternatively, he is even born in
a family of wise yogins; but a rebirth of such kind is difficult to obtain. There, [once
reborn], he [re]gains knowledge/understanding of his previous life and then strives
again for complete perfection, O descendant of Kuru.” It may be that the ŚDh’s notion
of descended Rudras developed from similar concepts and is, in fact, a reworking of the
BhG’s teaching: similar to the yogins, the Śaiva devotees in question are already far
advanced on their spiritual path but require another rebirth to strive for complete per-
fection. Passages as the following might support this, see ŚDh 8.36: rudralokāt pari-
bhraṣṭo bhavej jātismaro naraḥ | pūrvābhyāsena tenaiva punaḥ śivapadaṃ bhajet ||.
“Having descended from Rudra’s heaven, [that] man remembers his [previous] birth,
and through [his] previous practices he again enjoys the state of Śiva.” I am grateful
to Timothy Lubin for pointing the important passage in the BhG out to me.
For more on the theme of descending from Rudra’s world in the ŚDh, see n. 39 below.
39
For a similar example, see, e.g., ŚDh 8.21: samyak samprekṣaṇaṃ kṛtvā
rudralokam avāpnuyāt | surūpaḥ subhagaḥ śrīmān paribhraṣṭas tu jāyate ||. “[He
who] performs in the proper manner a spectacle [along with his liṅga worship
(described in the verses preceding this)] attains Rudra’s world [and] [after having]
descended [from it] is reborn with a handsome look, with riches, and possessing
luck.” For an example of a gradual descent from Rudra’s heaven as part of the spiri-
tual path, see, e.g., ŚDh 10.100–109 (edition in preparation by Nirajan Kafle), which
teaches an observance called the umāmaheśvaravrata for female devotees, as a result
of which a woman first enjoys some time in Rudraloka with the Rudras and then
gradually descends through the various heavens, spending further time in each of
them until she is reborn on earth and obtains a young king as a husband. A similar
notion to the gradual descent from Rudra’s heaven is also found in the portrayal of
lay religion in the Niśvāsamukha 1.108c–110b; here the devotee descends from
Rudraloka via Vāyuloka and Agniloka and is reborn on earth as king or Brahmin.
Incidentally, we can note that in the contemporaneous Vaiṣṇava sources, such as the
VDh, commonly either a general heaven (svarga), Brahmaloka, and/or Viṣṇuloka
(examples are endless, but see, e.g., VDh 7.23 for svargaloke, VDh 47.5 for brahma-
loke, and VDh 3.42 for viṣṇuloke) are found as the spiritual destinations of the devo-
tee, as opposed to the multitude of heavens – topped with Rudraloka – in the ŚDh.
We can also note that the VDh does not incorporate any heaven of Śiva/Rudra. This
may be one indication for a relative chronology of these works, with the ŚDh being
composed after the VDh.

rebirth he already enjoyed a divine status in heaven, which is indicative of

the fact that the devotee had already advanced far on his spiritual path in
previous births and therefore already holds a much higher spiritual status
than ordinary men, potentially also being close to obtaining the highest
spiritual goal of liberation.40 While it is likely that this rationalization was
rather a doctrinal attempt to provide some sort of cosmological structure for
explaining the proposed divine status of Śaiva devotees on earth, rather
than a wide-spread belief in practiced religion, some passages suggest that
the concept of the divine devotee is not merely to be understood figurative-
ly. To this effect, we find statements that emphasise the corporeal reality of
a Rudra on earth, the most explicit image being that of the devotee being a
Rudra bound in human skin:
He who in this way keeps the vow for as long as he lives, he is a Rudra
bound in human skin, there is no doubt. 41
This sentiment of tangible manifestation of divinity ties in with the second

approach to account for the divine nature of the devotee on earth, namely
through linking it to the performance of certain ritual activities and the
adoption of certain characteristic features reminiscent of Śiva’s iconogra-
phy. Thus, in the following passage a devotee carrying rudrākṣa-beads is
declared to be Rudra both in this world and thereafter:
How wonderful is it that one becomes Rudra through the gift of

rudrākṣa-beads! [He who carries] his rosary in his hand at all times
is a Rudra walking on earth. The rudrākṣa-beads themselves are Ru-
dra, and so are those who carry the rudrākṣas. By carrying the
rudrākṣas one is Rudra in this world and the next. 42

40
Cf. n. 38 above for the possibility that this rationalization is a reworking of the
BhG’s concept of spiritually advanced yogins, who need another rebirth to attain
complete perfection (BhG 6.41–43).
41
ŚDh 3.48: evaṃ nirvahate yas tu yāvajjīvaṃ pratijñayā | mānuṣyacarmaṇā
baddhaḥ sa rudro nātra saṃśayaḥ ||. This verse features at the end of a longer dis-
course on the importance of worshipping the liṅga and Śiva, to the extent that it is
better to commit suicide or cut off one’s head than to eat without previously
worshipping Śiva (ŚDh 3.47: varaṃ prāṇaparityāgaḥ śiraso vāpi chedanam | na tv
evāpūjya bhuñjīta bhagavantaṃ trilocanaṃ ||).
42
ŚDh 12.103–104 (T32, p. 152): rudro rudrākṣadānena bhavatīti kim adbhutam |
tanmālayā sadā haste rudraś ca kramate kṣitau || rudrākṣāṇi svayaṃ rudro ye ca
NINA MIRNIG 483
Further, the divine embodiment of the devotee is also emphasised in the

following verse, linking it to the practice of ash-bathing:
Therefore he who takes the fiery Śiva-bath (i.e., the ash-bath) is a

Rudra with this very body, there is no doubt.43
In another passage containing a long list of characteristics a śivabhakta

should have (see p. 489), the ŚDh further depicts the devotee as consisting
of Rudra (rudrātman), as well as being part of the supreme Rudra
(rudrāṃśa), the latter being a slightly different notion to the former:44
They consist of Rudra, they are intent on Rudra, they are in part Ru-
dra, they feel devotion to Rudra; [these] are men on earth endowed
with such conducts.45
Based on this paradigm shift to divinise the devotee, the ŚDh further prop-
agates the idea that this divine identity is central to the devotee’s perfor-
mance of devotional activities. One can worship the deity only as a Rudra:
A non-Rudra does not think of Rudra, a non-Rudra does not worship

Rudra, a non-Rudra does not praise Rudra, a non-Rudra does not ob-
tain Rudra.46
As we will see below (p. 501), this imperative to identify with the divine in
order to worship the divine is a notion that will continue into the Tantric

rudrākṣadhārakāḥ | rudrākṣadhāraṇāt tasmād iha rudraḥ paratra ca ||.
43
ŚDh 11.30: tasmād etac chivasnānam āgneyaṃ yaḥ samācaret | anenaiva
śarīreṇa sa rudro nātra saṃśayaḥ ||. Note that descriptions of ascetics smeared in
ashes are also reported in the Chinese travel records, testifying to the social reality of
such practices. See, e.g., BEAL 2004 (18841): 55 and 114.
44
Note the term rudrāṃśa has a complex history within Śaiva literature, ranging
from denoting a practitioner considered to be a partial incarnation of Rudra to simply
being a devotee of Rudra; see Mirnig’s forthcoming entry in TAK 4.
45
ŚDh 4.9: rudrātmāno rudraparā rudrāṃśā rudrabhāvanāḥ | ityācārasamāyuktāḥ
bhavanti bhuvi mānavāḥ ||.
46
ŚDh 1.24: nārudraḥ saṃsmared rudraṃ nārudro rudram arcayet | nārudraḥ
kīrttayed rudraṃ nārudro rudram āpnuyāt ||.

sphere, where, in an extended form, it becomes a core feature of Tantric ritual

ideology.
The novelty of the concept of the divine Rudra-nature of the devotee al-
so becomes apparent when we compare the ŚDh with other sources within
the Śaiva sphere. Contemporaneous works dating to about the sixth or sev-
enth century that describe the same religious milieu of the Śaiva lay house-
holder – the Skandapurāṇa and sections of the Niśvāsamukha (see n. 6) –
do not conceptualise the devotee in the same manner. While they too teach
that divine existence in heaven is the spiritual goal of pious devotees, the
nature of this heavenly existence often remains unspecified, and if it is
specified, devotees are portrayed as a chief of Śiva’s divine attendants
(gaṇas), namely a Gaṇeśvara (“chief of attendants”), but never as a Ru-
dra.47 Nor do we find the trope of the divine Rudra-devotee on earth in
these early sources but only in those postdating the ŚDh.48 Even in an epi-
sode of the Skandapurāṇa, which alludes to the specific practice of the ash
bath by relating how gods diving into a heap of ashes next to Śiva were
identified as devotees, they are only referred to as raudras, i.e. “followers
of Rudra”.49

47
We may note here that the Śaiva sources differ from the contemporaneous
Vaiṣṇava texts on this point, in which the devotee is granted entry into heaven rather
than given a specific divine identity (see, for instance, the examples of the VDh
given in n. 39).
48
E.g., LP 2.21.81: ekakālaṃ dvikālaṃ vā trikālaṃ nityam eva vā | ye ’rcayanti
mahādevaṃ te rudrā nātra saṃśayaḥ || (almost parallel to ŚDh 1.14) and LP 2.21.82,
parallel to ŚDh 1.24 (see n. 46). Haracaritacintāmaṇi 10.217c–218b: ye śrīmadvi-
jayeśānam arcayanti yathāvidhi || rudralokāvatīrṇās te rudrā eva mahītale |. “Those
who worship the venerable Lord of Victory (i.e., Śiva) according to the rules, they
certainly are Rudras on earth, having descended from Rudra’s heaven.” Śivopaniṣad
7.138–139: ye śrāvayanti satataṃ śivadharmaṃ *śivārthinaḥ (conj.; śivārthinām
cod.) | te rudrās te munīndrāś ca te namasyāḥ svabhaktitaḥ || ye samutthāya śṛṇvanti
śivadharmaṃ dine dine | te rudrā rudralokeśā na te prakṛtimānuṣāḥ ||. “Those who
are longing for Śiva [and] always proclaim the Śivadharma, they are Rudras, and
they are the best of sages, to be worshipped through one’s own devotion. Those who
get up and listen to the Śivadharma every day, they are Rudras, the Lords of Rudra’s
heaven, they are no ordinary men.”
49
SP 32.209ab: raudrāḥ paśava ete hi praveśād bhasmano ’dhunā |. See also SP
(Bh) 180.2c–4b.
NINA MIRNIG 485
Points of influence in the Śivadharma’s conceptualisation

of the divine devotee
While the ŚDh introduces many concepts that are novel compared to other
contemporaneous literature, such texts were certainly not produced in isola-
tion. As products of their time, they reflect and respond to existing practic-
es and also feature direct influences or inspirations of earlier or concurrent
traditions. As we would expect, this is also the case with the conceptualisa-
tion of the devotee, in which certain elements can be linked with preceding
or contemporaneous motives or practices, even if they were pieced together
differently to propagate a new model. The following identifies such aspects
from three strands of influence, namely the Brahmanical tradition, old Śai-
va ascetic initiatory groups, and early Buddhist traditions.
The Brahmanical milieu: of Brahmins and kings

as divine embodiments on earth
The trope of the divine walking the earth in human form, as we have seen
in the passages above, is not in itself a novel feature of the ŚDh. We find
this motive already in the Brahmanical literature, but there it is restricted to
the political and religious elites of the system, namely kings and Brahmins.
Thus, in classical literature we find that kings are often described as God
incarnate on earth, analogous to the mythical kings Rāma and Daśaratha,
who are considered as incarnations of Viṣnu.50 As for Brahmins, it is a
well-known idiom that they are divine beings on earth,51 which is how their
prerogative of receiving offerings on behalf of the deity is explained. As
will also be discussed below, encroaching on this privileged space of the
Vedic Brahmin was one of the strategies of the propagators of the ŚDh.
This agenda may be a contributing factor to the development of the trope of
worshippers as divine Rudras on earth, mirroring the Brahmanical concept

50
For Rāma as an incarnation of Viṣṇu walking the earth, see, e.g., Mbh 3.147.28:
atha dāśarathir vīro rāmo nāma mahābalaḥ | viṣṇur mānuṣarūpeṇa cacāra va-
sudhām imām ||. “Then the son of Daśaratha, the hero of great strength named Rāma,
was Viṣṇu walking this earth in human form.” A similar example with Āditya can be
found at Mbh 2.11.2. See also VdhU 1.36.12.
51
Cf. VDh chapter 50 outlined in GRÜNENDAHL 1984: 15–16.

of the divine identity of exceptional practitioners and extending it to the

entire community of Śiva worshippers regardless of social level.
Ascetic practices transposed into the householder ritual milieu
Another point of influence appears to come more directly from the Śaiva
milieu. As we have seen, divine identity is also linked with the bearing of
the characteristic marks of Śaiva devotees, such as the rudrākṣa-beads and
ashes. These go back to the sectarian marks and eccentric practices pertain-
ing to the Śaiva ascetic groups of the Atimārga (see n. 17), in particular the
Pāśupatas, for whom the wearing of such marks of devotion form part of
the soteriological path.52 In part, these marks are worn in order to imitate
Śiva in his ascetic cremation-ground manifestation.53 In the formation of a
new model for conceptualising the devotee community, Śaiva propagators
may thus also have been inspired by these well-known ascetic practices
aimed at imitating the divinity, while conceptually shifting from imitation
of the deity to adopting a divine identity – from raudra to rudra, as it were.
While the authors may in fact have originally envisaged the ascetic practi-
tioners when speaking of these characteristics, they – at least theoretically –
extended these practices to the householder devotee, who now is also rec-
ommended to carry rudrākṣa-beads or smear himself with ashes. Thus,
aspects that are considered core elements of the antinomian practices on the
Pāśupata’s soteriological path also form part of the practices of lay house-
holders in the context of the ŚDh.
A paradigmatic example for this is the śivaliṅgamahāvrata taught for
lay devotees in the ninth chapter,54 “the great observance of the śivaliṅga,”
a term directly alluding to the sectarian mahāvrata.55 This is an ascetic

52
For instance, bathing in and sleeping on ashes constitute the first injunctions for
the ascetic Pāśupata practitioner in the tradition’s authoritative scripture, the Pāśupa-
tasūtra. Thus, see Pāśupatasūtra 1.2–3: bhasmanā triṣavaṇaṃ snāyīta || bhasmani
śayīta ||. “One must bath in ashes three times a day [i.e., at dawn, noon, and sunset].
One must lie in ashes [for sleeping].” See also Kauṇḍinya’s commentary thereon. On
the significance of ashes in the Pāśupata context, see HARA 2003, and for literary
descriptions of Pāśupatas wearing ashes outside the tradition’s prescriptive literature,
see HARA 2002b: 150–151, n. 29.
53
See, e.g., BAKKER 2010 and ACHARYA 2013: 127.
54
A critical edition and study of this chapter is currently under preparation by the
author.
55
See Bisschop’s forthcoming entry on mahāvrata in TAK 4.
NINA MIRNIG 487
observance that consists of imitating the deity’s expiatory observance

after cutting off Brahman’s head by walking around smeared with ashes
and with a skull bowl. Not only does the terminology of the śivaliṅga-
mahāvrata call into mind this practice, but also the observance itself as
described in the ŚDh contains ritual elements that are particular to Pāśu-
pata practice. These include, for instance, a specific set of offerings
(upahāra) that the adherent is to present to Śiva, consisting of eccentric
elements such as mad dancing, laughter, and making the ominous
“mouth-sound” (mukhavādya).56
Also the conceptualisation of the spiritual goal of ultimate liberation ap-
pears at times to be inspired by Pāśupata terminology in the ŚDh. In some
passages the spiritual goal is described as the state in which merit (dharma)
and demerit (adharma) no longer affect the soul, a dictum frequently used
to describe the final liberated state of the Pāśupata ascetic practitioner.57
Here we encounter the by this time common transposition of spiritual goals
associated with ascetic practice into the householder context: liberation is
no longer the result of austere practices classically associated with the sote-
riological path, but it is promised along with worldly desires to the house-
holder as the result of devotional ritual activities, which here also contain
elements of Śaiva ascetic practices. This synthesis of both value systems –
the one of the ascetic and the one of the householder – that characterises
many parts of the ŚDh is epitomised in passages such as the following, in
which the devotee obtains Rudra’s world through liṅga worship and may
choose between bhukti (enjoyments) and mukti (liberation) once his heav-
enly existence comes to an end:

56
See, e.g., ŚDh 5.8–9, 129 and 158. For these upahāras, see Pāśupatasūtra 1.8.
The exact nature of the mukhavādya sound is still subject to debate; probably it consists
of making sounds by hitting the mouth. See BISSCHOP & GRIFFITHS 2007: 34, n. 155.
57
For instance, dharmādharmavivarjita, “free of merit and demerit,” in ŚDh 3.53.
Cf. the description of the final liberated state of the Pāśupata yogic practitioner in
Kauṇḍinya’s commentary on Pāśupatasūtra 5.38–39: ekaḥ kṣemī san vītaśokaḥ |
apramādī gacched duḥkhānām antam īśaprasādāt |. “Alone, secure, existing [wit-
hout action], free from sorrow, mindful he will reach the end of suffering from the
grace of the master.” (Transl. HARA 1966): atra dharmādharmayor vṛttyor uparame
avasitaprayojanatvāt pakvaphalavat sarpakañcukavad gataprāyeṣu kāryakaraṇeṣu
rudre sthitacitto niṣkala eka ity abhidhīyate. “When merit and demerit cease their
activities and the effect [body] and the instruments [sense-organs] have almost de-
parted since they have accomplished their object like a ripened fruit or like the slough
of a serpent, the aspirant with his mind fixed upon Rudra and without material com-
ponents is called alone.” (Transl. HARA ibid.).

He who establishes one liṅga, following the prescriptions, together

with gifts [such as the ritual fee] attains ten million times ten million
of the amount of merit arising from all religious traditions. Having
rescued twenty-one generations from the mother’s side and the fa-
ther’s side, and the wife he has married, he is celebrated in the heav-
en of Rudra. After having enjoyed plenty of pleasures [in heaven], at
the time of cosmic dissolution, he reaches union [characterised by ul-
timate, liberating] knowledge (jñānayoga) and is liberated right
there. Alternatively, if he desires a kingdom, he will be born in an-
other life as a powerful king over the earth with its seven continents
and oceans.58
Buddhist themes
In several aspects of the conceptualisation of the devotee in the ŚDh we can
sense themes and influences that were already well-established within the
Buddhist sphere, even if we cannot trace specific textual influences. Given
the spatial proximity of Buddhist and Brahmanical groups and their compe-
tition for the same resources and patronage of kings, it would, however, not
be surprising to see similar aspects and strategies in these emerging Śaiva
works and practices. For instance, the ŚDh’s stance that the degree of devo-
tion can supersede caste-boundaries in terms of spiritual status and the ab-
sence of any emphasis on the concept of svadharma calls into mind the
Buddhists’ fundamental rejection of the Brahmanical socio-religious sys-
tem, with discourses on the insignificance of caste and class already long
present at the time. Already in the Pali canon we find the concept of the
“true Brahmin,” whose superiority is defined through his morals and ac-
tions rather than his birth status.59 Eltschinger has demonstrated how Bud-
dhist thinkers as early as the fourth to sixth centuries even provided sub-

58
ŚDh 3.59–62: yo liṅgaṃ sthāpayed ekaṃ vidhipūrvaṃ sadakṣiṇam | sarvā-
gamoditaṃ puṇyaṃ koṭikoṭiguṇaṃ labhet || mātṛjaṃ pitṛjañ caiva yāṃś caivo-
dvahate striyam | kulaikaviṃśam uttārya rudraloke mahīyate || bhuktvā ca vipulān
bhogān pralaye samupasthite | jñānayogaṃ samāsādya sa tatraiva vimuñcati ||
athavā rājyam ākāṃkṣej jāyate sa bhavāntare | saptadvīpasamudrāyāḥ kṣiter adhi-
patir vaśī ||. Similarly, ŚDh 3.38: yas tu pūjayate nityaṃ liṅgaṃ tribhuvaneśvaram |
sa svargamokṣarājyānāṃ kṣipraṃ bhavati bhājanam ||. “He who constantly worships
the liṅga that is the Lord of the three worlds (i.e., Śiva) quickly attains heaven, libera-
tion, or a kingdom.”
59
MASEFIELD 1986: 146ff.
NINA MIRNIG 489
stantial philosophical arguments to refute the ontological reality of caste

status and argued that it is merely a matter of convention rather than an
innate quality.60
Buddhism is also a precursor regarding the idea of developing ways to
reach the highest spiritual goal of nirvāṇa through devotional practices
rather than exclusively through gnostic, meditative and ascetic methods.
For instance, in his study on early Mahāyāna inscriptions dating to the be-
ginning of the first millennium, Schopen has demonstrated how lay as well
as monastic practitioners donated images with the hope of accumulating
merit that would lead them to nirvāṇa, despite the imperative to pursue
gnostic methods in authoritative scriptures.61 Similarly, in the ŚDh the es-
tablishment of Śaiva cult images – in particular the śivaliṅga – are present-
ed to the householder as a way to attain liberation, surpassing the common
Purāṇic goals of heavenly existence and auspicious rebirth.62
Descriptions of the characteristics of a lay devotee in the ŚDh also ap-
pear to mirror principles and characteristics of the Buddhist lay disciple, the
upāsaka and focus exclusively on moral qualities. Characteristics that are
specific to the Brahmanical sphere, such as knowledge of the Veda and
Vedic ritual as well as the common physical qualities of proper Brahmin
priests are conspicuously absent. Thus, the fourth chapter of the ŚDh opens
with the following passage:
Śiva worshippers, who employ great effort, are completely devoted

to the worship of Śiva, self-controlled, [and] endowed with dharma,
they achieve all goals. [They are] free of all opposites, with eternally
zealous minds, completely devoted to serving others, intent on serv-
ing the guru, honest, gentle, content, agreeable, speaking good
words, not proud, possessing intellect, having abandoned envy, with-
out desire, calm, with a smiling face, gracious, always pronouncing
welcomes, of concise speech, speaking little, valiant, experienced in
giving, perfected through pure conduct, completely focused on com-
passion and kindness, free of deceit and jealousy, speaking in ac-
cordance with the truth, intent on sharing, wise, and also honest and
unreproachable, and also not attached to any sense objects, just like
the lotus leaf [is not stained] by water, not distressed, nor tainted, nor

60
ELTSCHINGER 2012 (20001).
61
SCHOPEN 1997.
62
See MIRNIG 2016 for Nepalese epigraphical evidence for such practices con-
temporaneous to the ŚDh.

subject to disease, they have their selves focused, have faith, and are
honoured by good people. [These] wise men, being free of all pas-
sions, they are not unsteady regarding their feet, hands, mouth, eyes,
ears, genitals, and stomach. They consist of Rudra, they are intent on
Rudra, they are in part Rudra, they feel devotion to Rudra; [these] are
men on earth endowed with such conducts. Resorting to exclusive
devotion [for only Śiva], they abide in these good qualities. [They
should] eternally worship Śiva for attaining lower and higher powers.63
The divinisation of the devotee: strategy and impact

on socio-religious structures
To what extent is this conceptualisation of the divine worshipper on earth

relevant for forming an understanding of the community of worshippers
envisaged by the text? Considering the religio-political landscape at the
time of the composition of the ŚDh, we know that prior to this period Śaiva
devotional practices were not very visible in Sanskrit normative literature
or the epics,64 although archaeological and epigraphical evidence demon-
strates that forms of Śiva worship were already present in the population
for some centuries prior, as alluded to earlier.65 Some signs that suggest the
presence of liṅga worship are also mentioned in the epics; however, as

63
ŚDh 4.1–10: śivabhaktā mahotsāhāḥ śivārcanaparāyaṇāḥ | saṃyatā dha-
rmasampannāḥ sarvārthān sādhayanti te || sarvadvandvavinirmuktā nityam
udyuktacetasaḥ | paropakāraniratā guruśuśrūṣaṇe ratāḥ || ārjavā mṛdavaḥ svasthā
anukūlāḥ priyamvadāḥ | amānino buddhimantaḥ tyaktaspardhā gataspṛhāḥ || śāntāḥ
smitamukhā bhadrāḥ nityaṃ svāgatavādikāḥ | alpavāco ’lpavaktāraḥ śūrāḥ tyāga-
viśāradāḥ || śaucācāreṇa sampannā dayādākṣiṇyatatparāḥ | dambhamātsa-
ryanirmuktāḥ yathātathyaprabhāṣiṇaḥ || samvibhāgaparāḥ prajñāśaṭhāś cāpy aku-
tsitāḥ | viṣayeṣv api nirlepāḥ padmapatram ivāmbhasā || na dīnā nāpi malinā na ca
rogavaśānugāḥ | bhavanti bhavitātmānaḥ śraddhāḥ sādhuniṣevitāḥ || na pāda-
pāṇivākcakṣuḥśrotuśiśnodare budhāḥ | capalyaṃ naiva kurvanti sarvavyasanavarji-
tāḥ || rudrātmāno rudraparā rudrāṃśā rudrabhāvanāḥ | ityācārasamāyuktā bhava-
nti bhuvi mānavāḥ || ekāntabhaktim āsthāya guṇeṣv eteṣu vartante | pūjanīyaḥ śivo
nityaṃ parāparavibhūtaye ||.
64
For the discrepancy between early archaeological evidence of Śiva worship and
its late appearance in Sanskrit literature, see BAKKER 2001, especially pp. 402–404.
65
See SANDERSON 2013. A well-known example is, for instance, the production
of śivaliṅgas in Mathurā starting from the third century onwards. On the develop-
ment and dating of the iconographical scheme around the production of śivaliṅgas in
Mathurā, see KREISEL 1986.
NINA MIRNIG 491
Bakker argues, they are there associated with the practices of certain kinds
of demonic beings (rakṣa), thereby suggesting that this mode of worship
was associated with more inferior social groups from the orthodox Brah-
manical point of view.66 These facts indicate that although this level of
devotional practices was present, it was sidelined by the religious elite,
unlike devotion directed to Viṣṇu, which is widely emphasised in the epics
and normative literature as well as in the iconography of kings leading up
to this period.67 With the sixth century, it thus seems that works such as the
ŚDh were produced to elevate this level of practice by producing a Sanskrit
corpus that provided scriptural authority. In this religio-historical context,
the device of divine identity of the devotee community can also be seen as
a tool to transgress existing social norms and generally elevate the status of
Śaiva worshippers in a religious world dominated by a Brahmanical reli-
gious elite, which favoured Vaiṣṇavism over Śaivism and promoted the
spiritual superiority of the Vedic Brahmin. By introducing such strong no-
tions of the Śaiva devotee’s spiritual superiority, the ŚDh was able to pro-
mote the śivabhakta as a worthy receptacle for offerings – a crucial position
within the socio-religious framework and a prerogative originally reserved
for the community of Brahmins. As discussed earlier, Brahmins were also
described with the same trope of being the divine walking the earth.68 The
parallelism between the divine śivabhakta and the divine Brahmin is strik-
ing, and in fact – as Lubin shows69 – one of the agendas found in the ŚDh
includes the substitution of ordinary Brahmins by śivabhakta Brahmins as a
receptacle for offerings (pātra). Lubin argues that this is part of the larger
agenda to subsume and recast the Brahmanical social order within a Śaiva
devotional framework, redefining each of the life stages of the varṇāśrama
system as a śivāśrama in the ŚDh’s eleventh chapter, and teaching that each
of these stages is enhanced through Śaiva devotion. Thus, as alluded to
earlier, despite the radical statements of superiority over the Brahmanical
system, we see that the work neither rejects adherence to the traditional
system nor suggests that it should be abandoned, an inclusivistic attitude
that will remain central to the success of Śaiva traditions.70

66
BAKKER 2001.
67
See, e.g., GONDA 1993 (19541): 164–167.
68
See p. 485.
69
LUBIN forthcoming.
70
See SANDERSON 2013 on the adherence of Śaiva initiatory groups to the Brah-
manical socio-religious order.

At the same time, the ŚDh also promotes Śaiva ascetics as suitable re-
ceptacles for offerings, as will be discussed below (see p. 494). Further,
throughout the ŚDh this adherence to the Brahmanical socio-religious order
is never explicitly made an imperative. In fact, as was alluded to earlier,
key terms and discourses present in the contemporaneous Vaiṣṇava works
to promote adherence to the Brahmanical order are absent in the ŚDh.
Thus, the term svadharma does not feature a single time, nor do we find
any treatments of heretics (pāṣaṇḍa), both of which are important topics in
Vaiṣṇava literature and make up large parts of works such as the
Viṣṇudharma.71 Further, with the exception of the Brahmin and a single
verse about the Śūdra (see below), the categories of varṇa are not men-
tioned outside the śivāśrama chapter. On the contrary, we have seen that in
the opening chapter even the ultimate social outsiders according to Brah-
manical norms, the dog-eaters and foreigners, are considered better than a
Brahmin if only they are Śaiva devotees. Nor is the quality of knowing the
Vedas ever mentioned as a requirement, as we have seen earlier.72 The re-
definition of the spiritual status not according to concurrent orthodox norms
but through one’s divine nature as a śivabhakta thus introduced a paradigm
shift that opened the door to the participation of groups considered inferior
or outside the social system as well as religious professionals from lower
classes. Within the Brahmanical system this concerns particularly the
Śūdras, who in the ŚDh are explicitly included as participants in institu-
tionalised religious life, as servants to yoga masters, and as living on the
temple grounds and tending to the temple gardens.73 In this context, we
may note that the Śūdra devotee is referred to as gaṇa, a divine attendant,

71
See GRÜNENDAHL (1983: 64) who points to the frequent discourses on
pāṣaṇḍas and how they threaten the Brahmanical socio-religious order in the
Viṣṇudharma; e.g., chapter 25 and 44. The topic of the pāṣaṇḍas in the VDh will be
further explored by LUBIN forthcoming.
72
Cf. ŚDh 4.1–10 on pp. 489f.
73
ŚDh 11.42–44. Incidentally, we find that in Tantric works such as Trilo-
canaśiva’s Prāyaścittasamuccaya the Śūdra lay devotee also features in the list of
communities for which purificatory rituals are prescribed. There, the Śūdra lay devo-
tee is associated with the practice of wearing ashes and rudrākṣa-beads. See
Prāyaścittasamuccaya 584: ye ca māheśvarāḥ śūdrā bhasmarudrākṣadhāriṇaḥ |
teṣāṃ pañcadaśāhena śuddhiḥ sūtau mṛtāv api ||. “As for lay-devotees of Śiva who
are Śūdras and who wear ash and rudrākṣas, they are purified after fifteen days, both
in the case of birth and death.” (Transl. SATHYANARAYAN 2015: 303).
NINA MIRNIG 493
thus again giving the devotee an elevated divine status, albeit one inferior
to the Rudra.74
This potential to include lower social groups or even those outside the
varṇa system may have been a contributing factor to why the text became
particularly popular in the South, where the society featured several groups
that were not considered part of the orthodox Brahmanical varṇa system. We
know that bhakti movements grew to constitute an important religious force
in the South Indian religious landscape. In fact, the ŚDh only slightly pre-
cedes, if at all, the vernacular devotional literature, such as the Tēvāram, a
collection of Śaiva devotional poetry dating to the seventh to eighth centu-
ries. In her analysis of bhakti in the South, Prentiss points out that in the
hymns of one of the Śaiva saints named Appar Tirunāvukkaracu Nāyaṉār
(seventh century) “the sameness of the bhaktas through the shared essence of
kinship and partaking of Śiva’s nature” is emphasised. She argues that
through this rhetoric of shared identity the practitioners did not only promote
the bhaktas as superior in the spiritual hierarchy but also derived a divine
ethnic legitimation, since “Śiva is the Lord of the Tamil lands and language,
the bhaktas share their Tamilness with each other and with Śiva.”75
The promotion of the Śaiva yogin: “cala/jaṅgama liṅgas”
Aside from – at least theoretically – making the religion thus available for
social outsiders, the ŚDh follows another significant agenda alluded to
above, namely the promotion of Śaiva ascetic yogins. Especially in the
twelfth chapter we find a broad range of recommended donations to such

74
Note that in subsequent Tantric circles initiation names given to Śūdras – who
in this context were also not excluded from participation – were, in fact, names
ending in -gaṇa. See GOODALL’s entry on gaṇa in TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA 3.
While we do not have explicit reference to Śaiva initiations for Śūdras in the ŚDh,
note that there are two passages, which enjoin that Śūdras without a śivasaṃskāra,
i.e. to some Śaiva purificatory ritual or even initiation, may not drink milk from a
Kapilā cow, whose milk is considered particularly sacred for brahmanical ritual acti-
vities, namely ŚDh 5.14: kāpilyaṃ yaḥ pibec chūdraḥ śivasaṃskāravarjitaḥ | pacyate
sa mahāghore suciraṃ narakārṇave ||; and ŚDh 8.50: kapilāṃ yaḥ pivec chūdraḥ
śivasaṃskāravarjitaḥ | sa prayāti mahāghoraṃ narakaṃ nātra saṃśayaḥ ||. These
verses could be interpreted both ways: either that there is a possibility to receive
śivasaṃskāra for Śūdras and if they do so they obtain the ritual priviledge to drink
the milk from a Kapilā cow; or the verses may imply that Śūdras cannot receive
śivasaṃskāra and are therefore unable to drink the sacred milk.
75
PRENTISS 2000: 68.

