shaiva-age

[[127]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

The Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi, the Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa, and Buddhaguhya

That this transformation of the Mahayāna had been achieved by absorbing ānd adapting non-Buddhist practices was evident from the beginning. For the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi, our first major Buddhist Tantra,298 later classified as the principal work of the Caryatantra class, was conscious that it would be āccused of just this:

O [Vajrapan¯ .i,] Lord of the Yakṣas, in time to come there will arise people of in ferior understanding and no faith who will not believe this teaching. They will dissent and have many doubtṣThey will hear it but they will not take it to heart and they will refuse to put it into practice. Being themselves unworthy they will bring others too to ruiṇ [For] they will say that this is not the teaching of the Buddhas but belongs to the outsiderṣ299

(eṁ [Tib. rdo rje rtse nas rlung gis bskyod pa yi ’bar ba rnams kyis]: jvalad bhivajrāgraumārutoddhr̥tair Coḍ) k *udgacchad tad (corr̥ [Tib. de ni ’phar bar] : udgacchantaṁ Coḍ) dhyāyād dahanārci<ḥ >spr̥śyamānapāradavad | *ūrdhvāgnena (?) (Tib. steng gi sgo nas) vimuktiṁ buddhakṣetraṁ viśuddhaṁ vā ‘Then the Mantrin should take a blade of Kusa grass, visualize a sharp one- ´ pointed Vajra at its tip, place [that tip] at the aperture of the [corpse’s] penis and imagine that it is burning. Then concentrating his mind he should cause the shin ing consciousness that he has installed in the heart [of the corpse] to be driven [up from the heart] by blazing wind-fanned Vajra-points and he should visualize it rising to liberation or a pure Buddha-field through the upper [aperture], like [a drop of] quick silver touched by tongues of fire’. The ‘upper’ is one of nine aper tures through which consciousness can leave the body at death (utkrāntiḥ). It is located at the top of the head and is called ‘the golden door’ (kanakadvāram) by Bhavabhat.t.a in his commentary on the Catuṣpīt.hatantra (Catuṣpīt.hanibandha), f. 52r2: urdhve ¯ ti kanakadvāreṇ a yadā gacchati tadā maraṇādūrdhvaṁśīghram eva gater gatyantaraṁ viśiṣt.aṁ gacchati. The point of exit depends upon the destiny of the deceaseḍ This is the best. According to S´unyasam ādhivajra consciousness that ¯ exits at death through this aperture goes to the Immaterial World (ārūpyadhātuḥ): śirasārūpyaṁ gacchet (f. 3r4). This idea that consciousness may leave the body through various exits in accordance with its destiny is found widely in Brahmani cal sourceṣEarly Buddhist sources speak rather of consciousness ceasing at death at these points in the body; see Abhidharmakośabhāṣya on 3.43abc. Vasubandhu says there that in the case of Arhats their consciousness disappears in the heart according to some and in the head according to others: arhantaḥ| teṣām api hr̥daye vij ñānaṁ nirudhyate | mūrdhnīty apare.

298 See here p. 101.

299 rNam par snang mdzad chen po mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud, f. 177r1–3: de la gsang ba’i bdag po ma ’ongs pa’i dus na sems can blo zhan pa ma dad pa gang dag bstan pa’i de la dad par mi ’gyur zhing yid gnyis dang som nyi mang ba | thos pa tsam snying po ma ’dzin pa | sgrub ma la mi phyogs pa dag ’byung bar ’gyur te | de dag ni bdag nyid kyang ma rung la gzhan yang phung bar byed pa yin no | ’di skad du ’di ni phyi rol pa rnams la yod de | sangs rgyas rnams kyi gsungs pa ni ma yin no zhes smra bar ’gyur gyi.

[[128]]

The Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa, another early Buddhist Tantric text,300 assigned to the lowest class of Mantranaya texts, known as the Kriyatantras, is more ¯ explicit in this regard; and it has good reason to be so since it contains in its chapters 47–49 an assimilated version of the cult of Tumburu and his four sis ters, that is to say, the cult of the vāmasrotaḥ division of the Śaiva Vidyāp¯īt.ha, describing the Mantras of these deities as the highest and most secret of all the non-Buddhist (laukika-) Mantraṣ301 Moreover, it teaches that any of the

300 The date of this text is obscure. MATSUNAGA (1985) is of the opinion that the 9th chapter, on applications of the Ekaks ¯ .aramantra, was in existence before the Chinese translations T. 1181 of A.D. 702 and T. 1182 of A.D. 703. He also in forms us (ibiḍ) that the first ninety percent of the Chinese translation of the Garuḍ apat.alaparivarta (T. 1276), produced at some time between 746 and 774, is identical with the first sixty percent of the 41st chapter of the Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa as editeḍ The translation is attributed to Amoghavajra (705–774), but MAT SUNAGA observes (ibiḍ) that only the first part of the common text is in keeping with his other translations, the latter part containing elements such as human hair, beef, and skull-cups, which taken together are altogether alien to his Mantranaya. He strengthens the hypothesis that only the first part of this translation is by Amoghavajra with the evidence of the Go-sh¯orai mokuroku, a catalogue of the Bud dhist texts brought from China to Japan by Kukai in 806, which lists this text as oc- ¯ cupying three sheets, a third of the length of T. 1276. The prophetic history of Indian Buddhism, the Rājavyākaraṇ a, chapter 53 of the published Majuśriyamūlakalpa, cannot be earlier that the late eighth century since it knows of the Pala king Gop āla ¯ (r̥ c. 750–775) (53.628; and 53.816: tataḥ pareṇ a *bhūpālo gopālo [eṁ : bhūpālā gopālā Eḍ] dāsajīvinaḥ| bhaviṣyati). Since it does not mention his successor Dharmapala it is unlikely to be later̥ ¯

301 Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa, introductory prose before 47.1: sarvalaukikamantrāṇāṁ sārabhūtatamaṁ paramarahasyaṁ. The position within Saivism assigned by this ´ text to the cult of the four sisters suggests that, though later largely eclipsed by other traditions of the Vidyap¯īt.ha, it was once pre-eminent; and this is also cir cumstantial evidence in favour of the hypothesis proposed above (p. 50) that this cult was one of the earliest, perhaps the earliest, of the esoteric Śaiva systemṣ´ There is certainly much other evidence of its early centrality. As we have seen, it was known to Dharmakīrti (here p. 50), and a 6th-century manuscript of one of its texts survives amid the otherwise Buddhist Gilgit manuscripts (here p. 50). The Viṣṇ udharmottara shows knowledge of only two Śaiva deity-systems in itsśection on iconography: the Saiddhantika and this (3, ¯ Adhyāya 66, teaches the iconography of Tumburu and his sisters). The Advaitin Sa´ nkara in his ˙ Gītābhāṣya on Bhagavadgītā 9.25, in which it is said that those who worship the Spirits (bhūtejyāḥ) reach the Spirits (bhūtāni yānti) [when they die], glosses bhūtāni as vināyakamātr̥ gaṇ acaturbhaginyādīni ‘such as Vinayaka, the Mothers, and the Four ¯ Sisters’. On his date, probably eighth century, see HARIMOTO 2006. These deities were also incorporated in the traditions of Maṇ ḍ alas of the Nayasūtra and the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi that reached the Far East in the eighth century (see SANDERSON 2001, p. 8, fn. 5). Their cult was the basis of the Śaiva ritual performed ´ to inaugurate the kingdom of Angkor at the beginning of the ninth century (ibiḍ and 2005a, pp. 355–358); and there too, where the Mantramarga was preserved in ān early form, we see only the Siddhanta of its earliest texts and this cult. This ¯ co-existence is also evident in the Śaiva liturgies of Java and Bali, which are ofśaiddhantika character but incorporate these deities (see G ¯ OUDRIAAN 1973 and

[[129]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Mantra-procedures taught in the Śaiva and Gārud ¯ . a Tantras302 will be effec tive if applied by Buddhists in the Maṇ ḍ ala of these converted deitieṣ303 Thus the Buddhists envisaged by this text have the whole array of Śaiva Mantrasāt their disposal; and this position, so surprising from the conventional Bud dhist standpoint, is justified by the claim that what people have come to refer to as the Śaiva, Gārud ¯ . a, and indeed Vaiṣṇ ava Tantras are in fact Buddhist, since they were first taught by Manju ˜ sr´ī in this “vast Kalpa”, that is to say, in the Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa or, more probably, in a hypothetical proto-text of which the actual text was thought to be an abbreviated redaction:304

I have taught this Mantra [of Siva] which together with the trident Mudrā¯ destroys all demons, out of my desire to benefit living beingṣThose living on the earth will say that its ancient Kalpa, that I taught in former times, was taught by Siva. [But] the various excellent extensive [Kalpas] in the ´ Śaiva Tantras are ´ in fact my teachingṣ

. . .

The extensive Kalpas that have been related in the Vaiṣṇ avas Tantras were taught by Manjughos ˜ .a for living beings who could only be trained by [this] device.305

. . .

All the extensive Kalpas taught in the Garud ¯ . a Tantras were taught by me in order to benefit living beingṣ306

. . .

It was I that first taught, in this vast Kalpa, everything that the inhabitants of earth without exception refer to as the teaching of Siva. It was only later ´ that others taught in the various texts [considered to be taught by him] the Kalpamantras of the wise Siva Tumburu the Trader̥ ´ 307

SANDERSON 2005a, p. 373–374, fn. 76).

302 On the Śaiva Gārud ¯ . atantras see here p. 46 and SLOUBER 2007.

303 Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa 47.98c–99b, 102ab, 103ab: yāvanti śaivatantre ’smiṁ ye tantre cāpi gāruḍe k brahmādyair r̥ṣimukhyaiś ca . . . pūjitā kalpavistārā viṣṇ urudrasavāsavaiḥ| . . . tasmin maṇ ḍ ale *yojya (conj. : yojyā Eḍ) siddhyantīha na saṁśayaḥ‘All the extensive Kalpas that have been taught in this Śaivatantraānd, moreover, in the Garud ¯ . a, and worshipped by Brahma and others, by the lead- ¯ ing R.ṣis, . . . by Viṣṇ u, Rudra, and Indra, will be mastered if applied in this Maṇ ḍ ala. Of this there is no doubt.

304 Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa 2.32–34b: eṣa mantro mayā proktaḥsattvānāṁ hitakāmyayā | śūlamudrāsamāyuktaḥsarvabhūtavināśakaḥk 33 yan mayā kathitaṁ pūrvaṁ kalpam asya purātanam | śaivam iti vakṣyante sattvā bhūtalavāsinaḥk 34 vividhā guṇ avistārāḥśaivatantre mayoditāḥ.

305 2.31c–32b: ya eva vaiṣṇ ave tantre kathitāḥ kalpavistarāḥk upāyavaineyasattvānāṁ ma ñjughoṣeṇ a bhāṣitāḥ.

306 2.37: yāvantaḥ gāruḍe tantre kathitāḥ kalpavistarāḥ| te mayaivoditāḥsarve sattvānāṁ hitakāraṇāt.

307 47.53–54: sarvaṁśaivam iti khyātaṁsarvair bhūtalavāsibhiḥ| mayaiva nigaditaṁ [[130]]

If this is so, then the text has disarmed criticism that the Mantra-procedures that are presented as properly Buddhist in this text bear a suspiciously close re semblance to the non-Buddhist in their liturgical morphology. For if the Omni scient has revealed all forms of religion in consideration of the differing mental dispositions of his manifold audiences, then there is no reason at all why he should not in his wisdom have taught Tantric practice for Buddhists as well as for outsiderṣThe strict division between the Buddhist and the non-Buddhist has dissolved within a higher Buddhist intertextual unity. Indeed this very ar gument is deployed by *Buddhaguhya in the late eighth century in his commen tary on the passage of the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi cited above.308 He argues that what those who attack this Tantra for containing elements proper to the non-Buddhist Tantras fail to realize is that those Tantras too were taught by the omniscient Buddha.309 So it follows that there nothing inherently un-Buddhist in

pūrvaṁ kalpe-m asmiṁsavistare k 54 paścād anyo janaḥ prāhuḥ kalpamantrāṁ pr̥thak pr̥thak | *tumburoḥ(corr̥ : tumburuḥ Eḍ) sārthavāhasya tryambakasya tu *dhīmataḥ(corr̥ : dhīmateḥ Eḍ).

308 *Buddhaguhya’s teaching in the Kriya- and Cary ā- divisions of the Tantras is said ¯ by Gzhon nu dpal (Blue Annals, p. 351) to have been pre-eminent in Tibet dur ing the first transmission of Esoteric Buddhism, from the latter half of the eighth century; and this is confirmed by the Tibetan inventory of Buddhist texts in trans lation compiled in the Ldan dkar palace in the early ninth century. Its small sec tion of Tantras (gsang sngags kyi rgyud: entries 316–328) consists of nine texts of this class together with commentaries on the last four, of which three are ascribed to our author, those on the Vairocanābhisaṁ bodhi, the Sarvadurgatipariśodhana tejorājakalpa, and the Dhyānottara. The entry on the fourth commentary, that on the Subāhu[paripr̥cchā], lacks the name of its author, but it is at least probable that it was from the same hand, since no other Indian commentary on this text is knowṇ The loss of the Sanskrit originals of these and other works of early exegesis has left us without the means of confirming that his name, rendered Sangs rgyas gsang ba in Tibetan, was indeed Buddhaguhya, as modern scholarship has gener ally assumeḍ The evidence is inconclusive. For when the name appears in Tibetan sources in transcription rather than translation we find sometimes Buddhaguhya and sometimes Buddhagupta. We see the latter in the Ldan dkar inventory (LALOU 1953, p. 326: slob dpon Bu ddha gu pta) and both forms are found in the colophons of the translations of his works in the Tenjur (HODGE 1994, p. 70). The Tenjur con tains a letter (Toḥ 4194) in which *Buddhaguhya addresses the Tibetan emperor ¯ Khri srong lde btsan, who ruled from c. 756 until c. 797 (DOTSON 2007) and offi cially adopted Buddhism c. 779. From it we learn that he was invited to Tibet by Khri srong lde btsan but declined the invitation on the grounds of failing strength, sending instead his commentary on the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi.

309 rNam par snang mdzad mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud chen po’i ’grel, f. 158v4– 6: de la gsang ba’i bdag po ma ’ongs pa’i dus na sems can blo zhan pa zhes pa nas | de dag gis sngon sems can rnams la phan par dgongs pai phyir | ’di thams cad bstan par rab tu mi shes so zhes pai bar du lha rnams kyi kha dog gang yin pa dkyil ’khor yang de yin par gsungs pa | dbang po dang me’i dkyil ’khor la sogs pa ni | ’jig rten pa’i rgyud la yod kyi | ’jig rten las ’das pa’i rgyud | bya ba’i rgyud dang spyod pa’i rgyud kun las mi ’byung bas na | ’di ni sangs rgyas gsungs

[[131]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Buddhist Tantric practice, however closely it may resemble the Śaiva; and Bud- ´ dhists, therefore, once they have understood this fact, may devote themselves with full confidence to the rituals of the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi.

The Sarvatathāgatattvasaṁ graha and the First Inroads of Sāktaśaivism: Pos-śession, Goddesses, and the Sacralization of Sex

After the time of this text Tantric Buddhism did not, as one might expect, rest content with the degree of assimilation of Saivism it had already achieved, ´

pa ma yin no zhes zer te | gang ’jig rten gyi | rgyud rnams kyang | sangs rgyas bcom ldan ’das thams cad mkhyen pas sems can rnams so so’i dad pa dang rjes su mthun par mi shes pa zhes pa’i phyir ro zhes pa ste ‘The statement that be gins “O [Vajrapan¯ .i,] Lord of the Yakṣas, in time to come [there will arise] people of inferior understanding” refers to people who do not understand all that [the Bud dha] has taught for the welfare of past beingṣ[The Buddha] has taught [here] that the colour of the Maṇ ḍ alas should be the same as those of [their presiding] deitieṣBut some will say that the Maṇ ḍ alas of ¯Isvara and of fire and the rest are ´ found in the mundane Tantras [of the outsiders] and not at all in the supramun dane Tantras [of Buddhism, that is to say,] in the Kriyatantras or Cary ātantras, ānd that therefore they were not taught by the Buddha, [doing so] because they do not understand that the Blessed omniscient Buddha, in conformity with the various faiths of living beings, also taught [these] mundane Tantras’. This doc trine that all teaching is the Buddha’s, that he has taught variously in the appear ance of the Buddha, Siva, and others, is set out in the ´ Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi in a passage that survives in Sanskrit through its citation in the Nāmamantrā rthāvalokinī, Vilasavajra’s eighth-century commentary on the ¯ Nāmasaṁ gīti, on verse 42, f. 31v1–32r2: tathā coktaṁśrīvairocanābhisaṁ bodhitantre | bhaga vantas tathāgatā arhantaḥsamyaksaṁ buddhāḥsarvaj ñaj ñānaṁ prāpya tat sarva j ñaj ñānaṁsarvasattvebhyo vibhajya nānānayair nānābhiprāyair nānopāyanayair dharmaṁ deśayanti sma | keṣāṁcit śrāvakayānanayaṁ keṣāṁcit pratyekabuddha yānanayaṁ keṣāṁcin mahāyānanayaṁ keṣāṁcit pa ñcābhij ñaj ñānanayaṁ keṣāṁ cid devopapattaye keṣāṁcin manuṣyopapattaye yāvan mahoragayakṣarākṣasā suragandharvagaruḍ akinnarādyupapattaye dharmaṁ deśayanti sma | tatra ke cit sattvā buddhavaineyikā buddharūpeṇ a paśyanti. ke cic chrāvakarūpeṇ a ke cit pratyekabuddharūpeṇ a ke cid bodhisattvarūpeṇ a ke cin maheśvararūpeṇ a ke cid brahmarūpeṇ a ke cin nārāyaṇ arūpeṇ a paśyanti sma | ke cid vaiśravaṇ a rūpeṇ a yāvan mahoragamanuṣyāmanuṣyarūpeṇ a paśyanti sma | svakasvakair vacanodāhāraṇ anayair vividheryāpatha<ṁ > vyavasthitam | tac ca sarvaj ñaj ñānam ekarasaṁ yad uta tathatāvinirmuktirasam ityāha mahāvairocana iti. This is closely related to and probably derives from the vaineyadharmopadeśaḥ, the eighth Prakaraṇ a of the second Nirvyūha of the Kāraṇ ḍ avyūha (pp. 268–269). The Sad dharmapuṇ ḍ arīka likewise teaches (pp. 251–252) that Avalokitesvara assumes all ´ kinds of forms, including that of Siva, in order to teach living beings in considera- ´ tion of their particular dispositionṣSTRICKMANN informs us (1996, p. 440, ṇ 28) that this passage is present in the Chinese translation completed by Dharmarakṣa in A.D. 286. It is probable that it is the model of the passage in the Kāraṇ ḍ avyūha. The doctrine that the non-Buddhist teachers are a device (upāyaḥ) of the Buddha is also taught in the fourth chapter of the Bodhisattvagocaropāyaviṣayavikurvaṇ a nirdeśasūtra, which survives in two Chinese translations, the first by Guṇ abhadra in the fifth century; see ZIMMERMANN 2000, p. 18.

[[132]]

working only to infuse the new liturgical system with ever more clearly Buddhist purpose and meaning. On the contrary, with the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, the next major Tantra, which was considered to be the foundational text of the Yogatantra class, which follows the Caryatantras in the ascending hierarchy of ¯ the classification of the Mantranaya, and was in existence in a shorter version by the end of the seventh century and expanded in the course of the eighth,310 we find the beginning of a process of assimilation of S´ akta ¯ Śaiva language, practices, ´ iconography, and concepts that would become ever more comprehensive through out the rest of the Mantranaya’s creativity. Here we find for the first time the requirement that candidates enter a state of possession (āveśaḥ) at the time of their initiatioṇ This feature, which is altogether alien to antecedent Buddhism, is the hallmark of initiation in the Śaiva Kaula systems, setting them apart fromāll otherṣ311 The Vajracārya puts the candidate into a state of possession, has ¯

310 See MATSUNAGA 1978, pp. xvii–xvii.

311 See, e.g., Tantrāloka 29.186c–220; Tantrālokaviveka introducing 29.201c–202b: samāveśaḥsarvaśāstreṣv avigānenoktaḥ; SANDERSON 1985, pp. 200–202; 1986, p. 169 and fn. 2; and WALLIS 2008. The centrality of possession in the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva do- ´ main may derive from its Kapālika antecedents, since the Saiddh āntika ¯ Śaivas re- ´ port that the Kapālikas [of the Atim ārga] defined liberation as arising from a state ¯ of possession (āveśaḥ) by the qualities of the deity, analogous to the state of one who is possessed by a Bhuta ( ¯ bhūtāviṣt.apuruṣavat [Nareśvaraparīkṣāprakāśa on 1.61]); see, e.g., Pauṣkarabhāṣya, p. 232: svayamāviśyate siddhaḥ puruṣas tu gra hair iva | itthaṁcaiva tu kāpālās tat sāmyaṁ muktimūcire; and Śaivaparibhās ´.ā, p. 156, ll. 22-24: kāpālikāḥsamāveśena sāmyam upagacchanti | tathā hi yathā grahāḥ puruṣamāviśanti tatheśvaraguṇā mukteṣvāviśanti. They are distinguished in this context from the two other Atimargic traditions, those of the P ā¯nc˜ arthika ¯ Pa¯supatas, who defined liberation as the transference of the state of equality withśiva in the manner in which one lamp is lit from another (śāmyasaṁ krāntivādaḥ), and the Lakulas, who defined it as the arising of this state ( ¯ sāmyotpattivādaḥ); see SANDERSON 2006, pp. 179–181. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that possession by the deity as the goal of practice is a marked feature of the Picumata and Yoginīsaṁcāra of the Vidyap¯īt.ha, texts in which the perpetuation within the Mantramarga of the K āpālika tradition of the Atim ārga is particularly clear̥ Both ¯ describe the goal of their Kapālika-style asceticism as the entry of the deity pro- ¯ pitiated into the person of the propitiator̥ Picumata f. 101v1–3 (2.114c–117): duścaraṁ devagandharvais tvayā cīrṇ aṁ mahāvratam k 115 varaṁ varepsitaṁ vatsa udyataṁtu bravīhi me | yadi tuṣt.o ’si bhagavan praviśa mama vigraham k 116 vaktram prasārayasveti praviśya bhagavān prabhuḥ| hr̥daye bhairavo devo guhyakā tu gale sthitāḥk 117 mātaro hy aṅga-m-aṅgeṣu yoginyo sandhiṣu sthitāḥ| śākinyo romakūpeṣu pūtanādyā tathaiva ca ‘[Bhairava says:] You have [now] com pleted the observance of the [Kapālika] Mah āvrata, which is hard [even] for the ¯ gods and GandharvaṣChoose whatever boon you desire. Tell me without hesita tion [what it is]. [The Sadhaka replies:] If you are pleased, O Lord, enter my body. ¯ Telling him to open his mouth the Lord God Bhairava enters his heart. [His prin cipal Saktis,] the [four] Guhyakās occupy his neck, the Mother goddesses his limbs, ¯ the Yoginīs his joints, and the S´ akin ¯īs, Putānās, and others the pores of his skin’; ¯ cf. f. 335r1–2 (87.126c–128b): bhairavasya mahāmudrā mudrāsānaidhyakārikā k 127 prayuktā tu yadā mudrā lakṣaṇena varānane | bhāvātmakavidhānena sadyo

[[133]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

him cast a flower on to the Maṇ ḍ ala to determine from the section on which it falls the Mantra-deity from which he will obtain Siddhi, and then, while he is still in this state, removes his blindfold to reveal the Maṇ ḍ ala. He then conse crates him with scented water from a Mantra-empowered vase, places a Vajra in his hand, and gives him his initiation-name (vajranāma).312 The immediate effects of the possession are described as follows:313

As soon as he becomes possessed supernatural knowledge arises [in him]. Through this knowledge he understands the thoughts of others; he knows all matters past, future and present; his heart becomes firm in the teachings of the Tathagatas; all his sufferings cease; he is free from all dangers; no being ¯ can kill him; all the Tathagatas enter-and-empower him; all Siddhis approach ¯ him; unprecedented joys arise [in him], causing spontaneous delight, pleasure, and happinesṣIn some these joys give rise to meditation-states, in some to [the mastery of] Dharan ¯ .īs, in some to the fulfilment of every hope, and in some to the state of identity with all the Tathagataṣ¯

mantro vijr̥ mbhati k 128 karoti sādhakāveśaṁjapadhyānavivarjitā ‘O fair-faced one, the Mahamudr ā of Bhairava draws every Mudr ā nigḥ When it is employed ¯ correctly with full subjective immersion the [deity of the] Mantra immediately be comes manifest. [The Mudra] brings about possession in the S ādhaka without ¯ [need of] Mantra-repetition or visualization’. The Yoginīsaṁcāra requires any one who has gone through its initiation ceremony and then received consecra tion (abhiṣekaḥ) to adopt one of three forms of ascetic observance in order to gain mastery over the Vidya ( ¯ vidyāvratam): the Bhairavavrata, the Camun ¯ . ḍ avrata, or ¯ the Triṣaṣt.ikulavrata, the observance of the sixty-three families [of the Mothers], which it also calls the Kapālavrata, i.e. the K āpālika. At the end of the obser- ¯ vance, we are told, the Mothers will enter his body: dvitīyaṁtu vrataṁ vakṣye ghoraṁ kāpālarūpiṇ am k 8.41 śire kapālamukut.aṁśiramālāvibhūṣitam | kare karṇ au tathā pādau asthikhaṇ ḍ air vibhūṣitam k 8.42 vāme kapālaṁ khat.vāṅgaṁ tathā vai dakṣiṇe kare | śmaśāne vicaren maunī triṣaṣt.i divasāni tu | 8.43 vratānte tu varārohe śarīre mātaro dhruvam | viśante devadeveśi dadante siddhim uttamām ‘[Now] I shall teach [you] a second observance, the grim Kapālavrata. He should ¯ have a skull-crown on his head and be adorned with a garland of headṣHis hands, ears, and feet should be adorned with pieces of bone. In his left hand he should hold a skull-bowl and in his right a skull-staff. He should wander in silence in a crema tion ground for sixty-three dayṣIt is certain that at the end of this observance the Mothers, O fair-hipped empress of the gods, enter his body and bestow the highest Siddhi’.

312 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, sections 224–234.

313 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 226:āviṣt.amātrasya divyaṁj ñānam utpadyate | tena j ñānena paracittāny avabudhyati sarvakāryāṇi cātītānāgata vartamānāni jānāti hr̥dayaṁcāsya dr̥ḍ hībhavati sarvatathāgataśāsane sarva duḥ khāni cāsya praṇ aśyanti sarvabhayavigataś ca bhavaty avadhyaḥsarva sattveṣu sarvatathāgatāś cādhitiṣt.hanti sarvasiddhayaś cāsyābhimukhībhavanti apūrvāṇi cāsyākāraṇ aharṣaratiprītikarāṇi sukhāny utpadyante | taiḥsukhaiḥ keṣāṁcit samādhayo niṣpadyante keṣāṁcid dhāraṇ yaḥ keṣāṁcit sarvāśā paripūrayo yāvat keṣāṁcit sarvatathāgatatvam api niṣpadyata iti. [[134]]

and, after the bindfold has been removed:314

As soon as he sees the Great Maṇ ḍ ala he is entered-and-empowered by all the Tathagatas and Vajrasattva dwells in his heart. He sees various visions of ¯ orbs of light and miraculous transformationṣBecause he has been entered and-empowered by all the Tathagatas sometimes the Lord Vajradhara or the ¯ Buddha appears to him in his true forṁ From that time forth he attains all his goals, every desire of his mind, all Siddhis, up to the state of Vajradhara or the Tathagataṣ¯

Anandagarbha gives a detailed account of the means by which the candidate ¯ is put into this state of possession in the Sarvavajrodaya, his manual on the rites of initiation into the Maṇ ḍ ala of this Tantra, and makes it clear that entering this state is, as in the Kaula parallel, an absolute requirement. If the candidate fails to enter it by the standard means, the Vajracārya is to perform a rite to remove ¯ the sins that are assumed to be the cause, and if the candidate still fails to enter the possession state, he may not proceed further:315

If possession does not occur, because [the candidate] has committed [too] many sins, he should proceed to destroy those sins by repeatedly making the Sin Destruction Mudra. With concentrated mind he should kindle a fire with sticks ¯ of sweet wood and burn all his sins by casting into it oblations of sesame seeds with the Mantra OM. SARVAPAPADAHANAVAJR ¯ AYA SV ¯ AH¯ A¯. He should make a simulacrum of those sins with black sesame seeds on the palm of his right hand and visualizing the [wrathful] syllable HUM¯.in the centre he should offer it into the fire with his index finger and thumb. Then he should imagine that the sin is being incinerated in his body by Vajras wrapped in flames emerging from the fire-pit. [The candidate] will definitely become possesseḍ If possession does not occur even so, then he must not give him the consecratioṇ316

314 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 231: mahāmaṇ ḍ ale ca dr̥ṣt.amātre sarva tathāgatair adhiṣt.hyate vajrasattvaś cāsya hr̥daye tiṣt.hati | nānādyāni ca raśmi maṇ ḍ aladarśanādīni prātihāryavikurvitāni paśyati | sarvatathāgatādhiṣt.hitatvāt kadā cid bhagavān mahāvajradharaḥsvarūpeṇ a darśanaṁ dadāti tathāgato veti | tataḥ prabhr̥ti sarvārthāḥsarvamanobhirucitakāryāṇi sarvasiddhīr yāvad vajra dharatvam api tathāgatatvaṁ veti.

315 Sarvavajrodaya, f. 61r4–v1 (exposures 009a and 008b): atha pāpabahutvādāveśo na bhavati punaḥ pāpasphot.anamudrayā tasya punaḥ punaḥ pāpāni spho t.avyāni | samidbhir madhurair agniṁ prajvālya susamāhitaḥ| nirdahet sarva pāpāni tilahomena tasya tu k OM. SARVAPAPADAHANAVAJR ¯ AYA SV ¯ AH¯ A¯ iti | dakṣiṇ a hastatale kr̥ṣṇ atilaiḥ pāpapratikr̥tiṁ kr̥tvā hūṁ kāramadhyaṁ vicintya tarjany aṅguṣt.hābhyāṁ homaṁ kuryāt | tato homakuṇ ḍān nirgatya jvālāmālākulair va jrais tasya śarīre pāpaṁ dahyamānaṁcintayen niyatamāviśati | evam api yasyāveśo na bhavati tasyābhiṣekaṁ na kuryād iti.

316 Cf. Tantrāloka 29.29.210–211b: athavā kasyacin naivamāveśas tad dahed imam | bahir antaś coktaśaktyā pated itthaṁsa bhūtale k yasya tv evam api syān na tam atropalavat tyajet ‘Or, if some rare person does not become possessed by this

[[135]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

It is certain that the possession intended is not nominal or figurative. For Anandagarbha tells us that once the Vajr ācārya is sure that the candidate is in ¯ this state he should use him as an oracle:317

Then when the Acārya has ascertained that [the candidate] is possessed he should ¯ form the Samayamudra of Vajrasattva and address him with [the Mantras] ¯ HE VAJRASATTVA HE VAJRARATNA HE VAJRADHARMA HE VAJRAKARMA and NR. TYA SATTVA NR. TYA VAJRA (DANCE, O SATTVA; DANCE, O VAJRA). If he is indeed possessed he will adopt the Vajrasattvamudra. Then the ¯ Acārya should show the ¯

Mudra of the Vajra Fist. By this means all the deities beginning with Vajrasattva ¯ make themselves present [in him]. Then he should ask him something that he wishes [to ascertain], with the following [procedure]. He should visualize a Vajra on the tongue of the possessed and say SPEAK, O VAJRA. [The candidate] then tells him everything [that he wishes to know].318

means he should visualize him being burned both internally and externally by the Power [of the Mantra] taught above. By this means he will fall to the grounḍ If a person does not achieve [the state of possession] even by this means then in this [system] he must cast him aside like a stone’. Falling to the ground is commonly mentioned in Kaula texts as the consequence of initiatory possession; see, e.g., Matasāra f. 39v2–3: yāvanmātraṁ vihvalaṁca vedhayet pāśapa ñjaram | pāśastobhāt patatyāśu bhūtale nātra saṁśayaḥ; Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 4, bhairavānanāvidhau bhūmikāpat.alaḥ, f. 191v (v. 105ab): śaktikṣobhāt tadā yogī viddho patati bhūtale; Devīdvyardhaśatikā f. 16v: 197 tatkṣaṇāt patate bhūmau chinnamūla iva drumaḥ; Chummāsaṁ ketaprakāśa, first surviving verse: [ta]ddr̥ kpātamahodayāt | bhūmau sampatitaḥ kṣiprāc chinnamūla iva drumaḥ; Urmikaulārn ¯. ava f. 9r3: *pa ñcāvasthāgataḥ(eṁ : pa ñcāvasvagataḥ Coḍ) sākṣāt sa viddhaḥ patate bhuvi; f. 19v5–6 (2.230–231): pracalanti *mahāpāśā (corr̥ : mahāpāśam Coḍ)āveśaṁtasya jāyate |ānando hy udbhavaḥ kampo nidrā ghūrmis tu pa ñcamī k tattvaviddhasya deveśi pa ñcāvasthā bhavanti hi | sa viddhaḥ patate bhūmau vajrapātād ivācala<ḥ >; the Kaula Vr̥ddhasvacchanda ff. 17v24–18r2, Eḍ 10.15c–17a (using this MS alone): j ñātvā śrīśaktisaṁ krāmaṁsadevāsuramānuṣān k *vedhayen (eṁ : vedayen Coḍ Eḍ) nātra sandehaṁ pātayet parvatāny api k *sakr̥tsaṁ krāmayogena (Coḍ : cakrāt saṅkrāmayogena Eḍ) *chinnamūla (Eḍ : chinnamūlam Coḍ) iva drumaḥk patanti dehinaḥsarve; 10.25ab, Eḍ 10.25ab: sa viddhaḥ patate bhūmau *vajrāghātād ivācalaḥ(eṁ : vajrāghātam ivācalam Coḍ Eḍ).

317 Sarvavajrodaya, f. 61v2–3: tataḥsamāviṣt.aṁj ñātvācāryeṇ a HE VAJRASATTVA HE VAJRARATNA HE VAJRADHARMA HE VAJRAKARMA iti vajrasattvasamayamudrāṁ baddhvoccāraṇīyam | punar NR. TYA SATTVA NR. TYA VAJRA iti | sa cedāviṣt.aḥ śrīvajrasattvamudrāṁ badhnīyāt | tadācāryeṇ a *vajramuṣt.imudropadarśanīyā (nīyā corr̥ : nīyāḥ Coḍ) | evaṁsarve śrīvajrasattvādayaḥ *sānnidhyaṁ(corr̥ : sannidhyaṅ Coḍ) kalpayanti | tato ’bhipretavastu pr̥cched anena | jihvāyām *tasyāviṣt.asya (eṁ : tasyāviṣt.asyāviṣt.asya Coḍ) vajraṁ vicintya brūhi vajra iti vaktavyam | tataḥsarvaṁ vadati.