śivayogins, including valuables, practical items, and housing. Further, we

find that such śivayogins are even recommended as suitable receptacles for
food during śrāddha offerings.76 Offering housing and making śivayogins
part of core religious rites suggests that the ŚDh thus also envisaged an
increasing institutionalisation of such ascetic groups, supported by the laity,
reminiscent of the ways in which Buddhist monastic circles looked for sup-
port from the sphere of lay practitioners.77
In this respect, the content and history of the following passage of the
ŚDh is particularly interesting. In the third chapter, which is dedicated to
the origin myth of liṅga worship and discusses various types of liṅgas and
how to worship them, a passage classifies the liṅga into mobile (cara) and
immobile (acara) forms, with the former possibly referring to the ascetic
practitioner:
There are two liṅgas enumerated, namely the mobile and the immo-
bile. The mobile is known as prāṇin [i.e., the living being];78 the
immobile [consists of those materials] such as earth. Maheśvara, being

76
Timothy Lubin, in a series of conference presentations provides various sources
of evidence to show that more generally the śrāddha feeding of Brahmins was itself
encouraged as a response to insitutionalized feeding of Buddhist monks and other
ascetics (e.g. “Feeding Monks, Feeding Brahmins: Competing Idioms of Religious
Semiotics in Early india”, 45th Annual Conference on South Asia, Madison, 20–23
October 2016), thus making this move to promote śivayogins as recipients of śrād-
dha offerings part of a larger development (see also Lubin’s paper on On Feeding
Śivabhaktas and Other Rules of Śivāśrama-Dharma,” paper for a panel on
“Śivadharma and the Formation of Lay Śaivism” at the 227th Meeting of the Ameri-
can Oriental Society, Los Angeles, 17–20 March 2017.)
Note that feeding Śaiva ascetics features also in later Tantric ritual śrāddha prac-
tices. See, e.g., MIRNIG 2019.
77
BISSCHOP 2010.
78
The constitution of the text is uncertain and corrupted at this point in most ma-
nuscripts. This translation is based on the marginal corrections of the Nepalese palm-
leaf ms. Add 1645 (Cambridge) and ms. G3852 (Calcutta). Other readings, however,
appear to support this reading: prāṇeti in ms. G4077 (Calcutta), pratīti in the post
correctionem reading of A1082-3 (NAK) and in the Pondicherry transcript IFP 514,
prītīti in the ac reading of A1082-3 (NAK) and post correctionem reading of G3852
(Calcutta), and prāṇī in the ante correctionem reading of Add 1645 (Cambridge);
Bod. Or. B 125 (Oxford) reads vratīti, i.e., “the vow-holder,” suggesting that the
scribe also thought it suitable to explicitly mention the ascetic and thus further sup-
porting the interpretation. The full apparatus will be available in the author’s
forthcoming edition of this chapter.
NINA MIRNIG 495
pleased, resides at all times in the moving [liṅga]. The unmoving

[liṅga] is prepared with mantras. Both are eternal and forever auspi-
cious. By disrespecting the moving [liṅga]/the ascetic, the fixed
[liṅga] becomes fruitless. Therefore the wise man should never dis-
respect either liṅga.79
While in this passage the mobile liṅga can also be interpreted to refer to a
small liṅga carried by the practitioner, it may also denote a practitioner that
is considered as a moving liṅga, that is to say Śiva, a conceptualisation that
closely corresponds to the concept of the divine on earth. This interpreta-
tion of the mobile liṅga denoting a Śaiva practitioner and more particularly
an ascetic is not only suggested by the readings of the manuscripts, but also
by a later addition to the text in the southern recension. Here, one transcript
defines the mobile (jaṅgama) liṅga explicitly as an initiate, and another as
the worshipper.80 While this cannot completely clarify whether this was
originally intended at the time of the ŚDh’s composition, the interpretation
of the ascetic or worshipper as a mobile form of the deity appears in subse-
quent sources. For instance, we have a close parallel example in a later
Vaiṣṇava text on ascetics, namely the Yatidharmaprakāśa, where the mo-
bile form of the deity is explicitly named to be the renouncer, the
saṃnyāsin.81 Further, we find that in the Vīraśaiva tradition, whose authori-
tative scriptures often draw on the ŚDh,82 precisely the above quoted pas-
sage is frequently drawn upon to demonstrate that Vīraśaiva ascetics are to

79
ŚDh 3.54–56: liṅgadvayaṃ samākhyātaṃ sacarācaram eva ca | caraṃ prāṇīti
vikhyātam acaraṃ pārthivādikaṃ || care sadā vasaty eva prītiyukto maheśvaraḥ |
acaro mantrasaṃskāro dvayaṃ nityaṃ sadāśivam || jaṅgamasyāpamānena sthāvaro
niṣphalo bhavet | tasmāl liṅgadvayaṃ prājño nāvamanyeta jātucit ||.
80
Insertion by T 32 and T 514 after verse ŚDh 3.55: sthāvaraṃ jaṃgamaṃ caiva
dvividhaṃ liṃgam *ucyate (T 514, iṣyate T 32) | sthāvaraṃ *sthāpitaṃ liṃgaṃ
jaṃgamaṃ dīkṣitaṃ viduḥ (T 32, liṃgam ity āhuḥ jaṃgamaṃ tasya pūjakam T 514) ||.
“The liṅga is said to be of two kinds, namely an immobile and mobile one. *They
know the immobile liṅga to be the one that has been established [through a consecra-
tion ritual and] the mobile [liṅga] to be an initiated [person] (T32, T 514: They call
the immobile one the liṅga, and the immobile one the worshipper).”
81
Yatidharmaprakāśa 53.18: vāsudevasya dve rūpe calaṃ cācalam eva ca |
saṃnyāsī tu calaṃ rūpam acalaṃ pratimātmakam ||. “There are two forms of Vāsu-
deva: the mobile and the immobile. The mobile form is the renouncer, while the
immobile consists of images.” (Text and transl. from OLIVELLE 2011: 235–236).
82
A paper on this topic is currently being prepared by Jonathan Duquette and
Nina Mirnig.

be perceived as mobile liṅgas, i.e., mobile manifestations of the deity. Fur-

ther, southern epigraphical material of the Kālāmukhas frequently features
the same notion of the jaṅgamaliṅga denoting the Śaiva ascetic.83 We also
find another example of this concept in the South Indian Śaiva Tantric tra-
dition, more particularly the prominent Śaiva Siddhānta, where in the
twelfth century Aghoraśiva, a famous author of ritual manuals and philo-
sophical treatises, describes in a passage on ritual processions that the Śaiva
Tantric priest is sometimes referred to as the mobile version of Śiva.84
Thus, we see that here too, the conception of the divine deity on earth in the
form of the practitioner – here in terms of the liṅga – becomes an important
and influential trope in the perception of this particular religious group and
its professionals.
The ŚDh and the Śaiva initiatory traditions

With the various strategies contained in the ŚDh, the work lends itself to
the promotion of Śaiva cults within the mainstream and in new territories.
This raises the question of which specific organised Śaiva groups were
behind its production or may have subsequently taken advantage of it. Giv-
en the religious landscape at the time, it is tempting to link the production
of the work to some of the Śaiva initiatory groups that had formed by the
sixth century and were looking to expand their reach. However, if we try to
link the ŚDh to specific Śaiva initiatory groups that may have been in-
volved in its composition, we are faced with the problem that the work
contains no explicit sectarian references.85 Even in the case of the śivayogin

83
See, e.g., RIPEPI 2007: 74, n. 23, FILLIOZAT 2001: 61–62, and V. FILLIOZAT &
P.S. FILLIOZAT 2012.
84
DAVIS 2010: 38: “Priests even invoke Śiva into a bowl of moist paste that is
smeared on the liṅga, the icons, and the devotees just before the great chariot proces-
sion on the seventh day. Some Āgamas describe the priest himself as a form of Śiva,
a ‘mobile liṅga’ (calaliṅga). It is as if the festival were designed to offer a practical
demonstration of Śiva’s ubiquity.”
85
Some speculations on this topic have already been voiced. Thus, while HAZRA
remains silent on this issue regarding the ŚDh (HAZRA 1952), he claims that the ŚDhU
is a Pāśupata text because it mentions terminology originating in these circles (HAZRA
1956). In the same line of argument, the SP, probably contemporaneous with the ŚDh,
has been suggested to be a Pāśupata text. See ADRIAENSEN & BAKKER & ISAACSON
1998: 4 and, in particular, BISSCHOP 2006: 38–50. However, these exclusive claims of
Pāśupata authorship cannot be regarded as certain, as will be demonstrated below.
NINA MIRNIG 497
no sectarian affiliations are specified. This question of sectarian affiliation

is also further complicated by the range of different socio-religious agendas
at play. On the one hand, the strong promotion of Śaiva Brahmins could be
interpreted as an indication that precisely such groups originating from the
Brahmanical elite, rather than from Śaiva ascetic circles, were involved in
the composition of the text. On the other, we see that another central agen-
da is to promote the transcendence of the Brahmanical socio-religious order
as well as to further the institutionalisation of Śaiva ascetic practitioners,
who originally largely adopted antinomian practices that would not be ac-
ceptable in an orthodox Brahmanical context. The single uniting factor is
the notion of the elevated divine identity of the Śaiva devotee. Essentially
an egalitarian ideal is promoted, so that within this community any kind of
śivabhakta is spiritually equal. This strategy makes the ŚDh’s socio-
religious model highly flexible and adaptive, serving a multitude of agen-
das and allowing for both the participation of religious officiants that do not
conform to Brahmanical norms as well as the compliance with Brahmanical
ritual life, which is considered enhanced by Śaiva devotion. I would like to
argue that it is through this dual agenda that the ŚDh canonised a Śaiva
social order that facilitated the rise of the integration of Śaiva initiatory
traditions into public life, thus creating the religious milieu that contributed
to their success. After all, the composition of the ŚDh follows an increased
presence of public expressions of adherence to Śaiva faith and Śaiva devo-
tional activities amongst the mainstream in the epigraphic records as well
as the appearance of members of ascetic groups, such as the Pāśupatas, in
public life.86 And it is from this period onwards that Tantrism became an
important religious force within the Śaiva world, further highlighting the
pivotal moment for Śaiva history which is also characterised through the
composition of the ŚDh. In the following, continuities from the existing initi-
atory traditions into the ŚDh and continuities from the ŚDh into the newly
emerging Tantric ideology will be traced to further investigate this point.
The Śivadharma and the Atimārga
At the time of the composition of the ŚDh, Śaiva initiatory groups consist-
ed of ascetic groups, subsequently grouped by the Śaiva tradition under the
umbrella term Atimārga (see n. 17). Amongst these it was in particular the

86
See, e.g., SANDERSON 2013: 225. For more on early epigraphical evidence for
Śaivism in this period, see also the contribution in BOSMA & MIRNIG 2013.

Pāśupatas who emerged as officiating priests, recipients of donations, and

administrators of temple assets in epigraphical records,87 despite the fact
that their prescriptive sources prohibit precisely this kind of interaction
with public life.88 It is those Pāśupatas that are commonly put forward as
key players in the production of the ŚDh, a proposition first made by Hazra
(see n. 85). As we have seen, there are several aspects which suggest that
Pāśupata propagators indeed formed part of the religious milieu from which
the ŚDh emerged: First, the emphasis on ash-bathing, which is also central
to the Pāśupata practice.89 Second, certain technical terms and phrases as-
sociated with Pāśupata teachings appear in the ŚDh, such as forms of Pāśu-
pata worship and the description of the liberated state.90 From a societal
point of view, given the eccentric and antinomian practices associated with
the Pāśupatas and designed to provoke the mainstream,91 they constitute
precisely the kind of group that would have seemed objectionable in an
orthodox Brahmanical setting. In the ŚDh, however, we have already seen
that the ritual and visual features originating from this scene were not only
integrated into the range of recommended practices, but they were also
directly linked with the divine nature of the devotee on earth. By featuring
such eccentric practices, the ŚDh thus clearly demonstrates an attitude of
openness towards even controversial forms of Śaiva devotion, making it
not only acceptable but commendable. This would have also promoted the
participation of priests from this sphere – as evidenced in plenty of inscrip-
tions92 –, even if they may at first have seemed objectionable to orthodox
society. To demonstrate the case in point, the Nepalese epigraphical mate-
rial provides an example in which we can trace this process in society.
Here, while protection of the Brahmanical varṇāśramadharma was clearly

87
For an overview, see SANDERSON 2013. For case studies, see, e.g., RAMESH &
TIWARI 1990 for Pāśupatas in Bagh and MIRNIG 2016 for Pāśupatas in the Kath-
mandu Valley.
88
See SANDERSON 2013.
89
See above and, e.g., Pāśupatasūtra 1.2. bhasmasnāna. Cf., e.g., HARA 2002a:
61–62 for the centrality of ashes to Pāśupata ritual and the purifying nature they are
believed to have.
90
E.g., ŚDh 3.53cd: śivatvaṃ yānti vai kṣipraṃ dharmādharmavivarjitāḥ ||.
“[These Śaiva religious practitioners] quickly attain Śiva-nature and become free of
dharma and adharma.” See p. 487, n. 57.
91
One of the stages of Pāśupata practice famously constitutes imitating mad be-
haviour in order to induce a merit transfer from those wrongly judging the practitio-
ner. See, e.g., HARA 2002b: 105ff. and INGALLS 1962.
92
See SANDERSON 2013.
NINA MIRNIG 499
expressed as a duty of the king,93 we find an upsurge of Śaiva donative

records starting with the fifth century, suggesting the increase of Śaiva
devotion amongst the elite. Initially there are no specific religious officiants
linked to these activities, aside from a single reference to Brahmins, but
with the beginning of the seventh century we see the appearance of Pāśu-
pata priests in leading roles, not only as recipients of donations but also as
administrators and agents in the establishment of infrastructure. Further, the
location initially linked with their activities, the Pashupatinath Temple,
emerges as the national shrine around the same time, suggesting a strong
link to the ruling elite.94
While the Pāśupatas were the most prominent Śaiva ascetic and initiatory
group at the time, there are also others that have largely disappeared from
our textual records, but whose presence remains known from epigraphical
material and occasional references in belletristic and Tantric literature, such
as the Kālāmukhas and Lākulas (SANDERSON 2013: 229–232). These few
references indicate that their appearance and practice must have been based
on premises similar to those of the Pāśupatas.95 Of those groups, we have a
more prominent epigraphical record for the Kālamukhas, namely in the area
of present-day Karnataka, where they feature in inscriptions as being in
charge of temples and supported by the royalty.96 Significant for the present
context is that the Kālamukhas thus represent another ascetic group that
would have profited from the kind of socio-religious environ created by the
ŚDh’s model as the Pāśupatas. In fact, as alluded to above, we know that
the ŚDh was popular in this area, partly from epigraphical references as
well as through the wide circulation of the text we find in the South. Fur-
ther, the ŚDh and many of the notions expressed in the text can be shown to
have carried into and strongly impacted the formation of the scriptural cor-
pus of the local Vīraśaivas/Liṅgāyats.97 These groups followed precisely
the same agenda of including social outsiders into a socio-religious frame-
work that transcends Brahmanical norms and yet remains rooted in the
Veda, reminiscent of the ŚDh’s model.

93
Cf. SANDERSON 2009: 41, in particular n. 1.
94
MIRNIG 2016.
95
This also often leads to the conflation of the various Atimārgic ascetic groups in
belletristic literature, as discussed by FERSTL in this volume.
96
See LORENZEN 1991 (19721): 13ff and FILLIOZAT 2012.
97
A paper on this topic is currently under preparation by Jonathan Duquette and
Nina Mirnig.

Nevertheless, it has to be kept in mind that – beyond the shared practic-

es alluded to above – the ŚDh specifically refers to neither the Pāśupatas
nor the Kālamukhas. The śivayogin is never specified beyond the fact that
he practices yoga and wears ashes, rudrākṣa-beads, and the tripuṇḍra, all
of which are features that could apply to many of the ascetic groups. It may
be precisely this vagueness and flexibility that made the ŚDh’s model so
attractive in providing a framework that aligned a potential mainstream
householder society – within and outside the Brahmanical order – with the
presence and participation of unorthodox and nonconformist Śaiva initiato-
ry groups, potentially collectively subsumed under the nebulous śivayogin.
Continuities into the Tantric milieu
Around the time of composition of the ŚDh, Tantric initiatory traditions

emerge on the scene in both Śaiva and Buddhist circles.98 Tantric commu-
nities were initially a marginal phenomenon on the periphery of society, as
demonstrated by studies of the Niśvāsa, the earliest extant Śaiva Tantra.99
However, at the same time we know that these Tantric communities very
quickly transformed into dominant players on the socio-religious scene of
early medieval India.100 The transformation from the Atimārga to the Man-
tramārga is still subject to some speculation, since there is little evidence
available for the period between the earliest signs of the Atimārgic tradition
in the fourth century and the first firm testimonies of Tantric Śaivism.101

98
For an account of the shared features of ritual syntax of the newly emerging
Tantric systems in both Śaivism and Buddhism, see ISAACSON & GOODALL 2015.
99
See GOODALL 2015. On the Niśvāsa being the oldest surviving Śaiva Tantra,
see also SANDERSON 2006 (particularly pp. 153‒154), GOODALL & ISAACSON 2007,
GOODALL 2009, and GOODALL & ISAACSON 2016. That the Niśvāsa represents an
early stage within the corpus of Tantric literature is also suggested by the fact that the
text does not refer to different schools in the Mantramārga and may well predate a
split into the various schools of Tantric Śaivism, i.e., the Śaiva Siddhānta and the
various non-Saiddhāntika traditions (GOODALL 2014: 29).
100
Sanderson 2009.
101
The earliest evidence of the Pāśupata Pāñcārthika tradition is found in a
Mathura pillar inscription dated 380 CE (BHANDARKAR 1931 and SANDERSON 2006:
148). Evidence for Mantramārga or Āgāmic/Tantric Śaivism can be traced back to
ninth-century Nepalese manuscripts preserving some of the early Śaiva scriptural
corpus that may go back as early as the fifth century, references by tenth-century
Kashmir commentators, and references to practices based on Śaiva scriptures in
inscriptions in Cambodia of King Rājendravarman (r. 944‒968), which refer to a
NINA MIRNIG 501
However, a major discovery in this respect has been the aforementioned

Niśvāsa, which, as Sanderson points out, “shows a greater awareness of
pre-Āgamic Śaivism than other texts of this tradition” and contains evi-
dence of the transition from the Atimārga to the Mantramārga.102 On the
basis of this account, Sanderson establishes that there were certain links
between the Atimārgic and Mantramārgic ritual world, which he traces
through the structural and functional similarities of the initiation rituals of
the Atimārgic Lākulas and in Tantric traditions.103
In addition, I would like to suggest that a further intermediate space
within this development is occupied by the ritualistic and socio-religious
world envisaged in the Śivadharma literature. In fact, the set of values ad-
vocated by the ŚDh may in itself have played an important role in the for-
mation of Tantric ideology and the ways in which it was embedded in soci-
ety. This is suggested by the fact that several features found in the ŚDh
appear as part of the new Tantric ideology and practice. These include in
particular the following notions.
The first point relates to the issue of the divinisation of the Śaiva devo-
tee in the ŚDh. As we have seen, this divine identity is also declared central
to the performance of the devotional practices, in the sense that it is only as
a Rudra that one can worship, meditate upon, and be devoted to Rudra.
This is reminiscent of the core principle of Tantric ritual worship, namely
the self-identification with the deity before its worship,104 as expressed in

Śaiva ācārya who died in ca. 890 and was employed to perform sacrifices for the
king (SANDERSON 2001: 7, n. 5). This evidence is outlined in SANDERSON’s monu-
mental work “History through textual criticism” (2001), in particular pp. 2–7, and it
is also found in the details concerning the scriptural corpus of the Śaiva Siddhānta
listed in GOODALL 2004: xviii-xxxiii.
102
SANDERSON 2006: 153 and GOODALL 2015.
103
See SANDERSON 2006. The issue in question concerns the new conception of
the initiation ritual within Tantric ritual, where it not only serves to grant access to
the religion and its scriptures but also has a transformative function to the extent that
through initiation the soul can be directly liberated. Sanderson has shown that passa-
ges on the Lākula’s initiation ritual in the Niśvāsa’s Mukhasūtra reveal that such
groups already practiced some form of transformative initiation ritual of this kind.
See Niśvāsamukha 4.88d–98. An edition, annotated translation, and study of the
Niśvāsamukha is KAFLE 2015.
104
This observation was first made by Dominic Goodall during a joint reading
session of the author’s critical edition of ŚDh, chapter 3, during a research stay at the
EFEO, Pondicherry, in January 2016. I would like to thank Dominic Goodall for his
input and exchange of ideas at the time.

the common dictum śivaṃ bhutvā śivaṃ yajet, one must identify with Śiva
in order to worship Śiva.105 While this is usually considered one of the spe-
cifically novel Tantric features of ritual technology, the ŚDh already antici-
pates this in its conceptualisation of the devotee and his practices. Related
to this, there is also another concept that is expressed in the ŚDh and that
Tantric circles will include in their dictum, namely the terminology of be-
ing “a part of Rudra” (rudrāṃśa). In the Tantric world, this term will be
used as a designation for either a kind of sādhaka – a Tantric practitioner
who aims at attaining supernatural powers (siddhi) – a lower-level initiate
(the samayin), or a lay devotee.106
Secondly, we have seen how one of the main ritual and spiritual strate-
gies of the ŚDh is to extend practices and values from the ascetic milieu to
the domain of the householder. The attainment of liberation or spiritual
benefits were now accessible through ritual and no longer required en-
gagement in arduous ascetic or yogic practices, and among spiritual goals
the practitioner could choose between enjoyments (bhukti) or liberation
(mukti). Precisely the same mechanisms are promoted in Tantric traditions,
albeit with an enhanced Tantric ritual technology, and the same duality of
bhukti and mukti is promoted as goals unrestrictedly available to the house-
holder practitioner.107
Thirdly, as alluded to earlier, Sanderson has shown that part of the
success of the Śaiva Tantric traditions was their ability to maintain adher-
ence to the Brahmanical socio-religious order while at the same time
transcending it. As we have seen above, precisely this aspect is also char-
acteristic of the ŚDh. Here too, it is possible to maintain one’s socio-
religious status according to the Brahmanical order while at the same time
enhancing one’s spiritual status by additionally adopting modes of Śaiva
worship.

105
See DAVIS 1991, chapter 2, where he argues that through this ritual identifica-
tion with Śiva the worshipper continually enacts his liberated state in preparation of
his final liberation (e.g., DAVIS 1991: 83).
106
See MIRNIG forthcoming. The term thus features in the pre-tenth-century Said-
dhāntika Tantric scripture Kiraṇa and is frequently referred to in Saiddhāntika ritual
manual literature from the eleventh century onwards.
107
Some formulations, such as parāparavibhūti (ŚDh 4.10, see above), are para-
digmatic to this effect.
NINA MIRNIG 503
Conclusion: the Śivadharma’s socio-religious model

and the success of Tantric groups
The new normative model the ŚDh canonised and promoted laid the socio-
religious foundations that were conducive to these new players. We have
seen how early Tantric groups built on some of the core features of the
ŚDh’ teachings, including the notion of embodying the divine in order to
worship the divine. As such, the ŚDh’s socio-religious model may consti-
tute an important piece of the puzzle in the formation of Tantric traditions.
While evidence from the Niśvāsa suggests that Tantric communities first
formed from Atimārgic ascetic circles, it may be that some of the notions in
the ŚDh formed important aspects of the emerging Tantric ideology in the-
se early stages, especially in relation to the householder practitioner. Fur-
ther, we have seen that the ŚDh’s socio-religious model lays the founda-
tions for the participation of officiants pertaining to the Śaivite initiatory
traditions in public life, who until then had appeared as rather antinomian
groups at the fringes of society.108 Eventually, it was through the same
structures that Tantric groups were successful in taking up important posi-
tions in the religio-political landscape of early medieval South Asia. While
alignment with the Brahmanical socio-religious order was possible both in
the model of the ŚDh and that of Tantric groups, theoretically the social
order promoted in those texts could even exist independently of an estab-
lished Brahmanical substratum. Such ideas would be of potential im-
portance when considering the introduction or adaptation of this religious
order in new territories of different socio-religious constitution. We know
that the Śaiva religion expanded beyond South Asia into South-East Asia,
and in the context of Śaiva Tantric traditions Sanderson has identified the
ability to offer socio-religious structures for such new territories as one of
the aspects that have led to their success in putting down firm roots
throughout the early medieval period (SANDERSON 2013). The same poten-
tial holds true for the ŚDh with its flexible and adaptable socio-religious
model. The ŚDh and its teachings may well have been part of the literary

108
Concrete examples for the interface between Tantric and lay communities are,
for instance, found in prescriptions for Tantric postmortem ancestor worship (śrā-
ddha). Here, explicit references show how Tantric priests extended their services to
perform śrāddha rituals to lay communities. The prescriptions in the ŚDh, which
promote Śaiva Brahmins as well as Śaiva Yogins as suitable receptacles for śrāddha
offerings instead of the ordinary Brahmin, as we have seen above, would thus play
into the hands of these new Tantric funerary priests.

package, as it were, that travelled with Śaiva propagators who sought to

reach into new territories. After all, epigraphical evidence has been identi-
fied that suggests that the ŚDh was known in the Khmer kingdom109 and
Campā,110 bearing testimony to the presence of the work as far east as pre-
sent-day Cambodia and Vietnam.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Literature
Āśaucadīpikā of Vedajñāna
E-text created from IFP/EFEO transcript T00370b (http://muktalib7.org/-
IFP_ROOT/IFP/user-interface frameset.php?encoding=utf-8), pp. 326–
400. Muktabodha website, accessed June 17, 2018.
Niśvāsamukha.
See KAFLE 2015.
Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta with the commentary (-viveka) of Rājā-
naka Jayaratha. Ed. Mukund Rām Śāstrī. Kashmir Series of Texts and
Studies 23, 28, 30, 35, 29, 41, 47, 59, 52, 57, 58. Bombay and Srinagar,
1918–38.
Pāśupatasūtra with Kauṇḍinya’s Pāñcārthabhāṣya.
Pāśupatasūtra with Kauṇḍinya’s Pāñcārthabhāṣya. Ed. Anantakrishna
Shastri. Trivandrum: The Oriental Manuscripts Library of the Univer-
sity of Travancore, 1940.
Prāyaścittasamuccaya by Trilocanaśiva.
See SATHYANARAYAN 2015.
Mahābhārata
The Mahābhārata for the first time critically edited. Ed. V.S. Sukthan-
kar (1927–43) and S.K. Belvalkar (from 1943), with the cooperation of
Shrimant Balasaheb Pant Pratinidhi, R.N. Dandekar, S. K. De, F. Edger-
ton, A.B. Gajendragadkar, P.V. Kane, R.D. Karmakar, V.G. Paranjpe,

109
See SANDERSON 2012–2013: 86, especially n. 222 and n. 223. A tenth-century
Old Khmer inscription cites a Sanskrit verse that appears in the ŚDh, and an undated
stele probably prepared during the reign of Sūryavarman (1002–1050) describes the
king as “a meditator on Śiva, skilled in the ṣaḍaṅgavidhiḥ,” which SANDERSON iden-
tifies as a distinctive royal rite prescribed in the ŚDhU.
110
See BISSCHOP 2018: 18–19.
NINA MIRNIG 505
Raghu Vira, V.K. Rajavade, N.B. Utgikar, P.L. Vaidya, V.P. Vaidya,
H.D. Velankar, M. Winternitz, R. Zimmerman and other scholars. Poo-
na: Bhandarkar Oriental Institute, 1927–1959.
Śivadharmaśāstra (ŚDh)
(1) Paśupatimatam: Śivadharmamahāśāstram, Pāsupatināthadarśa-nam.
Ed. Y. Naraharinath. Kathmandu: Bṛhadādhyātmikaparishadaḥ, 1998. (2)
Śivaliṅga Worship on the Eve of the Tantric Age. With editions and trans-
lations of Śivadharmaśāstra 1–5 and 9. Ed. MIRNIG Forth. (3) Manu-
scripts: ms. G4077 (Asiatic Society Calcutta), ms. A1082-3 (National Ar-
chives Kathmandu), ms. Add 1645 (University Library Cambridge), ms.
Bod. Or. B 125 (Bodleian Library Oxford), ms. G3852 (Asiatic Society
Calcutta), ms. Add 1599 (University Library Cambridge), Pondicherry
Transcript IFP T 32, Pondicherry Transcript IFP T 514.
Śivopaniṣad
See NARAHARINATH 1998.
Siddhāntaśikhāmaṇī by Śivayogiśivācārya
Muktabodha etext, entered under the supervision of Mark S. G. Dycz-
kowski, based on the edition Śrīsiddhāntaśikhāmaṇih, ed. by Mari-
toṇṭadārya. Vārāṇasī: Śaivabhāratī Śodha Pratiṣṭhānam, 2006.
(http://muktalib5.org/DL_CATALOG/DL_CATALOG_USER_INTER
FACE/dl_user_interface_frameset.htm, accessed June 17, 2018).
Skandapurāṇa (SP)
The Skandapurāṇa. Volume IIB. Adhyāyas 31-52. The Vāhana and
Naraka Cycles. Critical Edition with and Introduction and annotated
English Synopsis. Ed. by Hans T. Bakker, Peter C. Bisschop, Yuko
Yokochi, eds., in cooperation with Nina Mirnig and Judit Törzsök. Lei-
den: Brill, 2014.
Liṅgapurāṇa (LP)
Liṅgapurāṇa with the Śiva-toṣiṇī commentary of Gaṇeśa Nātū. Bombay:
Venkateshvara Press, 1906. An etext of this was produced by by mem-
bers of SANSKRIT project, available on GRETIL (http://gretil.sub.uni-
goettingen.de, accessed June 25, 2018).
Viṣṇudharma
See GRÜNENDAHL 1983, 1984, and 1989.
Haracaritacintāmaṇī by Jayaratha
The Haracaritacintāmaṇī. Ed. K. P. Parab and P. Śivadatta. Bombay:
Nirṇaya-Sāgara Press, 1897.

Haribhaktavilāsa by Gopālabhaṭṭa.
Gretil-etext by Jan Brzezinski. Based on the edition by Haridasa Sastri.
(http://gretil.sub.unigoettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/4_rellit/vaisn/hbhvil_u
.htm, accessed June 25, 2018).
ACHARYA D. 2013. How to behave like a bull? New Insights into the ori-
gins and religious practices of Pāśupatas. Indo-Iranian Journal 56, pp.
101–131.
ADRIAENSEN R., H. BAKKER & H. ISAACSON. 1998. The Skandapurāṇa.
Vol. 1. Adhyāyas 1–25. Critically Edited with Prolegomena and English
Synopsis. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
BAKKER, H. 2001. Sources for Reconstructing Ancient Forms of Śiva Wor-
ship. In: François Grimal (ed.), Les Sources et le temps. Sources and Time:
A Colloquium, Pondicherry, 11–13 January 1997. Pondicherry: Institut
Français de Pondichéry/École Française d’Extrême-Orient, pp. 397–412.
2010. The gospel of Kauṇḍinya: The descent of God in Gujarat and the
practice of imitating God. In: Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Groesen & Yme Kui-
per (eds), Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity. Studies in the History of Re-
ligions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer. Leiden: Brill, pp. 517–529.
2014. The World of the Skandapurāṇa. Leiden: Brill.
BEAL S. 2004 (18841). Si-Yu-Ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World.
Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsian (A.D. 629). New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers [Reprint, Delhi 1969].
BHANDARKAR D.R. 1931. Mathura Pillar Inscription of Chandragupta II:
G. E. 61. In: Epigraphical Indica, Vol. XXI: pp. 1–9.
BISSCHOP P. 2006. Early Śaivism and the Skandapurāṇa. Sects and Cen-
tres. Groningen: E. Forsten.
2010. Śaivism in the Gupta-Vākāṭaka Age. Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 20 (4), pp. 477–488.
2018. Universal Śaivism. The Appeasement of All Gods and Powers in the
Śāntyadhyāya of the Śivadharmaśāstra. Brill: Leiden.
BISSCHOP P. & A. GRIFFITHS. 2007. The Practice involving the Ucchusma.
Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 24, pp. 1–47.
BOSMA N. & N. MIRNIG. 2013. Epigraphical Evidence for the Formation
and Rise of Early Śaivism. Indo-Iranian Journal 56 3/4, pp. 201–204.
BRUNNER H. 1964. Les catégories sociales védiques dans le sivaïsme du
sud. Journal Asiatique 252, no. 4, 451–472.
NINA MIRNIG 507
DAVIS R. 1991. Ritual in an Oscillating Universe. Worshiping Śiva in Me-

dieval India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2010. A priest’s Guide for the Great Festival: Aghoraśiva’s Mahotsava-
vidhi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DE SIMINI F. 2016a. Śivadharma Manuscripts from Nepal and the Making
of a Śaiva Corpus. In: Friedrich, Michael and Schwarke, Cosima (eds.),
One-Volume Libraries: Composite and Multiple-Text Manuscripts. Ber-
lin: De Gruyter, pp. 233–286.
2016b. Of Gods and Books Ritual and Knowledge Transmission in the
Manuscript Cultures of Premodern India. Berlin: De Gruyter.
DE SIMINI F. & N. MIRNIG. 2017. Umā and Śiva’s Playful Talks in Detail
(Lalitavistara): On the Production of Śaiva Works and their Manuscripts in
Medieval Nepal. Studies on the Śivadharma and the Mahābhārata 1. In:
Vincenzo Vergiani, Daniele Cuneo & Camillo A. Formigatti (eds.), Indic
Manuscript Cultures through the Ages. Material, Textual and Historical
Investigations. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 587–653.
EDGERTON F. 1997 (19441). The Bhagav Gītā. Translated and Interpreted
by Franklin Edgerton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
ELTSCHINGER V. 2012 (20001). Caste and Buddhist Philosophy. Continuity
of Some Buddhist Arguments against the Realist Interpretation of Social
Denominations. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidas Publishers.
2013. Buddhist Epistemology as Apologetics. Studies on the History, Self-
understanding and Dogmatic Foundations of Late Indian Buddhist Phi-
losophy. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
FILLIOZAT V. 2001. Kālāmukha and Pāśupata Temples in Dharwar. Chen-
nai: The Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute.
FILLIOZAT V. & P.S. FILLIOZAT. 2012. Kālāmukha temples of Karnataka :
art and cultural legacy ; Somanātha at Haraḷahaḷḷi and Kaḍambeśvara
at Raṭṭtihaḷḷi. New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
GONDA J. 1993 (19541). Aspects of Early Viṣṇuism. Delhi: Moltilal Banarsidass.
GOODALL D. 2015. The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. The Earliest Suriving Śaiva
Tantra. In collaboration with Alexis Sanderson and Harunaga Isaacson.
Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry / École Française
2004. Parākhyatantram: a scripture of the Śaiva Siddhānta. Pondicherry:
Institut Français de Pondichéry / École Française d’Extrême-Orient.
GOODALL D. & H. ISAACSON. 2007. Workshop on the Niśvāsa-
tattvasaṃhitā: The Earliest Surviving Śaiva Tantra? Newsletter of the
NGMCP 3, pp. 4–6.

2016. On the Shared ‘Ritual Syntax’ of the Early Tantric Traditions. In:
Dominic Goodall & Harunaga Isaacson (eds.), Tantric Studies. Fruits of
a Franco-German Collaboration on Early Tantra, pp. 1–76.
GRÜNENDAHL R. 1983. Viṣṇudharmāḥ: precepts for the worship of Viṣṇu.
Part 1. Adhyāyas 1–43. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1984. Viṣṇudharmāḥ: precepts for the worship of Viṣṇu. Part 2. Adhyāyas
44–81. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1989. Viṣṇudharmāḥ: precepts for the worship of Viṣṇu. Part 3. Adhyāyas
82–105. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
HARA M. 1966. Materials for the Study of Pāśupata Śaivism. Doctoral
thesis presented to Harvard University.
2002a. Pāśupata Concept of Purity (śauca). In: Jun Takashim (ed.), Minoru
Hara Pāśupata Studies. Vienna/Delhi: Sammlung de Nobili, Motilal
Banarsidass, pp. 47–66.
2002b. Miscellanea Pāśupatica. In: Jun Takashim (ed.), Minoru Hara
Pāśupata Studies. Vienna/Delhi: Sammlung de Nobili, Motilal Banar-
sidass, pp. 141–152.
2003. Ashes. Cracow Indological Studies 4–5, pp. 251–267.
HAZRA R.C. 1952. The Śivadharma. Journal of the Ganganath Jha Re-
search Institute 10, pp. 1–20.
1956. The Śivadharmottara. Journal of the Ganganath Jha Research Insti-
tute 13, pp. 19–50.
HOLDREGE B.A. 2015. Bhakti and Embodiment: Fashioning Divine Bodies
and Devotional Bodies in Kṛṣṇa Bhakti. New York: Routledge.
Ingalls, D. 1962. Cynics and Pāśupatas: the seeking of dishonor. Harvard
Theological Review 55/4, pp. 281–298.
ISAACSON H. & D. GOODALL. 2016. See D. GOODALL & H. ISAACSON 2016.
KAFLE N. 2013. The Liṅgodbhava Myth in Early Śaiva Sources. In: Nina
Mirnig, Péter-Dániel Szántó & Michael Williams (eds.), Puṣpikā. Trac-
ing Ancient India Through Texts and Traditions. Volume 1. Oxford:
Oxbow Books, pp. 241–263.
2015. The Niśvāsamukha, the introductory book prefacing the Niśvāsa-
tattasaṃhitā, critically edited and furnished with an annotated transla-
tion and an appendix giving an edition of chapters 5–9 of the Śivadhar-
masaṅgraha. Unpublished doctoral thesis submitted to the University of
Leiden in 2015.
KREISEL G. 1986. Die Śiva-Bildkunstwerke der Mathurā-Kunst: ein Bei-
trag zur Frühhinduistischen Ikonographie. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Ver-
lag Wiesbaden.
NINA MIRNIG 509
LORENZEN D.N. 1991 (19721). The Kāpālikas and Kālāmukhas. Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass.
LUBIN T. forthcoming. On Feeding Śivabhaktas and other rules of
Śivāśrama-Dharma. Paper presented at the AOS 2017.
Malinar, A. The Bhagavadgītā: Doctrines and Contexts.Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
MASEFIELD P. 1986. Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism. Colombo and Lon-
don: The Sri Lanka Institute of Traditional Studies / George Allen & Unwin.
MIRNIG N. 2016. Early Strata of Śaivism in the Kathmandu Valley: Śival-
iṅga Pedestal Inscriptions from 466–645 CE. Indo-Iranian Journal 59
4/4, pp. 309–362.
2018. Liberating the Liberated: Early Śaiva Tantric Death Rites. Wien:
Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Forthcoming. Lokadharmiṇī dīkṣā: tracing the history of the most exoteric
form of Śaiva initiation in medieval sources. In: D. Goodall, S. Hatley,
H. Isaacson, & S. Raman (eds.), Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions: Es-
says in Honour of Alexis Sanderson. Leiden: Brill.
MIRNIG N. & F. DE SIMINI. 2017. See DE SIMINI & MIRNIG 2017.
OLIVELLE P. 1993. The Āśrama System. The History and Hermeneutics of a
Religious Institution. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2009. The law code of Viṣṇu: a critical edition and annotated translation of
the Vaiṣṇava-Dharmaśāstra. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2010. The Law Code of Viṣṇu. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2011. Ascetics and Brahmins. Studies in Ideologies and Institutions. Lon-
don: Anthem Press.
PRENTISS K. P. 2000. The Embodiment of Bhakti. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
RAMESH K. V. & S. P. TIWARI. 1990. A Copper-Plate Hoard of the Gupta
Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: Archaeological Sur-
vey of India.
RIPEPI T. 2007. The feet of the Jaṅgama: identity and ritual issues among
the Vīraśaivas of Karnataka. Rivista Internazionale di studii afroasiatici
6, pp. 69–100.
SANDERSON A. 2001. History Through Textual Criticism in the Study of
Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras. In: François
Grimal (ed.), Les sources et le temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium,
Pondicherry, 11–13 January 1997. Pondicherry: Institut Français de
Pondichéry / École Française d’Extrême-Orient, pp. 1–47.

2006. The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate Between

Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism. The Indian Philosophical
Annual 26, pp. 143–217.
2007. Religion and the State: Initiating the Monarch in Śaivism and the
Buddhist Way of Mantras. Heidelberg: Harrassowitz Verlag
2009. The Śaiva Age. The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism During Early Medi-
eval Period. In: Shingo Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tantrism.
Tokyo: University of Tokyo (Institute of Oriental Culture), pp. 41–349.
2012–2013. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies 25, pp. 1–113.
2013. The Impact of Inscriptions on the Interpretation of Early Śaiva Liter-
ature. Indo-Iranian Journal 56 (3/4), pp. 211–244.
Forthcoming. Śaivism and Brahmanism. [Draft July 2014.]
SATHYANARAYAN R. 2015. Śaiva Rites of Expiation. A First Edition and
Translation of Trilocanaśiva’s twelfth-century Prāyaścittasamuccaya.
Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry / École Française
SCHOPEN G. 1997. Two Problems in the History of Indian Buddhism. The
Layman/Monk Distinction and the Doctrines of the Transference of
Merit. In: Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks. Hawaii: University of
Hawaii Press, pp. 23–55.
TĀNTRIKĀBHIDHĀNAKOŚA. Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la litté-
rature hindoue tantrique. A dictionary of technical terms from Hindu
Tantric literature. Wörterbuch zur Terminologie hinduistischer Tantren.
Volume 3: Ṭ - PH. D. Goodall & M. Rastelli (eds.). Vienna: Austrian
Academy of Sciences Press.
TÖRZSÖK J. 2004. Three Chapters of Śaiva Material Added to the Earliest
Known Recension of the Skandapurāṇa. In: Hans T. Bakker (ed.),
Origin and Growth of the Purāṇic Text Corpus. With Special Reference
to the Skandapurāṇa. Delhi: Moltilal Banarsidass Publisher, pp. 17–39.
YOKOCHI Y. The Skandapurāṇa. Vol. 3. Adhyāyas 34.1-61, 53-69: the Vin-
dhyavāsinī cycle. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

Inclusivism revisited:
The worship of other gods in the Śivadharmaśāstra,
the Skandapurāṇa, and the Niśvāsamukha
Peter Bisschop
Inclusivism has been famously described by Paul Hacker as a “typically

Indian thought form,” defined as “claiming for, and thus including in, one’s
own religion what really belongs to an alien sect” (HACKER 1995: 244).1
The term was used by Hacker in particular, though not exclusively, to char-
acterise certain tendencies of modern Hinduism and to criticise a perceived
Hindu rhetoric of tolerance towards other religions. Hacker further added
that the inclusivist method “was employed especially by such religious
groups as felt themselves inferior to their environment” (HACKER 1995:
245). In his contribution to the volume “Inklusivismus: Eine indische
Denkform” (1983), Albrecht Wezler has argued that it may rather reflect a
struggle for power between a new and an old form of religion, giving ex-
pression to an inversion of power relationships.2 Such an understanding of
inclusivism would make sense in the case of Śaivism, since it appears com-

1
See also HACKER 1983: 12: “Inklusivismus bedeutet, daß man erklärt, eine zent-
rale Vorstellung einer fremden religiösen oder weltanschaulichen Gruppe sei iden-
tisch mit dieser oder jener zentralen Vorstellung der Gruppe, zu der man selber ge-
hört. Meistens gehört zum Inklusivismus ausgesprochen oder unausgesprochen die
Behauptung, daß das Fremde, in irgendeiner Weise ihm untergeordnet oder unterle-
gen sei. Ferner wird ein Beweis dafür, daß das Fremde mit dem Eigenen identisch
sei, meist nicht unternommen.” For a critical, highly subjective and downright distor-
tive review of Hacker’s scholarship and all scholars following in his wake, see
BAGCHEE and ADLURI 2014, who argue that it is contaminated by Hacker’s personal
underlying Evangelical motivations.
2
See WEZLER 1983: 90: “(...) daß der ‘Inklusivismus’ als Versuch der Legitimie-
rung wesenhaft darin besteht, daß sich die Minderheit einer ‘neuen’ Glaubensge-
meinschaft der Übermacht der etablierten Traditionen dadurch zu erwehren trachtet,
daß sie die real gegebenen Machtsverhältnisse umkehrt, d.h. für sich selbst den An-
spruch auf Höherwertigkeit erhebt und das ‘Alte’ in sich ‘hineinnimmt.’”
paratively late on the scene and as such, perhaps more than others, had to
secure itself a position among the dominant religious traditions of the time.
The inclusivist tendencies of Śaivism have been noted by Alexis Sand-
erson in particular with reference to the Mantramārga:
It elaborated an inclusivist model of revelation that ranked other reli-

gious systems as stages of an ascent to liberation in Śaivism, the religion
of the king manifest in his initiation, his consecration, and his royal
temples, thus mirroring and validating the incorporative structure of the
state’s power.3
An inclusivist attitude has also been recognised by Judit Törzsök in her

article “Icons of Inclusivism” (TÖRZSÖK 2003), in which she identifies an
inclusivist model in the maṇḍalas of early Śaiva Tantras, elaborating on the
findings presented in an earlier article by SANDERSON (1986) on the inclu-
sivist maṇḍalas of the Trika school of Śaivism. These studies use the term
inclusivism in a neutral manner, without the ideological connotations of
Hacker’s use of the term.
While inclusivist tendencies have been clearly identified in the case of
Tantric Śaivism, the traditions of lay Śaivism have received less attention
so far.4 The present paper proposes to examine, through three examples
representative of the lay, non-Tantric Śaiva perspective, whether the inclu-
sivist model is limited to Mantramārga Śaivism alone or is in fact repre-
sentative of a broader line of thinking in Śaivism. It does so by looking at
the representation of the worship of other gods than Śiva in three early Śai-
va texts: the Śivadharmaśāstra, the Skandapurāṇa, and the Niśvāsamukha.

3
SANDERSON 2009: 301–302.
4
Hacker has studied the incorporation of Vaiṣṇava mythology in the Śaiva
Purāṇas in his study of Prahlāda (HACKER 1959). On this basis Hacker writes: “Aber
immerhin ist mir in denjenigen Stellen śivaitischer Purāṇen, die Gegenstand meiner
Untersuchung waren, aufgefallen, daß hier offensichtlich der Śivaismus die unterle-
gene Religion ist. Wie ich schon sagte, ist der Inklusivismus ein Mittel des Unterle-
genen oder des noch Schwachen, des noch in Entwicklung Begriffenen, sich durch-
zusetzen, sich Geltung zu verschaffen. Die śivaitischen Purāṇen, die ich gesehen
habe, machen das deutlich, in manchen Fällen sogar überdeutlich. Die viṣṇuitischen
sind ganz anders, sie sind weder inklusivistisch noch tolerant.” (HACKER 1983: 17).
This conclusion needs to be reconsidered given that Hacker mainly based himself on
Śaiva Purāṇas that can be safely dated to early medieval times, that is to say, a period
in Indian history during which Śaivism was actually the dominant party (see
SANDERSON 2009).
PETER BISSCHOP 513
In varying degrees, the approaches towards other gods in these three texts
may be regarded as inclusivist, in the sense that they recognise and teach
the worship and existence of other gods but that they do so from a hierar-
chical perspective, in which the true and ultimate master is Śiva and their
power derives from him. The inclusivist stance of early Śaivism may tell us
something about the position from which Śaivism started and thus add to a
study of Śaivism, and by extension Tantra, in its socio-historical context.
The Śivadharmaśāstra
The Śivadharmaśāstra is the first of what grew to be a corpus of eight texts in
total, collectively known as the Śivadharma and transmitted as such in a num-
ber of palm-leaf and paper manuscripts from Nepal: 1. Śivadharmaśāstra,
2. Śivadharmottara, 3. Śivadharmasaṃgraha, 4. Śivopaniṣad, 5. Umāmahe-
śvarasaṃvāda, 6. Uttarottaramahāsaṃvāda, 7. Vṛṣasārasaṃgraha, and 8.
Dharmaputrikā.5 The Śivadharmaśāstra is most probably a product of North
India and may be tentatively dated to about the sixth to seventh centuries CE.6
The work consists of twelve chapters in total and is addressed to a community
of lay Śiva worshippers, betraying no influence of Tantric teachings. It is spe-
cifically concerned with the methods for installing and worshipping Śiva in the
form of the liṅga. A characteristic feature of the Śivadharmaśāstra’s teachings
is its notion that those who are exclusively devoted to Rudra are veritable Ru-
dras on earth:7
They who always worship Rudra, are no ordinary men (prakṛti-mānuṣa).

They are Rudras descended from Rudraloka. There is no doubt about it.8

5
Manuscripts of the first two works also survive outside of Nepal. The transmis-
sion of a Śivadharma corpus consisting of eight works appears to be limited to Nepal.
For more details, see DE SIMINI 2013: 157–161, who proposes to understand the
Nepalese manuscripts as “corpus-organizers.”
6
See BISSCHOP 2014: 139, n. 13, for references regarding different dates that have
been suggested for the composition of different parts of the text.
7
On this, see MIRNIG in this volume.
8
ŚiDhŚ 1.16:
ye ’rcayanti sadā rudraṃ na te prakṛtimānuṣāḥ |
rudralokāt paribhraṣṭās te rudrā nātra saṃśayaḥ || 16 ||
16ad ] Omitted in P2 ● 16a ye ’rcayanti ] C K1 K2 N Ś, arcayanti P1 ; sadā

rudraṃ ] C K1 N P1, mahārudra K2, mahārudraṃ Ś ● 16c rudralokāt ] C K1 N P1
Ś, rudraloka° K2 ● 16d nātra ] K1 K2 N P1 Ś, nānātra C (unmetr.).

We come across references to other gods in the text, but these are as a rule
placed in a relation of strict dependence on Śiva. Thus we are taught in two
passages that the gods acquired their position as god through worship of
different types of liṅgas. The first passage follows after the famous myth
about the origin of the liṅga, in which Brahmā and Viṣṇu attempt to find its
end, but do not succeed in locating it.9 After several verses teaching that
everything ultimately rests in the liṅga10 and that by installing a liṅga one
installs everything, we are informed of the following:

All quotations of the Śivadharmaśāstra in this article are from my own draft edi-
tion of the text. For this I have used six manuscripts and the “edition” of the Śiva-
dharma corpus by NARAHARINATH (1998), which appears to be a transcript of a
Nepalese manuscript. I have not referred to the most recent edition by JUGNU &
SHARMA (2014), since its readings are practically all identical to my manuscript P1.
The manuscripts come from different parts of the Indian subcontinent and thus give
us some insight into the transmission of the text, but they reflect only a limited samp-
le of the actual surviving manuscripts. As a general policy I have given preference to
the readings of K1, an eleventh-century Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript in good con-
dition written by a careful scribe. I am very grateful to Florinda De Simini for having
provided me with colour photographs of K1 and Ś. The list of sigla can be found at
the end of this article.
9
For a study and translation of the Liṅgodbhava story of the Śivadharmaśāstra,
see KAFLE 2013.
10
One verse in this section (ŚiDhŚ 3.17) deserves special attention because it is
quoted in the Buddhist Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra:
ākāśaṃ liṅgam ity āhuḥ pṛthivī tasya pīṭhikā |
ālayaḥ sarvabhūtānāṃ līyanāl liṅgam ucyate || 17 ||
17c ālayaḥ ] C K1pc K2 P1, ālayaṃ K1ac N ● 17d līyanāl ] C K1 K2 N, layanāl P1.
The verse is missing in P2 and Ś due to loss of several pādas in this part of the
text. In the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra the verse is quoted in connection with Maheśvara’s
appearance from Avalokiteśvara’s forehead. Avalokiteśvara predicts that Maheśvara
will be active in the Kali age (text and translation of KVSū 265, 4–6 as given by
ELTSCHINGER 2014: 84, n. 198):
bhaviṣyasi tvaṃ maheśvara kaliyuge pratipanne | kaṣṭasattvadhātusamutpanna
ādideva ākhyāyase sraṣṭāraṃ kartāram | te sarvasattvā bodhimārgeṇa viprahīṇā
bhaviṣyanti ya īdṛśaṃ pṛthagjaneṣu sattveṣu sāṅkathyaṃ kurvanti || ākāśaṃ liṅgam
ity āhuḥ pṛthivī tasya pīṭhikā | ālayaḥ sarvabhūtānāṃ līyanāl liṅgam ucyate ||.
O Maheśvara, you will be [active] when the Kaliyuga arrives. Born as the fore-
most of the gods in the realm of suffering beings, you will be called the creator and
the agent [of the world]. All beings who hold the following discourse to(/among)
ordinary people will be deprived of the path to enlightenment: “It is said that space is
[Maheśvara’s] liṅga, [and that] the earth is [his] pedestal; it is the receptacle of all
beings, [and it is] because [they] merge(/fuse) [into it that it] is called liṅga.”
PETER BISSCHOP 515
• Brahmā acquired the state of Brahmā by worshipping a stone

(śailamaya) liṅga.
• Indra acquired the state of Indra by worshipping a crystal (maṇi-
maya) liṅga.
• Dhanada (Kubera) acquired the state of Dhanada by worshipping a
golden (hemamaya) liṅga.
• The Viśvedevas acquired the state of Viśvedevas (viśvatva) by
worshipping a silver (raupya) liṅga.
• Vāyu acquired the state of Vāyu by worshipping a brass (pitta-
lasaṃbhava) liṅga.
• Viṣṇu acquired the state of Viṣṇu by worshipping a sapphire (indra-
nīlamaya) liṅga.
• The Vasus acquired the state of Vasus by worshipping a bell-metal
(kāṃsika) liṅga.
• The two Aśvins acquired the state of Aśvins by worshipping an
earthern (pārthiva) liṅga.

Following a lead by DANIÉLOU (1960: 352), who quotes the verse and attributes it
to “the Skandapurāṇa,” REGAMEY (1971: 431, n. 49) and STUDHOLME (2002: 28–29)
searched in vain in editions of the Skandapurāṇa to trace it. We can now safely say
that the Kāraṇḍavyūha most probably quotes it from the Śivadharmaśāstra, whose
main teaching is, after all, liṅga worship. This quotation then would have implica-
tions for the dating of the text and attest to the work’s impact on non-Śaiva commu-
nities. ELTSCHINGER observes that this passage is not represented in the Gilgit manu-
scripts of the Kāraṇḍavyūha, because of lack of folios, but he argues that “conside-
ring that the only known significant divergence between the Nepali and the Gilgit
version concerns a very neatly delineated section (Sarvanīvaraṇaviṣkambhin’s quest
for the ṣaḍakṣarī vidyā), I see no compelling reason to doubt the presence of this
passage in the textual tradition reflected in the Gilgit manuscripts” (ELTSCHINGER
2014: 84, n. 198). This would give us an ante quem date of 630 CE for this verse, as
the two Gilgit manuscripts are dated to before 630 CE (METTE 1997: 7, following the
dating of von Hinüber). It would then most probably have been in existence by the
end of the sixth century, if not earlier. Interestingly, the Kāraṇḍavyūha adopts a
strong inclusivist approach to the “Hindu” gods (Candra, Āditya, Maheśvara, Brah-
mā, Nārāyaṇa, Sarasvatī, Vāyu (?), Dharaṇī (= Pṛthivī), and Varuṇa), presenting
them as having originated from different body parts of Avalokiteśvara: cakṣuṣoś
candrādityāv utpannau, lalāṭāṇ maheśvaraḥ, skandhebhyo brahmādayaḥ, hṛdayān
nārāyaṇaḥ, daṃṣṭrābhyāṃ sarasvatī, mukhato vāyavo jātāḥ, dharaṇī pādābhyāṃ,
varuṇaś codarāt (KVSū 265, 1–3). STUDHOLME (2002: 37–41), following the sug-
gestion by REGAMEY (1971: 429), argues that this idea was modelled on the Ṛgvedic
“Puruṣasūkta.”

• Varuṇa acquired the state of Varuṇa by worshipping a quartz

(sphāṭika) liṅga.
• Agni acquired the state of Agni by worshipping a jewel (ratna-
maya) liṅga.
• Sūrya acquired the state of Sūrya by worshipping a copper (tāmra)
liṅga.
• The Buddha acquired the state of Buddha by worshipping a golden
(jambūnadamaya) liṅga.
• The Arhat acquired the state of Arhat by worshipping a flower
liṅga (puṣpaliṅga).
• Soma acquired the state of Soma by worshipping a pearl (mu-
ktāphala) liṅga.11

11
ŚiDhŚ 3.20–33:
brahmā pūjayate nityaṃ liṅgaṃ śailamayaṃ śubham |
tasya saṃpūjanāt tena prāptaṃ brahmatvam uttamam || 20 ||
śakro ’pi devarājendro liṅgaṃ maṇimayaṃ śubham |
bhaktyā pūjayate nityaṃ tenendratvam avāpa saḥ || 21 ||
liṅgaṃ hemamayaṃ kāntaṃ dhanado ’rcayate sadā |
tenāsau dhanado devo dhanadatvam avāptavān || 22 ||
viśve devā mahātmāno raupyaṃ liṅgaṃ manoharam |
yajanti vidhivad bhaktyā tena viśvatvam āpnuvan || 23 ||
vāyuḥ pūjayate bhaktyā liṅgaṃ pittalasaṃbhavam |
vāyutvaṃ prāptavān tena anaupamyaguṇānvitam || 24 ||
indranīlamayaṃ liṅgaṃ viṣṇur arcayate sadā |
viṣṇutvaṃ prāptavān tena adbhutaikasanātanam || 25 ||
vasavaḥ kāṃsikaṃ liṅgaṃ pūjayanti vidhānataḥ |
prāptās tena mahātmāno vasutvaṃ sumahodayam || 26 ||
aśvinau pārthivaṃ liṅgaṃ pūjayantau vidhānataḥ |
tena tāv aśvinau devau divyadehaṃgatāv ubhau || 27 ||
sphāṭikaṃ nirmalaṃ liṅgaṃ varuṇo ’rcayate sadā |
varuṇatvaṃ hi saṃprāptaṃ tena vṛddhibalānvitam || 28 ||
liṅgaṃ ratnamayaṃ puṇyam agnir yajati bhāvitaḥ |
agnitvaṃ prāptavān tena tejorūpam aninditam || 29 ||
tāmraliṅgaṃ sadākālaṃ bhaktyā devo divākaraḥ |
triṣkālayajanāt tena prāptaṃ sūryatvam uttamam || 30 ||
buddhenāpy arcitaṃ liṅgaṃ jambūnadamayaṃ śubham |
tena buddhatvam āpnoti sadāśāntam avasthitam || 31 ||
ārhatas tu sadākālaṃ puṣpaliṅgārcanāt param |
tenārhatvam avāpnoti yogaṃ cāpi sudurlabham || 32 ||
muktāphalamayaṃ liṅgam somaḥ pūjayate sadā |
tena somo ’pi saṃprāptaḥ somatvaṃ satatojjvalam || 33 ||
PETER BISSCHOP 517

20ab ] These and the previous pādas are omitted in Ś ● 20c saṃpujanāt tena ] ∑,
saṃpūjanād eva Ś ● 21c bhaktyā pūjayate nityaṃ ] C K1 K2 N, apūjayad yadā
bhaktyā Ś, kṛtvā pūjayate nityaṃ P1, – tyā pūjayate nityaṃ P2 ● 21d tenendratvam
avāpa saḥ ] C K1 K2pc, tenendram avāpa saḥ K2ac (unmetr.), tenendratvam avāpa sa
N, tadā śakratvam āpnuvān Ś, tena śakratvam āptavān P1 P2 ● 22a hema° ] ∑, hai-
ma° P2 ● 22b dhanado ’rcayate sadā ] ∑, dhanadenārcitaṃ yadā Ś ● 22d avāptavān
] C K1 K2 N P1, avāpnuyāt Ś, – – ptavān P2 ● 23b raupyaṃ ] ∑, raupya° C ; mano-
haram ] C K1 K2 P1 P2, manoramam N Ś ● 23c yajanti vidhivat bhaktyā ] C K1 N,
apūjayan yadā bhaktyā Ś, yajante vidhivat tena P1, yajante vidhivat bhaktyā P2 ●
23d tena viśvatvam āpnuvan ] K1 K2 N, tena viśvatvam āpnuyāt C, viśvedevatvam
āpnuyuḥ P1 Ś, tena viśvatva – – – P2 ● 24a vāyuḥ pūjayate bhaktyā ] C K1 K2ac N
P1, vāyu pūjayate bhaktyā K2pc, apūjayad yadā vāyur Ś, – – pūjayate bhaktyā P2 ●
24b °saṃbhavam ] ∑, °jaṃ śubham P1 ● 24c prāptavān tena ] C K1 N, tena
saṃprāptam K2 Ś P1 P2 ● 24d anaupamyaguṇānvitam ] C K1 N, aṇaupamy-
aguṇāvaham K2, anaupamyaṃ guṇāvaham Ś, anaupamyaguṇāvaham P1 P2 ● 25a–
d ] This verse occurs after 21 in P1 ● 25b viṣṇur arcayate sadā ] C K1 K2 N, viṣṇur
yat samapūjayat Ś, viṣṇuḥ pūjayate sadā P1 P2 ● 25c viṣṇutvaṃ prāptavān tena ] ∑,
samāsasāda viṣnutvam Ś ● 25d adbhutaikasanātanam ] C K1, arcitena sanātanam
K2 N, adbhutaikaṃ sanātanam Ś, so ’dbhutaikaṃ sanātanaḥ P1, so tbhutaikaṃ
sanātanam P2 ● 26a vasavaḥ ] ∑, vasubhiḥ Ś ; kāṃsikaṃ liṅgaṃ ] C K2 P2,
kāṃśikaṃ liṅgaṃ K1, kāsikaṃ liṅgaṃ N, kāṃsyaṃ liṅgaṃ tu Ś, kṣaṇikaṃ liṅgaṃ P1
● 26b pūjayanti vidhānataḥ] ∑, pūjitaṃ saṃvidhānataḥ Ś ● 26cd ] C K1 K2 N P1,
mahātmabhis tataḥ prāptaṃ vasubhis tair mahodayaṃ Ś, prāptās tena mahātmāno
vasutvaṃ ca mahodayam P2 ● 27a aśvinau ] ∑, aśvibhyāṃ Ś ● 27b pūjayantau ] C
N P1 P2, pūjayaṃto K1, pūjayanti K2, pūjitaṃ saṃ° Ś ● 27d divyadehaṃgatāv ] K1
N, divyandehagatāv K2, divyaṃ dehagatāv C, divyadehagatāv Ś P1, divyaṃ dehaṃ
gatāv P2 ● 28a sphāṭikaṃ ] ∑, sphaṭikaṃ N ; nirmalaṃ liṅgaṃ ] ∑, siddhaliṅgaṃ tu
Ś ● 28b varuṇo ’rcayate sadā ] ∑, varuṇenārcitaṃ yadā Ś ● 28c varuṇatvaṃ hi
saṃprāptaṃ ] C K1 K2 N P1, varuṇatvaṃ tadā prāptaṃ Ś, tena tad varuṇatvaṃ hi
P2 ● 28d tena vṛddhibalānvitam ] C K1 K2 N, teneha vibhavānvitaḥ Ś, tena ṛdhyā
samanvitam P1, prāptaṃ ṛdhyā samanvitam P2 ● 29a liṅgaṃ ratnamayaṃ puṇyam ]
C K1 K2 N, bhāvitenāgninā liṅgaṃ Ś, liṅgam annamayaṃ puṇyaṃ P1 P2 ● 29b
agnir yajati bhāvitaḥ ] C K1 K2 N P1, piṣṭam annamayaṃ yadā Ś, agnir abhyarcya
bhāvitaḥ P2 ● 29c–32d Omitted in P2 ● 29c prāptavān tena ] C K1 K2 N P1, tena
saṃprātaṃ Ś ● 29d tejorūpam aninditam ] C K1 N, tejorūpasamanvitam K2 P1 Ś ●
30a tāmra° ] C K1 K2 N P1, tāmraṃ Ś ● 30c triṣkālayajanāt tena ] K1, triṣkāla-
yajanāntena Cac, triṣkālam iṣṭavān tena Cpc, arcanena sadākālam K2, triṣkālaṃ
yajanāt tena N, trikālaṃ yajate tena P1, atyantya tena ca sadā Ś ● 31–32 ] Omitted
in P1, while Ś has these verses after 33 ● 31a buddhenāpy arcitaṃ ] C K1 N, budhe-
na cārcitaṃ K2, buddhenābhyarcitaṃ Ś ● 31b jambū° ] C K1 K2 Ś, jambu° N ● 31c
buddhatvam āpnoti ] C K1 N, budhatvam āpannas K2, buddhatvam āpannaṃ Ś ●
31d avasthitam ] C K1 N, manaḥsthitam Ś ● 32a ārhatas tu sadākālaṃ ] K1 N, ār-
hantas tu sadākālaṃ C, aharntaś ca sadākālaṃ K2, arhadbhis sarvadā bhaktyā Ś ●

The text continues to state that the Nāgas, the Rākṣasas, the Piśācas, the
Guhyakas, and the Mātṛs each attained the highest position by worshipping
liṅgas made of different materials as well (Śivadharmaśāstra 3.34–39). It is
noteworthy that the two verses on the Buddha and Arhat are missing in the
manuscript from Pondicherry (P1), while the Srinagar manuscript (Ś) has
them after Sūrya and Soma.12 Whether this is due to accidental loss of text
or in fact represents an early addition in the transmission of the text cannot
be said with certainty at this state of research,13 but it attests to the per-
ceived boundaries of Brahmanical religion, which would not normally in-
clude the spiritual masters of the Buddhist and Jaina communities. This is
no isolated case, for, as will be discussed below, there is another instance in
the Śivadharmaśāstra where references to the Buddha and the Arhat appear
to have been added in the transmission of the text.
I have referred to this list in all its repetitiveness because it reflects, in
my opinion, a clear strategy to drive home the idea of the utter dependence
of all the gods on the worship of the liṅga. A second passage expressing a
similar idea occurs in chapter 9, following a description of the worship of
the liṅga:
By this precept (vidhi) all the gods reached the state of godhead
(devatva). Devī acquired the state of Devī, Guha acquired the state
of Skanda, Brahmā acquired the state of Brahmā, Viṣṇu acquired
the state of Viṣṇu, Indra acquired the state of Devarāja, the Gaṇas

32b puṣpaliṅgārcanāt ] C K1 K2 N, puṣpair liṅgārcanaṃ Ś ● 32c tenārhatvam
avāpnoti ] C K1 N, tenārhantatvasamprāpto K2, tenārhatvaṃ samāsādya Ś ● 32d
yogaṃ cāpi sudurlabham ] C K1 K2 N, yogaḥ śāntaḥ sudurlabhaḥ Ś ● 33cd tena
somo ’pi saṃprāptaḥ somatvaṃ ] C K1 N P1 P2, tenāsau so pi somatvaṃ prāptavān
K2, tena saṃpūjitenāptaṃ somatvaṃ Ś ● 33d satatojjvalam ] ∑, mahad uttamam Ś.
12
Note that the formulations relating to the worship by the Buddha and the Arhat
are also slightly different. While the text tends to use present tense to refer to the
continuous worship by the gods and past participle or perfect to refer to the acquiring
of their respective positions, for the Buddha and the Arhat we find past tense used to
refer to their worship (indicating that they are no longer alive?) and present tense to
refer to the acquiring of their respective positions.
13
It would require more research into the surviving manuscripts and a proper un-
derstanding of their transmission.
PETER BISSCHOP 519
acquired the state of Gaṇa, the sages obtained liberation, and the
Mothers Motherhood.14
While these passages convey the idea that all the gods obtained their re-
spective position by worship of the liṅga, they do not teach the worship of
the gods themselves. One can, however, infer their relatively high status at
the time of composition of the text from the fact that they need to be men-
tioned at all. A different case is chapter 6 of the text.
This chapter is the lengthiest of the entire text, covering more than 250
verses, and consists of a long invocation of all cosmic powers and deities
for appeasement (śānti). The extensive mantra takes us from the inner cir-
cle around Maheśvara, which includes Nandīśa, Vināyaka, Mahākāla, Am-
bikā, Mahāmahiṣamardinī, Bhṛṅgiriṭi, and Caṇḍeśvara, to Brahmā and
Viṣṇu, followed by the Mothers, to a host of other deities and powers.15 It is
a veritable inventory of cosmic power and gives a good impression of the
pantheon of gods at the time. Each god is invoked in his or her own sphere
and their worship is recognised with a standard formula asking for peace.
Similar invocations are known from other sources, such as the
Bṛhatsaṃhitā (BṛS 48.55–70) and the Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa (ViDhP
2.22), but what distinguishes this mahāśāntimantra from others is not only
its wealth of detail, but in particular a tendency conforming to what we

14
ŚiDhŚ 9.16–17:
anena vidhinā devāḥ sarve devatvam āgatāḥ |
devī devītvam āpannā guhaḥ skandatvam āgataḥ || 16 ||
brahmā brahmatvam āpanno viṣṇur viṣṇutvam āgataḥ |
indraś ca devarājatvaṃ gaṇāś ca gaṇatāṃ gatāḥ |
munayo mokṣam āpannā mātaro mātṛtāṃ tathā || 17 ||
16a devāḥ ] K1 N P1 P2 Ś, saṃyyak C, saṃmyak K2 ● 16b sarve devatvam

āgatāḥ ] K1 K2 N P1 P2, sarvadevatvam āgatā C, sarvadevatvam āgatāḥ Ś ● 16cd–
17ef ] These eight pādas are omitted in K2 ● 16cd ] These two pādas are omitted in
Ś ● 16d guhaḥ ] K1 N P1 P2, guhya C ; āgataḥ ] K1 N P1 P2, āgatāḥ C ● 17b viṣṇur
] K1 N Ś, harir C P1 P2 ; āgataḥ ] C N P1 P2 Ś, āgatāḥ K1 ; After this P1 repeats
16ab ● 17c indraś ca devarājatvaṃ ] K1 N P1 P2 Ś, indroś ca devarājyatvaṃ C ●
17d gaṇāś ca gaṇatāṃ gatāḥ ] C K1 N P1 P2, gaṇeśaiś ca gaṇeśatāṃ Ś ● 17ef ]
These two pādas are omitted in C, P1 and P2, while Ś has instead: nandī caiva vi-
dhiṃ kṛtvā nanditvaṃ samupāgataḥ ● 17f tathā ] K1, gatāḥ N.
15
For an introduction to this chapter and an overview of the various gods invo-
ked, see BISSCHOP 2014. See now also Bisschop 2019, for an edition, translation and
study of the chapter.

have already identified so far. Almost each and every deity is invoked, at
the end of their invocation, with one or more adjective expressing their
devotion to Śiva or Rudra. A significant exception concerns the gods that
belong to the inner circle. Among these, only Nandīśa and Bhṛṅgiriṭi re-
ceive such an adjective. Thus Nandīśa is described as “constantly devoted
to the worship of Śiva, solely intent upon contemplation of Śiva” (ŚiDhŚ
6.14ab: śivārcanaparo nityaṃ śivadhyānaikatatparaḥ),16 while Bhṛṅgiriṭi is
said to be “the son of Rudra, a great hero, whose mind is solely given to
Rudra” (ŚiDhŚ 6.25ab: rudrātmajo mahāvīro rudraikāhitamānasaḥ).17
The absence of these adjectives in the case of the other members of Śi-
va’s inner circle suggests that they were held to be so close to Śiva that
there was no need to make their devotion to Śiva explicit.18 The moment
the mantra turns to other deities in the pantheon, however, the use of adjec-
tives expressing their devotion is fairly consistent and conspicuous. Two
examples may suffice: Brahmā, who is described as “seated on a lotus,
resembling a lotus, with four lotus-heads, bearing a water-jar, fortunate,
worshipped by gods and Gandharvas,” is said to be “solely intent upon
contemplation of Śiva” (śivadhyānaikatatpara) and “steeped in the reality
of Śiva” (śivasadbhāvabhāvita),19 while Viṣṇu, who is “seated on Garuḍa,

16
This is the reading of K1, K2 and N. P1 has: śivadhyānaikaparamaḥ śivabha-
ktiparāyaṇaḥ. These two pādas are missing in C, P2, and Ś.
17
25a rudrātmajo ] ∑, rudrātmaja C ; mahāvīro ] C K1 N Ś, rudrabhakto P1 ●
25b rudraikāhita° ] K1 N, rudraikagata° C K2 P1 P2 Ś.
18
Some adjectives express a family relation: Kārttikeya (kṛttikomāgni-
rudrāṅgasamudbhūtaḥ surārcitaḥ, ŚiDhŚ 6.11cd); Vināyaka (rudrasya tanayo devo
nāyako ’tha vināyakaḥ, ŚiDhŚ 6.17cd). On the significance of these epithets expres-
sing a family relation of Vināyaka and Bhṛṅgiriṭi, see BISSCHOP 2010: 243–246.
19
ŚiDhŚ 6.28–29:
padmāsanaḥ padmanibhaś caturvadanapaṅkajaḥ |
kamaṇḍaludharaḥ śrīmān devagandharvapūjitaḥ || 28 ||
śivadhyānaikaparamaḥ śivasadbhāvabhāvitaḥ |
brahmaśabdena divyena brahmā śāntiṃ karotu me || 29 ||
28a padmāsanaḥ padmanibhaś ] C K1 K2pc N P1 P2, padmāsanapadmanibhaś

ac
K2 (unmetr.), padmāsano mahāpadmaś Ś ● 28b °paṅkajaḥ ] ∑, °paṅkaja C ● 28c
°dharaḥ ] ∑, °dharāṃ C ● 28d deva° ] ∑, siddha° P2 ● 29a śiva° ] ∑, śive N ;
°paramaḥ ] C K1 K2 N, °nirataḥ Ś P1 P2 ● 29b śivasadbhāvabhāvitaḥ ] K1 K2 N Ś
P1, śivaṃ sambhāvabhāvinaḥ C, śivasadbhāvakovidaḥ P2 ● 29c divyena ] ∑, davye-
na C ● 29d brahma ] K1 Ś P1 P2, brāhma° C, brahma K2 N ; śāntiṃ ] ∑, śānti C.
PETER BISSCHOP 521
with four arms, bearing conch, discus, and maze, dark, dressed in yellow
clothes, of great power and strength,” is said to be “endowed with the fa-
vour of Śiva” (śivaprasādasaṃpanna) and “engaged in contemplation of
Śiva” (śivadhyānaparāyaṇa).20 While this remains a consistent feature of
the mantra, the author has introduced a great variety of adjectives to ex-
press the same idea, which again illustrates that this was central to the man-
tra’s composition. I have drawn up the following inventory, organised
around different names of Śiva, just to give the general idea:21
• Śiva: śivabhakta (104c, 106c, 107c, 114c, 184c, 204a, 211a, 214c),
śive bhakta (108c, 118c), śivabhaktipara (67c, 136a), śivabha-
ktiparāyaṇa (148f), śivabhaktisamanvita (80b), śivabhaktisamutsu-
ka (89d), śivārcanarata (40a, 117c), śivārcanapara (14a, 147c,
156c), śivapūjāpara (119c, 198c) śivapūjāparāyaṇa (34b, 148d,
204b), śivapūjāsamudyukta (69c, 71c, 75c, 86c), śivapūjāsamutsu-
ka (211b), śivapūjārcane rata (111d, 211d), śivapūjājapodyukta
(83c), śivadhyānaparāyaṇa (31b), śivadhyānaikatatpara (14b),
śivadhyānaikaparama (29a), śivadhyānaikamānasa (147d, 190d),
śivadhyānena saṃpanna (80a), śivadhyānārcanodyukta (155c),

20
ŚiDhŚ 6.30–32:
tārkṣyāsanaś caturbāhuḥ śaṅkhacakragadādharaḥ |
śyāmaḥ pītāmbaradharo mahābalaparākramaḥ || 30 ||
yajñadehottamo devo mādhavo madhusūdanaḥ |
śivaprasādasaṃpannaḥ śivadhyānaparāyaṇaḥ || 31 ||
sarvapāpapramāthakaḥ sarvāsuranikṛntakaḥ |
sarvadā śāntabhāvena viṣṇuḥ śāntiṃ karotu me || 32||
30a tārkṣyāsanaś ] C K1 K2 P1 P2, tārkṣāsanaś N, tārkṣyārūḍhaś Ś ● 30b

°gadādharaḥ ] ∑, °gajādhara C ● 30c °radharo ] ∑, °rādhāro C ● 30d mahābala-
parākramaḥ ] K1 K2 N Ś, mahābalaparākramām C, vanamālāvibhūṣitaḥ P1 P2 ● 31a
°dehottamo ] K1 K2 N Ś, °devottamo C P1 P2 ● 31c °prasādasaṃpannaḥ ] K1 K2 N Ś
P2, °prasādasampanna C, °praṇāmaparamaḥ P1 ● 31d °dhyānaparāyaṇaḥ ] ∑,
°dhyānaikatatparaḥ P1 ● 32a sarvapāpapramāthakaḥ ] K1, sarvapāpapramasthāno C,
sarvapāpapraśamakaḥ N, sarvapāpapraśamano K2 Ś, śivārcanaparo nityaṃ P1,
śivārcanaparaḥ śrīmān P2 ● 32bc Omitted in C K2 P1 P2 Ś ● 32d viṣṇuḥ ] ∑, viṣṇu
K2 ; śāntiṃ ] ∑, śānti C.
21
Reference is made to the stem ending of the adjectives. The verse numbers and
readings refer to my draft edition of Śivadharmaśāstra 6. I do not report variants in
this list.