318 The inducing of possession in persons so that they may be used as oracles, is not restricted in Tantric Buddhism to the context of initiatioṇ It is also seen as an independent procedure in which the medium is a young boy or girl. We find it in the Tantra Subāhuparipr̥cchā in a section partly translated and partly paraphrased from the Chinese by STRICKMANN (1996, pp. 222–226), a work that was translated

[[136]]

into Chinese (T. 895) by Subhākarasim ¯ . ha in 726 and was in the hands of the Chinese monk Wu-xing in 674 (HODGE 2003, p. 18). We also see it in the Su ji li yan mo xi shou luo dian shuo jia lu luo a wei she fa ‘The quickly effective method of possession (āveśaḥ) taught by the god Mahesvara’ (T. 1277). This short scriptural text, whose ´ translation from the Sanskrit is assigned to Bukong (Amoghavajra) and to a date between 746 and 774, claims in its preamble that it is a teaching given by Siva ´ (Mahesvara) to Nārāyan ¯ . a on Mt. Gandhamadana in answer to the latter’s request. ¯ It sets forth a procedure to induce the messenger (Duta) of Mahe ¯ svara to possess a ´ young girl aged seven or eight so that he can then use her while she is in this state to answer any questions he has concerning the future. He should have her fast by eating nothing but pure foods for three or seven dayṣThen on an auspicious day he bathes her, anoints her with unguents, gives her clean clothes, puts camphor in her mouth, sits facing East, smears a low wooden platform with sandalwood-paste, has the girl stand on it, scatters flowers in front of her, sets up a vessel of Argha water, takes incense, empowers it seven times with the Mahamudr āmantra, lights ¯ the incense and fumigates the girl’s hands with it, takes a red flower, empowers it, places it in her hands, and passes his hands over her face. Then, with his hand forming a Mudra he touches and thus empowers five parts of his own body and then ¯ with the same Mudra touches the girl’s head, her mouth, his heart, and his navel ¯ visualizing in these the symbols of fire, water, earth, and wind respectively. He then empowers his two legs, visualizes Garuḍ a, puts the armour-Mantra on the girl’s body, and visualizes himself as Mahesvara, three-eyed, with the digit of the moon ´ on his crown, blue-faced, eighteen-armed, and brandishing various weapons, with a snake as his sacred thread, wearing the bleeding hide of an elephant. He then protects her with recitation, empowers flowers, incense, and Argha water with the Mahamudr āmantra, and seals the ten directionṣThen facing the girl the S ādhaka ¯ recites the Mantra of Mahesvara’s D ´ uta. The girl will start to tremble. This reveals ¯ to him that the Duta has entered her̥ He then snaps his fingers and recites the ¯ Mantra. If she does not fall into the possession trance he should recite a further Mantra to incite the Duta to enter her̥ By this means the result is certaiṇ He then ¯ interrogates her about good and bad in the future and is told whatever he wishes to know. This account is based on an oral translation of the Chinese text very kindly provided by my colleague NOTAKE Miyako (Leipzig). A French translation of part of the text, without the visualizations, is given in H ¯ob¯ogirin, p. 7.

Here too the model is Śaiva, as the preamble and content of this text suggest. ´ Putting children into a possession-state is already present in the earliest liter ature of the Śaiva Mantramārga, where we find the use of Ks ¯ .atriya and brah min boys for this purpose; see Niśvāsatattvasaṁ hitā f. 82v1–2 (Niśvāsaguhya 10.116–117b): athāveśaṁ kartukā[maḥ] + + kṣatrakumārakam | snāpayitvā tam ekaṁtu śuddhadehaḥsavāsakam k pūrvāmukhaṁsthāpayitvā hy udakenāveśayet; f. 112v6 (Niśvāsaguhya 17.30): athāveśaṁ kartukāmo brāhmaṇ akumāra[kam + u]dakena snāpya tenaiva tāḍ yamānamāveśayed vācayā mokṣaḥ. The ritual also appears in narrative literature. The Kathāsaritsāgara (70.55–63) tells a story of an ash-smeared ascetic, a pupil of Suddhak ´īrti, who has mastered many Mantras and claims to have done this with a Kṣatriya boy (56cd: śubhalakṣaṇ amāsādya kaṁcit kṣatrakumārakam), who in his trance revealed the whereabouts of many miraculous herbs and elixirs (57: sa kumāraḥsamāviṣt.aḥ pr̥ṣt.o nānāvidhāṇi me | siddhauṣadhirasakṣetrāṇ y udīryedam athābravīt), and, finally, a palace of the Nagas in a pollen-covered pond in the jungles of the Vindhya mountains, where, ¯ with the help of Vīras, he could obtain a sword that would make him lord of the SiddhaṣThe procedure is referred to there as a svasthāveśaḥ‘a [rite of caus-

[[137]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Nor is possession restricted in the Sarvatathāgatasaṁ graha to the context of initiatioṇ The termāveśaḥis used repeatedly in the text to denote the state that

ing oracular] possession in one who is healthy (svasthaḥ) [in body and mind]’ (70.56ab: so ’haṁ kadāpy akaravaṁsvasthāveśaṁ prasaṅgataḥ), and it appears under this name frequently in the Vidyap¯īt.ha, where in accordance with that lit erature’s S´ akta character the medium is, as in the ¯ Su ji li yan mo xi shou luo dian shuo jia lu luo a wei she fa, a young girl. We see this in Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 2, f. 19r9–v3 (6.54c–59): kanyāṁsulakṣaṇ opetāṁ dhūtavāsāṁ manoharām k 55 svalaṁ kr̥tām ataḥ kr̥tvā rātrāv eva maheśvari | dattvā dhūpaṁtato vidyāmāvart’ye sādhakeśvaraḥk 56 tāvadāvartayed ghorāṁ yāvadāveśamāpnuyāt | divyabhaumāntarikṣādyam (conj. :ādyā Coḍ)āveśaṁ kurute kṣaṇāt k 57 hastārdhaṁca kṣitiṁtyaktvā tiṣt.hate vikr̥tānanā | tadā mahālipiśitais tar payet suravandite k 58 prahvaś ca praṇ ato bhūtvā pr̥cchet sādhakasattamaḥ| sadāśivādikṣityante yāvan manasi rocate k 59 tat sarvaṁ kathayed devi yad anyaṁ vā hr̥di sthitam | evaṁ pr̥ṣt.vā visarjeta praṇ amya parameśvari ‘Then, at night, O Mahesvar ´ī, the lord among Sadhakas should adorn a pretty young girl endowed ¯ with excellent characteristics and wearing freshly washed clothes, fumigate her with incense, and then begin to repeat [the Vidya of] Ghor ā. He should con- ¯ tinue to repeat it until she becomes possesseḍ Immediately [her understand ing] penetrates all that is in the heavens, on the earth, and in the sky. With her face contorted she hovers half a cubit above the grounḍ Then, O honoured by the gods, he should gratify her with offerings of wine and meat. He should then bow low before her and put his questions to her̥ O goddess, she will tell him all that he wishes to know in the whole universe, from the level of Sada¯siva ´ down to Earth, and other matters that are concealed in his heart. When he has interrogated her in this way, O Paramesvar ´ī, he should prostrate himself in veneration and allow her to leave’; and Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, f. 99v2–6 (14.70–76): atha sādhayituṁ vā ñche svasthāveśanam uttamam | tadā kanyāṁ samānīya sarvalakṣaṇ alakṣitām k 71āsane tāṁ pratiṣt.hāpya sugupte varamandire | raktakr̥ṣṇāmbaradharāṁraktasrakkaṇt.haśobhitām k 72 śubhāsanasthāṁtāṁ kuryāt palāliparipūritām | avyucchinnaṁ dahed dhūpaṁ vidyāmāvartayet tataḥ k 73 tadā sā kampate kanyā ghūrṇ ate hasate punaḥ| ghaṇt.āṁ pravādayet tatra mahāmantravidhau (conj. : vikai Coḍ) sthitaḥk 74 tataāviśate tūrṇ aṁ devadevī kr̥śodarī | tyaktvā bhūmiṁtiṣt.hate sā tadā *sa (corr̥ : sā Coḍ) praṇ ataḥ pumān k 75 tarpayet parameśānīṁ nānābalyopahārataḥ| tadā sādhakamukhyāya vadate *manasepsitam (corr̥ : manasīpsitam Coḍ) k 76 bhūtaṁ bhavyaṁ bhaviṣyaṁca kālatrayam athākhilam | brahmāṇ ḍ odaragā vārtā<ḥ > sādhakāya vadaty asau ‘If he desires to accomplish the supreme rite of svasthāveśaḥ he should bring a young girl who possesses all the necessary characteristics and set her on a seat in an excel lent building that is well concealeḍ Her seat should be of fine quality. She should be dressed in a dark red garment; her neck should be adorned with a garland of red flowers; and her mouth should be filled with wine and meat. He should burn incense without interruption and then repeat the Vidya again and agaiṇ Then the ¯ girl begins to tremble, swoon, and laugḥ Established in the procedure of the Great Mantra he should ring his bell. The emaciated Goddess will immediately enter [the girl], who will then rise and hover above the grounḍ The Sadhaka should then ¯ prostrate himself before her and gratify the Goddess with the offering of a various BaliṣThen [speaking through the girl] she will tell that excellent Sadhaka what- ¯ ever he desires to know. She will explain to him [anything he wishes to ascertain in] the three times, past, present, and future], all events within the entire sphere of Brahma’. ¯

[[138]]

the practioner must induce in himself in order to accomplish both his Siddhis and his enlightenment, typically in the compound vajrāveśaḥ‘possession by Vajra’. For example:

For by means of possession by [Vajra]sattva enlightenment will quickly be at taineḍ319

. . .

When he has given rise toāveśaḥin this way whatever form he meditates on as his own will automatically become Buddha in forṁ320

. . .

When vajrāveśaḥ has arisen he should visualize the water as an embodiment of the Vajra. Quickly achieving success he will be able to walk on [that] water̥321 . . .

Once he has generated vajrāveśaḥ, if with concentrated mind he makes a slight clap with his palms in the Vajra¯njali [gesture] he can subject to his control even a ˜ mountaiṇ322

. . .

Likewise, by virtue of the practice ofāveśaḥ, if he stretches out [his hands in] the Vajra gesture and strikes together the tips of his fingers he can kill a hundred familieṣ323

Two other features of this seminal text evidence the influence of S´ akta ¯ Saivisṁ The first is the fact that after teaching the Vajradhātuman ¯ . ḍ ala in its opening section it goes on to teach the Vajraguhyamaṇ ḍ ala, in which the five Tathagatas are replaced by goddesses: Vairocana at the centre by Va- ¯ jradhatv ¯īsvar ´ī and, around her in the four directions, Akṣobhya by Vajravajriṇī, Ratnasambhava by Ratnavajriṇī, Amitayus by Dharmavajrin ¯ .ī, and Amogha siddhi by Karmavajriṇī.324 In the preamble Vajrapan¯ .i makes the following joyous declaration (udānam):325

Ah, how benevolent is the Bodhicitta to all beings! For the Buddhas take on even female form to accord with [the expectations of] their disciples (vineyavaśāt).

319 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 167: yat sattvāveśayogād dhi kṣipraṁ bo dhir avāpyata iti. 320 Section 238: tathaivāveśam utpādya yad rūpaṁsvayamātmanaḥ| *bhāvayen (eṁ : bhāvayan Eḍ) bhavate tat tu buddharūpam api svayaṁ

321 Section 238: vajrāveśe samutpanne vajrabimbamayaṁjalam | bhāvayet kṣiprasiddhas tu jalasyopari caṅkramet.

322 Section 247: vajrāveśaṁsamutpādya tālaṁ dadyāt samāhitaḥ| vajrā ñjalitalaiḥ sūkṣmaṁ parvato ’pi vaśaṁ nayet.

323 Section 247: tathaivāveśavidhinā vajrabandhe (conj. : bandha Eḍ) prasārite | agrāṅgulisamāsphot.ād dhanet kulaśataṁ kṣaṇāt.

324 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, sections 319–327.

325 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 322: aho hi bodhicittasya sarvasattva hitaiṣitā | yad vineyavaśād vīrāḥstrīrūpaṁ api kurvate. [[139]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

The second is the incorporation of sexual intercourse into the activities of worship as a higher form of practice. This element is not conspicuous because it is not mentioned in the treatments of the principal Maṇ ḍ alas taught in the text and it was therefore easily pushed out of view when this text was propagated in China and thence in Japaṇ It is present nonetheless as an esoteric teach ing reiterated many times throughout the text in the form of passages teaching that the pleasure of sexual union and indeed other sensual delights are a means both of worshipping the Buddha and of attaining Siddhis when combined with meditation on one’s Buddha nature. For example:

1: If after generating a firm intention to attain enlightenment he meditates on himself as the Buddha and worships himself [as the Buddha] with the pleasure of sexual intercourse he will obtain the joys of the Buddha himself.

. . .

2: He will quickly become equal to Vajrasattva if he presents the pleasures of em bracing the body of any [woman] as offerings to the BuddhaṣHe will be become equal to Vajraratna if he presents the pleasures of grasping [her] hair in intensely felt love as offerings to the BuddhaṣHe will become equal to Vajradharma if he presents the exquisite pleasures of kissing while immersed in intense sensual delight as offerings to the BuddhaṣHe will become the equal of Vajrakarma if during his worship he completely offers up to the Buddhas the pleasures of the union of the two sex organṣ

. . .

3: He will attain success in the Maṇ ḍ ala by means of the union of the two sex or gans while meditating with fully concentrated mind on the meditation state that embodies all thingṣ

. . .

4: Non-detachment from sensual pleasures: this is the greatest and purest rule of discipline [for an initiate] in the family of the TathagataṣIt may not be trans- ¯ gressed even by the Buddhaṣ

. . .

5: There is no religious duty purer than [the exercise of] sexual desire, the be stower of all joyṣThis, which brings about Siddhi, is the highest duty in the family of the Tathagataṣ¯

. . .

6: During worship with the four prostrations he will quickly attain Siddhi if when exhausted from the exertion of love-making he offers [to the Buddhas] the plea sure which that love-making arouseḍ

. . .

7: He will attain Siddhi if while meditating with in-turned mind on the purity of lust he worships the Buddhas with the drops of his semeṇ326

326 1 Section 288: bodhicittadr̥ḍ hotpādād buddho ’ham iti cintayan | ratyā tu pūja- [[140]]

The Guhyasamāja: copulating deities, sexual initiation rites, and the sacraliza tion of impurity

In the next phase of the Mantranaya, seen in the Guhyasamāja, also a product of the eighth century, this esoteric eroticism has moved to the fore ground; and this is apparent from the very beginning of the text. For the place where the Buddha is said to have been residing at the time that he revealed this Tantra, which was expected to be stated in the preamble (nidānavākyam) of any scripture claiming to be Buddhist, is not one of the familiar sites of revelation such as Rajagr ¯ .ha, Dhanyakat ¯ .aka, or, as in the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, the Akaniṣt.ha heaven, but the vaginas of the goddesses Locana, M āmak ¯ī, Pan¯ . ḍ aravasin ¯ī, and Tarā, that is to say, a timeless, unlocated bliss: ¯327

[I aver that] I once heard the following [teaching]. The Venerable Lord was re siding in the vaginas of the Vajra-women of the body, speech, and mind of all the Tathagatas . . . ¯

and this surprising relocation, no doubt provocatively shocking in its time, became standard in the subsequent literature of the Mantranaya, both in texts closely related to the Guhyasamāja and in the next wave of texts, the Yoginītantras, in which the influence of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva tradition became much ´ more intense and pervasive.328

yannātmā labhed buddhasukhāny api; 2 Sections 549–553: sarvakāyapariṣvaṅga sukhapūjāḥsvayaṁ bhuvām | niryātayan bhavec chīghraṁ vajrasattvasamo hi saḥ k dr̥ḍ hānurāgasaṁ yogakacagrahasukhāni tu | niryātayaṁs tu buddhānāṁ va jraratnasamo bhavet k dr̥ḍ haprītisukhāsakticumbitāgryasukhāni tu | niryātayaṁs tu buddhānāṁ vajradharmasamo bhavet k dvayendriyasamāpattiyogasaukhyāni sarvataḥ| niryātayaṁs tu pūjāyāṁ vajrakarmasamo bhaved iti; 3 Section 1825: viśvarūpasamādhiṁtu bhāvayan susamāhitaḥ| dvayendriyasamāpattyā maṇ ḍ ale tu sa sidhyati; 4 Section 2168: kāmānām avirāgas tu samayaḥsumahān ayam | tathāgatakule śuddho nātikramyo jinair api; 5 Section 2175: rāgāc chuddhataro nāsti dharmaḥsarvasukhapradaḥ| tathāgatakule ’py eṣa dharmaḥsiddhikaraḥ paraḥ; 6 Section 2506: surataśramakhinnas tu tat saukhyaṁsuratodbhavam | catuḥ praṇāmapūjāyāṁ niryātya laghu sidhyati; and 7 Section 2651: antargatena manasā kāmaśuddhiṁtu bhāvayan | svaretobindubhir buddhān pūjayan siddhimāpnuyāt. Other passages advocating sexual intercourse in worship are to be found in sections 475–479, 525–529, 929–932, 1184, 1790–1792, 1918–21, 2071–2074, 2158–2159, 2177, 2360–2363, 2415–2416, 2419–2421, 2425, 2439, 2443, 2445, 2504, 2508, 2510, 2512, 2516, 2672, 2720, 2950, and 2951.