śivadhyātṛ (204a), śivapadārcanapara (150c), śivapādārcane rata

(167b, 190b), śivapādābjapūjaka (179b), śivaikāhitamānasa (40b,
92b), śivapraṇāmaparama (80c), śivasmaraṇabhāvita (83d), śiva-
sadbhāvabhāvita (29b, 162b, 187d), śivaprasādasaṃpanna (31a,
152c, 204c), śivadharmaparāyaṇa (86b), śivatejaḥsamāyukta
(126e), śivājñānuvidhāyin (132f, 136b, 151f, 235b), śivacodita
(142d).
• Rudra: rudrabhakta (38a, 52a), rudrabhaktiyuta (206d), rudrārca-

napara (105c, 192c), rudrārcanarata (38b, 57a, 89b), rudrārca-
nasamāyukta (206e), rudrārcāhitamānasa (52b), rudrārcanaparo-
dyukta (196c), rudrapūjāpara (169b, 208c, 215c), rudrapūjārcane
rata (220b), rudrapraṇāmamanasa (59c), rudrapraṇāmanirata
(220a), rudrapraṇāmaparama (206c), rudraparāyaṇa (217d), ru-
draikāhitacetaska (61c, 220c), rudraikāhitamānasa (25b), ru-
drapradhyānanirata (63c), rudrapādārcane sakta (183b).
• Other names: haraparāyaṇa (181b), harapādārcaka (202c),

harapādārcane rata (98b, 175b, 194b), harapādanatottama (194d),
haradhyānaikaparama (194c), harārcanapara (200c), mahādevā-
rcane sakta (136a), mahādevānubhāvita (136b), maheśvarapara
(158a), maheśapādapūjaka (158b), maheśārcanabhāvita (122b),
parameśārcanarata (65c), parameśvarabhāvita (95b), īśānārca-
natatpara (115d), paśupater nata (177b).
• Special constructions: arcayantī sadā śivam (44b), śivaṃ saṃpūjya

yatnena (67c), arcayanti sadākālaṃ devaṃ tribhuvaneśvaram
(141cd), īśānaṃ pūjayanty etāḥ sarvakālaṃ subhāvitāḥ (145ab),
pūjayataḥ sadā śivam (149d), pūjayanti sadākālaṃ rudraṃ bhu-
vananāyakam (151cd), hāṭakeśvaradevasya nityaṃ pūjāparāyaṇaḥ
(160cd), bhāveṇa ca pareṇāśu yajante sarvadā śivam (164ab),
sarvabhūtapatiṃ devaṃ parameśaṃ maheśvaram, pūjayanti sadā
nadyaḥ (187ac).
This list of adjectives clearly reflects a hierarchical and inclusivist model,

in which all and everything is dependent upon Śiva. The chapter ends with
a jaya invocation to Śiva (ŚiDhŚ 6.236–242). The final epithet in this sec-
tion once again reminds us that he is the object of praise of Brahmā, Viṣṇu,
and Indra (ŚiDhŚ 6.242c brahmaviṣṇvindravandyāya). The hierarchical
PETER BISSCHOP 523
model underlying this mantra perfectly mirrors that of early medieval king-
ship, which involves many types of sāmantas all empowered by their loyal-
ty and devotion to the supreme ruler. This shared model, as Sanderson has
argued, may well have been one of the keys to the success of Śaivism and
its popularity among early medieval rulers (SANDERSON 2009). It comes as
no surprise to encounter it here in the context of a śānti invocation that
played a prominent role in ritual kingship.
As before, some manuscripts expand the pantheon to include also the
heads of Buddhism and Jainism. In these manuscripts we come across a
couple of verses that invoke the Arhat and the Buddha, again followed by
the significant specification that they are “only thinking about the
knowledge of Śiva” (śivajñānaikacintaka), “intent upon union with Śiva”
(śivayogena bhāvitaḥ), and “devoted to the knowledge of Śiva” (śivajñāna-
parāyaṇa).22 It remains to be studied when, where, and in what context

22
After ŚiDhŚ 6.32d (in N and Ś, but not in C, K1, K2, P1, and P2):
arhan devaḥ śāntarūpī piñchakañcukapāṇikaḥ |
digvāsā malapaṅkaś ca saumyacittaḥ samāhitaḥ || 1 ||
saṃvṛttalocanaḥ śāntaḥ śivajñānaikacintakaḥ |
śāntiṃ karotu me śāntaḥ śivayogena bhāvitaḥ || 2 ||
jitendriyaḥ samādhisthaḥ pātracīvarabhūṣitaḥ |
varadābhayapāṇiś ca jñānadhyānarataḥ sadā || 3 ||
yogadṛṣṭisamāyuktaḥ śivajñānaparāyaṇaḥ |
śāntiṃ karotu me buddhaḥ sarvasattvahite rataḥ || 4 ||
1ab ] Ś, ārhantaḥ śāntacetaṣkaviśvātman viśvayātitaḥ N ● 1c digvāsā malapaṅkaś ]

N, digvāsāḥ kṛttivāsaś Ś ● 1d °cittaḥ ] Ś, °citta N ● 2a saṃvṛtta° ] Ś, samvartta° N ●
2d °yogena bhāvitaḥ ] N, jñānaikatānvitaḥ Ś ● 3b °bhūṣitaḥ ] Ś, °bheṣitaḥ N ● 4a
°dṛṣtisamāyuktaḥ ] Ś, °dṛṣṭiḥ sadāyuktaḥ N ● 4b °jñānaparāyaṇaḥ Ś, °jñānena bhāvi-
taḥ N ● 4c buddhaḥ ] conj., deva N, bauddhaḥ Ś.
These verses are followed in N and Ś by two more additional invocations, to Vi-
jayā and cows:
pītavarṇena dehena hāreṇa suvicitriṇā |
sarvāṅgasundarī devī vijayā jayakāriṇī || 5 ||
śivārcanaratā nityaṃ śivapūjāparāyaṇā |
dharitrī lokamātā ca nityaṃ rakṣāṃ karotu me || 6 ||
kṣīrodād utthitā gāvo lokānāṃ hitakāmyayā |
prīṇayanti sadā devān viprāṃś caiva viśeṣataḥ |
nityaṃ tu devatātmānaḥ kurvantu mama śāntikam || 7 ||
5c devī ] Ś, devi N ● 5d ] N, jayā vijayakāṅkṣiṇī Ś ● 6b °pūjā° ] Ś, °jāpya° N ●

7a utthitā ] Ś, utthito N ● 7d viprāṃś ] N, viprāś Ś ● 7e tu ] N, ca Ś.

these additions were made. They express a more overarching inclusivist

model that also incorporates Buddhism and Jainism into the fold.
The Skandapurāṇa
The early Skandapurāṇa, although it likewise addresses the Śaiva laity, is a

text with a very different character.23 It is a Purāṇa, whose main framework
of narratives is mythological, and it is as such within the narration of myth
cycles that we come across references to other gods. The Skandapurāṇa has
less to say on their actual worship, although a number of myths clearly
indicate an attempt to take up position against another religious tradition,
most notably Vaiṣṇavism. There are no references to Buddhism or Jainism
in the text.
A good example expressing the competition between Śaivism and
Vaiṣṇavism is the myth of Kṣupa and Dadhīca (SP 31). It starts with a dis-
pute between Kṣupa, a devotee of Viṣṇu, and Dadhīca, a devotee of Śiva,
about whether the Kṣatra or the Brahman is supreme. A battle ensues, in
which Dadhīca proves victorious, even when he comes under the attack of
Viṣṇu himself. He is after all protected by Śiva. As so often in the
Skandapurāṇa, the story is told to extoll the holiness of a particular sacred
site, in this case the Śaiva site of Sthāneśvara (Thanesar), said to be the
place where the enmity between Kṣupa and Dadhīca was stopped (sthita).24
Stories such as this may well reflect actual, historical struggles between
different religious communities. Rather than inclusivist, this myth suggests
an antagonistic agenda of worship of Śiva to the exclusion of all other gods.
However, we come across several passages in the text that indicate a more
inclusivist model. Thus it is said that Śiva granted half of his body to
Viṣṇu, creating the Hari-Hara or Viṣṇu-Śaṃkara form, and that one who

23
For a recent historical study of the Skandapurāṇa, situating the text in sixth-to-
seventh century North India, see BAKKER 2014.
24
SP 31.105–106:
dadhīca uvāca
yasmāt sthitam idaṃ vairaṃ varadānāt tava prabho |
iha tasmāt tava sthānaṃ nāmnaitena bhavatv aja || 105 ||
deva uvāca
sthāneśvaram iti khyātaṃ nāmnaitat sthānam uttamam |
bhavitṛ krośaparyantaṃ nānāpuṣpalatākulam || 106 ||
See BAKKER 2007 for the historical connections between Sthāneśvara (= Tha-
nesar) and Pāśupata Śaivism.
PETER BISSCHOP 525
worships Śiva-Viṣṇu will reach the highest goal.25 The hierarchical model
is obvious: it is Śiva who grants Viṣṇu half of his body and not the other
way around.
Another case concerned with Śiva’s relation to Viṣṇu within a geo-
graphically defined area is the conclusion of the myth about the destruction
of Dakṣa’s sacrifice, which ends in a unique manner in the Skandapurāṇa.
After Dakṣa’s sacrifice has been destroyed, Śiva proceeds to Mount Man-
dara and is followed by Viṣṇu and Brahmā. Not far from Bhadreśvara,26 the
place where he sets off, he tells Viṣṇu to stop. Viṣṇu does so, while bowing
to the lord’s feet and hanging onto the branch of a mango tree (āmra). The
place where this event took place is called Kubjāmra and is expressly re-
ferred to as a prosperous holy field of Viṣṇu, yielding the results of the
donation of a thousand cows.27 The site can be identified at the confluence
of the Candrabhāgā and Gaṅgā rivers in Rishikesh and still has an old
Viṣṇu temple (the Bharata Mandir). The tradition about Kubjāmra is also
known from local sources and hints at an old centre of Viṣṇu worship

25
SPBh 121.20–21:
tasya devaḥ svayaṃ śūlī tuṣṭaḥ prekṣya tathāvidham |
śarīrārdhaṃ dadau tasmai tad abhūd viṣṇuśaṃkaram || 20 ||
ya imāṃ śṛṇuyān martyaḥ sadā parvasu parvasu |
arcayec chivaviṣṇuṃ ca sa gacchet paramāṃ gatim || 21 ||
See also SP 21.37ab (in a hymn of praise): viṣṇor dehārdhadattāya tasyaiva va-
radāya ca |.
26
Bhadreśvara is the place from where Śiva and Pārvatī were watching the de-
struction of Śiva’s sacrifice by Haribhadra, Bhadrakālī, and the Gaṇas, also referred
to as the hermitage of Raibhya (Raibhyāśrama). For more details see BAKKER 2014:
174–181, who identifies it with the archaeological site “Vīrabhadra,” “on the high
bank of the Rambhā, near its confluence with the Gaṅgā [...] 20 km northeast of the
Dakṣeśvara temple, i.e. Kanakhala, the spot where Dakṣa’s sacrifice is supposed to
have taken place” (BAKKER 2014: 178).
27
SP 32.143–147:
evam astv iti sa procya mandaraṃ cārukandaram |
jagāma bhagavāñ charvaḥ somo gaṇaśatair vṛtaḥ || 143 ||
devāpi rājñā sahitās tasmin sthāne yathāsukham |
tasthur brahmā ca viṣṇuś ca jagmatur devapṛṣṭhataḥ || 144 ||
sa gatvā stokam adhvānam ubhābhyāṃ sahitaḥ prabhuḥ |
nātidūre tataḥ prāha tiṣṭha viṣṇo mahābala || 145 ||
yasmād āmraṃ samālambya tasmin deśe sthito hariḥ |
nirīkṣamāṇo deveśaṃ deśas tasmād abhūd asau || 146 ||
kubjāmraka iti khyāto viṣṇoḥ kṣetraṃ samṛddhimat |
puṇyaṃ nivartanāny aṣṭau gosahasraphalapradam || 147 ||

(BAKKER 2014: 181–183). The Skandapurāṇa appears to acknowledge this,

but explains its existence through reference to the destruction of Dakṣa’s
sacrifice and thus incorporates a contemporary local site of Viṣṇu worship
within its own inclusivist narrative.28
Throughout the text, the other gods are depicted in a position of com-
plete dependence upon Śiva. This is expressed for example in several cases
in the narrative, where they form part of or are incorporated in Śiva’s body.
And while the existence of Viṣṇu’s avatāras is acknowledged, Phyllis
Granoff has shown that the avatāra accounts in the Skandapurāṇa come
with a new and inclusivist message: “it is Śiva who gives Viṣṇu the task of
slaying demons; it is also Śiva who releases Viṣṇu from his animal form so
that he will be ready to assume another form when required” (GRANOFF
2004: 124). The inclusion of Viṣṇu’s avatāra stories, which originally be-

28
The Skandapurāṇa attests to good knowledge of the local geography of the
area. Another site in the vicinity is explained with reference to the same narrative
mentioned above. When Brahmā continues to follow him after Viṣṇu has stopped at
Kubjāmraka, Śiva tells him to turn back and himself enters the sky. Brahmā thereu-
pon makes a circumambulation. The spot is called Brahmāvarta and described as a
holy place, where, upon dying, one reaches Brahmaloka (SP 32.149–152):
nātidūraṃ tato gatvā bhūyo devaḥ pitāmaham |
nivartety abravīd vyāsa gaganaṃ ca samāviśat || 149 ||
tasmin viyadgate deve brahmā prāñjalir unmukhaḥ |
pradakṣiṇaṃ samāvṛtya praṇamya prayayau tataḥ || 150 ||
yasmāt tatra haraṃ tena kurvatā vai pradakṣiṇam |
āvartaḥ svaśarīrasya prakṛtaḥ puṇyakarmaṇā |
tasmāt sa deśo vikhyāto brahmāvarteti śobhanaḥ || 151 ||
aśvamedhaphalaṃ tatra snātaḥ prāpnoti mānavaḥ |
sādhayitvā caruṃ cātra bhojayitvā tathā dvijam |
prāṇān parityajya tato brahmalokam avāpnuyāt || 152 ||
Bakker has suggested the possibility that this Brahmāvarta may be identical with
“the early historical mount at Shyampur Garhi, ca. 6 km west of VBA [Vīrabhadra]
on the Golapani (Goila Nala), a small tributary of the Ganges” (BAKKER 2014: 184).
The story seems to attest to the integration of a site originally connected to the
worship of Brahmā. After the events relating to the coming into being of Kubjāmra
and Brahmāvarta are over, Viṣṇu and Brahmā go back and Brahmā installs a liṅga
dedicated to Paśupati at Bhadreśvara, performes pūjā there, and bathes in the Bhadra-
karṇahrada, after which he returns to heaven (SP 32.153–154):
tato ’bhyetya suraiḥ sārdhaṃ brahmā viṣṇupuraḥsaram |
bhadreśvare paśupater mahimānam athākarot || 153 ||
sa liṅgaṃ tatra saṃsthāpya pūjāṃ kṛtvātibhāsvarām |
bhadrakarṇahrade snātvā saha devair divaṃ yayau || 154 ||
PETER BISSCHOP 527
longed to Vaiṣṇava circles, reflects a deliberate narrative strategy of the

authors of the text, aimed at integrating other cults and traditions under the
broad umbrella of Śaivism.
Two chapters in the text deal with more mundane matters and give rules
for the actual worship of Śiva. Chapters 27 and 28 contain material that
shows, if not actual textual parallels, great correspondences in style and
content to the literature of the Śivadharma. Again we encounter the model
of including all other gods within Śiva, for example in SP 27.42, where all
holy places and temples (presumably of all deities) are said to rest in Śiva’s
two feet.29 Most relevant for the present purposes is SP 28.20–23. While
this passage occurs within a section that deals with Śiva worship, the text
allows for and incorporates the worship of other gods as well:
Now, for the sake of the respectful offering (argha) in [rites] for
the gods or for the ancestors, he satisfies the ancestors, as well as
the sages and all the gods, for thirty thousand years, by [offering
oblations of] white mustard seeds, and obtains a magnificent form,
and is worshipped by cowgirls in the Cow-world for one Manu-
period. For all the gods, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, and the sages, make
[themselves] present in [this] oblation: know that it has come forth
from them! One who knows this great secret, O Devī, he is a great
ascetic. Due to its miraculous power one is born rich, with a pleas-
ing appearance, provided with the qualities of intelligence and
beauty, for a million years.30

29
SP 27.42 (Śiva speaking):
yāni lokeṣu tīrthāni devatāyatanāni ca |
pādayos tāni suśroṇi sadā saṃnihitāni me || 42 ||
30
SP 28.20–23:
siddhārthakair athārghārthaṃ daive pitrye ’thavā punaḥ |
triṃśad varṣasahasrāṇi tarpayet sa pitṝn api || 20 ||
ṛṣīṃś ca sarvadevāṃś ca rūpaṃ cāpnoti puṣkalam |
manvantaraṃ ca goloke gokanyābhiḥ sa pūjyate || 21 ||
sarve devās tathā viṣṇur brahmā ṛṣaya eva ca |
kurvanty arghe hi sāṃnidhyaṃ tebhyas tad viddhi niḥsṛtam || 22 ||
guhyam etat paraṃ devi yo vetti sa mahātapāḥ |
tasya prabhāvāj jāyeta dhanavān priyadarśanaḥ |
prajñārūpaguṇair yuktaḥ saṃvatsaraśatāyutam || 23 ||

Aside from this one passage, however, we come across few other rituals
that involve any other god but Śiva.31 Overall, we can conclude that the
primary teaching of the Skandapurāṇa is Śiva devotion, at the expense of
everything else. It is a staunch Śaiva text. The only other deities whose
worship is expressly acknowledged are Devī and the Gaṇas, but they are
worshipped as, respectively, wife and servants of Śiva.
The Niśvāsamukha
The Niśvāsamukha is again a very different type of text, but it attests to
similar notions as the Śivadharma and has much to say on matters of lay
religion. The Niśvāsamukha stands at the threshold of Tantric literature. It
forms the introduction to the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā and introduces the Man-
tramārga teachings of the main work by presenting it as the revelation of
Śiva’s fifth face.32 The Niśvāsamukha addresses the relation between the
Tantra teaching of the Mantramārga and other forms of religion by intro-
ducing a model in which Śiva emits five streams of knowledge from his
five faces. The inclusivist model is most apparent here: all religious prac-
tice derives from the teachings of Śiva in the end. The western face teaches
the Laukika or mundane religion, the northern face the Vaidika or Brah-
manical religion, the southern face the Ādhyātmika or system of knowledge
of the self, and the eastern face the Atimārga or Pāśupata doctrine and prac-
tice. The upper, Īśāna face, however, teaches the ultimate knowledge, that
of the Mantramārga.33

31
A rare exception is SP 28.9, which prescribes offering foods to the gods and
ancestors for a year:
saṃvatsaraṃ tu yo bhuṅkte nityam eva hy atandritam |
nivedya pitṛdevebhyaḥ pṛthivyām ekarāḍ bhavet || 9 ||
32
For the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, see GOODALL 2015, which presents a critical edi-
tion with annotated translation of the Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra, and Nayasūtra. Not yet
included in this edition is the extensive Guhyasūtra. The Niśvāsamukha is the subject
of the PhD thesis by Nirajan Kafle at Leiden University (KAFLE 2015). All citations
are from Kafle’s edition.
33
NiMukh 3:196cd: paścimenaiva vaktreṇa laukikaṃ gaditaṃ sadā; NiMukh
4:41: vedadharmmo mayā proktaḥ svarganaiśreyasaḥ paraḥ | uttareṇaiva vaktreṇa
vyākhyātaś ca samāsataḥ || ; NiMukh 4:42: ādhyātmikaṃ pravakṣyāmi dakṣiṇāsyena
kīrttitam | sāṃkhyañ caiva mahājñānaṃ yogañ cāpi mahāvrate || ; NiMukh 4:131ad:
atimārggaṃ samākhyātaṃ dviḥprakāraṃ varānane | pūrveṇaiva tu vaktreṇa sara-
hasyaṃ prakīrttitam | ; NiMukh 4:135: pañcamenaiva vaktreṇa īśānena dvijottamāḥ |
mantrākhyaṃ kathayiṣyāmi devyāyā gaditaṃ purā ||. For this model of the five
PETER BISSCHOP 529
The largest part of the Niśvāsamukha is reserved for the Laukika reli-
gion, covering the first three out of the total of four chapters of the text. It
includes various religious practices, such as digging wells and setting up
parks, pilgrimage, fasting, following observances, and religious suicide,
under this heading. Although the Laukika religion described in the text
primarily relates to the worship of Śiva, the category is in fact broader and
also includes the worship of other deities. Thus we find in the section on
pilgrimage not only reference to many important Śaiva centres, but also to
pilgrimage sites dedicated to Viṣṇu, such as Śālagrāma and Mathurā (Ni-
Mukh 3.31–32).
Most interesting for the present purposes is an elaborate passage that
promotes fasting on different days of the year (NiMukh 3.60–195). Each
tithi is associated with a particular deity as follows: Brahmā (first), Agni
(second), Kubera (third), Gaṇeśa (fourth), Nāgas (fifth), Skanda (sixth),
Āditya (seventh), Śiva (eighth), Mahādevī (ninth), Yama (tenth), Dharma
(eleventh), Viṣṇu (twelfth), Anaṅga (thirteenth), Parameśvara (fourteenth),
Pitṛs (full and new moon).34 The text prescribes fasting and worship of the
deity, accompanied by the invocation of twelve names of the deity, on the
days in question for a year. Thus, for example, Viṣṇu should be worshipped
for a year on the twelfth tithi of both halves of the month with the names: 1.
Keśava, 2. Nārāyaṇa, 3. Mādhava, 4. Govinda, 5. Viṣṇu, 6. Madhusūdana,
7. Trivikrama, 8. Vāmana, 9. Śrīdhara, 10. Hṛṣīkeśa, 11. Padmanābha, and
12. Dāmodara.35 Various fruits of this worship are listed, depending on the
gradation and kind of worshipper. By worshipping Viṣṇu with these names
for a lifetime, accompanied by the gift of various substances and objects,
one reaches the world of Viṣṇu.36 In the same manner, worshipping Agni
with his twelve names for a lifetime will get one to the world of Agni, wor-
shipping Skanda will get one to the world of Skanda, etc.

teachings in the Niśvāsamukha and subsequent Śaiva literature, see the lemma pañca
vaktrāṇi by Diwakar ACHARYA in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III (GOODALL & RASTELLI
2013: 358–359).
34
For a useful survey of the tithis and their presiding deities in Brahmanical lite-
rature, see EINOO 2005.
35
NiMukh 3.126c–138b.
36
NiMukh 3.139c–141b:
yāvajjīvaṃ samabhyarcya puṣpair ggandhaiḥ sugandhakaiḥ || 139 ||
bhakṣyabhojyaiś ca dhūpaiś ca cchatradhvajavitānakaiḥ |
hemajair bhūṣaṇair ddivyair mmaṇiratnavicitrakaiḥ || 140 ||
vastraiḥ pūjāṃ vicitrāñ ca kṛtvā viṣṇupadaṃ vrajet |

Now, for most of the gods mentioned, the text does not provide guid-
ance specific to each different month of the year. The only exceptions con-
cern Śiva, who is associated with the eighth and the fourteenth day of each
half of the month,37 and Viṣṇu, associated with the twelfth day of each half
of the month.38 In their case, for each month specific instructions are given,
along with the mention of the reward of the fast and the worship at each
individual month. In other words, these two deities are treated on a differ-
ent level from the other gods mentioned. While it is not surprising that this
should be the case for Śiva in a Śaiva text, it is quite revealing that Viṣṇu
gets special treatment as well. This no doubt reflects the prominent position
of Viṣṇu worship at the time, but it may also be due to the origin of the
practice. In fact, the only parallel that I am aware of for this practice of the
worship of a god with twelve names on set days of each month, with the
exception of Śiva,39 concerns Viṣṇu. For we find the same notion in the
Viṣṇudharma and several Vaiṣṇava passages in other texts as well.40 It ap-
pears then that the recitation of twelve names originally belonged to the
worship of Viṣṇu alone and was subsequently expanded, as attested in the
Niśvāsamukha, to include other gods as well. Overall we can conclude that,
of the three texts discussed, the Niśvāsamukha’s attitude is the most open

37
NiMukh 3.92–106b and NiMukh 3.146–150. The twelve names to be used on
the eighth tithi are: Śaṅkara, Devadeva, Tryambaka, Sthāṇu, Hara, Śiva, Bhava,
Nīlakaṇṭha, Piṅgala, Rudra, Īśāna, and Rudra. The twelve names to be used on the
fourteenth tithi are: Hara, Śarva, Bhava, Tryakṣa, Śambhu, Vibhu, Śiva, Sthāṇu,
Paśupati, Rudra, Īśāna, and Śaṅkara. Specific instructions relating to each month are
only given for the eighth day of the month.
38
NiMukh 3.126c–138b.
39
ŚiDhŚ 10 has a similar passage on fasting and worshipping Śiva with different
names in twelve successive months on the eighth and fourteenth day. The list of
names for the eighth day of the month is given as follows: Śaṅkara, Śambhu,
Maheśvara, Mahādeva, Sthāṇu, Śiva, Paśupati, Ugra, Śarva, Tryambaka, Īśvara, and
Rudra (ŚiDhŚ 10.17–31). Note that the list is different from the one in the Niśvāsa-
mukha, suggesting that this was not yet a standard practice. No list of names is given
for the fourteenth day of the month.
40
The same set of twelve names of Viṣṇu with reference to the twelve months
from Mārgaśīrṣa to Kārttika occurs in ViDh 5.23–26, MBh 13 App. I, no. 12 and
MBh 14 App. I, no. 4, ll. 2998ff., BṛS 105.14–16 (the two MBh passages in particu-
lar show close correspondence).
See also GONDA 1970: 71–72, referring to Śatapathabrāhmaṇa 14,2,2,12 (on twel-
ve names and the fullness of the year). The observance of a fast on the twelfth day,
while worshipping Viṣṇu with his respective name, on twelve successive months is
referred to as nakṣatrapuruṣavrata in several Purāṇas. See SHASTRI 1969: 188, n. 1.
PETER BISSCHOP 531
and inclusivist. It certainly expresses a less antagonistic attitude than the

Skandapurāṇa.
Conclusion
In this brief survey of three early sources on lay Śaiva religion, I have fo-
cussed on those passages that address the worship or existence of other
gods than Śiva. The passages attest to an inclusivist model that allows for
the worship of other gods, but with the underlying message that their power
and position ultimately stems from Śiva. This is the case for the Śiva-
dharmaśāstra, which teaches that the gods obtained their position as gods
from the worship of the liṅga. The model of cosmic power, as expressed in
particular in the text’s śāntimantra, mirrors the earthly model of early me-
dieval kingship with its system of sāmantas, mahāsāmantas, and mahā-
rājas. The Skandapurāṇa, by contrast, shows a more antagonistic attitude,
with many stories revolving around the opposition between Śiva and the
other gods. This may well reflect a moment in time when Śaivism moved
from a position on the sides to a position in the centre, but it may also be
characteristic of narrative literature in general. Its inclusivism is more ag-
gressive, as it first of all involves the denigration of the other gods before
they are reinstated in their respective domain. If we are looking for a paral-
lel from Indian kingship, it brings to mind the model of the digvijaya, as
famously expressed in Samudragupta’s Allahabad Pillar Inscription and
chapter 4 of the Raghuvaṃśa, with its image of defeat and subsequent rein-
statement of regional kings, following the conquest by a new and more
powerful ruler on the scene. Finally, the Niśvāsamukha provides the most
perfect inclusivist model, with its concept of Śiva’s five faces teaching the
five different streams of religion, where the highest stream, that of the
Mantramārga, is reserved for the upper, fifth face. It forms the introduction
to the earliest surviving Śaiva Tantra, the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, and as
such provides the transition from the previous religious traditions to the
new ritual system for centuries to come. There is no antagonistic attitude
here, it rather reflects a strong belief in the supremacy of the lord Śiva who
himself happily teaches the worship of other gods to Devī.
Finally, when talking about inclusivism, it should not be forgotten that
there is always an exclusivist aspect involved as well. This aspect gets little
notice in Hacker’s work. This exclusivism may not always be addressed
explicitly, but it is there nonetheless. Thus it is noteworthy that all three
texts do not engage with the non-Brahmanical religions of Jainism and

Buddhism. They reflect a common shared Brahmanical model of religion

which had integrated local forms of religion such as goddess and Nāga
worship, but whose pantheon does not include Buddhas, Bodhisattvas,
Tīrthaṅkaras, or Arhats.41 As such, this is not inclusivism in Hacker’s lim-
ited use of the term, since the deities involved in fact all form part of a
well-established Brahmanical tradition, to which Śaivism aligns itself. The
inclusivism encountered here is not a case of “claiming, what really be-
longs to an alien sect,” but rather seems to reflect a more general Brahman-
ical perspective on what constitutes religion.42 The only exception that in

41
The situation appears to be different in the case of Vaiṣṇavism, where, for exa-
mple, the Viṣṇupurāṇa tells of Viṣṇu’s production of a heresiarch called Māyāmoha,
who deludes the Asuras with his heretic doctrines, first disguising himself as a Jaina
ascetic and then as a Buddhist monk. Subsequently the Buddha was integrated into
the standard list of Viṣṇu’s avatāras. The Viṣṇupurāṇa, as Vincent Eltschinger has
observed, gives much attention to the denigration of the pāṣaṇḍas, who are seen as a
sign of the Kali age (ELTSCHINGER 2014: 57–66). This attitude is shared by the
Viṣṇudharma, which is full of statements on avoiding contact with pāṣaṇḍas (in
particular ViDh 25), who, as ViDh 105.37–40 makes quite clear, are none other than
Buddhists, Jains, and the like:
pāṣaṇḍabhūtam atyarthaṃ jagad etad asatkṛtam |
bhaviṣyati tadā bhūpa vṛthāpravrajitotkaṭam || 37 ||
na tu dvijātiśuśrūṣāṃ na svadharmānupālanam |
kariṣyanti tadā śūdrāḥ pravrajyāliṅgino vṛthā || 38 ||
utkocāḥ saugatāś caiva mahāyānaratās tathā |
bhaviṣyanty atha pāṣaṇḍāḥ kapilā bhikṣavas tathā || 39 ||
vṛddhāḥ śrāvakanirgranthāḥ siddhaputrās tathāpare |
bhaviṣyanti durātmānaḥ śūdrāḥ kaliyuge nṛpa || 40 ||
Also noteworthy is Varāhamihira’s Bṛhatsaṃhitā, which includes descriptions of
the Buddha and the “god of the Arhats” in the section on the iconography of deities
(BṛS 58.44–45):
padmāṅkitakaracaraṇaḥ prasannamūrtiḥ sunīcakeśaś ca |
padmāsanopaviṣṭaḥ piteva jagato bhavati buddhaḥ || 44 ||
ājānulambabāhuḥ śrīvatsāṅkaḥ praśāntamūrtiś ca |
digvāsās taruṇo rūpavāṃś ca kāryo ’rhatāṃ devaḥ || 45 ||
42
Similar criticism has been voiced by Wezler regarding the usage of the term
“inclusivism” to describe the interactions between Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism: “Ist die
Annahme, daß die Mythenüberlieferungen beider zu irgendeinen Zeitpunkt, ‘ur-
sprünglich’, in dem Sinne strikt śivaitisch bzw. viṣṇuitisch waren, daß der Gott des
konkurrierenden Glaubens in ihnen nicht nur keine Rolle spielte, sondern auch gar
nicht vorkam? Muß nicht angesichts der letzlich vedischen Herkunft beider Traditi-
onsströme vielmehr davon ausgegangen werden, daß die zentrale göttliche Gestalt
des einen von Anfang an auch in dem anderen nicht nur vorkam, sondern auch eine
PETER BISSCHOP 533
fact proves the rule are the two passages about the Buddha and Arhat in the
Śivadharmaśāstra for which the manuscript evidence is ambiguous. Most
revealing, however, is a short line in the Niśvāsamukha, where Śiva tells
Devī that he has taught five paths only and that “those different from them
are following the wrong path” (NiMukh 1.56d: ato ’nye kupathe sthitāḥ).
What these wrong paths are the text does not say, but it is not difficult to
imagine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sigla for the edition of the Śivadharmaśāstra
C University Library of Cambridge, Add. 1645, palm leaf,

dated [Nepāla] Saṃvat 259 (1139–40 CE). Available
online: http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-ADD-01645/1
K1 National Archives, Kathmandu, 3/393, microfilmed by
the NGMPP: A 1082/3, palm leaf, dated [Nepāla]
Saṃvat 189 (1069 CE)
K2 National Archives, Kathmandu, 5/841, microfilmed by
the NGMPP: B12/4, palm leaf, apograph dated by an-
other hand: [Nepal] Saṃvat 315 (1194–95 CE)
N Yogin Naraharinath, Śivadharma Paśupatimatam
Śivadharmamahāśāstram Paśupatināthadarśanam.
Kathmandu : Bṛhadādhyātmikapariṣada, saṃvat 2055
(1998 CE).
P1 Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP), T 32, paper tran-
script, dated June 26, 1959. Copied from a manuscript
belonging to Kilvelur. Available online:
http://muktalib7.org/IFP_ROOT/IFP/transcripts_data/T0

gewisse, wenn auch nachgeordnete, Rolle spielte? Und, wenn letzteres richtig ist,
kann man dann eigentlich von ‘Inklusivismus’ im wörtlichen Sinne sprechen? […]
Das Wesentliche an dem Phänomen, das Hacker ‘Inklusivismus’ nennt, läge dann in
der weiteren Ausgestaltung und Zuspitzung einer mit der Entstehung der jeweiligen
Sekte bereits gesetzten Glaubensüberzeugung von der uneingeschränkten Suprematie
des ‘eigenen’ Gottes, wobei der Prozeß der Verteidigung und der ‘ideologischen’
Durchsetzung dieses Anspruchs eine besondere Dynamik dadurch erhalten hätte, daß
dieses Konkurrenzverhältnis über Jahrhunderte hin fortbestand und zu gleichartigen,
die Auseinandersetzung vielleicht gar eskalierenden theologischen Reaktionen auf
beiden Seiten führte.” (WEZLER 1983: 82).

032/PDF/T0032.pdf, accessed November 17, 2015.

P2 Institut Français de Pondichéry (IFP), T 72b, paper tran-
script of manuscript 75429, written in Grantha script,
belonging to the Adyar library, Chennai. Available
online:
http://muktalib7.org/IFP_ROOT/IFP/transcripts_data/T0
072/PDF/T0072.pdf, accessed November 17, 2015.
Ś Oriental Research Library, Srinagar, Acc.no. 1467,
Śāradā paper manuscript.
Primary Literature
Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra (KVSū)
Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra. In: Mahāyānasūtrasaṃgraha. Part 1. Ed. P.L.
Vaidya. Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and
Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1961, pp. 256–308.
Niśvāsamukha (NiMukh)
See KAFLE 2015.
Bṛhatsaṃhitā (BṛS)
Varāhamihira's Bṛhat Saṃhitā with English Translation, Exhaustive
Notes and Literary Comments. 2 vols. Ed. R. Bhat. Delhi etc.: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1982.
Mahābhārata (MBh)
The Mahābhārata. 19 vols. Crit. Ed. V.S. Sukthankar et al. Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1927–1959.
Viṣṇudharma (ViDh)
Viṣṇudharmāḥ. Precepts for the worship of Viṣṇu. 3 vols. Ed. R. Grü-
nendahl. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983–1989.
Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa (ViDhP)
Visnudharmottarapurāṇa. Ed. Ś. Kṣemarāja. Bombay: Venkatesvara
Press, 1912.
Śivadharmaśāstra (ŚiDhŚ)
Draft edition Bisschop.
Skandapurāṇa (SP)
See ADRIAENSEN & BAKKER & ISAACSON 1998; BAKKER & ISAACSON
2004; BAKKER & BISSCHOP & YOKOCHI 2014.
PETER BISSCHOP 535
Skandapurāṇa (SPBh)
Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ. Ed. K. Bhaṭṭarāī. Kathmandu: Ma-
hendraratnagranthamālā, 1998.
ADRIAENSEN, R. & BAKKER, H.T. & ISAACSON, H. 1998. The

Skandapurāṇa. Volume I. Adhyāyas 1–25. Critically Edited with Prole-
gomena and English Synopsis. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
BAGCHEE, J. & ADLURI, V.P. 2014. The passion of Paul Hacker. Indology,
orientalism and environment. In: J.M. Cho, E. Kurlander, D.T.
McGetchin (eds.), Transcultural Encounters between Germany and In-
dia. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 215–229.
B AKKER, H.T. 2007. Thanesar, the Pāśupata Order and the
Skandapurāṇa. Studies in the Skandapurāṇa IX. Journal of Indologi-
cal Studies 19, pp. 1–16.
2014. The World of the Skandapurāṇa. Northern India in the Sixth and
Seventh Centuries. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
BAKKER, H.T., & ISAACSON, H. 2004. The Skandapurāṇa. Volume IIA.
Adhyāyas 26–31.14. The Vārāṇasī Cycle. Critical Edition with an Intro-
duction, English Synopsis & Philological and Historical Commentary.
Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
BAKKER, H.T. & BISSCHOP, P.C. & YOKOCHI, Y. 2014. The
Skandapurāṇa. Volume IIB. Adhyāyas 31–52. The Vāhana and Naraka
Cycles. Critical Edition with an Introduction and Annotated English
Synopsis. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
BISSCHOP, P. 2010. Once again on the Identity of Caṇḍeśvara in Early
Śaivism: A rare Caṇḍeśvara in the British Museum? Indo-Iranian Jour-
nal 53, pp. 233–249.
2014. Invoking the Powers that Be: The Śivadharma’s Mahāśānti Mantra.
South Asian Studies 30.2, pp. 133–141.
2019. Universal Śaivism. The Appeasement of All Gods and Powers in the
Śāntyadhyāya of the Śivadharmaśāstra. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
DANIÉLOU, A. 1960. Le Polythéisme hindou. Paris: Buchet/Chastel.
DE SIMINI, F. 2013. Ritual Aspects of Manuscript Transmission in Premod-
ern India: a Historical Study of Vidyādāna through Textual Sources.
With a First Critical Edition and English Translation of Śivadhar-
mottara's Chapter Two ‘On the Gift of Knowledge.’ PhD Thesis, Uni-
versità degli Studi di Torino.

EINOO, Sh. 2005. Ritual Calendar. Change in the Conceptions of Time and
Space. Journal Asiatique 293.1, pp. 99–124.
ELTSCHINGER, V. 2014. Buddhist Epistemology as Apologetics. Studies on
the History, Self-understanding and Dogmatic Foundations of Late In-
dian Buddhist Philosophy. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften.
GONDA, J. 1970. Notes on Names and the Name of God in Ancient India.
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
GOODALL, D. 2015. The Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. The earliest surviving Śaiva
tantra. Volume 1. A critical edition & annotated translation of the
Mūlasūtra, Uttarasūtra & Nayasūtra, edited in collaboration with A.
Sanderson & H. Isaacson, with contributions of N. Kafle, D. Acharya &
others. Pondicherry: IFP/EFEO, Hamburg: Asien-Afrika Institut.
GOODALL, D. & RASTELLI, M. 2013 (eds.). Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III. Ṭ-
PH. Dictionnaire des termes techniques de la littérature hindoue tan-
trique / A Dictionary of Technical Terms from Hindu Tantric Literature
/ Wörterbuch zur Terminologie hinduistischer Tantren. Wien: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
GRANOFF, Ph. 2004. Saving the Saviour. Śiva and the Vaiṣṇava Avatāras in
the Early Skandapurāṇa. In: H. Bakker (ed.), Origin and Growth of the
Purāṇic Text Corpus. With Special Reference to the Skandapurāṇa. Pa-
pers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference, Vol. 3.2. Delhi: Motilal Ba-
narsidass, pp. 111–138.
HACKER, P. 1959. Prahlāda. Werden und Wandlungen einer Idealgestalt.
Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hinduismus. Wiesbaden: Verlag der Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz.
1983. Inklusivismus. In: G. Oberhammer (ed.), Inklusivismus. Eine indi-
sche Denkform. Wien: Institut für Indologie, pp. 61–91.
1995. Aspects of Neo-Hinduism as Contrasted with Surviving Traditional
Hinduism. In: W. Halbfass (ed.), Philology and Confrontation. Paul
Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedānta. Albany, NY: SUNY Press,
pp. 229–255.
JUGNU, Sh. & SHARMA Bh. 2014. Śrīmad Śivadharmapurāṇam. Śai-
vadharmasammata upapurāṇa. Mūlapāṭha aur Mohanabodhinī Hindī
ṭīkā sahita. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.
KAFLE, N. 2013. The Liṅgodbhava Myth in Early Śaiva Sources. In: N.
Mirnig, P.-D. Szántó, and M. Williams (eds.), Puṣpikā. Tracing Ancient
India Through Texts and Traditions: Contributions to Current Research
in Indology. Volume 1. Oxford, Havertown: Oxbow, pp. 241–263.
PETER BISSCHOP 537
2015. The Niśvāsamukha, the Introductory Book prefacing the Niśvāsa-

tattvasaṃhitā. Critical Edition, with an Introduction, Annotated Trans-
lation. Appended by Śivadharmasaṅgraha 5-9. PhD thesis at Leiden
University.
METTE, A. 1997. Die Gilgitfragmente des Kāraṇḍavyūha. Swisttal-
Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.
NARAHARINATH, Y. 1998. See siglum N.
REGAMEY, C. 1971. Motifs vichnouïtes et śivaïtes dans le Kāraṇḍavyūha.
In: Études tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou. Paris:
Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, Adrien Maisonneuve.
SANDERSON, A. 1986. Maṇḍala and Āgamic Identity in the Trika of Kash-
mir. In: A. Padoux (ed.), Mantras et diagrammes rituels dans
l’hindouisme. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 169–207.
2009. The Śaiva Age. The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early
Medieval Period. In: Sh. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and Development of Tan-
trism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, pp. 41–350.
SHASTRI, A.M. 1969. India as Seen in the Bṛhatsaṃhitā of Varāhamihira.
Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass.
STUDHOLME, A. 2002. The Origins of Oṃ Maṇipadme Hūṃ. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
TÖRZSÖK, J. 2003. Icons of Inclusivism. In: G. Bühnemann et al. (eds.),
Maṇḍalas and Yantras in the Hindu Traditions. Leiden: Brill, pp. 179–224.
WEZLER, A. 1983. Der Inklusivismus-Begriff Paul Hackers. In: G. Ober-
hammer (ed.), Inklusivismus. Eine indische Denkform. Wien: Institut für
Indologie, pp. 61–91.