327 Guhyasamāja, preamble: evaṁ mayā śrutam ekasmin samaye | bhagavān sarvata thāgatakāyavākcittahr̥dayavajrayoṣidbhageṣu vijahāra. 328 This same formula, or a variant, is seen in the Vajramālā (rDo rje phreng ba), f. 208r2–3: bcom ldan ’das de bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi sku dang gsung dang thugs kyi sning po rdo rje btsun mo’i bha ga rnams la (as in the Guhyasamāja]), the Kr̥ṣṇ ayamāri (sarvatathāgatakāyavākcittasarvavajrayoṣidbhageṣu), and in those of the Yoginītantras that have a nidānavākyam: the Hevajra and Saṁ put.odbhava (both as in the Guhyasamāja), the Vajrāmr̥ta (f. 1v1: sarvatathāgatakāyavāk cittahr̥dayavajrāmr̥taguhyapadmeṣu), Vajrārali (rDo rjeā ra li, f. 171r2–3: de [[141]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

In the Guhyasamāja the male deities, now multi-faced and multi-armed in a fusion of Śaiva and Buddhist iconography, are represented and visualized cop- ´ ulating with their consorts;329 and both initiation and subsequent practice now involve copulation with a female partner, as in the S´ aktism of the ¯ Śaivaṣ´ 330 A further borrowing from the Vidyap¯īt.ha is evident in the introduction of a cru cial element of what that tradition calls ‘non-dualistic practice’ (advaitācāraḥ) and both traditions call ‘practice free of inhibition’ (niḥśaṅkācāraḥ), namely the offering to the deities of such ‘impure’ substances as urine, faeces, semen, and blood, and their sacramental consumptioṇ331

bzhin gshegs pa thams cad kyi shes rab kyi pha rol tu phyin pa’i bha ga la [*sarvatathāgatapraj ñāpāramitābhage]), Caṇ ḍ amahāroṣaṇ a (sarvatathāgata kāyavākcittahr̥dayavajradhātvīśvarībhage), Abhidhānottara (f. 1v3: sarvatathā gatavajrakrodhaḍākaḍākinīguhyahr̥dayeṣu), Saṁ varodaya (sarvatathāgatakāya vākcittavajrayoginībhageṣu), and D.ākārṇ ava (f. 1v1: mahāvīreśvarasarvatathā gatavīrakāyavākcittayoginībhageṣu). 329 This is the case in both of the major Maṇ ḍ alas based on this Tantra, that of saffron coloured Vajrasattva-Manjuvajra and that of black Aks ˜ .obhya. For the full iconog raphy of these pantheons see Niṣpannayogāvalī A, pp. 1–7; B, pp. 1–12. The prin cipal difference between them is that in the Akṣobhyamaṇ ḍ ala only Akṣobhya, the central deity (cakreśvaraḥ) and the ten wrathful Krodharajas that form the outer ¯ protective circle are represented embracing consorts (sasvābhapraj ñāḥ), whereas

in the Manjuvajraman ˜ . ḍ ala this is also the case with the four Tathagatas (Vairo- ¯ cana, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha, and Amoghasiddhi) that occupy the four direc- ¯ tions around the central deity. All the deities in both Maṇ ḍ alas are three-faced and six-armed and all except the Krodharajas, who stand in the aggressive Praty ālid ¯ .ha posture, are seated in the Vajraparyanka posture. None of the deities has any of the ˙ Kapālika attributes that mark the iconography of the Yogin ¯ītantras, namely the skull-bowl, skull-staff, bone-ornaments, and coating of asḥ

330 The Guhyasamāja proper (chapters 1–17) gives little detail in its account of initia tion and makes no mention of the involvement of a consort, speaking of the neces sity of acquiring such a partner only in the context of the post-initiatory practice known as the vidyāvratam; see 16.93: ṣoḍ aśābdikāṁ gr̥hya sarvālaṅkārabhūṣitām | cāruvaktrāṁ viśālākṣīṁ prāpya vidyāvrataṁcaret ‘After obtaining a girl of six teen with a charming face and wide eyes, adorned with every adornment, he should practice the Vidyavrata [with her]’. The supplementary 18th chapter, however, the ¯ Samājottara, gives an account of the initiation involving copulation in its vv. 113– 127.

331 See, e.g., Guhyasamāja 4.21: viṇ mūtraśukraraktādīn devatānāṁ nivedayet | evaṁ tuṣyanti saṁ buddhā bodhisattvā mahāśayāḥ‘He should offer to the deities such things as urine, faeces, semen, and blooḍ In this way the noble Buddhas [and] Bodhisattvas are gratified’ (cf. the following in the Guhyasamāja’s satellite Tantra Vajrahr̥dayālaṁ kāra, Pat.ala 3 [rDo rje snying po rgyan gyi rgyud f. 39v3–4]: bshang gci khu ba khrag rnams ni | dung chen po ru bzhag byas te | lha rnams la ni dbul bar bya ‘He should place faeces, urine, semen, and blood in a human skull [mahāśaṅkhe] and offer them to the deities’); 6.21: viṇ mūtrāhārakr̥tyārthaṁ kuryāt siddhiphalā rthinaḥ| sidhyate ’nuttaraṁtattvaṁ bodhicittam anāvilam ‘If he desires to attain Siddhi he should consume faeces and urine. [By this means] he will master the ultimate reality, the spotless Bodhicitta’; 7.33ab: samayāt kṣared retaṁtu vidhinā pibet phalakāṅkṣiṇ aḥ‘In accordance with the rule of the discipline he should ejac-

[[142]]

ulate his semen and drink it if he desires to attain his goal’; 12.47cd: pa ñcāmr̥ta prayogena vajrasattvatvamāpnuyāt ‘By the use of the Five Nectars he will attain Vajrasattva-hood’; 16.7ab: avaśyam eva dātavyaṁ viṇ mūtrādyaṁ viśeṣataḥ‘One must especially offer [to the Maṇ ḍ ala] such substances as faeces and urine’; 17.47: viṇ mūtraśukraraktānāṁjugupsāṁ naiva kārayet | bhakṣayed vidhinā nityam idaṁ guhyaṁtrivajrajam ‘He must not feel disgust at faeces, urine, semen, and blooḍ He must regularly consume [them] according to the rite. [For] this is secret of the three Vajras [of body, speech, and mind]’; 18.67c–68b: siṁ havad vicaren mantrī nir viśaṅkena cetasā | nākāryaṁ vidyate hy atra nābhakṣyaṁ vidyate tathā ‘He should wander [fearlessly] like a lion, with a mind free of inhibitioṇ For him there is nothing that he may not do, nothing that he may not eat’. On advaitācārāḥ/niḥ- śaṅkācāraḥ and the use of such substances, the Five Nectars (pa ñcāmr̥tam), in the rites of the S´ akta ¯ Śaivas see SāNDERSON 2005c, pp. 110–113, fn. 63; and, e.g., Vi malaprabodha, Kālīkulakramārcana, f. 65r3–v4: atha nityanaimittikakāmyārcane kuladravyagaṇ aṁlikhyate | palāṇ ḍ uṁlaśunaṁ gr̥ñjaṁlambuṣaṁlavatarkasam | vāmāpuṣpaṁ puṣpabandham aṣt.au dravyāṇi kaulike k śivāmbu surā raktamadyaṁ mahātailaṁca śīdhukam | kuṇ ḍ agolodbhavaṁśukraṁ peyāny aṣt.au kulāgame k matsyaṁ māṁsaṁ mahāgotthaṁsthalajākāśanīrajam | mahāmāṁsaṁ mr̥ gaṁ caiva bhakṣyāṇ y aṣt.au kulakrame k mātaṅgī kajjalī śauṇ ḍī kaṇ ḍ ukī carmiṇī dhvajā | chippī veśyā susaṁ baddhā grāhyaitāḥ kālikākule k niḥśaṅkācāramārgeṇ a pūjanaṁca bhaved yadi | tadāsau sidhyate *devī (eṁ devi Coḍ) tair *bhuktvā bhāvitā yadi (conj. : bhuktaṁ bhāvitaṁ yadi Coḍ) k tatpānasparśanāhārāt pāśacchedakarī smr̥tā | *gopitaṁ(conj. : gopitais Coḍ) tan mayā pūrvam ad vaitācāraśobhanaṁ Cf. in the Mantranaya, e.g., the Sarvadevasamāgamatantra (lost in Sanskrit, apart from citations, and not translated into Tibetan) quoted in the Tattvasiddhi of S´ antaraks ¯ .ita, A f. 96v3–6, B f. 39v11–13 (Tib. f. 30r5–7): *nirvikalpena bhāvena (eṁ [Tib. rnam par mi rtog sems kyis ni] : nirviśaṅkena bhāvena AB) sarvakarmāṇi sarvadā | *ācaren (conj. :ācāran B :ācāra A [Tib. spyod pa]) nirviśaṅkena tapasām *uttamottamam (eṁ [Tib. mchog gi mchog] : uttamaṁstapaḥ B : uttamātapa A) k *viṣayān sevamānasya (eṁ [Tib. yul rnams *bsten (corr̥ : bston Coḍ) par gyur pa na] : viśayāṅgavimānasya AB) nirvikalpena cetasā | *kutsādhikaṁ na vā cet tat (tentative conj. [cf. Tib. smod par gyur pas mi gnod pa] : kutsādhikaṁ na vā cetas B : kutsādhikanāceta A) tat tapo *duratikramam (corr̥ : duratikramaḥ AB) k yas tu sarvāṇi karmāṇi *praj ñayā (eṁ [Tib. shes rab kyis] : praj ñāyā B : praj ñāyāyā A) viniyojayet | *sā ca śūnyapade yojyā (eṁ [Tib. de yang stong pa’i gnas su sbyar] : sarvāḥ śūnyapade yojya B : sarvaśūnyapade yojya A) *tapo (eṁ [Tib. dka’ thub] : tathā AB) hy eṣa mahātmanām k *praj ñāsaṁ krāntirūpeṇ a (B [Tib. shes rab ’pho ba ngos pos ni] : praj ñāsaṁ krātirūpana A) nirvikalpena cetasā | *niḥśaṅkācārasaṁcāras (eṁ [Tib. dgos pa med par kun spyod] : niḥsaṅkānārasa ñcāraḥs AB) tapas teṣāṁ(B [Tib. de’i dka’ thub yin] : tapatapateṣāṁ A) mahātmanāṁ A version of this passage is contained in the Vajraḍāka, f. 3v2–4 (1.57c–62b): sopāya<ṁ > sarvakarmāṇi nirviśaṅkaś cared yadā k 1.58 nirvikalpena bhāvena vratānām ut tamottamam (eṁ : maḥ Coḍ) | nirvikalpena bhāvena sarvakarmāṇi sarvadā k 1.59ācare nirviśaṅkena tat teṣām *uttamaṁtapaḥ(conj. : uttamāttataḥ Coḍ) | viṣayān sevamānasya (eṁ : sevyamānayo Coḍ) nirviśaṅkena cetasā k 1.60 keśoṇ ḍ ukānubhāvena (eṁ : keśoṇ ḍ ukasvabhāvena Coḍ) tat tapo (eṁ : tayo Coḍ) duratikramam (corr̥ : maḥ Coḍ) | yas tu sarvāṇi karmāṇi praj ñayā viniyojayet k 1.61 sā ca śūnyapade yojyā tapo hy etat mahātmanām k praj ñāsaṁ krāntarūpāṇāṁ(conj. : saṁ kāśarūpāṇi Coḍ) nirvikalpena cetasā k 1.62 niḥśaṅkācārasaṁcāras (corr̥ : saṁcāraḥs Coḍ) tapas teṣāṁ *mahātmanām (corr̥

[[143]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

That Tantric Buddhists possessed the specialized knowledge of the Śaiva ´ Mantramarga that would enable them to draw at will on the ¯ Śaiva Tantras in ´ this period is placed beyond doubt by an early exegetical work in the tradition of the Guhyasamāja. For this, the Guhyasiddhi of Padmavajra, written in all probability in the eighth century,332 assumes that any initiate in the practice of this Tantra is not only familiar with the Śaiva scriptures but is able to enact ´ their rituals by assuming the role of a Śaiva Guru, implying thereby that such ´ initiates were typically converts from the Mantramarga with experience both of ¯ its texts and of its practiceṣFor it tells the adept of this tradition that in or der to acquire the female consort required for his post-initiatory observance he should enter the home of a family of untouchables who are observant devotees of Siva, reveal to them one of the Saiddhāntika scriptures—the text specifically ¯ mentions the Kālottara and the Niśvāsa—give them Maṇ ḍ ala initiation [follow ing this scripture], and then return to them the dakṣiṇā that they will give him, taking a girl from them in its place:333

He should wander in other lands, in which he is known nowhere. With firm re solve the Sadhaka should enter among untouchables who are devotees of ¯ Siva ´

mahātmanaḥ Coḍ).

332 Portions of the Guhyasiddhi have been quoted in the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa of Aryadeva: ¯ Caryāmelāpakapradīpa, pp. 71–72 (imam evārthaṁ dyotayannāha śrīguhyasiddhau:) = Guhyasiddhi 3.71–81, 17.38; p. 77 = 6.2–3; and p. 97 = 6.45– 49. TOMABECHI (2008, p. 175) has shown that Aryadeva’s work is likely to have ¯ been written in the early years of the ninth century.

333 Guhyasiddhi 8.8c–16b: paryat.ed *anyadeśeṣu (conj. [cf. 8.2cd: praviśya cānyadeśeṣu] : divyadeśeṣu Eḍ [Tib. bzang po’i yul du ’khyam par bya]) yatra na j ñāyate kvacit k 9 praviśya *cāntyajātīnāṁ madhye (eṁ [Tib. mthar skyes nang du ’jug par bya] : cāntyajādīnāṁ madhye Eḍ) ye tripurāntake | bhaktā jānanti naivānyaṁ daivataṁ paramārthataḥk 10 *siddhāntabhāvitā nityaṁ(eṁ [Tib. rtag tu rang gi grub mtha’ bsgom (*svasiddhāntabhāvakā nityaṁ)] : siddhyante bhāvitā nityaṁ Eḍ) snānadevārcane ratāḥ| kiṁcidakṣaramārgeṇ a *prasaktāḥ (conj. : prasakte Eḍ) śāstradarśane k 11 evaṁ praviśya tanmadhye sādhako dr̥ḍ haniścayaḥ| caṇ ḍālagaṇ arūpeṇ a bhāvayan bodhim uttamām k 12 darśayec ca tatas teṣāṁ dharmaṁsiddhāntapūrvakam (eṁ [cf. Tib. chos dang grub mtha’ sngon ’gro ba | de nas de la ston par byed] : darśayec ca tatas teṣāṁ dharmasiddhāntapūrvakam Eḍ) | kālottarādisaṁsiddhaṁ(eṁ : saṁśuddhaṁ Eḍ) no cen niḥśvāsasaṁ bhavam k 13 pātayituṁca viśvāse sarvāṁs tāṁs tantracoditān | kr̥tvā caivātmanaḥśiṣyān dīkṣāmaṇ ḍ alapūrvakam k 14 tato yat saṁcitaṁ dravyaṁtair dattaṁ gurupūjane | tat teṣām arpayitvā tu pūrvaṁ vit tena saṁ yutam k 15 gr̥hītvā kanyakāṁteṣāṁcāruvaktrāṁsulocanām | tāṁ kr̥tvā mantrasadbhāvābhij ñāṁsamayasaṁ matām k 16 cared vidyāvrataṁ dhīmān buddhatvakr̥taniścayaḥ. I have emended antyajādīnām to antyajātīnām with the support of the Tibetan because the -ādi- is inapposite: in 8.7 the Sadhaka is ¯ told to enter the home of an untouchable (antyajālayaḥ); and in 8.1 he is told that it is an untouchable girl (antyajā) that he is to acquire. I take dharmaṁ siddhāntapūrvakaṁin 8.12c to mean ‘dharmaṁ preceded by [the word] siddhānta- ’, i.e. siddhāntadharmaṁ, an example of a not uncommon style of periphrasiṣ

[[144]]

and recognize no other deity as absolute, who are inspired by the Siddhanta, al- ¯ ways attached to [the rituals of] bathing and deity-worship, and dedicated to the doctrines of its scriptures through some slight degree of literacy. After entering among them in the guise of an untouchable votary (caṇ ḍālagaṇ aḥ), he should, while cultivating insight into the highest wisdom, instruct them in the religion of the Siddhanta established in such scriptures as the ¯ Kālottara, or the Niśvāsa;334 and in order to win their trust he should take as his disciples all those who are

enjoined by the Tantra after [initiating them before] the Initiation Maṇ ḍ ala [of Siva]. Then he should give back to them all the goods and money that they will ´

previously have gathered and given him as their offering to their Guru and take [instead] a girl of theirs with a beautiful face and eyeṣAfter acquainting her with the essence of the Mantras and making her adhere to the rules of an initiate that wise one should practice the Vidya observance [with her], after resolving to ¯ become a Buddha.335

This is indeed troubling evidence for those who may be reluctant to accept that Buddhists would have had the familiarity with Tantric Saivism that my thesis ´ of the development of the Mantranaya presupposeṣ

The Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara: Heruka and his Yoginīs, Kāpālika iconography, the Gaṇ amaṇ ḍ ala, and the beginning of Śaiva-Buddhist ´ intertextuality

With the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara, another product of this century,336 we see the beginning of the final phase of s´aktizatioṇ It is still ¯ rooted in the liturgical tradition of the Yogatantras,337 as can be seen in the

334 Literally “that which has arisen from the outbreath (niḥśvāsaḥ/niśvāsaḥ) [of Siva]”. ´ Both forms of the name of this scripture, Niśvāsa and Niḥśvāsa, are attesteḍ 335 Padmavajra is elaborating on Guhyasamāja 16.93: ṣoḍ aśābdikāṁ gr̥hya sarvālaṅkārabhūṣitām | cāruvaktrāṁ viśālākṣīṁ prāpya vidyāvrataṁcaret ‘He should take a girl of sixteen with a beautiful face and wide eyes, adorned with every ornament, and practice the Vidya observance with her’. ¯

336 It was translated into Tibetan towards the end of the eighth century or early in the ninth, and Amoghavajra (705–774) names it and provides a brief summary of its teachings in his Jin-gang-ding-jing yu-jia shi-ba-hui zhi-gui, Jap. Kong ¯o-ch¯o gy¯o yuga jūhatte shiiki (T. 869) Key Points of the Eighteen Assemblies of the Yoga of the Vajraśekharasūtra; see TOMABECHI 2007, p. 905. He composed this work in Chinese at some time between 746 and and his death in 774, but we can be sure that the text existed in some form, perhaps in an early stage of its development, by c. 740, since his knowledge of it must have been gained between 741 and 746, when he was in Ceylon and perhaps India gathering the Tantric literature whose analysis and translation into Chinese occupied the rest of his life.

337 It is referred to by Aryadeva as a Mah āyogatantra in his ¯ Caryāmelāpakapradīpa, p. 82: adhunā prapa ñcatācaryā śrīsarvabuddhasamāgamayogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara mahāyogatantrād avatāryate. This term serves to distinguish it from the Yo gatantras, namely the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha and its satellites and to

[[145]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

group it with the Guhyasamāja and related texts, though which of the Yo gatantras in the broad sense qualified to be considered Mahayogatantras might ¯ be the subject of divergence of opinioṇ Dīpankara ˙ sr´ījn˜ana defines this class ¯ (rnal ’byor chen po’i rgyud) as comprising the Guhyasamāja and its explana tory Tantras (vyākhyātantrāṇi), which he lists as the Guhyendutilaka, the Kr̥ṣṇ ayamāri, the Paramādya, the Sarvadevasamāgama, the Sarvarahasya, the Vinayāmogha[siddhi], the Vajraj ñānasamuccaya, the Vairocanamāyājāla, the Laghukhasama, the Advaya[samatā]vijaya, and the Vajraśekhara (Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma dka’ ’grel, p. 286: de la rnal ’byor chen po’i rgyud ni dpal gsang ba ’dus par bshad rgyud dang bcas pa dang zla gsang thig le dang gshin rje’i gshed nag po dang mchog dang po dang lha thams cad ’dus pa dang thams cad gsang ba dang ’dul ba don yod pa dang ye shes rdo kun las btus pa dang rnam par snang mdzad sgyu ’phrul dang nam mkha’ dang mnyam pa chung ngu dang gnyis med pa rnam par rgyal ba’i rgyud dang rdo rje gtsug tor rgyud la sogs pa rgyud sde stong phrag bcu gnyis te rgyas par byas na grangs pa med do.) An alternative terminology distinguishes these more esoteric Yogatantras as Yogottaratantras, perhaps origi nally in the meaning ‘Supplementary Tantras (uttaratantrāṇi) of the Yoga [class]’, and refers to the Yoginītantras as Yoganiruttaratantras, giving the ascending series Kriyatantra, Cary ātantra, Yogatantra, Yogottaratantra, and Yoginiruttaratantra; ¯ see, e.g., Ramap āla, ¯ Sekanirdeśapa ñjikā, introducing verse 1, describing his teacher Maitreyanatha (Advayavajra) as an unsurpassed master of all of these: ¯ iha mahā paṇ ḍitāvadhūtaśrīmaitreyanāthaḥ kriyācaryāyogayogottarayoganiruttaratantreṣv anuttaraguruḥ; Ratnakara ¯ s´anti, ¯ Muktāvalī, p. 223, on Hevajra 2.8.10: sarvam iti pa ñcavidham: kriyācaryāyogayogottarayoganiruttarabhedena (yogottara corr̥ [=Coḍ, f. 45v6] : yogāntara Eḍ); Kan¯ . ha, Yogaratnamālā, p. 156 (on Heva jra 2.8.10): sarvamantranayam iti pa ñcavidhaṁ kriyācaryāyogayogottarayoga niruttarabhedena; Advayavajra, Gūḍ hapadā, f. 6r6–7: vajraṁ pa ñcaj ñānātmakaṁ | iha pa ñcaj ñānaśabdena kriyācaryāyogayogottarayoganiruttarāṇi (eṁ : nirut tarāś ca Coḍ) tantrāṇ y ucyante. I have seen no occurrence in any Indian source of the term Anuttarayoga, commonly encountered in secondary sourceṣIt is ev idently an incorrect modern translation into Sanskrit of the ambiguous Tibetan rendering of Yoganiruttara (rnal ’byor bla na med). Early authors attest a less developed hierarchy. Vilasavajra, an author of the eighth century (T ¯ RIBE 1994, pp. 9–23) and the Guru of Buddhajn˜anap āda according to Gzhon nu dpal ( ¯ Blue Annals, p. 367), says that he writes his Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī after study ing the Paramit ānaya and the Kriy ā-, Cary ā-, and Yogatantras (A f. 1v1–2: ¯ yo gacaryākriyātantraṁtathā pāramitānayam . . . vilokya), but the last evidently in cludes texts such as the Guhyasamāja, Vajrabhairava, and Sarvabuddhasamāyoga, since he quotes these and other related workṣBuddhaguhya (rNam par snang mdzad chen po mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud chen po’i ’grel, ff. 64v7–65r6) speaks of Kriyatantras, which emphasize external ritual practice ( ¯ phyi’i spyod, bāhyacaryā), giving as examples the Susiddhikara and the Vidyādharapit.aka, and Yogatantras, which emphasize internal meditation (nang gi sbyor, adhyātmayogaḥ), giving the example of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, and says that the Mahā vairocanābhisaṁ bodhi, later classified as a Caryatantra, is a Yogatantra in as much ās it emphasizes the practice of Method and Wisdom (thabs dang shes rab gtsor gyur sbyor ba’i rgyud), but may also be referred to as a Kriyatantra or as an Ub- ¯ hayatantra (bya ba’i rgyud dam gnyis ka’i rgyud), that is to say, as a Tantra of both (ubhaya-) classes, because it also teaches external practice for the benefit of those whose commitment is to thiṣIn a parallel treatment in his Piṇ ḍārtha commentary on the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi he gives the Vajrapāṇ yabhiṣeka among exam ples of Kriyatantras (see the translation in H ¯ ODGE 2003, p. 449). This too was later

[[146]]

use of that tradition’s system of the four types of Mudra (Mah āmudr ā, Samaya- ¯ mudra, Dharmamudr ā, and Karmamudr ā) in S ādhana texts based on this ¯ Tantra, such as the Vajrajvālodayā of Anandagarbha and the ¯ Herukasādhana of Kalyan¯ . agarbha.338 But it initiates a new direction that would be followed in the next and final phase of the Mantranaya’s development, that of the Yoginītantraṣ339

considered to be a Caryatantra. The terms Kriy ātantra and Yogatantra are seman- ¯ tically coherent, as Buddhaguhya indicateṣBut the choice of the term Caryatantra ¯ (‘Observance Tantra’) for the intermediate class is puzzling. It is conceivable that it was adopted artificially under the influence of the classification of the subject mat ter of the Tantras of the Śaiva Mantramārga into ¯ kriyā, caryā, yogaḥ, and j ñānam or vidyā, perhaps with the notion that the fourth corresponds to the Paramit ānaya. ¯

338 As far as I am aware, only one other Sadhana text of this Heruka has sur- ¯ vived in Sanskrit. This is the anonymous Herukasādhana of Sādhanamālā 241. Anandagarbha’s, which appears not to have been translated into Tibetan, is much ¯ the most detailed of the three. Apart from these works the only other evidence of this cult in surviving Sanskrit sources of which I am aware is in the eclectic Yoginītantra Saṁ put.odbhava, which in f. 80v5–81v2, in its eighth Kalpa, the Sar vakriyāsamudayakalparāja, includes the Mantras of this Heruka and his retinue of goddesseṣThere is also a chapter in the Abhidhānottara of the Cakrasaṁ vara corpus (B ff. 121v5–129v1: Pat.ala 22) which teaches a hybrid pantheon in which the goddesses of this Heruka’s retinue have been incorporated into that of Heruka and Vajravarāh¯ī, the former taking on the appearance of the Heruka of the Sarvabud dhasamāyoga, being four-faced and eight-armeḍ This poverty of surviving sources in Sanskrit is probably due to the eclipse of this Tantra after the propagation of the later Yoginītantras, both in India and in Tibet. A striking indication of this eclipse is the fact that its Maṇ ḍ ala was not included by Abhayakaragupta in his ¯ Vajrāvalī and Niṣpannayogāvalī in the first quarter of the eleventh century. For the position that the four Mudras are the distinctive fundamentals of the S ādhana system of the ¯ Yogatantras see, e.g., Mkhas Grub rje’s rGyud spyi, pp. 228–248.

339 It was accordingly classified in the Kanjur (Toḥ 366–367) among the Yogin ¯ītantras (Toḥ 360–441). Likewise, Mkhas grub rje (1385–1438) in his ¯ rGyud spyi, p. 266: bde mchog kye rdor dus ’khor sgyu thod gdan *bzhi (eṁ : gsum Eḍ) phyag chen thig le sangs rgyas mnyam sbyor sogs ma rgyud yin no ‘The Mother Tantras [=Yoginītantras] are such as the Sam´. vara, the Hevajra, the Kālacakra, the [Mahā]māyā, the [Buddha]kapāla, the Catuṣpīt.ha, the Mahāmudrātilaka, and the [Sarva]buddhasamāyoga’. This recognition of the [proto-]Yoginītantric char acter of the text is not only Tibetaṇ It appears in the thirteenth chapter of the D.ākinīvajrapa ñjara, where it is referred to in abbreviated form as the *Sarvabud dha- (Sangs rgyas kun) in a list of Yoginītantras that also includes the Vajraḍāka, Hevajra, Guhyakośa, Vajrāmr̥ta, and Cakrasaṁ vara: rdo rje mkha’ ’gro phan rgyud dang | *kye yi rdo rje (T : kye yi rdo rje dkyil ’khor D) sangs rgyas kun | gsang mdzod rdo rje bdud rtsi ’byung ba dang | ’khor lo sdom pa gur *gyi (T : dang D) ’byung gnas ni | rnal ’byor ma *rgyud ni (T : rgyud drug tu D) rab tu grags (mKha’ ’gro ma’i dra ba’i rdo rje gur rgyud, D f. 104v4–5; T p. 369, ll. 5–6), and in Dīpankara ˙ sr´ījn˜ ana’s ¯ commentary on his Byang chub lam gyi sgron ma’i dka’ ’grel, where he refers to the texts of this class under their alternative title as Yoganiruttaratantras (rnal ’byor bla na med pa’i rgyud), p. 286: rnal ’byor bla na med pa’i rgyud ni dpal nam mkha’ dang mnyam pa ’bum pa chen po ’khor lo sdom pa dang rdo rje mkha’ ’gro dang rdo rje gdan bzhi pa dang ma hā mā yā dang sangs rgyas mnyam sbyor

[[147]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

First, it introduces or brings to the fore the cult of the deity Heruka340 with

an iconography inspired by that of the Bhairavas of the Vidyap¯īt.ha with their accoutrements and attributes of the cremation-ground dwelling Kapālika ¯ Śaivaāscetic. According to the visualization given by Anandagarbha he has four faces ānd eight arms, emerging as the transformation of a dark blue flaming Vajra, it self a transformation of a dark blue syllable HR¯IH.. The central face is fierce (rau

dang sangs rgyas thod pa dang dgyes pa’i rdo rje bum phrag lnga pa la sogs pa rgyud sde stong phrag bcu gnyis bzhugs te rgyas par bya ba na grangs med do ‘The Yoganiruttaratantra, endless in its full extent, contains 12,000 [texts], princi pally the Mahākhasama in 100,000 [verses], the Cakrasaṁ vara, the Vajraḍāka, the Vajracatuṣpīt.ha, the Mahāmāyā, the [Sarva]buddhasamāyoga, the Buddhakapāla, and the Hevajra in 500,000 verses’. On the term Yoganiruttara see here p. 146.

340 The origin of the name Heruka has not been explained in a satisfactory manner̥ Indigenous sources explain it only through artificial semantic analyses based on su perficial similarities of sounḍ Thus, for example, we are told that ‘He-’ means ‘un caused’ (hetuvarjitam), ‘-ru-’ means ‘formless’ (ru¯ panirmuktam), and ‘-ka’ means ‘free of sense-faculties’ (karaṇ ojjhitam); see Vajrapan¯ .i, Laghutantrat.īkā, p. 45; Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 5; and the Tibetans, who translated names if they were meaningful, either left this untranslated or substituted a description, namely Khrag ’thung ‘Blood-drinker’, a meaning that cannot be justified etymolog ically. So if the name was meaningful at some stage it appears that that meaning has left no trace in the surviving literature. The alternative is that it never was meaningful in this sense, being created on the basis of the unmeaning syllables HE HE RU RU KAM.that are found in Cakrasaṁ vara’s Mulamantra: ¯ OM. SR´ ¯IVAJRA HE HE RU RU KAM. HUM¯. HUM¯. PHAT. D. AKIN ¯ ¯IJALA ¯ SAM ´. VARAM. SVAH¯ A¯. Against this it may be said that the name appears without this doubling of the first two syllables in the earlier Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 794, in the Mantra for the tam ing of all the Mother goddesses: OM. HERUKA VAJRASAMAYA SARVADUS. T. ASAMAYA MUDRAPRABHA ¯ NJAKA H ˜ UM¯. PHAT.. It might seem more reasonable, then, to see HE HE RU RU KAM. as a spell-element built from an already existing name. However, it is striking that we find almost the same element in the Vidya of Par āpārā, an im- ¯ portant Mantra of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva Vidyāp¯īt.ha: OM. AGHORE HR¯IH. PARAMAGHORE HUM. GHORARUPE HAH ¯. GHORAMUKHI BH¯IMA BH¯IS. AN. E VAMA PIBA HE RU RU RA RA PHAT. HUM. HAH. PHAT.(Siddhayogeśvarīmata 3.23–39; Mālinīvijayottara 3.42– 50; Tantrāloka 30.20–24b; Triśirobhairava quoted by Jayaratha thereon) and its variant taught in Kubjikāmata 18.4-24: AIM. AGHORE HR¯IM. HSAH. PARAMAGHORE HUM¯. GHORARUPE HSAUM ¯. GHORAMUKHI BH¯IMA BH¯IS. AN. E VAMA VAMA PIBA HAH. HE RU RU RA RA HR¯IM. HUM¯. PHAT.. We may note that the name Hevajra, that of the second major deity of the Yoginītantras, appears to have a similar origin, having been conjured up from the Mantra HE VAJRA PASYA ´ ‘O Vajra[-being], behold!’ that is uttered when the blindfold is removed from the candidate’s eyes in the presence of the Maṇ ḍ ala (Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 230). The origin of the Herukas Rigi-arali and Vajra- ārali of the Tantras of those names are also, it seems, ¯ the apparently unmeaning syllables of Mantras: OM. ARALI RIGI PHEM ¯. PHEM. PHEM. BHYO SVAH¯ A¯ (Ri giā ra li’i rgyud f. 187v2) and OM. VAJRA ARALI PHAT ¯.. . . PHEM. PHEM. SVAH¯ A¯ (Ri giā ra li’i rgyud f. 187v7). The name of the Heruka Buddhakapala ¯ of the Tantra of that name has likewise been conjured out of the feminine vocative BUDDHAKAPALINI ¯ /-KAP¯ ALINI ¯ that appears in its Mantras; see (Niṣpannayogāvalī, p. 31: OM. BUDDHAKAPALINI ¯ AH¯. H¯I HAI HUM¯. PHAT.; Buddhakapālatantra, e.g., f. 5r1: OM. BUDDHAKAP¯ ALIN ¯ ¯I MAT. A 2 AH¯. PHAT. SVAH¯ A¯ puṣpanivedanamantraḥ).

[[148]]

dram), those to its right and left expressive of delusion and erotic passion, and that behind open-mouthed to devour̥ In his two uppermost hands he holds the freshly flayed skin of Bhairava over his back, in the two below a bow and arrows, in the third right in descent he shakes a blazing three-pronged Vajra, and in the fourth a skull-bowl filled with human blood (mahāraktam). In the third left in descent he brandishes the Kapālika’s skull-staff ( ¯ khat.vāṅgaḥ), topped with a three-pronged Vajra and adorned with bells, and in the fourth a skull-bowl filled with human flesh (mahāmāṁsam). Or he may be single-faced and two-armed, with a five-pronged Vajra in his right hand raised above his shoulder and a skull bowl full of human flesh in his left, with a skull-staff resting on his left shoulder and held in the crook of his left arṁ He wears a chaplet of skulls with the Bud dha [Akṣobhya] adorning his flaming hair, is surrounded by an aureole of flames, poses with his left foot on the ground and his right leg raised so that the sole of the foot touches his left thigh, has dancing eye-brows knitted in anger, and has round, fire-red darting eyeṣ341 Kalyan¯ . agarbha, who teaches only the two-armed form, adds that he stands on a sun disc, which rests on a lotus, which rests in turn on a prostrate corpse, is smeared with ashes, wears a garland of freshly sev ered human heads, and has protruding fangṣ342 An anonymous Sadhana text, ¯

341 Vajrajvālodayā, f. 172v1–2: bhagavato mahāmudrāṁ baddhvā purataākāśadeśe HR¯I<H. >kāreṇ a viśvapadmaṁ niṣpādya tasyopari pa ñcasūcikaṁjvālāvajraṁ HUM¯. A iti | tato vajrāhaṁ kāra<ṁ > bhāvayet JVAL¯ AVAJRO ¯ ’HAM. HUM¯ iti | tatas tad vajraṁśrīherukamātmānaṁ bhāvayet SR´ ¯IHERUKO ’HAM HUM¯ iti; f. 173r4–v4: caturmukham aṣt.abhujam | tatra prathamaṁ mukhaṁraudraṁ dakṣiṇ a<ṁ > dvitīya<ṁ > mukhaṁ pramohapramodina<ṁ > (?) pr̥ṣt.hatas tr̥tīyakaṁ bhakṣaṇ a mukhaṁ vāmataś caturthaṁśr̥ṅgāramukham | etac ca mukhacatuṣt.ayaṁ(conj. ISAACSON : catuṣt.aya Coḍ) gītyā nirdiṣt.am iti | dvābhyāṁ bhujābhyāṁ vāyu pat.adhāraṇ ayogena sārdrabhairavacarmadharaṁ dvābhyāṁ dhanurbāṇ adharaṁ dakṣiṇ atr̥tīyena triśūcikajvālāvajrollālanatatparaṁcaturthena mahāraktapari pūrṇ akapāladharaṁ vāmatr̥tīye ghaṇt.āsahitavajrakhat.vāṅgadharaṁcaturthena mahāmāṁsaparipūrṇ akapāla*dharaṁ(corr̥ : dharaḥ Coḍ) | dvibhujam eka mukhaṁ <vā> vāmaskandhe yaj ñopavītayogena ghaṇt.āvajrakhat.vāṅgaśobhitaṁ dakṣiṇ akareṇ a *tripatākāyuktena (corr̥ : tripatāka Coḍ) pa ñcaśūcijvālā vajradharaṁ| vāmakareṇ a mahāmāṁsaparipūrṇ akapāladharaṁ| kapālamālā makut.abuddhacūḍāmaṇi uccaviśvapadmāsanopaviṣt.aṁ vāmapādaṁ bhūmi sthaṁ kr̥tvā dakṣiṇ apāda<ṁ > sattvaparyaṅkayogena nyasya | tatpādatalaṁ vāmoruṇā saṁ put.īkaraṇ ayogenāvasthāpya nīlajvālāvajramayaṁraktajvālābha maṇ ḍ alaṁ mahāpralayakālograśmaśānāgnisadr̥śaṁ dīptakeśaṁraudrādirasa saṁ yogavicitramukhavibhramaṁ| savibhramabhrūbhr̥ kut.i<ṁ > pradīptāloka nartitadr̥ṣt.im iti.