Mātṛtantra texts of South India with special reference

to the worship of Rurujit in Kerala and to three
different communities associated with this worship
S.A.S. Sarma
Mātṛtantras of South India
There exist a few hitherto unpublished South Indian texts that describe the
rituals of the female deities collectively known as the Seven Mothers, and it
is in these Mātṛtantra texts that we see the deity Bhadrakālī emerging as the
principal deity of the Tantric cult. In this tradition Bhadrakālī is wor-
shipped, either on her own or as Cāmuṇḍā, as one of the Seven Mothers,
accompanied by Vīrabhadra and Gaṇeśa.
We find in these texts the description of the regular worship to be per-
formed in temples of Bhadrakālī, usually patronised by royal families and
established for the sake of victory over their enemies, while in the northern
Mātṛtantra tradition we see the description of the worship as performed by
individual initiates for their own purposes. Works that may, as we now
know, be included in the southern Mātṛtantra tradition are the two southern
Brahmayāmalas, the Mātṛsadbhāva, the Śeṣasamuccaya (chapters 7, 8, and
9) and certain other minor texts that deal with the installation of, and rituals
related to, Bhadrakālī.
Two southern Brahmayāmalas

In his thesis on the Brahmayāmala, a pre-ninth-century Śaiva Tantric scrip-
ture, HATLEY (2007: 4–5) mentions five other later texts that bear the label
“Brahmayāmala”1 and belong to the Mātṛtantra tradition. Among these

1
See HATLEY 2007: 3–5: “(…) a South Indian text connected with the cult of
Bhadrakālī, in which some traces of the older BraYā are discernable; another South
Indian Brahmayāmala related to this of which only a few chapters survive; a short
text preserved in a Bengali manuscript expounding a series of ritual diagrams (cakras
or yantras), with no discernable relation to the older BraYā; a text of the cult of Tārā
five, two are from South India, the Brahmayāmala [Brahmayāmala-

mātṛpratiṣṭhātantra], available in the French Institute (ms. T. 522), and
another Brahmayāmala [Brahmayāmalapratiṣṭhātantra] for which there is
an incomplete manuscript available in the Trivandrum Manuscript Library
(ms. T. 982). As SANDERSON (2014: 40–41) observes:
These [texts] claim to be part of the Brahmayāmala and indeed are

derived from it to the extent that they share its core pantheon and a
number of other formal features; but they differ from it radically in
that they prescribe a regular cult of Cāmuṇḍā/Bhadrakālī and the
Seven Mothers to be conducted before the fixed idols in temples by
non-Brahmin priests of the pāraśava caste for the protection of the
state and its subjects and the enhancement of royal power.2
We also see that the Bhadrakālī in these texts is attended by the same four
goddesses, namely Raktā, Karālī, Caṇḍākṣī, and Mahocchiṣṭā, as Caṇḍā
Kāpālinī, the supreme goddess in the northern Brahmayāmala, though Ma-
hocchuṣmā, the fourth, appears under the variant name Mahocchiṣṭā:
The one named Raktā should be installed in the eastern direction;

Karālī should be installed in the south, Caṇḍākṣī should be installed
in the west, [and] Mohocchiṣṭā should be installed in the north.3
And:
Raktā, Karāḷī, Caṇḍākṣī, [and] Mohocchiṣṭā [should be installed]

separately.4
On the cult of Bhadrakālī and the worship that the southern Brahmayāmala
texts introduce, SANDERSON (2007a: 277–278) further observes that it “is
indeed fully Tantric, it is much more integrated into the civic dimension of

by this name transmitted in an untraced Bengali manuscript, a section of which has
been published; and a Brahmayāmala preserved in a single, fragmentary Nepalese
MS, which though eclectic, draws directly from the older BraYā.”
2
See also SANDERSON 2007a: 277–278.
3
BYIFP, p. 7, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 277, n. 141: raktākhyāṃ vinyaset
prācyāṃ karālīṃ dakṣiṇe nyaset | caṇḍākṣīṃ paścime nyasya mahocchiṣṭottare nyaset |.
4
BYIFP, p. 89, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 277, n. 141: raktā karālī caṇḍākṣī
mohocchiṣṭā pṛthak pṛthak |.
S.A.S. SARMA 541
religion than are the early North Indian Śākta traditions exemplified by the
Trika and Kālīkula. [...] and the principal purpose of this worship is said to
be to foster the victory of the monarch over his enemies, as in the Orissan
cult of Bhadrakālī, and, more generally, to protect the kingdom from dan-
ger (deśaśāntiḥ, rāṣṭraśāntiḥ), such temple being, at least in main, royal
foundations and recipients of royal patronage.” We also see that these
southern Yāmala texts embedded the Tantric mantras from the Kālīkula.5
The Brahmayāmala (IFP, Pondicherry)

The incomplete southern text of the Brahmayāmala, available in the French
Institute of Pondicherry, contains approximately 1,900 verses in anuṣṭubh
metre in 49 chapters. This text has the format of a ritual manual (paddhati)
and contains details of the installation of the Seven Mothers,6 the daily
rituals performed for them, festivals, and special rituals such as the
mātṛśānti and the kujavārabali. Chapter 19 of the text gives a complete
description of the animal sacrifice (paśuyāga) to be performed in a temple
of the Seven Mothers. The forty-ninth and final chapter, on rules regarding
impurity (āśaucavidhi), is incomplete. This transcript was prepared based
on a manuscript available from Candraśekhara Gurukkal of Tirukkalukkun-
ram. Though we have no information on the author of the text, it contains
evidence that he was a Tamil speaker, whose native language occasionally
left unintended traces on his composition.7
We also see that certain rituals and musical instruments described in the
text are known in Tamil Nadu as well as in Kerala, which further confirms

5
For the details of the mantras that are imported, see SANDERSON 2007a: 278–279.
6
Their names are given, for example, in the following list: Cf. BYIFP, p. 15:
brāhmī māheśvarī caiva kumārī vaiṣṇavī tathā | vārāhī caiva māhendrī bhadrakālī
tathaiva ca ||.
7
Cf. COX 2016: 249, n. 92. Cox gives the following evidence: “(e.g. epenthetic
ya-śrutis [as in 6.25d: tasmād yetāni varjayet] or hypercorrections [e.g. 5.12cd tad-
arthaṃ kaṇṭavistāraṃ tadarthaṃ bilam ucyate, in both cases for correct tadardhaṃ])
see e.g. 6.5ab āgneyayamayor madhye pitarasthānam uttamam, ‘the best shrine to
the ancestors is located in the south-southeast’ [thematisation of Skt. pitṛ to pitara,
cf. MTL pitarar] 6.27a, nallamallasamākīrṇaṃ, ‘[the village picked for a temple-site
should be] filled with good wrestlers’ [nalla-, cf. Tamil naṉmai, adj. stem nalla-,
‘fine, good’] and 7.23cd: śikhāyān tu śikhāṃ nyasya kavacaṃ tanamastake, ‘placing
the crest [-mantra] on the [Goddess’] crest, [place] the armor [-mantra] on her head,’
understanding tana- to be a thematisation influenced by the Tamil reflexive prono-
minal base taṉ; the correct form and sandhi (*tanmastakam) would break the metre.”

the southern origin of this text. For example, the text lists the musical in-
struments to be played during the installation of the trident (śūla), mention-
ing drums, namely the karaṭī and timila, as well as the mātṛghoṣa, a partic-
ular voiced sound intoned by women, all of which is peculiar to the South:
[Making] auspicious proclamations (svastivācakavākyam), the sound

of Vedic recitation (brahmaghoṣam), and [sounds of the instruments
known as] paṭaha, maddala, tāla, karaṭī,8 timilā, and ululation
(mātṛghoṣam) along with [sounds of the] conch and kāhala.9
The text also mentions a particular dance, the mudrānṛtta, performed be-
fore the bali offering described in the Mātṛśāntipaṭala, the chapter on the
propitiatory rites for the Mother-goddess to avert evil or calamity,10 and
another one by an oracle (veliccapāḍ)11 before the bali offering known as
bhūtabali, also performed in the Piṣārikāvu Temple of Kollam, Kerala:12
At the time of circumambulation, one should perform the dance in-

volving mudrās (mudrānṛttam).13

8
I was unable to locate any references so far regarding the music instrument ka-
raṭī. Though studies on the musical instruments of Kerala, such as the Temple Musi-
cal Instruments of Kerala (RAJAGOPALAN 2010), describe the instruments that are
listed here, they remain silent on karaṭī.
9
BYIFP, p. 159: svastivācakavākyañ ca brahmaghoṣan tathaiva ca | paṭahaṃ
maddalaṃ tālaṃ karaṭītimilā tathā | śaṃkhakāhalasaṃyuktaṃ mātṛghoṣan tathaiva
ca |. (śaṃkhakāhalasaṃyuktaṃ] conj; śaṃkhakālasamāyuktaṃ ms.)
10
Cf. BYIFP, pp. 75–83. This is an eight-day bali festival, and each festival day is
dedicated to one Mother-goddess. Rice mixed with different substances is offered,
and on the eighth day the animal sacrifice (paśubali) takes place. The text also men-
tions that other divinities should be invited during the festival: “May these [divini-
ties], [namely] the Kūśmāṇḍas, Guhyakas, Nāgas, Siddhās, Yakṣās, Marudgaṇas,
Vidyādharas, and Gandharvas come [to this] festival.” kūśmāṇḍa-guhyakānāgāsi-
ddhāyakṣāmarudgaṇāḥ | vidyādharāś ca gandharvā āgacchantu mahotsave ||
(mahotsave] conj.; mahotsavam ms.; IFP T. 522, p. 75).
11
The veliccapāḍ, or oracle, is considered a representation of the deity in a temp-
le. He is dressed in red with ornaments and garlands and carries hooked swords.
Once in trance, accompanied by the beatings of drums, he dances and grants the
devotees blessings and predictions.
12
Though I am not sure of its practice in Tamil Nadu, in Kerala such dances are
performed, namely, one by a Kuruppu and one by a veliccapāḍ. A kurup belongs to
the ambalavāsi or “temple servants” group; see also CALDWELL 1999: 97.
13
BYIFP, p. 78: paribhramaṇavelāyāṃ mudrānṛttaṃ samācaret |.
S.A.S. SARMA 543
The dance involving mudrās (mudrānṛttam) should be performed

along with laughing and playing. Especially the dance involving
mudrās should be performed with every effort.14
According to this Brahmayāmala, the priests who are eligible to perform

the worship of the Seven Mothers must be non-Brahmins, termed pāraśava,
who are the offspring of a Brahmin father and Śūdra mother:15
One born of a Brahmin man and a Śūdra woman in conformity of the

rules is considered to be a pāraśava. [Should they] resort to
Bhadrakālī for their livelihood, they are held to be [her] priests.16
As SANDERSON (2007a: 277) observes, the Śaiva character of this priest is

also “expressed by the transformation of pāraśavaḥ into pāraśaivaḥ as the
title of those who have been initiated and consecrated as officiants of this
cult”:
At first the pāraśavas are invariably worshippers17 of the goddess.

[Once] initiated, these pāraśaivas are particularly qualified for rituals.18

14
BYIFP, p. 79: mudrānṛttaṃ tu kartavyaṃ hāsanakrīḍanādibhiḥ | mudrānṛttaṃ
viśeṣeṇa kārayet sarvayatnataḥ |. (krīḍanādibhiḥ ] conj; krīḍanādiśet ms.).
15
In the Dharmaśāstra texts, pāraśava is defined as the offspring of a Brahmin
man and Śūdra mother: yaṃ brāhmaṇs tu śūdrāyāṃ kāmād utpādayet sutam | sa
pārayann eva śavas tasmāt pāraśavaḥ smṛtaḥ || (Manusmṛti 9.178), “When a Brah-
min fathers a son by a Śūdra woman out of lust, tradition calls him a pāraśava, be-
cause while still able (pārayan) he is a corpse (śava)” (translation OLIVELLE 2005:
159). See also Brahmayāmala IFP, p. 88 (= SANDERSON 2007a: 277): ādau
pāraśavāś caiva nityaṃ devyās tu pūjakāḥ | dīkṣitāḥ karmayogyās te pāraśaivā
viśeṣatah ||. Vaikhānasadharmasūtra (143.1–2) also mentions the pāraśava as the
priests of Bhadrakālī. The pāraśavas are known as uvaccaṉ and defined as “Mem-
bers of a caste of temple drummers and Pūjāris of Kālī” (Tamil Lexicon s.v. uvac-
caṉ). See also PILLAY 1953: 220–248 and SHULMAN 1980: 219–220.
16
BYIFP, p. 146, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 277, n. 142: śūdrāyāṃ vidhinā
viprāj jātaḥ pāraśavo mataḥ | bhadrakālīṃ samāśritya jīveyuḥ pūjakāḥ smṛtāḥ |.
17
Even though the term pūjaka denotes a “priest” here, in general it could also re-
fer to a worshipper.
18
BYIFP, p. 88, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 277, n. 142: ādau pāraśavāś caiva
nityaṃ devyās tu pūjakāḥ | dīkṣitāḥ karmayogyās te pāraśaivā viśeṣataḥ |.

The establishment of a temple devoted to the Seven Mothers as well as the

worship that is described in this manual is said to favour the victory of the
monarch over his enemies (śatrunāśa) as well as to protect the kingdom
from danger (devaśānti, rāṣṭraśānti):
Bhadrakāḷī [who is] Cāmuṇḍī always causes victory to prosper. [She]

is proclaimed to have arisen from Śiva in the Kaliyuga for the de-
struction of enemies. Four embodiments [of her] are to be known.
She invariably creates peace (śāntikarī). One should worship her four
embodiments with all efforts. [They] restore peace to the nation;
[through them] victory arises for kings, [it] destroys all sins, [brings
about] peace, and is invariably the source of victory.19 One should
worship the Mothers according to [the manner enjoined for] their
four embodiments.20
[It] is taught to be the cause for peace and prosperity of the nation
[that comes about through] the installation [of Bhadrakālī].21
...
The fire offering for Devī, ending with [the pronouncement of]
svāhā, increases the well-being of a city.22
Unfortunately, we have been able to locate only a single transcript of this

text in the French Institute Library and it is badly corrupted.

19
The translation of this sentence is uncertain as no grammatical agent is indicated.
20
BYIFP, p. 2, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 278, n. 143: bhadrakālī tu cāmuṇḍī
sadā vijayavarddhinī | śatrunāśe śivodbhūtā kaliyuge prakīrtitā | catasro mūrtayo
jñeyā sadā śāntikarī bhavet | tasyās sarvaprayatnena caturmūrtiṃ prapūjayet |
deśaśāntikarāś caiva nṛpāṇāṃ vijayaṃ bhavet | sarvapāpaharaṃ śāntaṃ sadā vi-
jayasaṃbhavam | caturmūrtividhānena mātṛpūjāṃ ca kārayet |.
21
BYIFP, p. 50, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 278, n. 143: pratiṣṭhāvidhinā pro-
ktaṃ rāṣṭraśāntyarthakāraṇam |.
22
BYIFP, p. 50, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 278, n. 143: svāhāntaṃ de-
vikāhomaṃ nagaraśāntivardhanam |.
S.A.S. SARMA 545
The Brahmayāmala (ORI, Trivandrum)
The other incomplete southern Brahmayāmala text, available in the Tri-

vandrum Manuscript Library, is in the form of a conversation between
Brahmā and Īśvara:
[I] heard the Great Mother Tantra, an extremely long method.

...
Now I would like to listen to the method (sādhanam) [that is the] es-
sence of all [attainments], short in length, great in meaning, adorned
with various [ritual] injunctions, called an “installation-scripture”
(pratiṣṭhātantram), a new settled account drawn from the Yāmala
[scripture].23
This work claims to teach the rituals based on the Yāmala corpus24 and
breaks off in its fifth chapter. While its first chapter introduces the worship
of the Mothers, its second chapter enumerates the details of two types of
installation, namely ekabera and bahubera, and the procedures for them.
The third chapter provides the location and places where the Mothers are to
be installed. The fourth chapter provides a detailed description of the eligi-
bility of the worshipper, and the fifth describes the qualifications of a
teacher (ācāryalakṣaṇa) and preliminary preparations for the initiation and
then breaks off. The first four chapters end with a colophon which indicates
that the text belongs to the brahmayāmala-vidyāpīṭha.25
As mentioned above, the text describes two types of installation, namely
the ekabera and bahubera. In the case of ekabera, Bhadrakālī alone is wor-
shipped, while in case of the bahubera she is worshipped along with the
Mothers:
The [installation of] Mothers are of two kinds: with numerous icons
and with just one icon. Where Durgā alone is present, who is the

23
BYTriv, p. 1: śrutaṃ mātṛmahātantram ativistārasādhanam | ... | idānīṃ śrotum
icchāmi sāraṃ sarvasya sādhanam | alpagranthaṃ mahārthaṃ ca nānāvidhivi-
bhūṣitam | pratiṣṭhātantram ityākhyaṃ yāmalānavanirṇayam |.
24
BYTriv, p. 26: yāmaloktavidhānena nityam ātmārcanaṃ smṛtam. See also: sarva-
yāmalatantrajño nityaṃ pūjārataḥ śuciḥ (BYTriv, p. 2–3, p. 28); evaṃ tu yāmalācāryaḥ
kathitaḥ karmasiddhaye (BYTriv, p. 2–3, p. 28).
25
For example: iti brahmayāmale sapādalakṣe vidyāpīṭhāvatārite pratiṣṭhātantre
ekāśītividhānāṅge prathamodhyāyaḥ (BYTriv p. 2–3).

goddess keeping the highest position (kūṭasthā) [and] being not man-
ifested through the Mother-powers, she is known as Bhadrakāḷī.
[...]
Where Bhadrakāḷī is [alone], this is known as the single-icon
[type].26
She is alone in the single-icon [installation] (ekabere); [and she] is

known as Bhadrakāḷī. Alternatively, [she is known] everywhere as
“Mothers” when sevenfold in a multiple-icon [installation].27
The single-icon [installation] is praised for victory over and destruction of

enemies. The multiple-icon type is declared for peace and prosperity.
Similar to the IFP Brahmayāmala, this text too authorises the pāraśava to
perform the temple rituals of Bhadrakālī:
[One who has] undergone the sequence of the “initiation [into the
cult of] the Mothers” (mātṛdīkṣā) and [one who has the knowledge]
of the tradition of worship of the four [forms of the goddess] is called
a priest (pūjakaḥ) among the pāraśavas. Such people are recom-
mended for [the performance of] all rites, and they live from the
worship of the Mothers.28
Though presently we have no knowledge of the existence of any other

manuscripts of these two southern Brahmayāmala texts, a study of the
manuscripts presently available to us clearly demonstrates their southern
origin, which is further supported by the correlation of the iconography of

26
BYTriv, p. 3: bahuberaikabereti ucyante mātaro dvidhā | kūṭasthā yā bhaved de-
vī avyaktā mātṛśaktibhiḥ | durgā bhavati yatraiva bhadrakālī tu viśrutā | [...] yatraiva
bhadrakālī syād ekaberam iti smṛtam |.
27
BYTriv, p. 3: kevalā caikabere tu bhadrakālīti viśrutā | saptadhā bahubere vā
mātaraś ceti sarvataḥ | jayārthaṃ śatrunāśārtham ekaberaṃ praśaṃsitam | śānti-
puṣṭikarārthaṃ tu bahuberam udāhṛtam |. Cf. SANDERSON 2007a: 278: “When
Bhadrakālī is isolated (kūṭasthā, ekabera), the cult is for victory and the destruction
of enemies. When she is worshipped together with the Mothers (bahubera) the cult’s
purpose is the quelling of dangers and the restoration of well-being.”
28
BYTriv, p. 27: mātṛdīkṣākramopetaṃ caturyāgavidhāgamam | pūjakas tv iti vikhyātaṃ
saṃjño (sic) pāravaśātmanām | praśastāḥ sarvakāryāṇāṃ mātṛpūjopajīvakāḥ |.
S.A.S. SARMA 547
the goddess described in these manuscripts with the surviving South Indian
images of Bhadrakālī.
We also noticed that these two southern Brahmayāmalas prescribe the
installation and worship of the Mothers for the monarch’s victory over his
enemies (śatrunāśa) and the protection of his kingdom from danger, which
indeed must have encouraged monarchs to establish temples devoted to the
Mothers. Among these temples, the Kolārammā Temple in the Noḷam-
bavāḍi of Karnataka merits special attention, since here we find two Tamil
inscriptions containing indications of rituals to be performed in the temple
that are discussed in the Brahmayāmala text of Pondicherry.
The Kolārammā Temple of Kōlār

and the southern Brahmayāmala texts
The Kolārammā Temple must have been in existence at least from the time
of the Colas, as can be seen from its inscriptions dating from 1030 CE.
Among the several Tamil inscriptions found in the Kolārammā Temple,
two inscriptions (Epigraphia Carnatica 10, KI 108 and 106d) are dated29 in
the second regnal year of Kō-Rājakesaravarma (alias Rājendracoladeva),
the Cola king Kulottuṅga I (1071/1072 CE). These give the provisions for
the funding of the Kolārammā Temple of the goddess, detailing the yearly
allowances for the staff, including a teacher of grammar and of “Yāmala,”
the offerings for the deities, and the various ceremonies.30 As we see in the
inscription, there is a teacher appointed to teach the Yāmala texts. This
constitutes evidence that the Yāmala texts were known in this area and
encourages us to assume that the southern Yāmala text that we now know
might have been composed in this area. Moreover, as SANDERSON (2007a:
277, n. 140) observes,31 this detailed inscription accords precisely with the
texts of the southern Brahmayāmala. We find in it details of the temple
ceremonies that were performed in the Kolārammā Temple, including the
special rituals, such as the kujavārabali (BYIFP pp. 100–102), mātṛśānti
(BYIFP pp. 75–83), and yoginīyogeśvarapūjā. Also the offering of an alco-
holic drink (matiyapāna) and of a goat during the kujavārabali, both spe-

29
In fact, only the first one is dated, but the second seems to be a continuation of
the first.
30
See also SANDERSON 2014: 41 and 2007a: 277.
31
See also COX 2016.

cific to the Yāmala text preserved in Pondicherry, are some of the rituals
mentioned by the inscription.
The Mātṛtantra texts that are produced in Kerala
Though we are only aware of two southern Brahmayāmala texts – one in

Pondicherry and the other one in Kerala, both incomplete – there are texts
produced in Kerala that treat the worship of the Mothers and are based on
the southern Yāmala texts we have discussed, especially the Mātṛsadbhāva
and the three chapters of the Śeṣasamuccaya. Of these two, the
Mātṛsadbhāva merits special attention, since it is a ritual manual entirely
devoted to the worship of the Mothers.
The Mātṛsadbhāva
The Mātṛsadbhāva,32 a Kerala text, is, as described by its author, a sum-

mary of the rituals found in the various Yāmala texts. It provides a detailed
South Indian tradition of temple-based Yāmala worship and presents a
complete and properly organised account of the cult of Mothers.
Having offered obeisance to my guru, Gaṇeśa, Durgā, and the

Kṣetrapāla, I shall declare this Tantra under the name Mātṛsadbhāva.
I have examined the Yāmalas and will now, as far as I am able, make
a summary of their essentials for the benefit of mankind. Even
Brahmā is not able to understand these [texts] that have come forth in
various forms from the lotus that is the mouth of Śiva. How much
less can such as I?33

32
There are two palm-leaf manuscripts of the Mātṛsadbhāva in Malayalam script
bearing the nos. 1017-A and 1017-B as well as a transcript in Devanāgarī script bea-
ring no. T. 792 (copy of ms. 1017A?) in the Trivandrum Manuscripts Library. There
is a paper manuscript (ms. MT 5126) in Grantha script in the Government Oriental
Manuscript Library in Chennai. See also New Catalogus Catalogorum, vol. XX
(DASH 2011: 59).
33
MSBhTriv, p. 1: praṇamya ca guruṃ vighnaṃ durgāṃ ca kṣetrapālakam |
mātṛsadbhāvanāmnā ca tantram etat pravakṣyate | yāmalāni samālocya sva-
sāmarthyānurūpataḥ | jagaddhitāya cāsmābhiḥ kriyate sārasaṃgrahaḥ | tānīśvara-
mukhāmbhojasamudgīrṇāny anekadhā | brahmaṇāpi na śakyāni jñātuṃ kimuta
mādṛśaiḥ |, translation SANDERSON 2014: 51.
S.A.S. SARMA 549
The author of the Mātṛsadbhāva also informs us that there is no text that
provides a complete and properly organised account of the cult of the Mothers:
Śiva did not teach [all] the rituals for the worship of the Mothers in
those Tantras in one [place]. The reason for this I do not know.
Therefore †...† I shall teach them in summarised form in their proper
order.34
Like other Paddhati texts of Kerala,35 the Mātṛsadbhāva follows the tradi-
tion of arranging the chapters beginning with the qualifications of the
ācārya and concluding with the jīrṇoddhāra, the removal of a cult-image
that is old and used.36 However, the manuscripts we now have of the
Mātṛsadbhāva breaks off while describing the jīrṇoddhāra.
The text deals with the following topics:
Those learned in Tantras teach the following as the order [of the top-
ics]: qualities of the teacher, purification of the ground, the sequence
of [rites making up] the incubation †…†, the manner of performing
the worship of the site (vāstuyāga), then the characteristics of tem-
ples, the placing of the [first] brick, thereafter the placing of conse-
cration-deposits (garbhādhānam), the characteristics of images, then
the rules for initiation, the rules for the planting of [prognosticatory]
germinated seeds, bali, and the worship in that place itself, the steep-
ing of the idols in water and the cleaning of them, and also the se-
quence of [rites making up] the incubation of the idols, the deposit-
ing of precious stones, the characteristics of an installation, the rules
for worship, bathing, and the sequence for [the performance of] fes-
tivals, the procession for the bath at a sacred site, then the bathing
and the removal [and replacement] of worn idols.37

34
MSBhTriv p. 1–2, edition by SANDERSON 2007a: 278, n. 143: naikatra teṣu sampro-
ktāḥ kriyās tantreṣu śambhunā | mātṛyāgaṃ samuddiśya na jānīmo ’tra kāraṇam | ta-
smād †āpajya tāḥ kartuṃ kriyā lokeṣu naiṣṭikāḥ† | anukrameṇa vakṣyante saṃgraheṇa
yathāvidhi |.
35
Such as the Śaivāgamanibandhana and the Prayogamañjarī.
36
MSBhTriv, p. 2: ācāryalakṣaṇādyan tu jīrṇoddhārāvasānakam | anukramam iti
prāhur asmin tantre vicakṣaṇāḥ |. “The sequence [of topics] in this Tantra, the ex-
perts say, begins with the qualities of a teacher and ends with the replacement of a
worn-out [idol].”
37
MSBhTriv p. 2, edition by SANDERSON 2014: 51, n. 191: ācāryalakṣaṇañ caiva

The above-mentioned topics are discussed in 28 chapters; the final chapter

is the one on the jīrṇoddhāra and is, as mentioned, incomplete. Neverthe-
less perhaps not much has been lost, since the above summary of topics
provided by the author clearly shows that we are missing only a part of the
final chapter on the jīrṇoddhāra.
The Mātṛsadbhāva in its fifth chapter provides a detailed description of
the installation of the Mothers as well as of Bhadrakālī and mentions that
the installation procedures are prescribed according to the Brahmayāmala:
Now, [I] will succinctly describe the ekavīrī icon as taught by the
Supreme Lord in the Brahmayāmala.38
Among the other topics discussed in the text, the procedure for initiation is
provided in chapter 6. Like the other Kerala texts, the Mātṛsadbhāva indi-
cates the importance of initiation as a qualification for performing an
installation:
[The ācārya] should perform an initiation (dīkṣāṃ) with due efforts

for the authority to use mantras, [to perform] the installation of im-
ages of gods, especially for the removal [and replacement] of worn
[idols].39
Chapter 18 provides a detailed account of the pūjā of the Mothers, separate-

ly giving the details of the deities surrounding (āvaraṇa) the Seven Moth-
ers, Gaṇeśa and Vīrabhadra. Chapter 19 narrates the installation of the tri-
dent and goes on to give the details of the war fought between goddesses
and Ruru.

pṛthivyāś ca viśodhanam | adhivāsakraman †tāsā† ++++++++ | vastuyāgavidhānañ
ca tataḥ prāsādalakṣaṇam | ādhānam iṣṭakāyāś ca garbhādhānam anantaram |
pratimālakṣaṇañ caiva dīkṣākalpam ataḥ param | bījāropaṇakalpañ ca baliṃ tatrai-
va pūjanā | jalādhivāsaṃ bimbānān teṣāñ caiva viśodhanam | adhivāsakramaṃ
tāsāṃ pratimānāṃ tathaiva ca | ratnanyāsavidhānañ ca pratiṣṭhālakṣaṇaṃ tathā |
arcanāya vidhānañ ca snapanaṃ cotsavakramam | tīrthābhiṣekagamanaṃ snapanañ
cāpy anantaram | jīrṇoddhārañ ca tantrajñāḥ prāhur evam anukramam |.
38
MSBhTriv, p. 26: athaikavīrīṃ pratimāṃ pravakṣyāmi samāsataḥ | brahmayā-
malatantreṣu yathoktaṃ parameṣṭhinā |.
39
MSBhTriv, p. 45: devabimbapratiṣṭhāyāṃ jīrṇoddhāre viśeṣataḥ | mantrādhikā-
re ca tathā dīkṣāṃ kuryāt prayatnataḥ |.
S.A.S. SARMA 551
As Sanderson observes “the Mātṛsadbhāva differs primarily not only in

its lucid and generally correct Sanskrit but also in its extensive expurgation
of most of the strongly Kāpālika elements of this tradition while in spite of
this recalling the tradition’s roots in Atimārga III, by, for example, describ-
ing the officiant as ‘one who has mastered the Somasiddhānta.’”40 We also
see that this text “relates the myth of the conquest of the Daitya enemies of
the gods by Cāmuṇḍā/Karṇamoṭī and the other Mothers at Koṭivarṣa in the
far north of Bengal, that of the origin of that site’s sacred Pool of the Tri-
dent (Śūlakuṇḍa) and the drinking of its water, the granting of the boon to
the Mothers as the reward for their victory that those who worship them
with devotion will attain whatever siddhi they desire and salvation at death,
and the presence there with the Mothers of Śiva as Hetukeśvara.”41 We also
see the reference to Koṭivarṣa in the ritual process that is described in the
Mātṛsadbhāva, such as in the context of the ablutions (abhiṣeka) of the
deity to be performed on the fourth day after its installation, where the text
prescribes to install pots filled with water that represent the sacred sites
including the Koṭivarṣa.
Even though in its ritual prescriptions we do not find the name of Ruru-
jit (“conqueror of Ruru”) as the primary deity, the text does speak of the
Dānava Ruru (or Rurutva) being defeated by the goddess and as beneath
her foot, pieced by her trident.42
Certain rituals prescribed in the Mātṛsadbhāva seem to be similar to
those that are performed in the Bhadrakālī temples in Kerala, for example,
the bali offerings in the Piṣārikāvu and in the Kodungallur Temple.
Kāvutīṇḍal, a famous public ritual unique to the Kodungallur Temple,
which we will discuss shortly, may carry an echo of the propitiatory obla-
tions prescribed in the Mātṛsadbhāva that are offered in the nearby village
of a temple (grāmabali).43
This text must have been composed before the fifteenth century since it
is referred to as the principal authority for the worship of Rurujit-Cāmuṇḍā
and the Mothers by Śaṅkaran Nampūtiri, commentator of the Śeṣa-
samuccaya, another ritual manual which we will discuss below.

40
SANDERSON 2014: 51.
41
SANDERSON 2014: 51–52; see also MSBhTriv p. 138–149. For a detailed
description of the myth of the conquest of the Daitya enemies of the gods by Cāmu-
ṇḍā/Karṇamoṭī, see SKKB 171.78–137.
42
Cf. MSBhTriv, pp. 28–29.
43
Cf. MSBhTriv, p. 178.

The Śeṣasamuccaya
Among the southern texts based on the Brahmayāmala, the Śeṣasamuccaya

attributed to Śaṅkara44 occupies a prominent place. It is in the
Śeṣasamuccaya that Bhadrakālī in the form of Rurujit seems to have been
introduced as a principal deity, while in its source, the Mātṛsadbhāva, as
we have discussed, she is not mentioned as the principal deity.
The Śeṣasamuccaya provides rituals pertaining to deities such as
Brahmā, Āditya, Kubera, Śrīkṛṣṇa, Sarasvatī, Lakṣmī, Gaurī, Jyeṣṭhā,
Bhadrakālī, the Mātṛs, Kṣetrapāla, Bṛhaspati, and Indra as well as other
lords of the quarters:
Let these pleased deities --- such as Brahmā, Arka, Vaiśravaṇa,

Kṛṣṇa, Sarasvatī, Śrī, Gaurī, Jyeṣṭhā, also Kalī [and] the Mothers,
Kṣetrādhipa, then such forms as Rurujit and Girīśa, [and] also Indra
and the other [guardian deities of directions] --- bestow upon me,
who bows down [before them], what I desire.45

44
While some of the historians of Kerala, such as RĀJARĀJAVARMA (21997:
III.486–487), attribute the authorship of the Śeṣasamuccaya to one Kṛṣṇaśarma, pupil
of Cennas Narayanan Namputiri, others such as PARAMESWARA IYER (51990: II.73–
74), NARAYANA PILLAI (1951: iii–v), and MADHAVAN (n.d.: 26) confirm that Śaṅka-
ra, son of the author of the Kerala ritual manual, the Tantrasamuccaya, is the author
of the Śeṣasamuccaya.
45
ŚS 1.1: brahmārkavaiśravaṇakṛṣṇasarasvatīśrīgauryagrajā dadatu kāly api
mātaro me | kṣetrādhipo ’tha rurujid giriśādirūpāṇīndrādayo ’pi namate ’bhimataṃ
prasannāḥ |. The identification of the deities follows the commentary, see Vimarśinī
ad ŚS, p. 1: kās tā devatā ityāha --- brahmārkavaiśravaṇakṛṣṇasarasvatīśrīgaurya-
grajāḥ, brahmā prasiddhaḥ, arkaḥ sūryaḥ, vaiśravaṇas sa eva, kṛṣṇo gośālasthaḥ
kṛṣṇaḥ, sarasvatīśrīgauryaḥ prasiddhāḥ, agrajā jyeṣṭhā, kālī bhadrakālī, mātaro
vīrabhadragaṇapatisahitāḥ prasiddhā eva, kṣetrādhipaḥ kṣetrapālaḥ, apiśabdaḥ
samuccayārthaḥ. atha rurujid giriśādirūpāṇi. rurujid iti rurunāmno daityasya hantrī
bhadrakālī, giriśaḥ śivaḥ, ādiśabdena tatratyā mātaraḥ kṣetrapālaś ca tadrūpāṇi
daivatāni. indrādayaḥ svaprādhānyena sthāpanīyā lokapālāḥ. apiśabdo ’trāpi sa-
muccayārthaḥ. atra brahmādikṣetrapālāntānāṃ tantrāṇi ṣaḍbhiḥ paṭalair abhidhāya
saptamādipaṭalair rurujidādīnāṃ tantrāṇi vakṣyāmīti madhyasthasyāthaśabdasyā-
rthaḥ. “[The text] tells us which deities these are – brahmārkavaiśravaṇakṛṣṇasara-
svatīśrīgauryagrajā: Brahmā is the well-known [deity of that name]; Arka is the sun;
Vaiśravaṇa is himself [Kubera]; Kṛṣṇa is the Dark One who resides in a cow-pen;
Sarasvatī, Śrī, and Gaurī are the well-known [deities of those names]; Agrajā is
Jyeṣṭhā; Kālī is Bhadrakālī; the Mothers are the well-known [Seven Goddesses],
along with Vīrabhadra and Gaṇapati; Kṣetrādhipa is [Bhairava as] the protector of
S.A.S. SARMA 553
Chapters 7, 8, and 9 of the Śeṣasamuccaya are devoted to distinctive rituals

of the rare cult of the goddess Rurujit. The principal authority used by the
author of the Śeṣasamuccaya to describe the rituals of Rurujit is the
Mātṛsadbhāva, as is indicated by Śaṅkaran in his commentary on the
Śeṣasamuccaya:
Explaining the ritual procedure taught in such scriptures as the

Mātṛsadbhāva in order to show how Śiva, Ekaberī [Bhadra-
kālī/Cāmuṇḍā], the Mothers, and the Kṣetrapāla are to be installed
simultaneously in a single temple (...).46
Some scholars47 claim that the ritual procedures followed for the worship of
Rurujit (rurujidvidhāna) embodies the Kashmirian concepts of
Kālasaṃkarṣiṇī and the Mahārtha (Krama) tradition of Kālī worship. But a
detailed study of the rurujidvidhāna in the Śeṣasamuccaya makes it clear
that there are no traces of Kālasaṃkarṣiṇī and the Mahārtha in the
Śeṣasamuccaya.48
Other texts on rurujidvidhāna
The Rurujidvidhānapūjāpaddhati, a prose text in Sanskrit available in the

Government Oriental Manuscript Library (GOML), Chennai (ms. R 3365),

the sacred site; the word api is used in the sense of addition (samuccayārthaḥ); then
(atha) such forms as Rurujit and Giriśa. Rurujit is the conqueror of the demon called
Ruru, i.e., Bhadrakālī; Girīśa is Śiva; the expression ‘and others’ (ādiśabdena) deno-
tes the Mothers that are there, as well as Kṣetrapāla and other divinities that have
such forms; Indra and others (indrādayaḥ) are the protectors of the eight directions,
to be installed in accordance with their [respective direction of] dominance; here too
the word api is used as [a conjunction] expressing addition. The word atha placed in
the middle expresses the [following] idea: ‘here, having spoken about the teachings
relating to the deities beginning with Brahmā and going up to Kṣetrapāla in six
paṭalas, I will speak about the teachings of Rurujit and others from the seventh on-
wards.’”
46
Vimarśinī ad ŚS 7.1: śivaikaverīmātṛkṣetrapālānāṃ yaugapadyenaikāsminn
āyatane sthāpanapradarśanārthaṃ mātṛsadbhāvādyāgamoktakriyākramaṃ vadan
(...), translation SANDERSON 2014: 51, n. 193.
47
Cf. VAMANAN (n.d.), Introduction to ŚeṣasamuccayaTV (p. 7), and JAYA-
SHANKAR 2001: 28.
48
See also SARMA 2009: 335.