342 Kalyan¯ . agarbha, Herukasādhana, pp. 470–471: adhomukhasya śavasyopari viśva padmaṁtasyopari sūryamaṇ ḍ alaṁtanmadhye samupaviṣt.am *ekāsyordhvabhuja dvayam (ekāsyo eṁ : ekasyo Eḍ) iti vacanād ardhaparyaṅkinaṁ bhasmoddhū lita<ṁ > raktaprabhāmālinaṁ piṅgalordhvakeśaṁ. . . sārdranaramastakamālā kr̥tasragdāmaṁ daṁṣt.rākarālavadanaṁcaladvartulākāraraktākṣaṁsavibhrama bhrukut.inaṁ [[149]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

which also teaches only that form, gives the further details that he is dark blue and clad in a garment of human skin, that his garland of heads is strung together with human entrails, that he is adorned with human bones, that is to say with the Kapālika ornaments known as the Mudr ās, and that his posture indicates ¯ that he is dancing.343

He is surrounded in the style of the Vidyap¯īt.ha by twenty Vajraḍ akin ¯īs:344 first, in the innermost circuit the eight Gaurī, Caurī, Pramoha, Vet āl¯ī, Pukkasī, Caṇ ḍ al¯ī, Ghasmarī, and Herukasaṁ nives´a/Herukasam ¯ . nibha; then the four ¯ Capadh ārin ¯ .ī, Khat.va¯ngadh ˙ arin ¯ .ī, Cakradharin ¯ .ī, and Citrapatakādh ārin ¯ .ī; then four offering goddesses: Puṣpa, Dh ¯ upā, ¯ Alok ā, and Gandh ā; and finally four ¯ theriocephalic gate-guardians: Turangam ˙ a, Vajramukh ¯ī, Vajramamak ¯ī, and Bhasmapralayavetal¯ī.345

343 Sādhanamālā no. 241: tato hrīḥ kāraniṣpannaṁ nīlakarālavajraṁ hrīḥ kārādhi ṣt.ḥitavarat.ake dhyātvā tatsarvapariṇ ataṁ nīlaṁ naracarmabhr̥taṁ kapālamālā kṣobhyaśiraskaṁjvaladūrdhvapiṅgalakeśaṁraktavartulākṣam antrasaṁ grathita muṇ ḍ amālāvalambitaṁ narāsthiracitābharaṇ aṁ dvibhujaikamukhaṁ daṁṣt.rā karālavadanaṁ. . . viśvapadmasūrye vāmapādaṁtasyaivorau dakṣiṇ acaraṇ aṁ vinyasya nr̥tyaṁ kurvantaṁ herukavīraṁ bhāvayet. There are numerous two armed Herukas conforming to the iconographical prescriptions of these Sadhanas ¯ in surviving statuary from eastern India, though this connection with the tradition of the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga has not been recognized to my knowledge. For ex amples from Ratnagiri in Orissa, Naland ā, S ārn āth, and Subhapur (in the Comilla ¯ District of Bengal) see LINROTHE 1999, pp. 249–260, figṣ175–183, and 185–188, and HUNTINGTON 1984, fig. 215. The last lacks the prostrate corpse.

344 Vajrajvālodayā, f. 176r7–v1: sarvaṁśrīgauryādivajraḍ akin ¯ ı¯gaṇ aṁ nirmāya prajvalitordhvakeśaṁ| raktajvālābhamaṇ ḍ alaṁ mahāpralayakālograśmaśānāgni sadr̥śaṁsaṁ kruddham ekakapālaikabuddhamakut.aṁsvacihnadharaṁ yathā sthāne niveśayet. 345 The Sarvabuddhasamāyoga deploys a complex six-family Maṇ ḍ ala consisting of six sub-Maṇ ḍ alaṣThe six families, each with its own sub-Maṇ ḍ ala, are those Va jrasattva, Vairocana, Heruka, Padmanartesvara, Vajras ´ urya, and Paramāśva. Two ´ Maṇ ḍ ala traditions deploy this pantheoṇ In one Vajrasattva occupies the cen tral sub-Maṇ ḍ ala and in the other Heruka. In each sub-Maṇ ḍ ala one of these six occupies the centre surrounded by twenty goddesseṣThe last twelve god desses are the same in each, namely Sus ´.ira, Nr ¯ .tya/V¯īṇ a, Vitat ā, and Ghan ā,¯ followed by Puṣpa, Dh ¯ upā,¯ Alok ā, Gandh ā, Turag ā, Vajramukh ¯ī, Vajramamak ¯ī, and Bhasmapralayavetal¯ī, the first eight of these being, as their names reveal, offering-goddesses (pūjādevyaḥ), personifications of offerings, and the last four gate guardians, except that in the retinue of Heruka Capadh ārin ¯ .ī, Khat.va¯ngadh ˙ arin ¯ .ī, Cakradharin ¯ .ī, and Citrapatakādh ārin ¯ .ī are substituted for the first four, the mu sical offering-goddesses Sus ´.ira, Nr ¯ .tya/V¯īṇ a, Vitat ā, and Ghan ā. The first eight ¯ of the twenty, then, stand apart as the retinue specific to each Tathagata. The ¯ eight from Gaurī to Herukasaṁ nives´a formed the basis of the retinue of Hevajra ¯ in the Yoginītantra Hevajra, with the difference that there we see Sabar ´ī rather than Pramoha and D ¯ . ombī rather than Herukasaṁ nives´a. See T ¯ OMABECHI 2007, pp. 919–921 for a complete tabulation of all one hundred and twenty-six deities and their seed-syllables as given in the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga and the Paramādya.

[[150]]

According to Anandagarbha ¯ 346 Gaurī (E) is fair in colour and tranquil-faceḍ

See also TANAKA 1996, pp. 199–201 for the Tibetan names of all the goddesses (and their Mantras) in the six sub-Maṇ ḍ alas, and the listings of the names and posi tions of all the deities of the two six-family Maṇ ḍ alas in BSOD NAMS RGYA MTSHO 1991, pp. 106–113. In the Heruka-centred Maṇ ḍ ala set out there each of the six deities presiding over the sub-Maṇ ḍ alas has a consort: Heruka + ¯Isvar ´ī, Vairocana + Locana, Vajras ¯ urya + M āmak ¯ī, Padmanartesvara + Pān¯ . ḍ aravasin ¯ī, Parama¯sva ´ + Tarā, and Vajradhara + ¯ Sam ´. varī; and the total of deities is 135, since two extra goddesses, counted as one, Citrapadma and Citravajr ā, are found in front of the cen- ¯ tral deity in the sub-Maṇ ḍ ala of Parama¯sva, and there are eight additional deities ´ in the outer enclosure, since there too there are four offering goddesses within its corners and four animal-headed goddesses guarding its gatewayṣTheriocephalic female gate-guardians are a common feature in the Maṇ ḍ alas of the Yoginītantras; see, e.g., Saṁ varodaya 13.29c–31b; Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 113 on 2.8 (Kakāsy ā, Ul ¯ ukāsy ā,¯ Sv´ anāsy ā, S ¯ ukar āsy ā); ¯ Niṣpannayogāvalī, p. 15 (Hayasy ā,¯ Sukar āsy ā, ¯ Sv´ anāsy ā, and Sim ¯ . hasy ā in the 17-deity Man ¯ . ḍ ala of Hevajra) and p. 90 (Sukar āsy ā, Gr ¯ .dhrasy ā, Jambuk āsy ā, Garud ¯ . asy ā, Vy āghr āsy ā, Ul ¯ ukāsy ā in the ¯ Maṇ ḍ ala of Kalacakra). ¯

346 Vajrajvālodayā, ff. 177r4–178r5: pūrvadigbhāge gaurı¯ gauravarṇā śāntadr̥ṣt.iḥ saumyamukhā yaugapadyenaiva tīkṣṇ adhanurbāṇ aparikṣepān mahāprasahya- śira<ś>catuṣt.ayaṁ pātayantī pratyālīḍ hasthānasthā | dakṣiṇe caurı¯ raktavarṇā raudradr̥ṣt.imukhā yaj ñopavītayogena vāmaskandhe khat.vāṅgaṁ dhārayantī | kapālamālāmukut.ā vāmakrodhamuṣt.inā hr̥dy aṅkuśadhāriṇī dakṣiṇ akareṇ a madhyāṅgulyāṣt.āracakram utkarṣayantī vāmapādena trailokyaṁlaṅghayantī | paścime pramoha¯ādivarāhamukhā pramohadr̥ṣt.iḥ kr̥ṣṇā caturbhujā madya pūrṇ akapālavāmakarā dakṣiṇ akare vajradhāriṇī punar vāmadakṣiṇ abhujābhyāṁ parasparābaddhābhyāṁ(corr̥ : paraṁ parābaddhābhyāṁ Coḍ) pr̥thivy uddharaṇ aṁ kurvantyālīḍ hapadāvasthitā | uttare vetal¯ ı¯ sitavarṇāṁ harṣa mukhīṁ mr̥takotthāpanadr̥ṣt.iḥ dakṣiṇ akareṇ a candrakāntābhakapālacaṣakenā mr̥tavāridhārāṁ pātayantīṁ vāmakareṇ a vajrapatākākaradhāriṇīṁ yatheṣt.a padāvasthitā | tasminn eva maṇ ḍ ale pūrvakoṣt.he (corr̥ : koṣt.ha Coḍ) pukkası¯ viśvavarṇā nr̥tyamukhī nr̥tyadr̥ṣt.iḥ dakṣiṇ avajramuṣt.inā pa ñcasūcikajvālāvajra dhāriṇī | vāmakareṇ a mārutoddhūtakalpavr̥ kṣalatādhāriṇī kapālamālādipari pūrṇ asadhūmaśmaśānamadhye nr̥tyaprayogena | dakṣiṇe caṇ ḍ al¯ ı¯ nīlavarṇā vāta maṇ ḍ alikārūḍ hā savibhramamukhīūrdhvadr̥ṣt.iḥ dakṣiṇ amuṣt.inā vajraśūlamādāya | vāyupat.adhāraṇena vātamaṇ ḍ alikāpramokṣeṇ a sādhyapraṇāmādayo patantī (?) | paścime ghasmarı¯ kr̥ṣṇ avarṇā (corr̥ varṇ ṇāṁ Coḍ) mr̥ta carvaṇ amukhī bhakṣaṇ adr̥ṣt.iḥ| vāmakareṇ a vajrajvālāgnikuṇ ḍ adhāriṇī | dakṣiṇe vajramuṣt.inā khaḍ gamādāya pratyālīḍ hapadāvasthitā | uttare sr´ ıherukar ¯ upa- ¯ saṁ nibha¯ vāmakareṇ a *caṣakakapālam (caṣaka conj. : capāśa Coḍ)ādāya vāmaskandhe khat.vāṅgaṁ dhārayantī | dakṣiṇe tripatākākareṇ a pa ñcasūcika jvālāvajramādāya śrīherukapade dvibhujaikamukhī saṁsthitā |āgneyakoṣt.hake *capadh ārin ¯.ı¯ (eṁ : copodhāriṇī Coḍ) | raktavarṇā vāmakareṇ a vajra dhanurādāya dakṣiṇena *vajracāpasahitena (corr̥ : vajracāpāsahitena Coḍ) dhanuguṇākarṣaṇ ayogena *vajrabāṇān (corr̥ : vajrabārṇ ṇān Coḍ) kṣipantī | nairr̥te khat.va¯ngadh ˙ arin ¯.ı¯ kapālamālāmakut.abuddhacūḍāmaṇi *dr̥ṣitāra (?) bhasmaśubhravarṇā dakṣiṇ akareṇ a ca pa ñcasūcikajvālāvajra<ṁ > pāṇ yā kṣipantī | *vāyavye (eṁ : vāyave krodhamuṣt.iṇā tarjanitatparā | vāyavye Coḍ) *cakra dharin ¯.ı¯ (corr̥ : cakradhārī Coḍ) gauraharitavarṇā vāmakrodhamuṣt.inā tar janatatparā *dakṣiṇ akaramadhyamāṅgulyāṣt.āracakram (dakṣiṇ a corr̥ : dakṣiṇe Coḍ) utkarṣayantī | aiśāne koṇe citrapatakādh ārin ¯.ı¯ | *kanakopalavarṇā (varṇā

[[151]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Eight-armed, she cuts off each of the four heads of Brahma by simultaneously fir- ¯ ing arrows from four bowṣ347 Caurī (S) is red and fierce-faceḍ Wearing a chap let of skulls she holds a goad-hook (aṅkuśaḥ) in her left hand at her heart with a skull-staff in the crook of her left arm resting on her left shoulder, and holds aloft an eight-spoked discuss with the middle finger of her right, pressing down on the three worlds with her left foot. Pramoha (W) is black and four-armed, with ¯ the face of Viṣṇ u’s boar-incarnation (ādivarāhamukhā). In her first left hand she holds a skull-bowl full of wine and in her first right a Vajra. With her other two hands she imitates the boar-incarnation by raising up the eartḥ348 Vetal¯ī (N) is white and joyful-faceḍ With her right hand she pours a stream of the nec tar of immortality from a transparent skull-cup and with her left shows the Va jra banner gesture. Pukkasī [E] is multi-coloured (viśvavarṇā) and dancing in a smoky cremation-ground full of strings of skulls and the like. In her right fist she clasps a five-pronged Vajra and in her left a wind-buffetted tendril from the wish granting tree of paradise (kalpavr̥ kṣalatā). Caṇ ḍ al¯ī (S) is dark blue and riding on a whirlwind (vātamaṇ ḍ alikā). In her right fist she clenches a Vajra-topped trident and with her left releases a whirlwind against her victimṣGhasmarī (W) is black and eating a corpse. In her left hand she holds a blazing sacrificial fire-vessel (agnikuṇ ḍ a-) and with her right grasps a sworḍ Herukasaṁ nibha¯ (N), black like Heruka, holds a skull-cup [to her heart] in her left hand, with a skull-staff resting on her left shoulder, and a five-pronged Vajra in her right. Capadh ārin ¯ .ī (SE) is red and, holding a Vajra bow with her left hand, fires Vajra arrows by drawing back the bowstring with her right. Khat.va¯ngadh ˙ arin ¯ .ī (SW) is ash-white, wearing a chaplet of skulls and the Buddha on her crown, [holding a skull-staff with her left hand and] hurling a blazing fire-pronged Vajra from

conj. : varṇ ṇ a Coḍ) dakṣiṇ akareṇ a *saṁ ghat.a(?)vicitravarṇ apatākā<ṁ > dhāra yantī. 347 That Gaurī is eight-armed is not stated by Anandagarbha, but she could not draw ¯ four bows simultaneously with fewer and no other hands are mentioneḍ His mahāprasahya- is obscure but evidently it denotes Brahma since the victim is ¯ said here to have four heads (mahāprasahyaśira<ś>catuṣt.ayaṁ pātayantī). Both these inferences are supported by Hum¯ . karavajra, who is explicit in both regards ¯ in his *Herukasādhana (f. 203v2): zhal bzhi phyag brgyad brjid pa’i stongs | g.yon brkyang gar gyis bzhugs mdzad cing | mda’ bzhi dus gcig bkang ba la | tshangs pa’i mgo bzhi spyangs pa ste.

348 According to Hum¯ . karavajra’s ¯ Herukasādhana she has two heads, that of a boar above and a red head below. Moreover, he has her raise with her two lower hands a wheel (’khor lo) rather than the earth (f. 203v3–5): *pra (eṁ : bra Coḍ) mo dbu gnyis gong ma phag | ’og ma dmar po phyag bzhi pa | g.yas kyi dang pos rdo rje rtse gsum bsnams | g.yon gyi dang pos kham phor ’chang | ’og gnyis khu tshur so sor ’chang | ’khor lo ’dzin cing bteg pa’i tshul | g.yas brkyang stabs bcas nub phyogs su | rmongs tshul mdog dmar pa dma la.