might be a prose version of the chapters on Rurujit of the Śeṣasamuccaya,

but a close study of the text will be required to ascertain this.
There is also a ritual manual in Malayalam that was recently published
by the Tantravidyāpīṭha of Kerala, a prose version of the chapters on Ruru-
jit from the Śeṣasamuccaya, entitled Rurujidvidhānavuṃ bahubera-
vidhānavum, “Regulations for the worship of Rurujit and also [that of Ru-
rujit] with many idols.” It is also worth mentioning here that the Shripuram
Tantra Research Center, Trichur District, Kerala, is working on a detailed
ritual manual on Rurujit, which is expected to be published soon.
Apart from these texts, there are several minor ones that describe the in-
stallation of and rituals pertaining to Bhadrakālī. Though these works might
not have been based on the southern Brahmayāmala texts, in these ritual
manuals we see a continuity of the Brahmayāmala tradition.
Worship of Rurujit
As we have seen, it is in the Śeṣasamuccaya that Bhadrakālī in the form of
Rurujit seems to have been introduced as a principal deity, while in its
source, the Mātṛsadbhāva, she is not mentioned as the principal deity. But
the Mātṛsadbhāva describes how Dānava Ruru, or Rurutva, was defeated
by the goddess and lies under her foot pieced by her trident:
Having this form, the Mother of the Universe (jadgaddhātrī), after

felling the demon Ruru and piercing his heart with the trident, fixed
her gaze on his face. […] As if touching the demon with the tip of
her left foot.49
Seeing the [other] demons slain, the Ruru (rurutvaḥ) puffed up with
pride over his strength (baladarpitaḥ), turned his face to her and
fought fiercely. […] This great demon Ruru (rurutvaḥ) pierced the
earth and went below.50
The Śeṣasamuccaya in its seventh chapter prescribes how the temple of

Rurujit should be constructed:

49
MSBhTriv p. 28: evaṃrūpā jagaddhātrī nipātya rurudānavam | bhittvā śūlena
hṛdayaṃ mukhe tasyārpitekṣaṇā | […] vāmapādāgrabhāgena spṛśantīm iva dānavam |.
50
MSBhTriv p. 143: asurān ghātitān dṛṣṭvā rurutvo baladarpitaḥ | tasyās tv abhi-
mukho bhūtvā yodhayām āsa dāruṇam | […] rurutvo ’sau mahādaityo bhūmiṃ bhi-
ttvā hy adho gataḥ |.
S.A.S. SARMA 555
Here, [in the worship of Rurujit], an independent [temple of] Śiva

(smarajit) will face east; in front [of him] to the south Cāmuṇḍā,
separate (bhinnā), will be facing the west. Alternatively, [Cāmuṇḍā]
will face east (namuciripudigāsyā)51 without accompanying deities
(niraṅgā). To the south of Lord [Śiva] or to that of [Cāmuṇḍā], there
may be [Seven] Mothers facing north, along with accompanying dei-
ties. Alternatively, she may be placed, according to this system (iha),
to the east of the [Seven Mothers], together with attendants (sāṅgā),
or all the [Seven] Mothers [together with Cāmuṇḍā] may be placed
separately to the south-east [of Śiva].52
In the temples that are devoted to Rurujit, such as the Kodungallur Temple
in the Trichur District and the Kollam Piṣārikāvu in the Calicut District of
Kerala, we see a slightly different arrangement: Śiva is installed facing
east; on the southern side facing north or east is Rurujit; on the eastern side
of Rurujit facing north are the Seven Mothers, Vīrabhadra and Ganeśa; and
on the north-eastern corner, Kṣetrapāla. In some temples Rurujit is also
installed along with the Mothers.
The seventh chapter of the Śeṣasamuccaya discusses in detail the conse-
cration rituals that pertain to a temple for Rurujit, and its eighth chapter
describes at length the daily rituals that are to be performed. This chapter
includes the visualisation of Rurujit:53

51
See Vimarśinī ad ŚS 7.2: athavā tatraiva namuciripudigāsyā pūrvābhimukhā
niraṅgā syāt.
52
Śeṣasamuccaya 7.2: syāt prāgāsyaḥ svatantraḥ smarajid iha puro dakṣiṇe
paścimāsyā | cāmuṇḍā syāc ca bhinnā namuciripudigāsyā niraṃgaiva vātha | de-
vasyāsyās tu vā yāmyadiśi śaśidigāsyā jananyo ’pi sāṅgās | tatprāk sā veha
sāṅgānaladiśi nikhilā mātaro veha bhinnāḥ |. In comparison, in the Mātṛsadbhāva
(MSBhTriv p. 55) we see three types of installations prescribed for Bhadrakālī, na-
mely, sāṅga (Bhadrakālī facing north), niraṅga (Bhadrakālī facing east), and bhinnā
(Bhadrakālī facing west). The Śeṣasamuccaya prescribes two additional options,
namely, the north facing Bhadrakālī together with the Seven Mothers and Bhadrakālī
together with the Mothers placed in the southeast of Śiva.
53
According to the Brahmayāmala (BYIFP p. 28), Bhadrakālī is visualised as ha-
ving several hands that hold respectively a skull, a trident, a staff with a skull at the
top (khaḍvāṅga), a shield, a bell, a sacred drum (ḍamaru), and a noose. AJITHAN
(2015: 11) points out that the Mūssads (cf. p. 546 below) of the Vaḷayanāḍu temple
visualise Bhadrakālī as it is described in the Bhadrakālīmantravidhiprakaraṇa
(SANDERSON 2007a: 266–268) of the Paippalādins, holding [on the right] a trident,
an elephant-goad, an arrow, and a sword and [on the left] a vessel filled with blood, a

May she always protect you, [she] who stands on [the corpse of] Śi-
va, who is radiant with a diadem on her head that coruscates with a
fragment of the emblem that is the moon, who holds in her lotus-
hands a noose and hook, a trident and a skull, who is decorated with
a garland of fresh heads, who has three eyes, who wears red unguents
and clothes, who is bright with all [manner of] ornaments, [and] who
is dark in colour, [namely] Śivā [= Bhadrakāḷī].54
The Śeṣasamuccaya also gives another option for the visualisation as an

alternative to the above, and we find the same visualisation in the
Mātṛsadbhāva (MSBhTriv, pp. 26-27):
I venerate Mahābhairavi, who at once wove a garland with the blood-

dripping skins of the heads of demons who had come to battle [with
her] and carefully (sādaram) arranges it as an upper garment, and
who holds in her hands a shield, a skull, a snake, a great bell, the
head of the Asura (śubhaṃkārikā), a skull-topped staff (khaṭvāṅga),
a trident (triśikhā), and a sword (anasi).55
This is the form we mostly see in Rurujit temples in Kerala. In this form,
she uses her hands, smeared with the demon’s blood, to put on the garland
made of the heads of demons, which then resembles her upper garment; she
holds in her hands a shield (kheḍa), a skull (kapāla), a snake (pannaga), a
bell (mahāghaṇṭā), the head of the Asura (śubhaṃkārikā), a staff with a
skull at the top (khaḍvāṅga), a trident (triśikhā), and a sword (anasi).
In its eighth chapter, the Śeṣasamuccaya introduces the samayavidyā for
the recitation once all the nyāsas – the emplacement of the mantras on the

noose, a bow, and a shield.
54
ŚS 8.50: śambhusthā śaśalakṣmakhaṇḍavilasat koṭīracūḍojjvalā | bibhrāṇā ka-
rapaṅkajair guṇasṛṇī śūlaṃ kapālaṃ tathā | muṇḍasrakparimaṇḍitā trinayanā
raktāṅgarāgāṃśukā | sarvālaṅkaraṇojjvalā śitinibhā vaḥ pātu nityaṃ śivā |. The
Vimarśinī on ŚS 8.50 reads thus: śambhusthā śambhurūpapretāsanasthā guṇasṛṇī
pāśam aṅkuśaṃ ca muṇḍasrakparimaṇḍitā uttamāṅgarūpābhiḥ mālābhiḥ parito
maṇḍitā śitinibhā śyāmavarṇā.
55
ŚS 8.51: sadyaḥ saṅkarasaṃgatāsuraśiraḥśreṇībhir āsrolbaṇair | ābadhya
srajam uttarīyam anayā saṃbibhratīṃ sādaram | dorbhiḥ kheṭakapālapannagama-
hāghaṇṭāśubhaṃkārikā | khaṭvāṅgatriśikhānasiṃ ca dadhatīṃ vande mahā-
bhairavīm |. The Vimarśinī on ŚS 8.51 reads thus: sadyaḥ saṅgareti. sadya eva yu-
ddhāya samāgatānām asurāṇāṃ śironivahaiḥ rudhiradigdhaiḥ srajam ābadhyānayā
sādaram uttarīyaṃ bibhratīm.
S.A.S. SARMA 557
body – are completed and also for certain other occasions, though the man-
tra described seems to be incomplete.56 In the ninth chapter of the
Śeṣasamuccaya, we find a detailed description of the festivals that are to be
conducted in the temple of Rurujit.
Even though offerings of meat are prescribed in the rituals by the
Śeṣasamuccaya, in practice only symbolic meat is offered. For example,
while giving the details of the rice to be offered to the Mothers, the text men-
tions māṃsaudana for Vārāhī, which the Malayalam commentator of the
Śeṣasamuccaya explains as an offering representing the meat (māṃsa): “For
Vārāhi, rice mixed with meat - [rice] mixed with sweet pudding (vatsan) that
represents the meat […],”57 meaning a rice cake mixed with jaggery.
Kerala temple priests

The Nampūtiri Brahmins are mostly found in Kerala temples as the offici-
ating priests for the daily rituals as well as the tantris or chief-priests, who
are in control of the performance of special rituals such as festivals, conse-
crations, etc.58 Even though these Nampūtiris also perform rituals in the
Bhadrakālī temples, in certain selected temples of Rurujit, we find mem-
bers of a non-Nampūtiri communities as priests. It may be worth noting
here that according to the southern Brahmayāmala texts the priests of a
Bhadrakālī temple must be non-Brahmins, known as pāraśava.59
Even though the Kerala Mātṛtantra texts, the Mātṛsadbhāva or
Śeṣasamuccaya, do not mention non-Brahmin priests carrying out the wor-
ship of Bhadrakālī or Rurujit, we see that there are three particular non-
Nampūtiri communities that are involved in the worship of Rurujit.

56
Cf. AJITHAN 2015: 15. For a detailed discussion on the samayavidyā, see
SANDERSON 2007b: 307–308, n. 247.
57
ŚSTV p. 247: vārāhikku māṃsodanam-māṃsa pratinidhiyāya ’vatsaniṭṭat […].
58
While the early ritual manuals of Kerala, such as the Śaivāgamanibandhana
and the Prayogamañjarī, insist that a Tantric initiation be undergone if a priest is to
be qualified to perform temple rituals and also prescribe the initiation (dīkṣā), the
latter ritual manuals, such as the Tantrasamuccaya, minimise the initiation (dīkṣā)
rituals, prescribing merely an instruction of the principal (mūla) mantra (mantropa-
deśa). For a detailed discussion on this topic, see SARMA 2010.
59
See n. 15 above.

The three different communities

associated with the worship of Rurujit
There are thirteen60 known temples in Kerala devoted to Rurujit. Among

these, in certain selected temples members belonging to three specific com-
munities perform rituals. While the priests of the Kollam Piṣārikāvu and
Vaḷayanāṭukāvu in the Calicut District are of a Mūssad community, the
priests of the Māṭāyikāvu in the Kannur District and Mannampurattukāvu in
Nilesvaram are of a Piṭāra community. In the famous Kodungallur Temple in
the Trichur District of Kerala, the Aṭikaḷ are entitled to perform the rituals. It
is to be noted here that these three groups of communities are considered as
pāraśavas and nowadays often referred to as degraded Brahmins.
The Mūssads
It is believed that a group of Vaiśyas who moved from South Kerala during
the period of Mārtāṇḍavarma of the Travancore Kingdom (1706–1758)
reached Kollam in the Koyilandi area of North Kerala and installed the
Piṣārikāvu Temple devoted to Rurujit. At present, there are eight Vaiśya
families who administer this temple. It is said that Vaiśyas initially per-
formed rituals here, but they appointed a Nampūtiri Brahmin for an im-
proved performance of the rituals. Thus, the rituals that had been performed
by the Vaiśyas underwent some changes, and especially the offering of
liquor and meat was abandoned. Yet, the rituals performed by the Nam-
pūtiri Brahmin made the goddess fiercer and more powerful, and it became
difficult for the devotees to bear this. Hence, the Vaiśyas decided to replace
the Nampūtiri priest, and they engaged the Mūssad community to perform
the temple rituals of the Piṣārikāvu.
The Mūssads are also the priests in the Vaḷayanāṭukāvu61 in Calicut Dis-
trict. These two temples feature the installation of Rurujit as prescribed in
the Śeṣasamuccaya ritual manual. The Mūssads who perform rituals in
these temples also perform a public ritual known as śākteyapūjā in their
homes for the benefit of devotees, where they sacrifice a chicken and offer
it to the deity along with liquor.62

60
GIRISHKUMAR (2012: 3) mentions 13 temples of Rurujit in Kerala. However,
other scholars list even more temples, for instance, BHAT (2013: 18) provides a list of
15 temples, and in a recent paper AJITHAN (2015: 2–3) gives a list of 16 such temples.
61
For a detailed study of the rituals in this temple, see AJITHAN 2015: 5–9.
62
According to AJITHAN (2015: 5), the system of worship of “Mūssad-s is a blend
S.A.S. SARMA 559
The Piṭāras
This community is well-known as worshippers of Bhadrakālī, and the

Māṭāyikāvu Temple of Kannur District, where they perform worship, is one
of the more famous temples of Kerala. It is interesting to note that in Tamil
Nadu the fierce goddess is known as Piṭāri.
The Aṭikaḷ
The Aṭikaḷ63 are a small community and the following is their orally trans-
mitted origin myth: One day, while they were accompanying the great phi-
losopher Śaṅkara, the latter drank liquor to test the fidelity of his followers.
They thought if the ācārya could drink, they could too, and so they drank
the liquor. Śaṅkara then entered a foundry and drank molten metal. After
this he challenged them, saying, “Now, see if you can do all that I can do.”
They apologised to him and were degraded to slaves (aṭiyāḷ).
The priests at Kodungallur come from a family at Pallipuram, more than
50 miles north-east of Kodungallur. According to custom, only the men
alone, without their womenfolk, are allowed to come to Kodungallur, and
men from Aṭikaḷ families marry girls of the local Nayar (non-Brahmin)
families and settle in Kodungallur.
There is also a story behind the settlement of the Aṭikaḷ around the Ko-
dungallur Temple. It is said that there were 101 houses of Nampūtiri Brah-
mins in the vicinity of the Kodungallur Temple. Once, a poor Brahmin

of Krama systems of Kashmir and South Indian Brahmayāmala traditions. What is to
be noted here is that there seems to be two dimensions, i.e. inner and outer, with
regard to the worship of Mūssad-s. The inner dimension consists of worship of their
cultic deities viz., Śrīvidyā, Kālasaṅkarṣiṇī and Parā. The outer realm consists of
worship of Bhadrakālī or Caṇḍakapālinī and Mātṛs along with Vīrabhadra and
Gaṇapati.” However, in order to relate the ritual systems that are followed by Mūs-
sads to the Krama system, the textual materials that are used by Mūssads would need
to be studied, which I have not yet located. SANDERSON (2007a: 277–278) observes
that it is only certain Tantric mantras of Kālīkula that are embedded in the southern
Brahmayāmala texts.
63
INDUCHUDAN (1969: 118) observes thus on the Aṭikaḷ: “They are a very small
community in Kerala. In the division of castes they come as a sub-division of what
are called Antaralas, with Dvijas or twice-born, i.e. Brahmins and Kshatriyas coming
first. They are presumed to be degraded Brahmins, the degradation being the result of
service of meat and liquor or their substitutes in the temples. They officiate as priests
in some shrines.”

approached these houses at night for food, and he was sent from house to
house until finally those living next to the temple suggested he should go
and beg at the doors of the adjacent house, that being the abode of the god-
dess. Unaware that it was a temple, the poor Brahmin asked for alms.
While the goddess provided him with food, she was angry with the Nam-
pūtiri Brahmins who refused to offer the Brahmin food, and so she burned
all the Nampūtiri houses there. Even today there are no houses of Nam-
pūtiri Brahmins near the temple. Since there were no Nampūtiri Brahmins
left to perform the temple rituals, the king of that time brought the Aṭikaḷs
from Pallipuram, north-east of Kodungallur. At present, the Aṭikaḷ have the
right to perform rituals in the Kodungallur Temple, but they appoint Nam-
pūtiri Brahmins for the regular services64 of the temple rituals. The Aṭikaḷ
themselves perform specific rituals only during the festival.
Kodungallur Temple of Rurujit and particular private

and public rituals that take place in this temple
It is said that the Cēra King Ceṅkuṭṭuvaṉ,65 after listening to the story of
Kaṇṇaki, established a temple in his capital to commemorate her martyr-
dom. It is also considered that Iḷaṅkō Aṭikaḷ, the younger brother of
Ceṅkuṭṭuvaṉ, authored the Cilappatikāram at a place close to Kodungallur
town. According to some scholars, when that area was later inhabited by
Buddhist monks, it became a Buddhist temple but then returned to the Hin-
dus during the period of Sāmutiris,66 the rulers of the medieval kingdom of
Kozhikode.
The Kodungallur Temple exhibits some very specific structural features.
A long hall built from granite and divided into three chambers is found on
the inside of the inner complex. Its central chamber is the sanctum sancto-
rum in which Bhadrakālī in the form of Rurujit is installed facing the
northern entrance. In the western chamber, the Seven Mothers along with
Vīrabhadra and Gaṇapati are installed facing north. The most eastern
chamber is very small, without doors or windows, and known as a secret

64
INDUCHUDAN (1969: 287) observes the following: “Nambudiris had practically
no hold in the Kodungallur temple. ... The Atikal who manages the whole affairs and
the Nambudiri priest only acts on his behalf. A Nambudiri priest, as soon as he comes
to Kodungallur, should take technical instructions from the Atikal on the nature of
rituals. ... The Nambudiri has only what is called general practices as his own.”
65
Cf. INDUCHUDAN 1969: 16–17; see also MENON 1924: IV.331–332.
66
Cf. INDUCHUDAN 1969: 165–175.
S.A.S. SARMA 561
chamber in which a śrīcakra is installed. It is believed that this śrīcakra

was installed by Śaṅkara himself. This chamber has a subterranean passage
that leads towards the east and opens to the ground after about 100 yards.
There is also a separate sanctum for Śiva, who faces east, and one for
Kṣetrapāla. The structure of a temple described in the Mātṛsadbhāva and
Śeṣasamuccaya for Bhadrakālī along with the Seven Mothers closely corre-
sponds to the structure of the Kodungallur Temple, with the exception of its
particular secret chamber.
The idol of Bhadrakālī in a sitting posture in the Kodungallur Temple is
made of jackfruit tree wood, about six feet high, and has eight hands, hold-
ing on the right side (top to bottom) a trident, a skull staff (khaṭvāṅga), a
sword, and the severed head of Dāruka and on the left a snake, an anklet, a
shield, and a bell. Her left ear features an elephant earring and the right one
a lion earring.
The festival rituals in this temple too are unique and complicated. It is
not only the structure that accords well with the southern Brahmayāmala
texts, especially the Mātṛsadbhāva, but also certain rituals that are per-
formed in this temple and form part of its unique character. Among these, a
secret ritual known as tṛccandanapoṭicārttal, or “smearing the idol with
holy sandal powder,” and a public ritual known as kāvutīṇṭal, or “polluting
the Kāvu or temple,” are considered of special importance.
In the course of the tṛccandanapoṭicārttal ritual, or “the smearing the
sandal paste,”67 everyone is sent out of the inner temple complex while
three senior members of the Aṭikaḷ community, belonging to three families,
enter the sanctum and perform rituals that run for several hours. The details
of these are unknown, and according to the tradition only those who per-
form the ritual know how it is to be done. The details of the ritual will be
passed on to a new member only when required. This means when the rep-
resentative of one family dies, his place will be taken by the next member
of the family, and it is only then that this newcomer will learn the ritual. It
is obviously believed68 that the Goddess was wounded after the war and
required special medication, so the “smearing the sandal paste” is consid-
ered a treatment of the wounds.

67
For a detailed description of this ritual, see INDUCHUDAN 1969: 105–106,
GENTES 1992: 303, TARABOUR 1986: 374–377.
68
This fact was also mentioned to me by a senior member of one of the three fa-
milies who participate in the Kodungallur temple rituals and whom I was able to
meet in November 2014.

This ritual is followed by the kāvutīṇṭal ritual, or “the polluting of the

temple,” in which thousands of members of several communities partici-
pate, including lower castes but no Brahmins. It is worthy of note that
cocks are sacrificed for almost a week prior to this ritual, and there are
symbolic offerings of cocks following the kāvutīṇṭal ritual as well. As soon
as the ritual of “smearing the sandal paste” is completed, everyone within
the inner precincts leaves, and the doors all around are locked. The valiya
or “senior” royal member of Kodungallur then mounts the eastern portico
of the temple and spreads out a green coloured umbrella. The moment the
green umbrella is spread, the crowd, consisting of the oracle (veliccappāḍ)
who carries swords and the devotees who carry small sticks, runs around
the temple and pollutes it by touching it. In the meanwhile, the devotees
dance and sing obscene songs, known as bharaṇipāṭṭu.69 These are a set of
songs, some of which have an explicit sexual content while others praise
every aspect of the Goddess, especially her sexuality. This is followed by
purification rituals before the regular daily rituals begins. In this kāvutīṇṭal
ritual, we see that the communities that include the higher royal family
members as well as lower castes70 are involved.
Even though it may not be easy to explain why such a ritual is per-
formed,71 we see an echo of the above-mentioned practices during the bali
offering that is described in the Mātṛsadbhāva. During this bali procession,
the devotees are asked to carry small sticks and the men are asked to partic-

69
For a detailed discussion on this ritual, see INDUCHUDAN 1969: 128–142,
TARABOUR 1986: 374–376, GENTES 1992, and RADHAKRISHNAN 2013.
70
According to RADHAKRISHNAN (2013: 205–206), “the [kāvutīṇṭal] festival fea-
tures Nairs and members from the royal family, it is largely a festival that is celebra-
ted by the lower castes. The main castes that participate are the Vannans, the Mann-
ans, the Pulayas and the Thiyas.”
71
Some observe that this ritual was performed to get rid of the Buddhist nuns who
had taken control of the temple once upon a time. RADHAKRISHNAN (2013: 208)
notes “the [Kodungallur] temple could have been a Buddhist shrine to begin with. ...
Buddhists in Kerala did not build too many stupas or other structures. They choose to
conduct several of their meetings in the open air, in small groves, or kavus. The
Kodungallur temple is also known as the Sri Kurumba Kavu. The kavu teendal ce-
remony at the Bharani then may have originated as a brahminical move to usurp the
Buddhist shrine.” RADHAKRISHNAN (2013: 208) also points to observations of
SADASIVAN (2000) and GENTES (1992), and he states that “they believed the Hindus
in the area [Kodungallur] threw meat and alcohol into the Buddhist monasteries to
desecrate the sacred space of Buddhist shrines and also harassed the Buddhist monks
and nuns by hurling sexually explicit abuses at them.”
S.A.S. SARMA 563
ipate well-dressed and ornamented, resembling the practice that is presently

followed in the contexts of the kāvutīṇṭal ritual in the Kodungallur Temple:
Prominent men who are vigilant should be placed in front, [each]

holding a bamboo stick that is straight, long, light and firm, and also
at the sides, for protection, especially during the bali offering. Out-
side of them on all sides (paritaḥ) guards should process (gaccheyuḥ)
while playing about (krīḍantaḥ); [these should be] youth who are
fearless and strong, specially dressed, well-trained, with swords in
their hands.72
The text further instructs to send away Brahmins, women, and children
during the bali offering, and it also prescribes ways to behave while partic-
ipating in the procession:
Brahmins as well as women and especially the children should be

removed [from that area] since they would be conducive to faults
(doṣa). […]
Along with the great noise of the crowd (janaśabdena) and the
mixed sound produced by the instruments [and also] with different
auspicious materials, [the crowd] while playing and waving (the
arms) and gaping †...†73
A more detailed study of the rituals that are performed in the Kodungallur
Temple will be necessary in the future to compare these with the rituals that
are prescribed in the southern Mātṛtantra texts.
Can a Brahmin perform bali? Ritual beyond

ritual manuals
We have seen that according to the southern Brahmayāmala texts, the
priests of the Bhadrakālī temple must be non-Brahmins. But now let us turn

72
MSBhTriv p. 178: pradhānapuruṣān agre kalpayed apramādinaḥ | veṇu-
daṇḍamṛjuṃ dīrghaṃ pragṛhya ca laghuṃ dṛḍham | pārśvadvaye ca rakṣārthaṃ
balidāne viśeṣataḥ | tadbāhye rakṣakās tatra yuvāno bhayavarjitāḥ | alaṅkṛtā
viśeṣeṇa khaḍgahastās suśikṣitāḥ | gaccheyuḥ paritas tatra krīḍanto balasaṃyutāḥ |.
73
MSBhTriv p. 178: brāhmaṇānān tathā strīṇāṃ śiśūnāñ ca viśeṣataḥ | niṣkṛtiṃ
kārayet teṣāṃ yathā doṣānurūpataḥ | and MSBhTriv p. 180: mahatā janaśabdena
†kṣvelā†sphoṭanajṛmbhitaiḥ | nānātūryavimiśraiś ca nānāśobhāsamanvitam |.

to a public ritual conducted in a Durgā temple that differs from what is

taught in ritual manuals, a case in which the bali offering is performed by a
Brahmin.
There is a temple of Durgā situated in the fort area of Trivandrum, Kera-
la, close to the Śrī Padmanābhasvāmī Temple. This temple is patronised by
the Travancore royal family and is unique with respect to several features
when compared to other Kerala temples. It neither has a flag-mast nor does
it host any annual temple festival. While the daily rituals are performed by
a Nampūtiri Brahmin according to the Kerala ritual manual Tantra-
samuccaya, the right to hold the position of the chief priest (or tantri) rests
with a Tamil Brahmin family who claims it as a hereditary right. It is worth
noting that the fort area of Trivandrum is inhabited by several Tamil Brah-
min families, most of whom have migrated from the Tirunelveli and Na-
gerkovil areas, which were once part of the Travancore kingdom.
A three-day public ritual is conducted in this temple every year during the
month of māgha (February–March), and the rituals are organised and per-
formed by Tamil Brahmins who have settled around the fort area. Our main
interest here is the bali offering that takes place on the third day of this ritual
sequence. In this ritual, at night a group of Tamil Brahmins sings songs in
Tamil in praise of Bhadrakālī. The one designated to perform the bali ritual
becomes possessed, receives the sword from the temple, and leaves the tem-
ple in a procession together with drum players to walk around a 15-kilometer
radius of the temple and make bali offerings in eight directions, with the
principal bali being offered in a cremation ground. Early the next day, the
procession reaches the pond of the Śrī Padmanābhasvāmī Temple, takes an
auspicious bath (maṅgalasnāna), and then returns to the temple. While we
have previously seen that the Mātṛsadbhāva states to send away the Brah-
mins from the area of bali offerings, here a bali is offered by a Brahmin and
takes place in a cremation ground.
The ritual that goes beyond communities:

Āṯṯukāl Poṅgāla, a ritual that takes place in a
Bhadrakālī Temple in Trivandrum
In Trivandrum, the capital city of Kerala, there is a temple of Bhadrakālī,
known there as Attukal Amma (Mother). In this temple, the Goddess in the
form of Bhadrakālī, the primary deity, is installed facing north and Śiva
facing west. This temple is well-known today, although it might not have a
long history. During its annual festival on the ninth day of the month
S.A.S. SARMA 565
māgha, more than four million women of several communities and classes
line the streets with pots to cook porridge as their offering. This offering in
the form of a public ritual is known as poṅgāla.74 While the daily rituals of
the temple are conducted either by Nampūtiri Brahmins or by Karnataka
Tulu Brahmins, its special rituals are conducted by the tantri, or chief
priest, associated with the Cennas Nampūtiri family, the family of the au-
thor of the Kerala ritual manual, the Tantrasamuccaya. In the temples of
Kerala, where Brahmins are the officiating priests, usually the cooked food
prepared outside the temple complex is not used for offerings. But in this
temple, on the day of poṅgāla women prepare the offering themselves and
it is offered to the deity. It is worth noting that every woman belonging to
any community may participate in this offering. In this poṅgāla ritual, in
the late morning the chief priest (tantri) lights the stove in the temple kitch-
en, while the melśānti, the priest who conducts the daily rituals, lights a
stove that the temple administration keeps outside the temple, and then the
fire from this stove is used to light the stoves that are kept ready around the
seven-kilometre radius of the temple where the women prepare the offer-
ing. In the early evening, the temple priests go around the temple and offer
the porridge that has been cooked and kept ready by the female devotees.
Even though it is also performed in several other temples in Kerala and
Tamil Nadu, the poṅgāla ritual is unique to Attukal since it involves the
participation of a great number of devotees and thus acts as an example of a
public ritual for which no community eligibility is prescribed.
Conclusion
While Alexis Sanderson, Shaman Hatley, and Csaba Kiss have brought to
our knowledge the Brahmayāmala tradition of the North through their edi-
tions and studies, its southern tradition is still little known and hardly stud-
ied. As we have seen, the southern Brahmayāmala texts, too, could be con-
sidered part of the Brahmayāmala corpus.
While the southern Brahmayāmala text (IFP, Pondicherry) proposes that
non-Brahmin priests perform the worship of Bhadrakālī, the Mātṛsadbhāva,
which uses the southern Brahmayāmala materials as its source, does not
mention non-Brahmins as priests and prohibits the participation of Brah-
mins in certain rituals. We see that in Kerala, especially in the temples of
Rurujit, non-Brahmins as well as Nampūtiri Brahmins perform the worship,

74
For a detailed study on the poṅgāla ritual, see JENETT 1999 and 2005.

both claiming to follow the Śeṣasamuccaya manual for the Rurujit rituals.
It is sad to note, however, that in most of the temples the rituals for Rurujit
are not followed as prescribed by the Śeṣasamuccaya. The Mātṛsadbhāva
as well as the Śeṣasamuccaya mention the offering of meat, but when the
rituals are performed by Brahmins, only a substitute is offered. When the
rituals are performed by non-Brahmins, meat is offered.
Even though the author of the Mātṛsadbhāva mentions that he used
Yāmala materials for his work, it seems as though he adopted them in a
way that would fit in with the Kerala temple ritual system, turning a non-
Brahmanical ritual into a Brahmanical one, and this adaptation was then
followed by the later authors of ritual manuals of Kerala, such as the
Śeṣasamuccaya.
The two rituals that we discussed above, that is, a bali ritual performed
by a Brahmin and the poṅgāla ritual that is performed in the Trivandrum
Attukal Temple without any community bar, clearly demonstrates that the-
se rituals do not strictly follow the ritual manuals but are adapted and modi-
fied according to necessity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Tantrasamuccaya of Nārāyaṇa
The Tantrasamuccaya of Nārāyaṇa, with the commentary Vimarśinī of
Śaṅkara. Ed. T. Ganapati Śāstri. Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1990 (repr. of
Trivandrum: Superintendent, Gov. Press, 1919–1921).
Prayogamañjarī of Ravi
Prayogamañjarī of Ravi. Ed. Si.Ke. Rāman Nampiyar with Ke.
Acyutappotuvāl. Tripunithura: Sanskrit College, 1953–1954.
Brahmayāmala IFP (BYIFP)
Brahmayāmalākhyaṃ mātṛpratiṣṭhātantram. IFP ms. T. 522. Paper tran-
script in Devanāgarī. Incomplete. Contains paṭalas 1–50 and 51.1–29b.
Brahmayāmala Trivandrum (BYTriv)
Brahmayāmalapratiṣṭhātantram. Trivandrum Manuscripts Library, ms.
T. 982. A Devanāgarī transcript of a manuscript belonging to Śucīndram
Vaṭṭapaḷḷi V. Vāsudevaśarmā. Incomplete. Contains adhyāyas 1– 4 and
5.1–71b.
Bhadrakālīmantravidhiprakaraṇa
See Sanderson 2007.
S.A.S. SARMA 567
Mātṛsadbhāva (MSBhTriv)
Mātṛsadbhāva. Trivandrum Manuscripts Library, ms. T. 792. Paper.
Devanāgarī. 2,800 granthas. Incomplete. Not dated. pp. 1–246.
Manusmṛti
See OLIVELLE 2005.
Rurujidvidhāna
Rurujidvidhānavuṃ Bahuberavidhānavum (Malayalam). Ed. Brahmad-
attan Nampūtirippāṭ et al. Aluva, Kerala: Tantravidyāpīṭham, 2013.
Vaikhānasadharmasūtra
In: Vaikhānasasmārtasūtram. The Domestic Rules of the Vaikhānasa
School Belonging to the Black Yajurveda. Crit. ed. W. Caland. Calcutta:
Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1927.
Śaivāgamanibandhana
IFP ms. T. 379, Paper transcript in Devanāgarī. Complete.
Śeṣasamuccaya (ŚS)
Śeṣasamuccaya with Vimarśinī of Śaṅkara. Ed. P.K. Narayana Pillai.
Trivandrum: Government Central Press, 1951.
Śeṣasamuccaya (ŚSTV)
Śeṣasamuccaya with the Malayalam commentary by Maheśvaran
Bhaṭṭatirippāṭ. Ed. Divakaran Nambutirippad. Aluva, Kerala: Tan-
travidyāpīṭham, n.d.
Śeṣasamuccayakriyāpaddhati
Śeṣasamuccayakriyāpaddhati. Ed. P.I. Ajithan. Trichur, Kerala: Sripu-
ram Publications, 2013.
Skandapurāṇa (SKKB)
Skandapurāṇasya Ambikākhaṇḍaḥ. Ed. K. Bhaṭṭarāī. Kathmandu: Ma-
hendraratnagranthamālā, 1998.
Secondary sources
AJITHAN, P.I. 2015. Conflicting Cults of Worship of Rurujit within the

Brahmanical Traditions of Kerala: A Comparative Analysis. Paper pre-
sented at the 16th World Sanskrit Conference held at Bangkok, Thailand
from 28th June to 2nd July, 2015 (unpublished).
BHAT, B. 2013. See Rurujidvidhāna..
CALDWELL, S. 1999. Oh terrifying mother: Sexuality, violence, and wor-
ship of the goddess Kali. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
COX, W. 2016. Politics, Kingship, and Poetry in Medieval South India.
Moonset on Sunrise Mountain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DASH, S. 2011. New Catalogus Catalogorum. Vol. XX. Madras: University

of Madras.
Epigraphia Carnatica. Madras, Bangalore, Mysore: Mysore Archaeologi-
cal Department, 1885–1965.
GENTES, M.J. 1992. Scandalizing the Goddess at Kodungallur. Asian Folk-
lore Studies 51/2, pp. 295–322.
GIRISHKUMAR 2012. Foreword in SUDHAKARAN 42012.
HATLEY, S. 2007. The Brahmayāmalatantra and Early Śaiva Cult of Yo-
ginīs. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
INDUCHUDAN, V.T. 1969. The secret chamber. Trichur (Kerala): The Co-
chin Devaswom Board.
JAYASHANKAR, S. 2001. Temples of Kaṇṇooṟ District. Census of India
Special Studies – Kerala. Thiruvananthapuram: Director of Census Op-
erations, Kerala.
JENETT, D. 1999. Red Rice for Bhagavati/Cooking for Kannaki: An Ethno-
graphic/Organic Inquiry of the Pongala Ritual at Attukal Temple, Kera-
la, South India. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Integral
Studies.
JENETT, D. 2005. A Million “Shaktis” Rising: Pongala, a Women’s Festival
in Kerala, India. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 21/1, pp. 35–55.
MADHAVAN [Madhavji] (n.d.). Foreword in Śeṣasamuccaya (ŚSTV).
MENON, K.P.P. 1924. History of Kerala. 4 vols. New Delhi: Asian Educa-
tional Services.
NARAYANA PILLAI, P.K. 1951. See Śeṣasamuccaya (ŚS).
OLIVELLE, P. 2005. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Transla-
tion of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PARAMESWARA IYER, U.S. 51990. Kerala Sahitya Charitram. 5 vols. Tri-
vandrum: University of Kerala.
PILLAY, K.K. 1953. The Śucīndram Temple. Madras: Kalakshetra Publications.
RADHAKRISHNAN, S. 2013. Sanitising the Profane. SubVersions 1/1, pp. 202–
234 (http://subversions.tiss.edu/?p=124, accessed February 8, 2016).
RAJAGOPALAN, L.S., 2010. Temple Musical Instruments of Kerala. New
Delhi: Sangeet Natak Akademi, D. K. Printworld (P) Ltd.
RĀJARĀJAVARMA, V. 21997. Keralasaṃskṛtasāhityacaritram. 6 vols. Kala-
dy (Kerala): Sri Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit.
SADASIVAN, S.N. 2000. Caste Invades Kerala. A Social History of India.
New Delhi: APH Publications Corporation.
SANDERSON, A. 2007a. Atharvavedins in Tantric Territory: The Āṅgirasa-
kalpa Texts of the Oriya Paippalādins and their Connection with the
S.A.S. SARMA 569
Trika and the Kālīkula. With critical editions of the Parājapavidhi, the
Parāmantravidhi, and the *Bhadrakālīmantravidhiprakaraṇa. In: A.
Griffiths and A. Schmiedchen (eds.), The Atharvaveda and its
Paippalāda Śākhā. Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tra-
dition. Aachen: Shaker Verlag, pp. 195–311.
2007b. The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir, In: D. Goodall and A. Padoux
(eds.), Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d'Hélène Brunner. Tantric
Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner. Pondicherry: Institut Français de
Pondichéry, École Française d'Extrême-Orient, pp. 231–442.
2014. The Śaiva Literature. Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 24 & 25
(2012–2013 [2014]), pp. 1–113.
SARMA, S.A.S. 2009. The Eclectic Paddhatis of Kerala. Indologica Tau-
rinensia 35, pp. 319–340.
SARMA, S.A.S. 2010. Why Have the Later Ritual Manuals of Kerala For-
gotten ‘Initiation’? Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae
63, pp. 443–454.
SHULMAN, D.D. 1980. Tamil Temple Myths. Sacrifice and Divine Marriage in
the South Indian Ś́aiva Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
SUDHAKARAN, T.K. 42012. Śākteya Kāvukaḷuṃ Pūjayuṃ. Calicut: Indolog-
ical Trust.
Tamil Lexicon. 6 vols. Madras: University of Madras, 1982.
TARABOUR, G. 1986. Sacrifier et donner à voir en pays malabar. Paris:
École Française d’Extrême-Orient.

Further Mahāpratisarā fragments from Gilgit
Gergely Hidas1
Until recently the Gilgit collection was considered to preserve five incom-
plete manuscripts of the Mahāpratisarā-Mahāvidyārājñī (MPMVR), “The
Great Amulet, Great Queen of Spells.” Thanks to new inspections, identifi-
cations of seven shorter fragments of the same text were communicated in
2014.2 The present paper examines the contents of these further pieces and
places them within the whole Mahāpratisarā corpus from Gilgit and thus
serves as an update and supplement to the edition published in HIDAS 2012,
where the five manuscripts of the text, registered already decades ago, were
published for the first time. It also investigates why so many copies of the
same scripture were likely to be kept in one collection and what this could
tell about the ritual practices of the Buddhist community in the area around
the middle of the first millennium CE.
Introduction
The MPMVR is a magical-ritualistic scripture of Dhāraṇī literature, a genre
centred around spells, their benefits, and instructions for use. This text is
likely to have emerged in North India between the third and sixth centuries
CE,3 and its first chapter (kalpa) directly refers to the Mahāyāna as a Bud-

1
Many thanks to the editors Prof. Vincent Eltschinger, Dr. Marion Rastelli, and
Dr. Nina Mirnig for the invitation to write this article and to the Austrian Science
Fund FWF VISCOM SFB Project for financial support. I am indebted to Dr. Klaus
Wille for his kind help and advice and for comments on a final draft of this paper. I
owe Dr. Csaba Kiss thanks for spotting a few inconsistencies.
2
VON HINÜBER 2014, KUDO 2014. Three pieces were identified by Dr. Klaus
Wille, one simultaneously by Dr. Klaus Wille and Prof. Noriyuki Kudo, two by Prof.
Noriyuki Kudo, and one by Prof. Oskar von Hinüber.
3
The dating of this scripture involves a terminus post quem (3rd c. CE), the likely
beginning of the appearance of Dīnāra coins mentioned in the text, and a terminus
ante quem (early 7th c. CE), the possible date of the Gilgit manuscripts of this scrip-
ture based on donors’ names belonging to the Patola Shahi dynasty.
dhist sectarian denomination. As for further classification, the MPMVR con-

tains some vajra-vocabulary4 as well as further notable links to the Vajrayāna
displayed by its elaborate (and most likely reworked) setting that introduces
the place of teaching and the audience (nidāna). The relation of this scripture
to esoteric Buddhism is also strengthened by the mention of samaya (vow),
maṇḍala(ka) (ritual space/circle), abhiṣeka (consecration), and mudrā (ritual
hand gesture) – all characteristic terms of Tantric traditions.5
The earliest manuscripts of the MPMVR were found near Gilgit.6 This
collection was discovered in the 1930s, in the ruins of a building which
may have been the residence of a small community of monks and served as
a library, scriptorium, or genizah, perhaps simultaneously. On the basis of
ruler names in colophons, the collection developed from ca. the sixth to the
eight centuries, and it is important to note that this is the only extant library
from ancient South Asia.7 The Gilgit finds were deposited in various plac-
es, with the New Delhi and Srinagar collections being the most diverse.8 A
facsimile edition of the Delhi folios, the largest group, was published by
Raghu VIRA & Lokesh CHANDRA (1959–1974),9 and it is recent good news
that a high-quality colour reproduction of the same pieces is being printed
in a new book series.10 Some private photos of the Srinagar folios were
taken in the 1980s, but so far only a few pieces have been published.11

4
In the formation of Buddhist ritual texts over time, there is a tendency towards
an increased appearance of words and phrases elaborated by the term vajra (thunder-
bolt/diamond). On this process of ‘vajra-isation,’ see TRIBE 2000: 217–222.
5
There are at least two other Tantric texts surviving in the Gilgit collection.
GBMFE 1724–1733 preserves parts of the Mahāmaṇivipulavimānaviśvasupratiṣṭhi-
taguhyaparamarahasyakalparājadhāraṇī with references to mudrā, maṇḍala, and
abhiṣeka (SANDERSON 2009: 234–235). GBMFE 3321–3322, 3340–3341 contains
portions of the *Devītantrasadbhāvasāra (SANDERSON 2009: 50–51), an exegesis of
the Vāma division of the Vidyāpīṭha.
6
As for later witnesses, the MPMVR survives in a few palm-leaf manuscripts
from Eastern India dated to the eleventh to thirteenth centuries and in more than 300
palm-leaf and paper codices from Nepal from the period between the eleventh and
twentieth centuries.
7
For recent overviews of the Gilgit collection, see VON HINÜBER 2014, 2018 and
his preface to CLARKE 2014. On the topic of Buddhist genizah, see SALOMON 2009.
8
Further collections include the one in Ujjain, the Shah collection acquired by
Giuseppe Tucci, and the Stein collection in the British Library. For details and a
bibliography, see WILLE 1990 and VON HINÜBER 2014.
9
This was reprinted in a compact form in 1995.
10
For the first two volumes, see CLARKE 2014 and KARASHIMA et al. 2016.
11
See Klaus Wille’s survey in VON HINÜBER 2014: 112–113.
GERGELY HIDAS 573
The earlier identified Gilgit Mahāpratisarā manuscripts amount to 81 foli-

os. Ms. no. 6. GBMFE 1080-1129 preserves 50 folios, no. 14. GBMFE 1130-
1138, no. 15. GBMFE 1139-1156, and no. 17. GBMFE 1157-1165 nine folios
each, and finally no. 56. GBMFE 3328-3335 preserves four folios.
The recently identified Gilgit Mahāpratisarā fragments add up to nine
folios. Ms. no. 47. GBMFE 3119-3120, no. 51. GBMFE 3264, no. 51.
GBMFE 3279-3280, no. 52. GBMFE 3320 and 3322 preserve one folio
each, while no. 51. GBMFE 3266-3267 and no. 60. GBMFE 3352-3355
preserve two folios respectively.
These nine folios appear to belong to five, six, or seven different manu-
scripts, one of which is the already published ms. no. 6., GBMFE 1080-
1129.12 Ms. no. 52. GBMFE 3320 may also be a missing part of this manu-
script. Ms. no. 51. GBMFE 3264 may be a part of no. 17., GBMFE 1157-
1165.13 Thus the number of newly identified manuscripts amount to four,
five, or six pieces. It should also be noted that ms. A55 of a single folio in
the Srinagar collection, identified by Chandrabhal Tripathi as a Mahā-
pratisarā fragment, does not transmit the text of the MPMVR.14
In light of the above, we can now see a 9% increase of Gilgit folios of
the MPMVR. Approximately 50% of the new identifications contain textu-
al parts considered lost beforehand, thus there is a ca. 5% growth of
Mahāpratisarā sources from Gilgit. It is reassuring that the editorial poli-
cies and the list of the Eastern Indian and Nepalese manuscripts which pre-
serve earlier, Gilgit-related variants presented in HIDAS 2012 have been on
the whole confirmed.
With these new identifications the ranking of Gilgit texts has also
changed. So far manuscripts of the following scriptures were most numer-
ous: Saṃghātasūtra (13 mss.), Saddharmapuṇḍarīka (9 mss.), Prajñā-
pāramitā (8 mss.), Ekottarikāgama (7 mss.), Sumāgadhāvadāna (6 mss.),
Mahāpratisarā (5 mss.), and Bhaiṣajyaguru (5 mss.). Now the Mahā-
pratisarā has become the second highest ranking text in Gilgit with nine,
ten, or eleven manuscripts. This positioning, however, is not at all conclu-
sive. It should be remembered that some of the Gilgit manuscripts vanished
from sight in the 1930s, so what is currently available is only a part of a
part of a collection. A verified listing of the items in the Srinagar group,

12
Siglum G1 in HIDAS 2012.
13
Siglum G4 in HIDAS 2012.
14
I am grateful to Dr. Klaus Wille for sending me his unpublished transcription.

which appears to contain 28 Mahāmāyūrī and 47 medical text fragments,

will also reveal more.
As for social settings, the five earlier identified and longer
Mahāpratisarā manuscripts all contain donors’ names inserted into the
dhāraṇīs, with two of them being queens of the Patola Shahi dynasty. The-
se five manuscripts are both “ready-made” and “tailor-made” ones as it has
been noted,15 i.e., in the former case empty spaces are left out for the do-
nor’s name to be subsequently inserted, whereas in the latter the sponsor’s
name is written together with the whole text. None of the new fragments,
however, contain donors’ names since no dhāraṇī parts survive. Neverthe-
less, the high number (nine, ten or eleven) of MPMVR manuscripts, along
with the presence of “ready-made” ones, reflects extensive production, and
we should not forget the previously mentioned 28 Mahāmāyūrī fragments
either, which belong to the same type of Rakṣā literature. Drawing on later,
better documented practices, it appears that such protective incantation
texts were produced for members of the saṅgha for donations.16 These of-
ten personalised apotropaic objects, i.e., the manuscripts, were meant to be
kept in the donor’s home, and it seems that persons of various rank, but
especially from more affluent segments of society, took advantage of such
monastic services. At the moment it appears that Dhāraṇī and Vidyā texts
constitute the most numerous category in the Gilgit library with ca. 25
pieces (the second one is Avadāna with ca. 15 texts), and with the Srinagar
collection spells amount to 53, medical texts to 47, and avadāna legends to
24 pieces. This reflects marked preferences for protection, healing, and
storytelling (and thus proselytising) – activities that most likely served the
strengthening of Buddhism from the side of monastics and demonstrate
considerable lay receptivity in the area.

15
SCHOPEN 2009: 202–203, VON HINÜBER 2014: 80–81.
16
See, e.g., HIDAS 2012: 30–33.
GERGELY HIDAS 575
An edition of the recently identified Mahāpratisarā

fragments
Abbreviations, symbols, paragraphs, sigla, normalisations, and punctuation

follow HIDAS 2012:
( ) – unclear or uncertain reading

[ ] – restoration of damaged or partly visible akṣaras
{...3...} – lacuna with the approximate number of missing akṣaras
{...} – a longer lacuna
< > – GBMFE folio numbers after Raghu VIRA & Lokesh CHANDRA 1959-
1974
[29] – paragraph numbers as given in the critical edition of the Eastern
Indian and Nepalese mss.
corr. – correction
em. – emendation
conj. – conjectural emendation
Silent orthographical normalisations
avagrahas are not used in the mss. and have been supplied.
Consonant geminations before r have been normalised.
ri sometimes written as ṛ and vice versa have been normalised.
Medial anusvāras have been changed to homorganic nasals and homorgan-
ic nasals to anusvāras when needed. Final anusvāras before vowels and at
the end of sentences or verses have been changed to m.
Punctuation
A single dot used in the original folios has been written as a single daṇḍa
while a double daṇḍa has been preserved in its original form. A single dot
and a double daṇḍa has been indicated with three daṇḍas. In the case of a
double dot (visarga), a daṇḍa has been given in the edition and the double
dot has been indicated in the apparatus. All punctuation marks have been
placed according to the original folios.

G1 : Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts Facsimile Edition. Śata-piṭaka Vol. 10.

Part 10. Ser. no. 52. 3320, 3322. Fragment 3322 is a missing piece of Vol.
10. Part 6. Ser. no. 6. 1109. Fragment 3320 may also be a surviving piece
of a missing folio of the same manuscript from between 1104 and 1105.
• Birch bark leaves. Two folios with two or three remaining lines.
All sides of the folios are broken off. No reference to the real size
of the folios is given in the GBMFE. The number of surviving
akṣaras in a line varies between three and seven. Originally there
must have been approximately 20–28 akṣaras in a line.
• Round, earlier Gilgit-script. Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I. Appears to be
the same hand.
• Ca. first half of the seventh century
• Incomplete
• Continuous text
• No interlinear or marginal corrections
• Foliation: no foliation survives
• The original folios are kept in the National Archives, New Delhi
• Identification by Noriyuki Kudo
• Listed in VON HINÜBER 2014: 108 (no. 52d.5) and KUDO 2014:
518 (no. 52d). Detailed study and transcription in KUDO 2015:
260–262.
Contains parts of paragraphs [26] = Fifth narrative: merchant Vima-

laśaṅkha’s ship is saved from seamonsters and a sea-storm; and [29] =
Sixth narrative: King Prasāritapāṇi is granted a son.
[26] <G1 3320a> miṅgilaiḥ pota{...13...}[ś](a)bdaṃ kartum ārabdhā

<G1 3320b> [| ahaṃ] v[o] mo{...12...} [t]ato dhīrama[n]{...}
[29] <G1 3322b> kim iti {...16...}gadhavi[ṣa] <G1 3322a> k[o] babhūva
{...16...}[ena]rā[jñā]{...}

Part 10. Ser. no. 47. 3119-3120
• Birch bark leaf. A single folio with eight lines. All sides of the folio
are broken off in different degrees. No reference to the real size of
GERGELY HIDAS 577
the folio is given in the GBMFE. The number of surviving akṣaras

in a line varies between 5 and 18. Originally there must have been
approximately 22–28 akṣaras in a line.
• Round, earlier Gilgit-script. Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I.17
• Incomplete
• Continuous text
• Foliation: no foliation survives18
• The original folio is kept in the National Archives, New Delhi
• Identification by Klaus Wille, Noriyuki Kudo
• Listed in VON HINÜBER 2014: 106 (no. 47b) and KUDO 2014: 517
(no. 47). Transcribed in Raghu VIRA & Lokesh CHANDRA 1995: I.
45–46.19 Detailed study and transcription in KUDO 2015: 258-260.
Contains parts of paragraph [13] = Various benefits of this protection.

Enumeration of the deities who safeguard its user.
[13] <G6 3120> śayaḥ

śakraś20 ca tridaśaiḥ sā[rdhaṃ]{...10...}
kayaṃ ca mahākālaṃ nandikeśvaraṃ kā{...9...}
[ndi]keśvaraṃ
sarve mātṛgaṇā tasya tathānye mārakā{...9...}
jā devā caiva mahardhikā
te sarve rakṣāṃ kari{...10...} vai |21
buddhā22 caiva mahātmāno vidyādevyo mahā{...3...}
[kī bhṛkuṭ](ī) tārāṅkuśī |
vajraśaṃkalā [śve]{...9...}
supāśī vajrapā{...21...}
takuṇḍalī
[a]{...26...}
<G6 3119>kuṇḍalī |

17
KUDO 2014: 517 and 2015: 258 classify the script as Type II.
18
VON HINÜBER 2014: 106 remarks that this is folio no. 114. I have been unable
to trace this foliation.
19
The text is not identified here.
20
śakraś] corr.; śaklaś G6
21
vai |] corr.; vaiḥ G6
22
buddhā] conj.; bauddhā G6

puṣpa{...16...}
[ā]t[e]jā tathā dhanyā vidyumā{...12...}
tathā buddhā kṣitikanāmnā ca
kāpālinī va{...12...}
(pi) bahuvidhās tathā |
te sarve tasya rakṣa[nti] {...9...}gatā bhavet
hārītī pāñcikaś caiva śaṅ[kh]{...12...}
sarasvatī nityānubaddhā rakṣārthe
pratisarā{...15...}
[dy]ārājā mahābalā |23
sarvasiddhi sadā{...13...}
[r]bhāṇi vardhante sukhaṃ prasū[ya]{...}

Part 10. Ser. no. 51. 3264.24
• Birch bark leaf. A single folio with six and seven lines. The sides
of the folio are somewhat broken off. No reference to the real size
of the folio is given in the GBMFE. The number of surviving
akṣaras in a line varies between 15 and 17. Originally there must
have been approximately 25–27 akṣaras in a line.
• Round, earlier Gilgit-script. Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I.
• Incomplete
• Continuous text
• Identification by Klaus Wille
• Listed in VON HINÜBER 2014: 107 (no. 51b.2)

23
mahābalā |] corr.; mahābalāḥ G6
24
This leaf may be a missing folio of Vol. 10. Part 6. Ser. no. 17 (siglum G4 in
HIDAS 2012) as the sequence of the text and the size of the lacuna suggest between
GBMFE 3264 and 1157. Paleographically, however, it appears that this leaf and
those of no. 17. are written by a different hand (cf. especially the punctuation marks)
and the shape of the folios are dissimilar, too.
GERGELY HIDAS 579
Contains parts of paragraph [13] = Various benefits of this protection.

Enumeration of the deities who safeguard its user.
[13] <G7 3264a>śaḥ |||

yaḥ kaścid dhārayate vidyā kaṇṭhe [b]{...10...}
kāryāṇi siddhyante nātra saṃśayaḥ |
nityaṃ rakṣanti de[ve]{...10...}
dhisatvā mahāvīryā buddhā pratyekā nāyakāḥ
{...10...}devyo mahardhikā
rakṣāṃ kurvanti satataṃ prati{...8...}
pāṇiś ca yakṣendra rājānaś caturas tathā |
tas[ya] {...9...}śayaḥ
śa[kra]ś ca tri[daśai]ḥ sārdhaṃ brahmā vi{...5...}
<G7 3264b> key(a) ca {...5...}ndikeśvaraṃ
sarve mātṛga{...10...}kā |
ṛṣayaś ca mahātejā devā25 caiva mahardhikā
{...10...}[ti]sarādhārakāya vai |26
buddhā27 caiva mahātmāno vi{...9...}[l](a)parākramā |
māmakī bhṛkuṭī tārāṅkuśī{...10...}
mahākāli eva ca | dūtyā vajradūtyā28 ca
s[u]{...10...}āṇir mahābalā
vajramālā mahāvidyā ta{...10...}
mahādevī kālakarṇī mahāvirya
tathā dha{...}

Part 10. Ser. no. 51. 3266-3267
• Birch bark leaves. Two folios with six lines. All sides of folio 3266
and the left side of 3267 are broken off. No reference to the real
size of the folios is given in the GBMFE. The number of surviving
akṣaras in a line varies between 9 and 19. Originally there must

25
devā] corr.; tevā G7
26
27
buddhā] em.; boddhā G7
28
vajradūtyā] corr.; vajradūpyā G7


the same hand.
• Incomplete
• Continuous text
• Listed in VON HINÜBEr 2014: 107 (no. 51b.4)
Contains parts of paragraphs [42] = Ritual instructions: how to prepare the

amulet; and [44] = Various benefits of this protection. Enumeration of the
deities who safeguard its user.
[42] <G8 3266a> [sukhi]to bhonti mucyante karma[ś]{...9...}

[kṣārthaṃ] strīṇāṃ garbhasamudbhavaṃ |
bha[vi]{...8...}[dr]yavraṇarohana |
upavāsoṣito bhū[tv]{...7...}te
buddhapūjāpareṇa ca | bodhicittaṃ {...8...}
[ce]tasā |
snātvā candana29karpūrakāstūryo{...10...}
vṛtya mahādhūpanadhūpitā |
[tā] {...4...} <G8 3266b>{...5...}samanvitam |
pūrṇakumbhātra ca[tvā]{...7...}
[pa]dhūpāṃś ca gandhāś ca dātavyātra mahā{...7...}
spṛkkāṃ ca turuṣkā pañcaśarkarā |
dātavy{...7...}kālaṃ yathāṛtum30|
sarvapuṣpapha[l]{...8...}
[ta]mākṣikadugdhābhyāṃ pāyasādibhiḥ
{...12...}[ṇāḍhyāṃ] praśasyante
supūritaṃ {...}
[44] <G8 3267a> [dha]naṃ

rakṣāyaṃ tasya yāvaj jīvaṃ bhaviṣyati |
puruṣā{...5...}ṃ [yu]ddhasaṃgrāmabhairave |

29
candana] corr.; dandana G8
30
Note the lack of sandhi here.
GERGELY HIDAS 581
anena varadā yā{...7...}[ni]ścitāḥ

atha pāpavināśārthaṃ likhita{...8...}
gatā vilokenti bodhisatvās tathaiva{...9...}
m āyuś ca vardhate |
dhanadhānyasa{...10...}
khaṃ svapati medhāvī sukhaṃ
<G8 3267b> {...15...}ṇāṃ sarvabhūtagaṇair api
{...13...}[ni]tyaśaḥ
vidyāyā sādhyamā{...12...}
khaṃ vā sādhaye vidyā avighne nā{...9...}
sarvakalpāsya praviṣṭā sarvamaṇḍale |
{...7...} bhavet sarvatra jātiṣu |
vaiśvāsiko bhavet ta{...5...}[hya]dhāraṇe |
sarvamaṅgalasaṃpūrṇa sarvāśāsya ma{...}

Part 10. Ser. no. 51. 3279-3280
• Birch bark leaf. A single folio with five and six lines. The right side
of the folio is somewhat broken off. No reference to the real size of
the folio is given in the GBMFE. The number of surviving akṣaras
in a line varies between 28 and 34. Originally there must have been
approximately 32–36 akṣaras in a line.
• Round, earlier Gilgit-script. Gilgit/Bamiyan Type I.
• Incomplete
• Continuous text
• Foliation: numeral on the mid-left margin of recto side: GBMFE
3279-3280 equalling folio 2131
• Identification by Oskar von Hinüber
• Listed in VON HINÜBER 2014: 108 (no. 51d)

31
This folio number fits well the proposal put forward in HIDAS 2012: 14 that ori-
ginally there had been an earlier and shorter nidāna which later on was transformed
into a longer, more detailed one.

Contains parts of paragraphs [30]–[31] = Sub-narrative: merchant Dhar-

mamati and his poor servant. Sixth narrative ends.
[30] <G9 3279>ṣṭhino-m-idam abravīt aham āryasya niveśane

bhṛ[ti]{...2...}[karmaṃ kariṣyā]mi | dharma[ṃ] ca [śr]{...1...}mi | yadā
mat kiṃcid bhaviṣyati | tadāhaṃ dharmaṃ pūjayiṣyāmi | tasya gṛhavyā-
pāraṃ32 kurvata dha{...2...} śṛṇvata | apareṇa samayena tena śreṣṭhinā
tasya puruṣasya33-m-ekaṃ dīnā{...3...} tena sarvasatvaparitrāṇārthaṃ
bodhicittam utpādya sarvasatvasādhāraṇaṃ kṛtvā ma{...3...}sararatne
niryātita | evaṃ ca praṇidhānaṃ kṛtam anena dānamahāphalena mama
{...2...} <G9 3280>satvānāṃ ca dāridrya34samuccheda syāt tena kāra-
ṇena tad35 dānaṃ parikṣayaṃ36 na gacchati |
[31] e[vaṃ] {...1...}huvidham anekavidham api puṇyābhisaṃskāraṃ37
kṛta | devatāni ca pūjita vandana yā{...4...}gavantaḥ pūjitāḥ tadā
śuddhāvāsakābhir devatābhiḥ38 svapnadarśanaṃ dattam | e{...2...}cā-
bhihitam | bho mahārāja samantajvālāmālā39viśuddhisphuritacintā-
{...2...}mudrāhṛdayāparājitā mahādhāraṇi vidyārājñā mahāpratisarā
nāma yathā{...2...}dhinālikhya yathāvidhi kalpābhihitam upavā-
soṣitā{...}

Part 10. Ser. no. 60. 3352-3355
• Birch bark leaves. Two folios with six lines. The upper and lower
sides of the folios are somewhat broken off. No reference to the re-
al size of the folios is given in the GBMFE. The number of surviv-
ing akṣaras in a line varies between 8 and 24. Originally there must

32
°vyāpāraṃ] corr.; °vyāvāraṃ G9
33
puruṣasya] conj.; purusya G9
34
dāridrya°] em.; daridryā° G9
35
tad] corr.; ta G9
36
parikṣayaṃ] corr.; parikṣayaṃn G9
37
puṇyābhisaṃskāraṃ] conj.; puṇyābhiskāraṃ G9
38
devatābhiḥ] corr.; devātābhiḥ G9
39
°mālā°] corr.; °māla° G9
GERGELY HIDAS 583

the same hand.
• Incomplete
• Continuous text
• Foliation: numeral on the mid-left margin of recto side: GBMFE 3352-
3353 equalling folio 18 and GBMFE 3354-3355 equalling folio 56
• Listed in VON HINÜBER 2014: 111 (no. 60a)
Contains parts of paragraphs [26] = Fifth narrative: merchant Vima-

laśaṅkha’s ship is saved from seamonsters and a sea-storm and [49]–[50] =
Ritual instructions: how to perform a healing and protecting rite. Enumera-
tion of benefits.
[26] <G10 3352> vidyolkāṃ tāṃ ca vajrāśiniṃ taiś ca timiṅgilaiḥ potam

avastabdhaṃ dṛ[ṣ]ṭvā mahāntam utkrośanāśabdaṃ kartum ārabdhāḥ40
te devatāviśeṣām āyācayanti na ca kaścit teṣāṃ paritrāṇaṃ bhavati |
tato sārthavā[ha]syopagamya te karuṇakaruṇam idaṃ vacanam
abruvantaḥ
paritrāyasva mahāsatva mocayāsmān mahābhayāt ||
a{...3...} sa mahāsārthavāho dṛḍhacitto mahā[ma]{...6...}
<G10 3353>{...4...}[daṃ] vacanam [abruvan
mā bhair mā bhair va]{...8...}vrajaḥ
ahaṃ vo mocayiṣyāmi ito duḥkhamahārṇavā |
tato [dhī]ramanā bhūtvā vaṇijā idam abruvan
kim etan mahāsatva brūhi41 śīghram avighnataḥ
yāvaj jīvitam asmākaṃ tvatprabhāvān mahāmateḥ
kathyatām42 jñānamāhātmyaṃ paścā tvaṃ bhūyo kiṃ kariṣyasi ||
{...1...}[yo] sārthapatis teṣām iyaṃ vidyām udāharīt
asti me mahā{...}
[49] <G10 3354> hy ayaṃ vidyā sarvarogopaśāntaye |

40
ārabdhāḥ] em.; ābdhāḥ G10
41
brūhi] corr.; brūhi brūhi G10
42
kathyatāṃ] corr.; katthyatāṃ G10

bhūyo sapta vārā vai |43 balikuṃbhaṃ sumantritam |

paścā nivedayen mantra balipuṣpaṃ yathālābhaṃ yathāvidhim |
sūtrakaṃ vāṇisaktavāṃ padumamiśritā |44
ity eva dakṣiṇe pārśve kṣipeta sapta-m-eva tu |
paścimāyāṃ ca saptaiva uttarāyāṃ diśi s-tathā |
ūrdhvaṃ paṭhitamātreṇa kṛtā rakṣā a{...13...}
[duḥkhā]t pramucyate |
eṣa ra<G10 3355> {...13...}
[nā]sty asya [para]to kaści ra[kṣā]vidyā tribhave vidyate kvaci[t]
[50] [na ta]sya mṛtyur na jarā na rogo

na cāpriyaṃ nāpi ca viprayoga |
yadvasya vidyaṃ hi subhāvitātmā
bhaviṣyate mṛtyugaṇena pūjitaḥ
yamo ’pi tasya varadharmarājā
kariṣyate mṛtyugaṇena pūjita |45
kathayiṣyati devapuraṃ hi gaccha
kṣaṇikaṃ mameha46 narakapuraṃ kariṣyasi |
tato vimānehi bahuprakā{...}
Conclusion
As we have seen, these recently identified fragments of the Mahāpratisarā

from Gilgit contain various parts of this scripture. This shows that the en-
tire text was copied in considerable numbers, being much valued in the
local Buddhist community. This esteem stems from the belief that such
apotropaic works were supposed to provide protection for manuscript own-
ers from practically any sort of danger and illness and were trusted to grant
everything good and auspicious unceasingly.

43
44
Note that this line is not transmitted in the later Eastern Indian and Nepalese
manuscripts edited in HIDAS 2012.
45
mṛtyugaṇena pūjita seems to be mistakenly repeated and written instead of a li-
kely pūjāṃ sagauraveṇa, the reading attested in all the Eastern Indian and Nepalese
manuscripts
46
mameha] conj.; maheha G10
GERGELY HIDAS 585
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CLARKE, S. 2014. Gilgit Manuscripts in the National Archives of India,

Facsimile Edition vol. I. Vinaya Texts. New Delhi: The National Ar-
chives of India; Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Ad-
vanced Buddhology, Soka University.
HIDAS, G. 2012. Mahāpratisarā-Mahāvidyārājñī, The Great Amulet, Great
Queen of Spells. Introduction, Critical Editions and Annotated Transla-
tion. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya
Prakashan.
HINÜBER, O. v. 2014. The Gilgit Manuscripts: An Ancient Buddhist Library
in Modern Research. In: P. Harrison & J.-U. Hartmann (eds.), From Birch
Bark to Digital Data: Recent Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research.
Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The
State of the Field, Stanford, June 15-19, 2009. Vienna: Verlag der Öster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 79–135.
HINÜBER, O. v. 2018. Magic Protection in the Palola Ṣāhi Kingdom: History
and Context of Rakṣā Texts and Dhāraṇīs in 7th Century Gilgit. In: C.
Cicuzza (ed.), Katā me rakkhā, katā me parittā. Protecting the protective
texts and manuscripts. Proceedings of the Second International Pali Stud-
ies Week Paris 2016. Bangkok and Lumbini: Fragile Palm Leaves Foun-
dation and Lumbini International Research Institute, pp. 217-237.
KARASHIMA, S. et al. 2016. Gilgit Manuscripts in the National Archives of
India, Facsimile Edition vol. II. Mahāyāna texts: Prajñāpāramitā texts.
New Delhi: The National Archives of India; Tokyo: The International
Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University.
KUDO, N. 2014. Newly Identified Folios in the Gilgit Buddhist Manu-
scripts. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Ad-
vanced Buddhology 17, pp. 517–518.
2015. Newly Identified Manuscripts in the Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts:
Avadānas and Dhāraṇīs. Annual Report of the International Research
Institute for Advanced Buddhology 18, pp. 253–262.
SALOMON, R. 2009. Why did the Gandhāran Buddhists bury their manu-
scripts? In: S. Berkwitz et al. (eds.), Buddhist Manuscript Cultures:
Knowledge, Ritual and Art. London: Routledge, pp. 19–34.
SANDERSON, A. 2009. The Śaiva Age. The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism
during the Early Medieval Period. In: S. Einoo (ed.), Genesis and De-
velopment of Tantrism. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University
of Tokyo, pp. 41–349.

SCHOPEN, G. 2009. On the Absence of Urtexts and Otiose Ācāryas: Build-

ings, Books, and Lay Buddhist Ritual at Gilgit. In: G. Colas & G.
Gerschheimer (eds.), Écrire et transmettre en Inde classique. Paris:
EFEO, pp. 189–219.
TRIBE, A. 2000. Mantranaya/Vajrayāna – Tantric Buddhism in India. In: P.
Williams (ed.), Buddhist Thought. London: Routledge, pp. 192–244.
VIRA, Raghu. & CHANDRA, Lokesh. 1959-1974. Gilgit Buddhist Manu-
scripts Facsimile Edition. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian
Culture. [Revised and Enlarged Compact Facsimile Edition. Delhi: Sri
Satguru Publications, 1995.]
WILLE, K. 1990. Die Handschriftliche Überlieferung der Vinayavastu der
Mūlasarvāstivādin. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Index
A Āgamasiddhānta, xi–xii, 108, 109, 110–

5, 117–8, 120–1, 129–31
Abhayākaragupta, 276, 279
āgantū, 66
Abhayamalla, 281
āgantukā, 73
abhicāra, 4
Aghoraśiva, 385, 390, 496
Abhinavagupta, xi, 3, 5, 25, 37, 39, 42,
Aghorī, 39, 51–2
88–9, 96–7, 156, 187, 219, 324, 477
Agnipurāṇa, 348
Abhisamayālaṃkāra, 151
Agrabodhi, 321–2, 327–8
abhiṣeka, xii, 32, 53, 71, 90, 137, 244,
Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā, xiv–xv, 111, 335–
266, 287, 323, 327, 572
4, 36–2, 469
ācārya, 20–5, 30, 31, 53, 62, 65, 88–9,
akāma, 112, 119
91, 93, 97, 116, 215, 220, 237–8,
Alaśiṅgabhaṭṭa, 114
254–7, 260, 267, 280, 316–7, 324,
alcohol, 216
393, 410, 501, 545, 549, 550, 559
amanasikāra, 138, 140, 145–6, 149, 150
Ācāryabhakti, 239, 256
Amanasikārādhāra, 146
ācāryābhiṣeka, 25, 29, 62
Amantrin, 52–3
Ācāryakriyāsamuccaya, 315–6, 323–4,
Amoghavarṣa, 249
327
Amṛteśadīkṣāvidhi, 33, 41
Acintyaviśvasādākhya, 391
amulet, 571
adharma, 209, 487
Anagāradharmāmṛta, 254, 256–7
adhikārin, 367
Ānandagarbha, 323, 325, 328
adhikāriṇī, 54–5, 80
Anaṅgavajra, 152
Ādipurāṇa, 249–50, 252–4, 257, 262
Andhra Pradesh, 23, 88, 189
Ādisāgara Aṅkalīkara, 235–7, 267
aṅkurāropaṇa, 401
advaita, 57
aṅkurārpaṇa, 401
advaitācāra, 89
antara, 90, 92
Advayavivaraṇaprajñopāya-
Antasthitikarmoddeśa, xiv, 315
viniścayasiddhi, 152
antyajā, 71
Āgamaḍambara, 113
antyeṣṭi, 315
Āgamaprāmāṇya, 108–9, 113–4, 117–8,
antyeṣṭidīkṣā, 324
120, 128
anuloma, 87, 97
Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, 209 Baudhāyana, 396, 401–2, 409

Appar Tirunāvukkaracu, 493 Benares, 388
apratiṣṭhāna, 138, 140, 146 Bengal, 551
Araṇipadra, 26–7 Bhadrakālī, xvii, 40, 539–41, 543–547,
Arthaśāstra, 125 550, 552, 554–5, 557, 559, 560–1,
Āryadeva, 278, 280, 286 563–5
āryikā, 237 Bhadrakālīmantravidhiprakaraṇa, 555
Āryikā Syādvādamatī Mātā, 237 Bhadraśālā, 351
Āśādhara, 254, 256–62 Bhadravāṭī, 351
asidhārāvrata, 67–8 Bhagavadgītā, 125, 428, 475–9
āśrama, 218 Bhāgavata, 115, 117, 126
Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra, 93 Bhāgavatapurāṇa, 341, 347, 349
Atharvaveda, 339, 365, 366, 368 Bhagavatīsūtra, 247
Atharvavedapariśiṣṭa, 377 bhaginī, 54–7, 80
Aṭikaḷ, xvii, 558–61 Bhāguri, 29
Atimārga, 6–7, 10, 20, 22–23, 25, 187–9, Bhairava, 7, 38–9, 51–2, 55, 72, 188,
475, 486, 497, 499, 500–1, 503, 528, 219
551 Bhairavatantras, 49, 187–9
Atiśa, 142 Bhairavī, 51, 54–5
Atiśaya Kṣetra Beḍiyā, 267 Bhaiṣajyaguru, 573
ātreyī, 207 bhakta, 211, 475, 477, 493
Āṯṯukāl Poṅgāla, 564 Bhaktapur, 425, 429, 441, 444, 458–9,
Avadāna, 574 463–4
Avakīrṇin, 93–4 bhakti, 473, 476–7, 479, 493
Avantivarman, 26 Bhānucandra, 190
āveśa, 278 Bharata, 184
Avikalpapraveśadhāraṇī, 145–6 Bhārgavatantra, 114
āyatana, 138 Bhāsarvajña, 21
Ayodhyā, 249 bhasmāṅkura, xi, 83–4, 86–98
Bhaṭṭa Jayanta, 113
B Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, 25
Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha, 9, 25, 108–9
Badarī, 347, 349, 351
bhaṭṭāraka, 236, 263–4, 266–7
Bālambhaṭṭa, 87, 97
bhautikacakra, 72
Bālambhaṭṭi, 84, 87
Bhavabhaṭṭa, 291
bali, 17, 211, 542, 562–4
Bhavabhūti, 189
Bāṇa, 171, 173–4, 177, 180, 183, 186–95
Bhāvanākrama, 143
Bāṇabhaṭṭa, xii
Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, 397, 406
Bangarh, 26
Bhavya, 276
INDEX 589
bhikṣu, 319 Cāmuṇḍarāya, 254–7, 262

bhikṣuṇī, 320 Caṇḍa, 86
Bhilla, 217 cāṇḍāla, 94, 97, 175, 217
Bhojadeva, 211 Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra, 297
Bhojaka, 91 caṇḍāṃśa, 86–7
bhrātṛ, 57 Caṇḍeśa, 86, 92, 98, 407, 471
Bhuluṇḍa, 24 Caṇḍeśvara, 519
Bhūpatīndramalla, 429, 441–2, 458–9, Caṇḍīśa, 86–7
463 Candrabhāgā, 525
Bhūṣaṇabhaṭṭa, 171 Candraśekhara Gurukkal, 541
Bīsapantha, 237–8 Cāritrabhakti, 241
Blue Annals, 138 Cāritrasāra, 254–5, 257
Brahmacārin, 93 carmakāraka, 217–8
brahmacarya, 93, 96 carubhojin, 53
Brahmapurāṇa, 347–9, 396, 402 Caryākriyāsamuccaya, xiv
Brahmaśambhu, 29, 34, 90, 391 caste, 84, 97
Brahmayāmala, xi, 39, 41, 49–64, 66– Caturmudrānvaya, 148, 151
80, 96, 183, 187–9, 218, 219–24, 226, Caturmudropadeśa, 150, 163
539, 540–1, 543, 545–8, 550, 552, Caturvargacintāmaṇi, 406
554–5, 557, 561, 563, 565 Catuṣpīṭhapañjikā, 282
Brahmayāmalamātṛpratiṣṭhātantra, 540 Catuṣpīṭhatantra, 278, 280–3, 289, 291,
Brahmayāmalapratiṣṭhātantra, 540 292
Brahmin, 17–18, 21–22, 32, 51–52, 71, Ceṅkuṭṭuvaṉ, 560
94, 111, 113, 115–6, 119, 129, 183–4, Cennas Narayanan Namputiri, 552
187, 191, 194, 206–7, 213, 216, 217, Cēra, 337
344–5, 351, 354, 366, 477–8, 481, Chandrabhāga, 472
485, 488–9, 491–2, 497, 499, 503, chomma/chommā, 56, 67, 76, 267
543, 558–9, 560, 562–6 Cilappatikāram, 560
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, 347 Cintra, 24
Bṛhajjātiviveka, 86 Cintyaviśva, 90
Bṛhatkālottara, 33–4, 391 Cola, 337, 547
Bṛhatsaṃhitā, 29, 31–2, 471, 520, 532
Bukka I, 428 D
ḍāka, 276
C ḍākinī, 216, 276
Cālukya, 195 Damana, xv, 388, 393–8, 400–4, 406–7
Cambodia, 500, 504 damanaka, 396
Campā, 504 damanakāropaṇa, 399, 401
Cāmuṇḍā, 539, 540 Damanārohaṇapūjā, 421

damanāropaṇa, 401 Divyasiddhānta, 109

damanotsava, xv, 385, 388–92, 395, Dola, 94, 97
408–10 Ḍomba, 217
darada, 184 Dravidian, 172, 176, 181–2, 184, 187,
Daśapura, 194 192
Deb ther sngon po, 142 Durgā-Saptaśatī, 403
Deikā, 52 Durgatipariśodhanatantra, 326
deśaśānti, 541 dūtī, xi, 49, 54–8, 61–2, 68, 79, 80, 190
deśika, 53 Dvārakā, 346
devalaka, xi, 88, 95 Dwags po bKa’ brgyud, 140
Devikā, 472 Dwags po bKra shis rnam rgyal, xii, 140,
Devīmāhātmya, 403 146–8, 155
Devīpañcaśatikā, 225
Devīpurāṇa, 402, 404, 406 E
Devītantrasadbhāvasāra, 572
Ekāntin, 118–9, 122, 128
Devyāmata, 386
Ekāyana, xii, 109–10, 113–9, 121–2,
Devyāyāmala, 88–9, 93, 95–6
124, 126, 128, 130
dhāraṇī, xvii, 571, 574
Ekāyanaveda, 113–4, 117–8, 120, 127
dharma, x, 86, 119, 128, 148, 171, 205,
Ekottarikāgama, 573
209, 339, 341–2, 344, 476, 479, 487,
489 G
Dharmaputrikā, 513
Dharmaśāstra, xiii, 205, 206, 207–9, Gāhāsattasaī, 189
213–6, 222, 226–8, 543 sGam po pa, 140
Dharmasūtra, 209 gaṇa, 277
dhātu, 138 gaṇacakra, xiii–xiv, 275–81, 283, 304,
Dhavalapura, 281 317
dhyāna, 114 Gaṇacakravidhi, xiv, 275, 282, 317
Digambara, xiii, 234–8, 242–5, 247–9, Gaṇadharavalayavidhāna, 264, 266
252–60, 262, 264, 266–8, 272–3 Gaṇakārikā, 21, 23
Digdarśinīṭīkā, 402 Gaṇakārikāratnaṭīkā, 21–2
dīkṣā, xiii, 8, 53, 71, 112, 210, 233–8, gaṇamaṇḍala, 276–9, 284, 287
244–5, 249, 250–60, 262–4, 267–8, gaṇanāyaka, 285
391, 410, 550, 557 Gaṇḍakī, 350
Dīkṣādarśa, 90, 97, 100 Gaṇeśa, 539
dīkṣāguru, 28 Gaṅga, 337
dīkṣita, 211 Gaṅgā, 525
Dīnāra, 571 Gaṇinī Āryikā Rājaśrī, 264
rDo rje grags, 283 Garga, 29
INDEX 591
Gargasaṃhitā, 29 Hanumānḍhokā/Hanūmānḍhokā, 428–9,