[[152]]

her right. Cakradharin ¯ .ī (NW) is light green and holds aloft an eight-spoked dis cuss on the middle finger of her right hand and threatens [the wicked] with her left fist clenched in anger̥ Citrapatakādh ārin ¯ .ī (NE) is golden in colour, holding a multi-coloured banner in her right hanḍThe four offering-goddesses stand in the directions holding the offerings that they personify: flowers, an incense-burner, a lamp, and fragrant powder; and the four goddesses Turangam ˙ a, Vajramukh ¯ī, Vajramamak ¯ī/Alok ā, and Bhasmapralayavet āl¯ī stand in the four gates of the en closure to subjugate all hostile deities (krodhakulam), with the heads of a horse, a boar, a crow, and a dog, and holding a hook, noose, chain, and bell.349

All this, barring a few specifically Buddhist details such as the Vajras and the offering-goddesses, who are already in the Mantranaya of the Sarva

349 Anandagarbha’s text is corrupt and lacunose at this point in the manuscript, ¯ omitting Vajramukhī and Vajramamak ¯ī (f. 178r5–v2): vāmamuṣt.inā ?ghat.y?āva sthitā ?tr̥ y?āmā ñjalinā puṣpadhūpadīpagandhacihnadhāriṇ yaḥ aśvagojāsābhūti saṁj ñitāsattapujādev ¯ ı¯ | pūrvadvāramadhye turang˙ asan ā¯ vāmahastena padma hastā hayagrīvaharitam aśvamukhaṁ dhārayantī | dakṣiṇe kare sthitena vajrā-ṅkuśena sarvakrodhakulamākarṣayantī | paścime dvāraālokāṁ(corr̥ : dvāre lokā ñ Coḍ) candrasūryamaṇ ḍ ala?rū?payuktavajrasphot.anena (conj. : sphot.anaṁ Coḍ) sarvaṁ krodhakulaṁ bandhayantī | uttaradvāre bhasmapralayavetal¯ ı¯ *vāmakareṇ a (corr̥ : nāmaḥ kareṇ a Coḍ) kapālamadhye viśvavajrasthaṁ buddha bimbaṁ dhārayet | dakṣiṇe kare sthitavajraghaṇt.āvādanayogena sarvakrodha kulaṁ vaśīkurvanty *avasthitā (corr̥ : avasthitāḥ Coḍ) | *sarvāś caitāḥ(corr̥ : sarvva ñcetāḥ Coḍ) pratyālīḍ hasthānasthā<ḥ > sadr̥ṣt.ibhāvarasānvitā<ḥ >. A complete but less detailed description of these eight can be seen in the Tibetan translation of the *Herukasādhana of Hum¯ . karavajra, f. 204r4–7. The identity of ¯ the non-human heads of the gate-guardians is mentioned in these sources only in the case of the horse-headed Turangam ˙ a, by ¯ Anandagarbha and H ¯ um¯ . karavajra (f. ¯ 204r5: shar sgo rta mgrin ’phang mtho dkar | g.yas na rta gdong g.yon lcags kyu), and Vajramukhī, by Hum¯ . karavajra, who names this goddess Phag gdong ‘Boar- ¯ face’ (Sukar āsy ā) (f. 204r6: ¯ lhor sgor phag gdong snon mo ste | g.yas pas mche ba g.yon zhags ’dzin). According to the tradition of the Ngor Maṇ ḍ alas, the last two door-guardians, Snang ba ma (Alok ā) and Thal byed ma (*Bhasmak ārin ¯ .ī [?]), are crow-faced and dog-faced (BSOD NAMS RGYA MTSHO 1991, p. 110). These animal headed guardians exemplify the character of this Tantra as transitional between the Yogatantras and the YoginītantraṣThe animal-headedness is shared with such goddesses in the latter (see here p. 151), but the hand-attributes, namely the hook, noose, chain, and bell, are those of Vajra¯nku ˙ sa, Vajrapā¯sa, Vajrasphot ´ .a, and Vajrave ¯ sa, the male gate-guardians of the Vajradhātuman ¯ . ḍ ala of the Yogatantra Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha; see TANAKA 1996, p. 271. For those attributes see the *Herukasādhana of Hum¯ . karavajra, f. 204r5–7 (I have restored the Mantras, ¯ which invoke the goddesses as the personifications of these attributes, to their cor rect Sanskrit form): OM. *VAJRA¯ NKU ˙ SE´ (corr̥ BA DZRA AM. KU SHA Coḍ) JAH.| shar sgo rta mgrin ’phang mtho dkar | g.yas na rta gdong g.yon lcags kyu | OM. VAJRAPA¯ SE´ HUM¯.| lhor sgor phag gdong sngon mo ste | g.yas pas mche ba g.yon zhags ’dzin | OM. *VAJRASR´. NKHALE ˙ (corr̥ : BA DZRA SHR¯I KHA LE Coḍ) VAM.| nub sgor snang byed dmar mo ni | phyag gnyis nyi zla lcags sgrog ’dzin | OM. *VAJRAGHAN. T. E (corr̥ : BA DZRA GA N. T. E Coḍ) HOH.| byang sgor thal byed mdog ljang du | sang rgyas gzugs dang dril bu’o.

[[153]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

tathāgattattvasaṁ graha,350 is very much in the Kapālika style of the pantheons ¯ of Bhairavas and Yoginīs taught in the Vidyap¯īt.ha.

Second, it is in the tradition of this Tantra that we see for the first time in the Mantranaya the practice of the gaṇ amaṇ ḍ alam, orgiastic worship in an assembly consisting of a male and a group of female adepts (yoginīgaṇ aḥ) person ifying the deities of the cult, with a jargon of special terms and gestures known as chommāḥto be used in these gatheringṣ351 Both these features, collective orgiastic worship of deity-personifying Yoginīs and the use of chommāḥ, are dis tinctive features of the S´ akta ¯ Saivism of the Vidyāp¯īt.ha.352

Third, we see here for the first time the complete abandoning of the mixed prose and verse style inherited from the Mahayānas ¯ utras in favour of one that ¯ resembles that of the Śaiva scriptures in consisting entirely of Anus ´.t.ubh verse, barring the Mantras, and also the disappearance of the traditional Buddhist preamble maintained up to the time of the Guhyasamāja, stating the occasion and place of the revelatioṇ353 It is also in the Sarvakalpasamuccaya, the supple

350 See Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, sections 165–176 and Niṣpannayogāvalī, p. 46 (Vajradhupā, Vajrapus ¯ .pa, Vajr ālok ā, and Vajragandh ā). ¯

351 The practice and the jargon are outlined by Aryadeva in his ¯ Caryāmelāpakapradīpa (pp. 82–60: prapa ñcatācaryā) on the authority of this Tantra. The Yoginīs per sonified here are the twenty that form the retinue of Vajrasattva, the eight pecu liar to him being Sam´. varī, Ahosukha, Prad ¯īpa, ¯ Sis ´.ya, Buddhabodhi, Dharmacakr ā,¯ Trailokya, and K āmalat ā.¯

352 On such worship in S´ akta ¯ Saivism see SāNDERSON 2007a, pp. 280–288; and Tantrāloka 28.6–111, 372c–385b (yoginīmelakaḥ, cakrayāgaḥ, mūrtiyāgaḥ), 29.66, 78–79. On chommāḥin these traditions see SANDERSON 2007a, p. 333 and the sources quoted in footnotes 331–332.

353 The Tantra begins as follows (Sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam par sbyor ba, f. 151r1–2: 1.1 sems dpa’ sangs rgyas kun gyi dngos | rdo rje sems dpa’ bde ba’i mchog | gsang ba mchog gi dgyes pa na | thams cad bdag nyid rtag tu gzhugs | 1.2 ’di ni rang byung bcos ldan ’das | gcig bu rab tu phye ba’i lha | sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam sbyor ba | mkha’ ’gro sgyu ma bde ba’i mchog (*rahasye parame ramye sarvātmani sadā sthitaḥ| sarvabuddhamayaḥsattvo vajrasattvaḥ paraṁsukham k asau svayambhūr bhagavān eka evādhidaivataḥk sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ varaḥ). Cf. the opening verses of the Laghu- śaṁ varatantra, which are evidently based on it: athāto rahasyaṁ vakṣye samāsān na tu vistarāt | śrīherukasaṁ yogaṁsarvakāmārthasādhakam k 1.2 uttarād api cottaraṁ ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam | rahasye parame ramye sarvātmani sadā sthitaḥ k 1.3 sarvaḍākinīmayaḥsattvo vajrasattvaḥ paraṁsukham | asau hi svayambhūr bhagavān vīro ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam; and the following citation of the Sarvabuddha samāyoga in the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa, p. 82: athātaḥsampravakṣyāmi sarvato viśvam uttamam | sarvabuddhasamāyogaṁ ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam k rahasye parame ramye sarvātmani sadā sthitaḥ| sarvabuddhamayaḥśrīmān vajrasattvodayaḥ sukhaḥ. These verses are 1–2 of the Kalpa 6 of the Tantra, corresponding to the Tibetan, except that that seems to have had a different version of the first line (f. 159v4–5): de nas gzhan yang thams cad du | rnam pa sna tshogs mchog ’byung pa’i | sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam sbyor ba | mkha’ ’gro sgyu ma’i

[[154]]

mentary continuation (uttaratantra) of this Tantra, that we see the first appear ance in the Mantranaya of the Śaiva method of teaching Mantras in encrypted ´

form to be decoded by the process known as mantroddhāraḥ; and with this devel opment we encounter what is at present our earliest evidence of Buddhist-Śaiva ´

intertextuality. A passage of seven verses that prescribes for this purpose the drawing of a square with forty-nine cells (koṣt.hakāni) and the arranging of the forty-nine letters within them corresponds very closely to one in the Vīṇāśikha of the vāmasrotaḥ division of the Vidyap¯īt.ha.354

The intensification of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva character of the Mantranaya evident ´ in this text is accompanied by the implication that this Buddhism is one that has conquered that tradition, transforming it, as it were, from within into a ve hicle for Buddhist salvatioṇ For while wrathful Heruka appears with Kapālika ¯ iconography and a retinue of Yoginīs he wears, as we have seen, the freshly flayed skin of Bhairava over his shoulders; and the Tantra relates that its deity in its commitment to purify all beings has violently overpowered Siva, Vis ´.ṇ u, Brahma, ānd Kamadeva, and taken their consorts by force for his own enjoyment. ¯355 This

bde mchog bshaḍ For the requirement of a preamble see, e.g., the Mahayānist ¯ Dharmasaṁ gītisūtra as quoted by Abhayakaragupta in the introduction to his ¯ Ab hayapaddhati f. 1v: kāladeśadeśakaparṣatsāmagrī hi deśanāyā nidānam enāṁ vinā deśanānupapatteḥ. tatra evaṁ mayeti mama dharmaḥsaṁ gātavyaḥ. . . ity uktaṁ bhagavatā dharmasaṁ gītisūtre ‘For the preamble that establishes the au thenticity of a teaching [comprises] all these factors together, namely the time, place, teacher, and congregation, because without all those it cannot be [accepted as] a teaching. To this effect the Buddha has declared in the Dharmasaṁ gītisūtra . . . : ‘My teachings must be recited with [the opening phrase] “Thus I [. . . ]”’; and the unnamed Sūtra quoted by Tathagataraks ¯ .ita on Yoginīsaṁcāra 1.1: mayi parinirvr̥te bhikṣava evaṁ mayetyādikayā mama dharmaḥsaṁ gātavyaḥ‘O monks, after I have been completely extinguished [by death] you should recite my teachings with the words “Thus I . . . ”’.

354 This has been demonstrated in TOMABECHI 2007. The Śaiva passage is ´ Vīṇāśikha 52–58. That in the Sarvakalpasamuccaya is DK, Rgyud ’bum, vol. ka, ff. 194v6– 195r5.

355 Sam´. varatantra (= Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālasam´.vara) quoted in J ñānasiddhi 18.10–18 (pp. 153–154): sarvaśuddhyadhimokṣeṇ a prasahya balavān adhaḥ| parākramakramaṇāt tu sarvalokān pramardayet k anyaṁ tu duṣt.araudrograṁsattvadhātum anekadhā k pāpaiś corair avaskandhaiḥ sarvam eva viśodhayet | cchalena māyayā caiva prasahya balavān adhaḥk pa ñcāyudhanibandhaiś ca sarvalokān jayet tadā | vijitya sakalāṁsiddhiṁjagat sthāvarajaṅgamam k vicitravinayopāyaiḥsvaparān anupālayet | kāminīnāṁ bhavet kāmo raudrāṇāṁraudram uttamam k saumyānāṁ paramaṁsaumyaṁ hat.hānāṁ hat.havikramaḥ| paramesam´.samākramya prasahya balavān adhaḥ k umadev ¯ ım¯.samākr̥ṣya copabhogair bhunakty asau | narāyan ¯. aṁsamākramya prasahya balavān adhaḥk rupin ¯.ım¯.tu samākr̥ṣya upabhogair bhunakty asau | prajapatim ¯.samākramya prasahya balavān adhaḥ| pras´antadev ¯ ım¯āsādya upabhogair bhunakty asau k kamadevam ¯.samākramya prasahya balavān adhaḥ | ratiprıti ¯ dhr̥tyaiśvaryaṁsamākramya bhunakty asau. This corresponds to

[[155]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

rhetoric of appropriation is reflected in the Mantras of Heruka’s Vajraḍ akin ¯īṣPramoha, who, as we have seen, has the boar face of Vis ¯ .ṇ u’s Adivar āha incarna- ¯ tion, is invoked as Vajranarāyan ¯ .ī, Caurī as Vajracaṇ ḍ esvar ´ī, and Ghasmarī as Vajramahe ¯ svar ´ī.356 Furthermore, Heruka’s first appearance in the Mantranaya

is in the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, where his name appears in a Mantra for the drawing of all the [Śaiva] Mother-goddesses into Buddhism, and it is ´

that, with the insertion of a single seed syllable, that is adopted as the Mantra of Heruka in the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara.357 The very title of the work alludes to this assimilation, since it is evidently calqued on those of two Vidyap¯īt.ha scriptures, the Sarvavīrasamāyoga and the Yoginījālaśaṁ vara.358

The Yoginītantras and the Full Appropriation of Vidyāpīt.ha Saivism ´ With the Yoginītantras proper we reach the final stage of this process of absorptioṇ The principal among the numerous Tantras of this class are the

Sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam par sbyor ba, ff. 158v7–159r5, except that there Paramesa’s (śiva’s) consort is Bh ´īmadev ¯ī (f. 159r2: lha mo bhi mo) and Narāyan ¯ . a’s (Viṣṇ u’s) is Rukmiṇi (f. 159r3: ru gmi ni).

356 Vajrajvālodayā, f. 176v: HUM. VAJRANAR¯ AYAN ¯.I JHIR iti (eṁ : jhirati Coḍ) pramohāṁ); ibiḍ: HUM. VAJRACAN. D. ESVARI KHAT ´. VA¯ NGI MAH ˙ AVAJRI ¯ KAPALAM ¯ AL¯ AMUKUT ¯. E RULU RULU HUM.iti caurīṁ Ghasmarī is invoked as Va jramahe ¯ svar ´ī in the Mantras of the retinue of Heruka given in the Saṁ put.odbhava : OM. VAJRAMAHE ¯ SVARI HAM ´. HAM. HAM. HAM. HAH. RULU RULU RULU BHYO HUM¯. PHAT. BHAKS. AYA SARVADUS. T. AN NIRMATHA HR ¯. DAYAM. HUM¯. PHAT. SVAH¯ A¯ | ghas maryāḥ(f. 81r4–5). There are other examples of the assimilative transformation of non-Buddhist deities in the Mantranaya, marked, as here, by the prefixing of Vajra- to their nameṣFor example, the deities Vajranarāyan ¯ . a, [Vajra]caṇ ḍīsvara,ānd Vajrapadmodbhava, that is to say, Vajrayanist transformations of Vis ¯ .ṇ u, Rudra, and Brahma, together with their consorts Vajra ¯ sr´ī, Vajragaurī, and Vajratarā, join ¯ Akā¯sagarbha and Khavajrin ´ .ī to form the retinue of Vajrasattva in the central sec tion of the abridged Maṇ ḍ ala (bsdus pa’i dkyil ’khor) of the Yogatantra Paramādya, a text with which the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga is closely related (TOMABECHI 2007, p. 904; TANAKA 1996, pp. 271–272). That disposition of deities is taught (see TANAKA 1996, pp. 96–103) in the mChog dang po’i sngags kyi rtog pa’i dum bu (*Srīparamādyamantrakalpakhan ´. ḍ a) (Toḥ 488) according to ¯ Anandagarbha’s ¯ mChog dang po’i rgya cher bshad pa (*Paramādyat.īkā) (Toḥ 2512). ¯

357 Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha, section 794: OM. HERUKAVAJRASAMAYA SARVA DUS. T. ASAMAYAMUDRAPRABHA ¯ NJAKA HUM ˜. PHAT.sarvamāt¯r̥ṇām iti; Vajra jvālodayā: OM. HERUKAVAJRASAMAYA H¯IH. SARVADUS. T. ASAMAYAMUDRA¯ - PRABHANJAKA HUM ˜. PHAT.iti svamantreṇ a śrīherukaṁ niveśayet.

358 On these two scriptures see SANDERSON 2007a, pp. 234–236 and footnotes 21– 22. The expression sarvavīrasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ varam, without the substi tution of -buddha- for -vīra-, is seen in the Yoginītantras of Cakrasaṁ vara. It ap pears in, e.g., Laghuśaṁ varatantra, f. 8r3 (8.1) and f. 24v4 (31.13ef): tataḥsarva vīrasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ varam; and Saṁ varodaya 3.6cd: sarvavīrasamāyoga ḍākinījālasatsukhaṁ In the last satsukham is a tacit semantic analysis of śaṁ varaḥ.

[[156]]

Laghuśaṁ vara also called Cakrasaṁ vara and Herukābhidhāna, the Heva jra, the Catuṣpīt.ha, the Vajrāmr̥ta, the Buddhakapāla, the Mahāmāyā, the Rigyārali, the Vajrārali, the Caṇ ḍ amahāroṣaṇ a, and the Kālacakra. Two of these texts, the Laghuśaṁ vara of the Heruka called Sam ´. vara (bDe mchog) or Cakrasaṁ vara (’Khor lo sdom pa) and the Hevajra of the Heruka Hevajra held centre-stage, a position they later shared with the Kālacakra when that text was propagated towards the end of the tenth century, during the reign of Mahīpala I (r̥ ¯ c. 977–1027).359 Their importance is reflected in the shere quantity of commentaries and other texts devoted to the cult of their deitieṣThe Tenjur contains translations of eleven commentaries on the Hevajra and of eleven on the Laghuśaṁ vara, and of about two hundred other explanatory texts related to eacḥ Moreover, they both have a number of satellite Tantras, the Hevajra five and the Laghuśaṁ vara over fifty.360 The principal among these, those that received commentaries, are for the Hevajra the D.ākinīvajrapa ñjara and the Mahāmudrātilaka, and for the Laghuśaṁ vara the Herukābhyudaya, the Vajraḍāka, the Abhidhānottara, the Yoginīsaṁcāra, the Saṁ varodaya, and the D.ākārṇ ava. Another major Yoginītantra, the Saṁ put.odbhava, on which we have an important commentary, the Amnāyama ñjarī ¯, by Abhayakaragupta ¯ (1064–1125),361 pertains to both cycleṣ362

359 On the date of the Kālacakra see here p. 96. On the establishing of this tradition and how it positioned itself in relation to earlier Tantric Buddhism see SFERRA 2005.