Gāruḍapurāṇa, 477 434–6, 438–40, 446–9, 455, 457–8,
genizah, 572 468
ghaṇṭābhiṣeka, 323 Haravijaya, 109
Gilgit, xviii, 571–4, 576, 578, 582 Haribhaktavilāsa, 396, 401–2, 477
gola, 89, 91, 94 Harihara I, 428
golaka, 90 Harṣa, 171, 195
Gopīnātha, 84, 94 Harṣacarita, 171, 183, 187, 192
Gorava, 95 Harṣavardhana, 171
’Gos Lo tsā ba gZhon nu dpal, xii, 137, haṭhamelaka, 73
140, 146 haṭhayoga, 160
gotra, 111 Hemādri, 406
guhyābhiṣeka, 140 Hevajrasādhanasaṃgraha, 280
guhyakā, 55 Hevajratantra, 143, 158, 163, 279
Guhyakālī, 39 Hoysala, 337
Guhyasamājatantra, 278–9, 280–1, 315–
6, 324–5 I
Guhyatantra, 324
Iḷaṅkō Aṭikaḷ, 560
Gujarat, 194
inclusivism, xvii
Guṇasaṃbhava, 321–2, 327
Indrabhūti, 286
Guptinandī, 264
Indrasena, 282
Gurav, 88, 95
Indraśiva, 26
Gurava, 84–8
Īśānaśiva, 394
gurunindā, 211
Īśānaśivagurudevapaddhati, 92, 96, 393
Guruparamparākramopadeśa, 151
Īśvarasaṃhitā, 110, 114, 116–8, 127,
guruyoga, 141
131
Gwalior, 26
J
H
Jagaddarpaṇa, xiv, 279, 315–6
Hanūbhairava, 463–4
Jātipurāṇas, 88
Hanūbhairavadevārcanavidhi, 451
Jātivivecana, 84
Hanūbhairavakavaca, 463
Jātiviveka, xi, 84, 86–9, 94–5, 98
Hanūbhairavastotra, 463
Jātiviveka genre, 83, 93, 95
Hanūmadbhairavapūjāvidhi, 463
jayābhiṣeka, 40
Hanumadgahvara, 451
Jayadrathayāmala, 76, 221, 223–4
Hanumān, xvi, 425–6, 428–9, 431–2,
Jayākhyasaṃhitā, 113–6
434–9, 441–4, 446, 448, 450–2, 454–
Jayaprakāśamalla, 463
6, 458–65, 467–8
Jayaratha, 89–90, 96, 100, 219, 324

Jayasiṃhakalpadruma, 396, 400, 402 Kāñcī, 337

rJe rGod tshang pa, 156 Kandhaka, 90, 92
Jinasena, 253, 255, 257 Kandhana, 92
Jñānadīpikā, 257 Kanthaka, 91–3
jñānagarbhā, 73 Kāṇva, 114
Jñānakīrti, 140, 157–9 Kāpālika, 7, 22–3, 187–9, 551
Jñānālokālaṃkārasūtra, 145 Kāraṇḍavyūha, 515
Jñānaratnāvalī, xvi, 90–1, 385, 388–9, Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra, 514
391–2, 407–8, 416 Karkoṭa, 347
Jñānārṇavatantra, 403 karmacāṇḍāla, 94, 97
Jñānaśambhu, 385, 388–9, 391–5, 407– Karnataka, 23, 88, 499, 547
8, 416 Kārohaṇa, 194
Jñānaśiva, 388 Kāropa, 144
Jñānottara, 38 Karvan, 194
Jñātādharmakathā, 247–8 Kashmir, 2–3, 4, 42, 50, 113, 336–7,
347, 352, 391, 472, 476, 500, 553,
K 559
Kashmir Śaivism, 1–2
bKa’ brgyud, 140
Kāśmīrāgamaprāmāṇya, 118
Kacchapeśvara, 390
Kaṭhas, 9
Kādambarī, xii, 171–3, 175, 178–84,
Kathmandu, xvi, 3, 6, 39, 41–2, 425,
186, 188–9, 191–2, 195–6, 199–201
429, 434, 437, 441, 444, 452, 463
kaivarta, 217
Kattha, 91
Kākatīya, 337
Katthaka, 91–2
Kālacakra, 161, 163–4
Kātyāyana, 109, 216
Kālacakratantra, 160
Kaula, 7, 72, 189, 222, 224, 225–7
Kalale, 381
Kaulāvalīnirṇaya, 54
Kālamukha/Kālāmukha, xii, 6, 23, 86,
Kaumārī, 77
188, 495, 499, 500
Kauṇḍinya, 20, 194, 487
kalara, 91–2
Kauśika, 90–1, 93, 194
Kalāvilāsa, 186
Kāverī, 92
Kālidāsa, 191, 194
Kāyāvataraṇa, 194
Kālīkula, 40, 541
Kekri, 237–8, 244, 259, 264–7
Kālottara, 390
Kerala, xvii, 539, 541–2, 548–9, 551–2,
Kalyāṇavarman, 282
554–9, 564–6
Kamalaśīla, 143
Khasarpaṇa, 315
Kāmika, 90
khecarīcakra, 72–3
Kaṇavīra, 52
Khmer, 40, 504
Kanchipuram, 258
kiṅkarī, 55
INDEX 593
Kiraṇatantra, 395, 410, 502 Kumārasambhava, 191

Kīrtidhara, 41 Kumāratantra, 403
Kīrtimālin, 348–9 kumārī, 225
Kodungallur, 551, 555, 558–63 Kumārila, 108, 184
Kogika, 90, 93 Kuṇḍa, 89–90, 92, 94
Kōlār, xvii, 547 Kundakunda, 245, 254–5
Kolārammā, xvii, 547 Kuntalgiri, 235
Kollam, 542, 555–8 Kunthalgiri, 237
Koṅkaṇa, 92 Kunthusāgara, 237, 264
Kō-Rājakesaravarma, 547 Kūrmapurāṇa, 406
Kośakārikā, 159 Kurukṣetra, 428
Koṭivarṣa, 26, 551 Kuśika, 91, 93, 194
Koūhala, 185 Kuṭṭanīmata, 404, 406
Kōyilol̤ uku, 117
Kozhikode, 560 L
Krama, 222, 224, 226–7
Lākula, 6–7, 22–3, 187, 499, 501
bKra shis rnam rgyal, 147
Lākulin, 194
Kriyādhikāra, 114
Lakulīśa, 194
Kriyākāṇḍakramāvalī, 389
Lāmā, 223–4
Kriyākramadyotikā, 390
Lampā, 50
Kriyāsaṃgrahapañjikā, 279, 283, 295,
Laṅkāvatārasūtra, 159
300, 302, 317
laukika, 206
Kriyāsamuccaya, 280
lay Śaivism, xiii, 5–6, 8, 207, 226, 512–
Krodhabhairava, 53
3, 524
Kṛṣṇaśarma, 552
Līlāvaī, 185
Kṣatriya, 51, 67, 125, 559
liṅga, 10, 36, 51–3, 55, 86–7, 90, 213,
Kṣemarāja, 25, 42, 219, 336
219, 227, 472–3, 487, 490, 493–6,
Kṣemendra, 186
513–9, 526
Kubjāmra, 525
Liṅgapurāṇa, 40
Kubjikā, 39–40
Liṅgāyat, 499
Kubjikāmata, 40, 218
Longer Paramādya, 277–8
Kudṛṣṭinirghātana, 142
lubdhaka, 218
sKu gsum ngo sprod rnam bshad, 142
kula, 50, 226 M
Kuladatta, 279, 283, 287, 290–2, 301–3
Kulamārga, 6–7, 40, 42, 188 Madanaratna, 396, 402
kulavidyā, 72–3, 75 Madhya Pradesh, 88
kulodbhavā, 73 Madhyamaka, xii, 138, 146, 149, 158–9
Kulottuṅga I, 547 Madhyamakāloka, 143

Mādhyandina, 114 Maṇḍalopāyikā, xiv, 315–7, 323–4, 326

Māgha, 191 Mandasor, 194
Mahābhārata, 33, 118, 125, 347–8, 354, Mañjuśrīmaṇḍalavidhiguṇa-
428, 476 saṃbhava, 321
mahāmahotsava, 239 Mannampurattukāvu, 558
Mahāmaṇivipulavimānaviśva- mantra, xiii, 17, 29–30, 33, 37–40, 51,
supratiṣṭhitaguhyaparama- 53, 58–60, 67–8, 72–3, 75, 77–80,
rahasyakalparājadhāraṇī, 572 111–2, 116, 137, 140–1, 233–6, 238–
Mahāmāyūrī, 574 43, 245, 251, 253–5, 257, 259, 265–6,
mahāmudrā, xii, 138–60, 164, 276 268, 279, 281, 286, 288, 304, 323–5,
Mahāmudrātilaka, 279, 296 335–6, 338–41, 344–5, 351, 364,
Mahāpratisarā, xviii, 571, 573–4, 584 365–7, 398, 401, 425, 494, 519–21,
Mahāpratisarādhāriṇī, 281 541, 550, 557, 559
Mahāpratisarā-Mahāvidyārājñī, xvii, Mantramārga, xv, 6–7, 10, 19, 25, 28,
571 33–7, 39–42, 53, 184, 187–9, 220,
Maharashtra, 23, 88, 235, 237 252–3, 385, 389, 392, 410, 475, 500–
mahāśānti, 19 1, 512, 528
Mahāsiddha, 137 Mantranaya, 137, 139, 140–1, 152, 153–
Mahāsukhaprakāśa, 151, 158 4, 156–7, 159–60, 164
Mahāsukhavajra, 297 Mantrapīṭha, 39
Mahāvratin, 86 Mantrasiddhānta, xii, 108–15, 117–8,
Mahāyāna, 140 121, 129, 130–1
Mahāyānaviṃśikā, 142 Mantrayāna, ix
Mahīpāla, 26 mantrin, 53
mahotsava, xv, 385–6 Manubhāṣya, 184
Maitrīpa, xii, 137–46, 148, 150–1, 153, Manusmṛti, 11, 95, 184, 208–9, 211,
155, 159, 160, 163–4 213, 215–7, 222, 543
Mālatīmādhava, 189 Mārkaṇḍeyasaṃhitā, 115
Mālava, 26 Mārtāṇḍavarma, 558
Mālinīvijayavārttika, 219 mātaṅga, 51, 175
Mālinīvijayottaratantra, 89, 215 Mataṅgapārameśvara, 30, 212
malla, 217–8, 425, 434, 444, 452, 463, Mataṅgavṛtti, 9
465 Māṭāyikāvu, 558–9
Malwa, 194 maṭha, 19, 25, 97
maṇḍala, xiii, 59, 71, 141, 233–6, 245, Mathurā, 490, 529
250, 253–5, 257–8, 260, 261, 262–3, mātṛ, 190, 226
267–8, 278, 320, 326, 327, 512, 572 Mātṛsadbhāva, xvii, 539, 548–56, 561–
maṇḍalācārya, 315 2, 564–6
maṇḍalaka, 327, 572 Mātṛtantra, xvii, 539, 563
INDEX 595
matsyaghāta, 218 Naravarman, 26

Mattamayūra, 26–7 Nārāyaṇīya, 349
mdo lugs phyag chen, 139 Nareśvaraparīkṣāprakāśa, 109–10
Medhātithi, 11, 184 Nāropa, 148, 160
Meghadatta, 51–2 Nāṭyaśāstra, 184
Meghadūta, 174, 194 Navarātrapūjāvidhi, 451
melaka, 56, 70 Nayar, 559
Melkote, 116–7, 381–2 Nemicandra, 258–61
Mi bskyod rdo rje, 142, 156 Nepal, xvi, 3
miśraka, 53, 67–70 Nepālikabhūpavaṃśāvalī, 428, 434, 441
Mitākṣara, 87 Netratantra, 33, 39, 41, 367, 375, 377–8
mleccha, 217, 477–8 nidāna, 581
Mohacūḍottara, 34, 395, 407, 410 Nilesvaram, 558
Mṛtasugatiniyojana, xiv, 315–8, 323–8 nindā, 211, 213, 215, 223
Mṛtyuvañcopadeśa, 325 nirbījadīkṣā, 210, 410
mudrā, 76–7, 298, 320, 572 nirmālya, 86–87, 211–3, 220, 227
Muktāpīḍa, 347 Nirṇayāmṛta, 396, 402
Mūlācāra, 253 Nirukta, 346
muni, 234, 236–8, 245–6, 252, 267 nirvāṇadīkṣā, 253, 410
munidīkṣā, 238, 254 Nirvṛtavajrācāryāntyeṣṭilakṣaṇa-
mūrtipa, 115 vidhi, xiv
Mūssad, 555, 558 niṣkāma, 112
Mūssads, xvii Niśvāsa, xvii, 30, 188, 211–3, 227, 402,
Mysore, 381 409, 472, 481, 484, 500–1, 503, 511–
2, 528–31, 533
N Noḷambavāḍi, 547
Nṛsiṃhaparicaryā, 396
Nāgārjuna, 148
Nyāyapariśuddhi, 109
Naicāśākha, 346
Naimittikakriyānusaṃdhāna, 29–32, 34,
90
O
naivedya, 71, 212 oḍḍiyāna, 50
nāmābhiṣeka, 323 Oḍradeśa, 50
Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, 321–2 Orissa, 40, 337
Nāmasaṃgīti, 321
Nambudiri, 560 P
Nampūtiri, xvii, 557–60, 564–5
Padatāḍitaka, 185
Nānāstotracitrasaṃgraha, 452
Padmākaravarman, 159
Nāradapurāṇa, 406
Padmapurāṇa, 347–8, 406
Narapatijayacaryāsvarodaya, 425

Pādmasaṃhitā, 111–7, 120, 123, 124, Pāśupata, xii, 6–7, 20, 24, 84–7, 93, 111,
129, 130 183, 185, 187–8, 191, 218, 48–, 496–
Padmaśrīmitra, xiv, 315–7, 323, 326 500, 528
Padmavajra, 152, 164 Pāśupatasūtra, 20, 194, 486–7, 498
Padmāvatī, 297 Paśupati, 183
pahlava, 184 Patan, 425, 429, 434, 441, 452, 459
Paippalādin, 40 Patola Shahi, 571, 574
Pallipuram, 559–60 paunarbhava, 94
Pañcamukhahanumatkavaca, 451 Pauṣkarasaṃhitā, 109, 112–4, 116, 117–
Pañcamukhīvīrahanūbhairavastotra, 463 26
Pañcarātra, 108, 114 pavitra, 399
Pāñcarātra, x–xi, xiv, 108–11, 114–8, Pavitrakavidhi, 419
120–1, 126, 128–31, 219, 252, 335–6, pavitrārohaṇa, 394–5, 399
338–9, 349, 354, 363, 378, 381, 392, pavitrāropaṇa, 111, 123, 394–5, 399,
395 401
Pāñcarātrarakṣā, 108–10, 120–1, 129– pavitrotsava, 388, 393–4, 408–10
30 Phyag chen zla ba’i ’od zer, 146
Pāñcarātrika, xii Piṣārikāvu, 542, 551, 558
Pañcārtha, 20–2 Piṭāra, xvii, 558–9
Pañcārthabhāṣya, 20, 24, 194 prajñājñānābhiṣeka, 140
Pāñcārthika, 6–7, 20–1, 24, 500 Prajñāpāramitā, 573
Pāṇḍya, 337 Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasūtra, 153
Parākhyatantra, 387 Prajñopāyaviniścayasiddhi, 152
Paramasaṃhitā, 111 Prakrit, 53
Pārameśvarasaṃhitā, 110–1, 116–20, Pramaganda, 346
123, 126–8, 130–1, 349, 395, 403, Pratāpamalla, 428, 434, 436–7, 452, 465
409 pratiṣṭhā, 34, 71, 111, 124, 126, 257–8,
pāramitā, 140 260, 386, 410
Pāramitānaya, 137, 139, 140–1, 152–60, Pratiṣṭhālakṣaṇasārasamuccaya, 91–2
164 Pratiṣṭhāsāroddhāra, 258–61
Paramokṣanirāsakārikāvṛtti, 390 Pratiṣṭhātilaka, 258–61
pāraśaiva, 543 Pravacanasāra, 242, 245, 247–8, 252
pāraśava, 540, 543, 546, 557–8 Prayāga, 51–2
Paraśurāmapratāpa, 98 Prāyaścittasamuccaya, 492
Parinirvṛtavaryācāryasatkāra- Prayogamañjarī, 549, 557
krama, 317 Premapañcaka, 142
pāṣaṇḍa, 492 prostitute, 84–5, 87, 89
pūjā, 13, 53
Pūjyapāda, 255
INDEX 597
Pulakeśin II, 195 Ranod, 27

punarbhava, 94 rāṣṭraśānti, 541
punarbhū, 89, 91, 94 Ratnadvīpa, 322
Punjab, 472 Ratnagiri, 280
Purāṇa/Purāṇas, x, 9, 35, 40, 180, 207–8, Ratnagotravibhāgavyākhyā, 141, 146
210, 226, 338, 346, 348–9, 351–3, Ratnākaraśānti, xiv, 109, 275, 281–3
387, 395, 404, 472, 489, 512, 524 Ratnarakṣita, 276
Purandara, 26 Ratnāvalī, 404
Puraścaryārṇava, 86, 100 Rauravasūtrasaṃgraha, 30
purodhas, xv, 336, 342, 345, 369 Ṛddhinarasiṃhamalla, 452
purohita, xv, 30, 336, 338–40, 342–3, Ṛgvedabhāṣya, 346
348–9, 353–4, 365, 368–9, 377 Rin chen bzang po, 159
Puṣkara, 344, 351 Rishikesh, 525
puṣṭi, 4 Rudra, 9, 21
Puṣyabhūti, 187 Rudrakalpa, 9
putraka, 54, 211 Rurujidvidhānapūjāpaddhati, 553
Rurujit, xvii, 539, 551–60, 565–6, 568
R
Rāghavendra Svāmī, 465
S
Raghuvaṃśa, 531 Sa skya Paṇḍita, 148
Rājagṛha, 248 Śabara, 175, 179, 181, 192
rājaguru, 25 ṣaḍaṅgavidhi, 10
Rājānaka Lakṣmaṇa, 2 Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, 573
rājapurohita, 41 sādhaka, 20–4, 50, 52–4, 56–68, 70–1,
Rajasthan, xiii, 237 73, 76–80, 211, 502
Rājataraṅgiṇī, 347 sādhakābhiṣeka, 29
Rājendracoladeva, 547 sādhakī, 49, 54, 80
Rājendravarman, 500 sādhikā, 54
rājyābhiṣeka, 29, 31 Saduktikarṇāmṛta, 26
rakṣā, 574 Sahajaṣaṭka, 142
Rāmakaṇṭha, 109, 390 Sahajavajra, xii, 137–40, 142–3, 145–6,
Rāmanātha, 385 152–3, 155, 157, 159, 160–1, 163–4
Rāmānuja, 23, 110–1, 117, 352 Śaiva Siddhānta, xi, xiii, xvi, 3, 4, 7, 25–
Rāmapāla, 138, 144–6, 149–50 6, 28–9, 33–4, 36, 38, 41, 89, 96, 211,
Rāmārcanacandrikā, 396, 402 213–5, 219–22, 226–7, 252, 258, 385,
Rāmāyaṇa, 347 388, 391, 393, 395–6, 502
Raṇajitamalla, 429, 459 Śaivāgamanibandhana, 549, 557
Raṅganāthasvāmin, 337 sakāma, 111–2
Raṅganāthasvāmin, 117 sakhāya, 54

sakhi, 54 Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinī-
Śākinī, 224 jālaśaṃvara, 277–8, 280
śakti, 51, 52, 54–9, 62–6, 70, 79–80 Sarvadurgatipariśodhanamarahoma-
śaktipāta, 324 vidhikarmakrama, 325
Sālagrāma, 339, 344, 349, 350–1, 529 Sarvadurgatipariśodhanapreta-
Śālihotra, 282 homavidhi, 318, 325
Samādhibhakti, 239 Sarvadurgatipariśodhanatantra, 321,
Samādhirājasūtra, 152–3, 164 326, 328
Samādhirājatantra, 152 Sarvajñānottaratantra, 212, 390
Samājatathānuṣārinī, 280 Sarvamaṇḍalasāmānyavidhiguhya-
Sāmaveda, 116 tantra, 324
samaya, xiii, 52, 54, 206, 210–27, 276, Śatapraśnakalpalatā, 86–7
295, 572 Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgama, 251, 262
samayadīkṣā, 72 Sattikā, 51–3, 72, 75, 80
samayavidyā, 72, 557 Sātvatārthaprakāśikā, 114
samayin, 53, 502 Sātvatasaṃhitā, 112–7, 121, 124
samayinī, 70, 80 Saurashtra, 24
Saṃghātasūtra, 573 Saurāṣṭra, 348, 351
Saṃhitāpāñcarātra, 109 Sautrāntika, 159
Saṃkarṣaṇa, 109 Śavaripa, 138, 140, 153
Sāṃkhya, 219, 340 Sāyaṇa, 346
Sāmrājyalakṣmīpīṭhikā, 379 Sekanirdeśa, 144–6, 148–9, 151–3
saṃskāra, 234 Sekanirdeśapañjikā, 138, 146–7
Samudragupta, 531 Sekoddeśa, 161, 163
Saṃvarodayā nāma maṇḍalopāyikā, 280 Sekoddeśaṭīkā, 160
Saṃvarodayatantra, 279 Sera Khandro, 49, 66
Saṃvitprakāśa, 113 Śeṣasamuccaya, xvii, 539, 548, 551–8,
saṅgha, 234, 237–8, 263, 321, 328, 574 561, 566
Śaṅkara, xvii Seven Mothers, 386, 518–9, 539–41,
Śaṅkaran Nampūtiri, 551 543–53, 555, 557, 560–1
Sāṅkarṣaṇapāñcarātra, 109 sexual ritual, 55–7, 59, 67, 80, 96, 137
sannyāsin, 93 Siddhabhakti, 238–41, 255–7
śānti, 4, 519 Siddhalakṣmī, 39
Śāntibhakti, 239, 256 Siddhayogeśvarīmata, 54, 72, 76, 79,
śāntimantra, xvii 214–7
śāntividhāna, 244 Sindh, 50
saptamātṛ, xvii Śiśupālavadha, 191
Saraha, 148 Śiṣyānugrahavidhi, 280
Sarasvatī, 339, 341, 349–51
INDEX 599
śivabhakta, 474–5, 483, 491–2, 497, 504, Śrīpraśnasaṃhitā, 108, 111, 113–4, 118,
521 120, 123
śivabhakti, 521 Śrīpuruṣottamasaṃhitā, 115, 120
Śivadharma, xvii, 9 Śrīraṅgam, 116–7, 121, 129, 337
Śivadharma corpus, 9–10, 13, 28, 207, Śrītattvanidhi, 451
226, 513 Śrīvaiṣṇava, 114, 130
Śivadharmasaṃgraha, 513 Śrīvidyārṇavatantra, 451
Śivadharmaśāstra, xv–xvii, 86, 98, 191, Śṛṅgāra, 351
386–7, 471–504, 511–4, 518, 520, Śrutabhakti, 255–6
522–3, 531, 533 Śrutakīrti, 348
Śivadharmottara, 9, 11–3, 18–9, 24–5, Sthitisamāsa, 137, 140, 155, 159, 160–1,
29, 36, 471–2, 496, 513 163
śivaliṅga, 472, 486, 489, 490 Sthitisamuccaya, 159
śivaloka, 6 Subandhu, 178
śivapura, 6, 11 Śubhacandra, 264, 266
Śivapurāṇa, 477 Subhāṣitasaṃgraha, 157–8
śivāśrama, 16, 19, 491–2 Sudarśana, xv, xiv, 335–40, 342–6, 348–
śivayogin, 493, 496, 500 53, 363–4, 368–73, 376
Śivgouḍā Pāṭil, 235 Sudarśanasaṃhitā, 451
Śivopaniṣad, 513 Śūdra, xi, 51, 84–7, 90, 97, 210, 479,
Skandapurāṇa, xvii, 184, 194, 207–9, 492, 543
397, 408, 472, 484, 511–2, 515, 524– Śūdrācāraśiromaṇi, 87
8, 531 Śūdrakamalākara, 87
skandha, 138 Sumāgadhāvadāna, 573
Smārta, 9 Sumati, 281
Smṛtisāroddhāra, 406 sūnākara, 218
Somaśambhu, 389–95, 401 Sundarānanda, 282–3
Somaśambhupaddhati, 391 Sunīti, 348
Somaśambhupaddhativyākhyā, 91 Śūnyasamādhivajra, xiv, 315
Somaśarman, 194 Sūribhakti, 255
Somasiddhānta, 7, 551 Sūtaka, 278, 286
Somnath Patan, 24 sūtikā, 212
śrāddha, 93, 95 sūtramahāmudrā, 139–40, 164
Śrauta, 9 Svacchanda, 30, 90, 186, 210, 216, 219,
śrāvaka, 141 221, 390, 393, 401, 409
Śrībhāṣya, 110 svadharma, 475, 477, 488
Śrīkaṇṭha, 52 svayambhū, 91
Śrīkarasaṃhitā, 108–9 svayambhūṣṇu, 88–9
Srinagar, 572–4

Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha, 211, 212– Trika, 39, 96, 391, 512

3 Trikarṇa, 91
Śvetāmbara, 248, 262 Trilocanaśiva, 391, 492
Swami Lakshman Joo, 2 Trivandrum, 545, 564
Śyāmilaka, 185 Tshul khrims rgyal ba, 143
mTshur ston Ye shes ’byung gnas, 142
T Tumburu, 40
Taittirīyāraṇyaka, 110
tālaka, 52–3, 57, 59, 61, 66, 68–70
U
Taleju, 425, 434, 444, 446, 459 Udayacandra, 281
Tamasā, 351 Ugramalla, 442
Tamil Nadu, 541–2, 559 Ujjain, 194, 572
Tanjore, 381 Ujjayinī, xii, 52, 174–5, 193–4
Tantrāloka, xi, 3, 5, 30, 37, 39, 88–90, Umāmaheśvarasaṃvāda, 513
93, 95–6, 100, 187, 324, 477 Upaniṣads, 109
Tantrālokaviveka, 219 upāsaka, 8
Tantrāntarasiddhānta, 108, 129 upāsakadīkṣā, 249, 252, 254
Tantrasadbhāva, 76, 205, 215–20 Upendrapura, 26
Tantrasamuccaya, 552, 557, 564–5 Ūrmikaulārṇava, 226
Tantrasiddhānta, 108 utsava, 410
Tantravārttika, 108, 184 Uttarakāmika, 89, 100, 391
tapas, 209 uttarasādhaka, 54, 57
Tāranātha, 322 Uttarottaramahāsaṃvāda, 513
Tattvadaśaka, 138–9, 141–6, 153, 156
Tattvadaśakaṭīkā, 137, 139, 140–3, 146, V
152–3, 156, 160, 163
Vāgīśvarakīrti, 325
Tattvaratnāvalī, 137, 146
Vaibhāṣika, 159
Tattvasaṃgraha, 277
Vaihāyana Saṃhitā, 451
Tattvāvatāra, 140, 157–9, 164
Vaikhānasa, 111, 114–5
Tattvaviṃśikā, 144, 164
Vaikhānasadharmasūtra, 543
Telugu-Cōḍa, 337
Vairāgyanandī, 237–8, 243, 264–6
Terāpantha, 238
Vaiṣṇavadharmaśāstra, 476
Tēvāram, 493
Vaiṣṇavī, 77
Thub pa’i dgongs gsal, 148
Vaiśya, 558
Ti pi ’Bum la ’bar, 143
Vajaraṅga, 434
Tīlopa, 148
Vājasaneya, 109, 114
Tirukkalukkunram, 541
vajra, 277, 320–1, 323, 572
Travancore, 381, 558, 564
Vajrabhairavagaṇacakra, 281
INDEX 601
vajrācārya, 285 Vilāsavajra, 321–2

Vajrācāryanayottama, 316 Vimal Bhakti Saṃgrah, 237–8, 256, 267
Vajramālābhidhāna, 279, 296 Vindhya, 178, 181, 184
Vajrapāṇi, 142, 151, 153 vīra, 54
Vajrasattva, 141 Vīrabhadra, 539
Vajrāvalī, 279 Vīraśaiva, 499
Vajrayāna, 155, 572 Viśāla, 349
Vaḷayanāṭukāvu, 558 Viśālā, 194, 347, 349
Valkhā, 24 Viṣṇudharma, 476, 492, 530, 532
Vāmanadatta, 113 Viṣṇudharmottara, 375, 378
vāmasrotas, 54 Viṣṇudharmottarapurāṇa, 520
vaṃśāvalī, xvi Viṣṇupurāṇa, 347, 349, 532
Varadarājasvāmī, 337 Viṣṇusmṛti, 476
Varāhamihira, 29, 32, 471, 532 Viṣvaksenasaṃhitā, 115
Vārāhī, 77 Viśvarūpa, 322
Vārāṇasī, 346–7 Viśveśvara, 33, 41
varṇa, 87, 97, 112, 182, 184, 218, 476, Vividh Dīkṣā Saṃskār Vidhi, 267
478, 491–3 vrata, 68, 70, 112, 224, 472
varṇāśrama, 475–6, 491 Vrātya, 90
varṇāśramadharma, 473–4, 498 Vṛṣasārasaṃgraha, 513
varṇāśramaguru, 34 Vyomaśiva, 26
vasantotsava, 403 vyūha, 112
Vāsavadattā, 178, 181
Vāyupurāṇa, 472 W
Veda, 113–9, 126, 130, 352, 477, 499
widow, 94
Vedajñānaśivācārya, 100
women, 7, 49, 51, 53–7, 64, 67, 69, 70–
vedanindā, 211
3, 75–6, 79–80, 93, 97, 207, 210,
Vedānta, 118
212–3, 215, 217, 221, 226, 227, 342–
Vedāntadeśika, 108–10, 114, 120–1,
3
129–30
Vedasiddhānta, 109 Y
Veṅkaṭanātha, 108, 337
vidyā, 574 Yādavācala, 116–7
vidyācakra, 72 Yādavagiri, 117
Vidyāpīṭha, 49, 56, 72, 96, 545, 572 Yaduśaila, 116
Vietnam, 504 Yajñādhikāra, 115
Vijayanagara, 428 Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 87, 93, 471
vikalpa, 66 Yajurveda, 114
Vikramapura, 138 Yāmuna, 23, 108–9, 114, 117–8, 128

yantra, 266, 335, 342–5, 365, 370, 372, yogeśī, 54–5

373–4, 376–8, 386 Yogibhakti, 238–9, 241, 256
Yāska, 346 yogin, 53
Yatidharmaprakāśa, 495 yoginī, xi, 49, 53–7, 61, 66, 67, 70, 72–
yoga, xii, 61, 219, 340, 344, 352, 365, 80, 188, 223–4, 226, 279
492, 500 Yoginīsaṃcāra, 222–3
Yogācāra, 159 Yoginītantra, 279
Yoganarendramalla, 434
yogayoginīmaṇḍala, 279

Tantra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tantra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tantra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From the middle of the first millennium CE, South Asia Nina Mirnig, Marion Rastelli,

TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT

and Vincent Eltschinger (Eds.)

Marion RASTELLI is a senior researcher at the Institute

Vincent ELTSCHINGER is Professor for Indian

TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN CONTEXT

HERAUSGEGEBEN VOM INSTITUT

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung aus dem Holzhausen-Legat

Diese Publikation wurde einem anonymen,

Die verwendete Papiersorte in dieser Publikation ist DIN EN ISO 9706

Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Preface .............................................................................................. vii

TANTRIC RITUAL COMMUNITIES

TANTRIC COMMUNITIES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

BEYOND TANTRIC COMMUNITIES:

The present volume on the socio-religious history of Tantric communities in

a central role in shaping Tibetan religious identities, beliefs, and practices

Structure of the volume

siddhānta – in South India in the early centuries of the second millennium

demonstrates how it is a great concern of the Ahirbudhnyasaṃhitā to show

famous South Indian twelfth-century Saiddhāntika ritual manual Jñāna-

means of inclusion by subordination, Bisschop investigates three works

centuries, he presents and examines newly identified fragments in the

How public was Śaivism?

ritual or devotion in the former case and on esoteric mysticism or philoso-

using these sources, sometimes no doubt simply incorporating their testi-

The main constituents of Śaivism

Pāñcārthika Pāśupata Atimārga and the Mantramārga seem radically differ-

degree of interaction, cofunctionalty, and hybridisation than reading the

Lay Śaivism: joint agency and civic spectacle

The literature for initiates in the Mantramārga distinguishes two catego-

products of the cow to be performed by the king and by extension by others

Through this six-element rite the deity becomes propitious. In both

The second passage concerns a ceremony taught in the second chapter of

śivavidyāvimānaṃ ca kuryāt prātaḥ suśobhanam

56 daśa dikṣu baliṃ dadyān nagarasya samantataḥ

73 rājyavṛddhiś ca vipulā nityaṃ ca vijayī nṛpaḥ

Śivadharmottara 2.46c–74. A = University Library, Cambridge, ms. Add.

47a tribhaumaṃ ca ACE : tribhūmaṃ ca B : tribhūmaṃ vā D 49a vicitrac-

the] capital, and he should have offerings made at every temple at

prostrate before the god and make an offering of guest-water to him

Initiatory Śaivism: sādhakas and ācāryas in the Atimārga

O Lord, is the observance of all the injunctions of the Pañcārtha the

as generally understood in India, namely that however great it may be it is

Ratnaṭīkā on Gaṇakārikā 1cd, p. 3, ll. 6 and 12–14: suparīkṣitaṃ

There is therefore no reason to read the inscriptions as evidence of a de-

vances of their ascetics were more extreme, involving such practices as

initiation to begin the Pāñcārthika discipline, he was required to own noth-

Ascetics and householder initiates in the Mantramārga

Initiating the monarch and the spread of

sufficient inducement to surrender an ascetic’s tranquillity for this publicly

Consecrating the monarch in the

In a large pavilion constructed for the ceremony equipped with various

victory in battle.”36 Evidently the initiation being described here is that of a

The Śaiva-Brahmanical social order

ples, monasteries, images, royal palaces, and new settlements. Indeed we

4.275 prajāpālaḥ smṛto rājā tasmān nyāyyaṃ tu rakṣaṇam

Mohacūḍottara, ff. 21v6–22r2

Tradition declares that the king is the protector of his subjects.37

There is the common [Brahmanical authority of Śruti, Smṛti, and