360 This large total includes thirty-four texts (Toḥ 383–416), forming a supplementary ¯ collection, as it were, of related opera minora, totalling less than 150 pageṣThough included in the Kanjur they were classified by Bu ston (1290–1364) as supplemen tary Tantras whose authenticity, that is to say, Indian origin, was the subject of debate (rgyud yang dag yin min rtsod pa can). The great majority are claimed in their colophons to be translations prepared in the early eleventh century by ’Brog mi in collaboration with the Indian Gayadhara. On the lay Tantric Gayadhara, who is mentioned in no Indian source known to me but is the subject of many partly conflicting accounts in Tibet, where he was venerated as the Indian source of the Lam ’bras tradition and for having collaborated with several Tibetan translators, see STEARNS 2001, pp. 47–55. It is, however, certain that not all these opera mi nora are of suspect authenticity. For my pupil Peter-Dāniel Szānt ´ o has recently ´ identified the original Sanskrit of one, the Anāvilatantra, among the contents of a palm-leaf codex preserved in the Tokyo University Library (verbal communication).

361 These dates rest on Tibetan tradition and are consistent with the regnal years of Ramap āla that Abhay ākaragupta has reported as the dates of composition at the ¯ end of some of his works; see here p. 126.

362 Thus, though counted as an explanatory Tantra of the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle, it is grouped with the Hevajra and D.ākinīvajrapa ñjara as one of the three Tantras of Hevajra (kye rdo rje rgyud gsum) in the Sa skya tradition of Tibet, and classified because of its mixed character as the Hevajra’s shared explanatory Tantra (thun mong bshad rgyud); see STEARNS 2001, pp. 173–174, ṇ 28. It also extends into the territories of the Catuṣpīt.ha, the Guhyasamāja, the Vajrabhairava, and, as we

[[157]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

CHRONOLOGY AND PROVENANCE. All of these Tantras were translated into Tibetan, and all but the latest among them, the D.ākārṇ ava and the Saṁ varodya, were translated in the first half of the eleventh century, during the opening phase of the later diffusion (phyi dar) of Indian Buddhism to Tibet, as were commen taries on the majority of those named here, most written during the course of the tenth and early eleventh centurieṣ

The oldest is probably the commentary of Jayabhadra on the Laghuśaṁ vara. In chapter 38 of his Rgya gar chos ’byung Taran ātha includes five of our com- ¯ mentators on the Laghuśaṁ vara, Jayabhadra, Bhavabhadra/Bhavabhat.t.a, Bhavyakīrti, Durjayacandra, and Tathagataraks ¯ .ita, among ten persons whom he holds to have occupied the office of chief Vajracārya at Vikrama ¯ s´īla in rapid unbroken succession, and claims that Jayabhadra was the first of the ten (Jayabhadra, Sr´īdhara, Bhavabhadra (/Bhavabhat.t.a), Bhavyakīrti, Līlavajra, ¯ Durjayacandra, Kr̥ṣṇ asamayavajra, Tathagataraks ¯ .ita, Bodhibhadra, and Kamalarakṣita). Moreover, comparison of the commentaries, the Tibetan trans lation, and the only manuscript of the Laghuśaṁ vara accessible to me at present reveals two versions of the text. Taran ātha’s claim that Jayabhadra preceded all ¯ the other commentators in his list gains support from the fact that Jayabhadra knew what is evidently the earlier of these two versionṣIt extends only to 50.19, ending with a passage on fire-sacrifices that may be performed if one wishes to subject another to one’s will (vaśyahomaḥ). In the second, attested by all the other commentators except Bhavyakīrti,363 by the Tibetan translation, and by

have seen, the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara.

363 In Bhavyakīrti’s Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā the text of the Laghuśaṁ vara ends exactly where it does in Jayabhadra’ṣIt is therefore likely to belong like Jayabhadra’s to the earliest phase of the exegesis of this Tantra. Jayabhadra’s appears to be the older of the two. In 41.8 Bhavyakīrti attests with the later witnesses the interpo lation (see here p.199) *oḍ ḍiyānajālandharapullīramalayādiṣu (bDe mchog nyung ngu, f. 239r2: au ḍ ya na | dzā la ndha ra dang pu li ra ma la ya sogs), since he comments here (f. 36v6): o ḍ yā na du ni ’od ldan ma’o | dzā la ndha rar ni gtum mig ma’o | pu llī ra ma la ya la sogs, whereas Jayabhadra says that Pullīramalaya has not been mentioned but must nonetheless be understood to be intended (p. 137: pullīramalayo na nirdiṣt.aḥsarvapīt.hānāṁ pradhānatvād upadeśād vāvaseyaḥ). It seems probable, then, that Bhavyakīrti follows the reading of a subsequent redac tion in which this ‘omission’ had been rectifieḍ

At the beginning of the translation the name of Bhavyakīrti’s commentary is said to be Sūramanoj ñā ´in Sanskrit and dpa’ bo’i yid du ’ong in Tibetan, i.e. ‘pleasing to heroes’. But the Sanskrit titles given in the Tenjur are so often inaccurate that we can conclude that they do not reach us from the Sanskrit works themselves but are reconstructions from the Tibetan added by the compilers of the Tenjur̥ The Sanskrit rendered by dPa’ bo’i yid du ’ong can now only be guessed, but its first element was surely Vīra- rather than Sūra- ´. The Mahāvyutpatti, composed to guide Tibetan translators and no doubt the dictionary used by the compilers of the Tenjur, gives dpa’ bo to render both vīra- and śūra-, both meaning ‘hero’; but though the two

[[158]]

the manuscript, the fiftieth chapter has eight verses after the last of the shorter text (50.20–27), followed by a fifty-first chapter of twenty-two verseṣIt is clear that the longer text is the later̥ For the alternative, that the shorter text arose after the longer by excision of the final thirty verses, is inconceivable, since these have the effect of greatly increasing the plausibility of the whole as a Buddhist work and were no doubt added because it was felt, quite rightly, that 1.1 to 50.19 were inadequate in this regarḍ The only element of Mahayāna Buddhist ¯ doctrine contained in the text up to 50.19 comprises a section of four verses (10.1–4) stating that success in the pursuit of Siddhis depends on the Sadhaka’s ¯ identifying with the three Buddha bodies (Dharmakaya, Sam ¯ . bhogakaya, and ¯ Nirman¯ . akaya), all other Buddhist elements being little more than a handful of ¯ occurrences of the terms Buddha, Tathagata, and Bodhisattva, and the names ¯ of Vajrayanist deitieṣ¯

Now Taran ātha claims that his ten successive Tantric ¯ Acāryas of ¯ Vikramas´īla held their positions after the time of Buddhajn˜anap āda and ¯ Dīpankarabhadra, whom he places in the reign of Dharmap ˙ ala ( ¯ c. 775–812); and he reports that each did so for twelve years, implying thereby a form of limited tenure. Thereafter, he says, came the six “Door-keepers”. Among them was Ratnakara ¯ s´anti, who taught the Tibetan translator ’Brog mi ¯ S´ akya ye ¯ shes (993–1077?)364 and the Indian Dīpankara ˙ sr´ījn˜ana ¯365 (982–1054), and was a slightly older contemporary of Jn˜ana ¯ sr´īmitra, who was active c. 980–1030. From this it would be a simple matter to determine the approximate date of Jayabhadra, the first of the ten, by counting the years from either end, were it not that Taran ātha makes the collective tenure of the ten ¯ Acāryas 120 years, ¯ whereas the interval between Dīpankarabhadra and Ratn ˙ akara ¯ s´anti is almost ¯ two centurieṣWe might be inclined to count back from Ratnakara ¯ s´anti rather ¯ than forward from Dīpankarabhadra, thinking that a historian’s information ˙ is likely to be more reliable the closer he approaches his own time. In that case, if we trust Taran ātha and set the end of the tenure of Kamalaraks ¯ .ita in 1000, as the immediate predecessor of the Door-keepers, we will conclude that Jayabhadra’s tenure ran from 880–892.

words are synonymous in ordinary usage, in the tradition of the Yoginītantras it is the former alone that is used in the special sense evidently intended here, that is, as a technical term for the Tantric practitioner̥ As for the second element, the same dictionary gives manoj ña- for yid du ’ong. But the result is unattractive by the standards of Sanskrit authors, who generally sought, like authors everywhere, to give their works titles that appealed to the ear̥ Vīramanoramā is synonymous and meets this requirement.

364 Zhib mo rdo rje, p. 84.

365 Blue Annals, p. 380.

[[159]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

However, this chronology can be reconciled with other reports only at a great stretch, at least for the later teachers in Taran ātha’s successioṇ Thus Dmar ¯ ston, pupil of Sa skya Paṇ ḍita Kun dga’ rgyal mtshan (1182–1251) tells us366 that Durjayacandra, who by this calculation would have held office from 940 to 952, was the teacher of Prajnendraruci, also called V ˜īravajra, and that the latter taught ’Brog mi S´ akya ye sheṣNow ’Brog mi is said to have let Tibet ¯ for Nepal and India when Rin chen bzang po was nearly fifty years old,367 that is to say around 1007 if Rin chen bzang po was born in 958, as his biography claims and Gzhon nu dpal accepts,368 and then, after spending one year in Nepal with S´ antibhadra ¯369 and eight at Vikramas´īla with Ratnakara ¯ s´anti, ¯370 to have studied with Prajnendraruci for three or four, ˜371 that is to say, therefore, c. 1016– 1020. If we accept that Durjayacandra is unlikely to have held such a senior post as that of the head Vajracārya of Vikrama ¯ s´īla in his youth and assume for the sake of argument that he was fifty-five when he began his tenure, then if that tenure began in 940, he would have to have been continuing to teach long after his retirement at sixty-seven in 952, and Prajnendraruci, if we take 945 as ˜ the latest plausible year of his birth, would have been about seventy when he accepted ’Brog mi as his pupil.

This scenario is not impossible; but neither is it comfortable. Nor is it helped by the fact that Prajnendraruci is reported to have collaborated with ’Brog mi ˜ on translations of texts pertaining to Hevajra and his consort Nairatmy ā. This ¯ evidence is given in the colophons at the end of these translations372 and should be considered more reliable than that of hagiographical biographieṣ

Even more difficult to reconcile is the report in the Chos ’byung of Pad ma dkar po (1527–1592) that Durjayacandra taught the Mantranaya at Vikramas´īla to the translator Rin chen bzang po.373 For Rin chen bzang po is said to have left for India in 975, at the age of seventeen, and to have gone to Vikramas´īla only after a period of some seven years of education in Kashmir, therefore around 982. At that time Durjayacandra would have been nearly a hundred if we hold to the assumption that he began his tenure in 940 when he was fifty-five years of age.374 It is probable, then, that while we are indeed closer to the truth if

366 Zhib mo rdo rje, pp. 86–88.

367 Blue Annals, p. 205, ll. 26–31.

368 Blue Annals, p. 68, ll. 3–6.

369 Zhib mo rdo rje, p. 84, ll. 6–10; Blue Annals, p. 205, ll. 32–35.

370 Zhib mo rdo rje, p. 86, l. 10; Blue Annals, p. 206, ll. 18–19.

371 Blue Annals, p. 206, ll. 32–33 (three years); Zhib mo rdo rje, p. 88, ll. 7–8 (four years).

372 Toḥ 1185, 1236, 1251, 1310. ¯

373 TUCCI 1988, p. 35.

374 TUCCI 1988, pp. 3–4.

[[160]]

we calculate back from the Door-keepers than forward from Buddhajn˜ana and ¯ Dīpankarabhadra, T ˙ aran ātha has placed the later teachers from Durjayacandra ¯ onwards too early.

This suspicion gains further support from what we know of the life of Tathagataraks ¯ .ita. If Taran ātha’s report were accurate, provided that we ¯ calculate backwards from the six Door-keepers, then he would have held office at Vikramas´īla c. 964–976. But we learn from the colophon of the Tibetan translation of his commentary on the Yoginīsaṁcāra that he translated the work himself with the help of the Tibetan Ba ri Lo tsa ba Rin chen gragṣThis places ¯ his activity well into the second half of the eleventh century. For Ba ri Rin chen grags is said by Gzhon nu dpal to have been born in 1040.375

If Durjayacandra, as now seems probable, was active towards the end of the tenth century, and if Taran ātha is correct that there were no intervals ¯ between the tenures of his predecessors Jayabhadra, Sr´īdhara, Bhavabhadra, Bhavyakīrti, and Līlavajra, then we shall not be far from the truth if we assign ¯ them all these commentators on the Laghuśaṁ vara to the tenth century.

Beyond the terminus provided by this tentative dating of the earliest commentators we have no clear knowledge of the date of these TantraṣIt has been claimed by DAVIDSON that the Laghuśaṁ vara was already in ex istence in the eighth century since Vilasavajra cites it several times in his ¯ commentary on the Ma ñjuśrīnāmasaṁ gīti;376 and this view has recently been repeated by GRAY.377 The latter recognized that most of the former’s claimed

citations are actually not of the Laghuśaṁ varatantra but of the Sarvabud dhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara, which Vilasavajra cites as the ¯ Sam´. varatantra, using the common abbreviation of this unwieldy title. But he argues that the date is established nonetheless by two places in the same commentary in which Vilasavajra cites a ¯ Cakrasaṁ varatantra or Cakraśaṁ varatantra. This GRAY takes to be the Laghuśaṁ vara under its commonly used aliaṣBoth citations occur in a section of the commentary in which, explaining epithets found in the Ma ñjuśrīnāmasaṁ gīti, Vilasavajra follows each with ¯ iti and the name of a Tantra in the locative, indicating that the epithet is also found in that source. The first citation, GRAY claims, is of Laghuśaṁ vara 2.16c (f. 2v6: hasticarmāvaruddhaṁca ‘and [his back] covered with the hide of an elephant’), and the second of 48.12a (f. 35r6: kaṅkāla mahākaṅkāla). In fact the first passage does not cite Laghuśaṁ vara 2.16c, the text quoted being gajacarmapat.ārdradhr̥ k ‘wearing as his upper garment the moist hide of an

375 Blue Annals, p. 211.

376 DAVIDSON 1981, pp. 7–8.

377 GRAY 2007, pp. 12–14.

[[161]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

elephant’, to which Laghuśaṁ vara 2.16c corresponds only in sense and then not exactly.378 As for the second citation,379 the word kaṅkālaḥ does appear in the Laghuśaṁ vara, as the name of one of the twenty-four Vīra consorts of the twenty-four D. akin ¯īs,380 but as a single word its presence is not enough to es tablish the identity of Vilasavajra’s ¯ Cakrasaṁ vara with the Laghuśaṁ vara. On the other hand, the fact that the first epithet attributed to the Cakrasaṁ vara does not occur in the Laghuśaṁ vara is not sufficient to prove the opposing thesis, that Vilasavajra was referring to another work. For it is conceivable ¯ that he was citing the text not for the exact wording of Ma ñjuśrīnāmasaṁ gīti 69d (gajacarmapat.ārdradhr̥ k) but only for an expression close to it in meaning. But if this is true it establishes, of course, only that Vilasavajra may have been ¯ referring to Laghuśaṁ vara 2.16c, not that he waṣTo continue to hold to the position that Vilasavajra must have been referring to our ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara in spite of these considerations, one has to put one’s trust in the fact that the Laghuśaṁ vara is also known as the Cakrasaṁ vara and the fact that no other work of this name is cited (unless it be here). One must also remain free of the suspicion that there might have been another, earlier work with this title among the numerous Tantras known in the eighth century that have failed to survive either in Sanskrit or in Tibetan translatioṇ381 One must also overlook the evidence of the Laghuśaṁ vara itself. For that refers to a Cakrasaṁ vara in a list of its own predecessorṣ382 I conclude, therefore, that there is no more than

378 Vilasavajra, ¯ Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī A f. 57r1–2, on Ma ñjuśrīnāmasaṁ gīti 69d (gajacarmapat.ārdradhr̥ k): gajacarmapat.ārdradhr̥ g iti śrīcakrasaṁ vare | gajasya carma gajacarma pat.aś cāsāvārdraś ca | gajacarmaiva pat.ārdraḥ gajacarmapat.ā rdraḥ| taṁ dhārayatīti gajacarmapat.ārdradhr̥ k. This error has been pointed out by SZANT ´ O´ (2008b, p. 217).

379 Vilasavajra, ¯ Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī A f. 55v6, on Ma ñjuśrīnāmasaṁ gīti 67cd (daṁṣt.rākarālaḥ kaṅkālo halāhalaḥśatānanaḥ): kaṅkāla iti śrīcakrasaṁ vare. 380 Laghuśaṁ vara f. 35r4–7 (48.9c–12): vajrasattva vairocana padmanarteśvaras

tathā | śrīvajraherukaś caivaākāśagarbha hayagrīvam eva ca k 10 rat navajra mahābala virūpākṣa bhairavas tathā | vajrabhadra subhadraś caiva jrahūṁ kāram eva ca k 11 mahāvīra vajrajat.ilaṁtu aṅkurika va jradehaka | vajraprabha amitābhaḥsurāvairiṇ o vikat.adaṁṣt.riṇ am eva ca k 12 kank˙ ala ¯ mahākaṅkāla khaṇ ḍ akāpālinādi tu caturviṁśativīrāṇāṁsarvaṁ vyāptam akhilaṁjagat.

381 Such works cited in Vilasavajra’s commentary are the ¯ Krodhendutilaka (A f. 57r5), the Guhyakośa (A f. 57v1), the Vajraghanoccaya (B f. 39r6), the S. at.praj ñā nayaśaṁ vara (B f. 40v3), the Sarvatantrasamuccaya (A f. 57r4), and the Va jrakirīt.i (A f. 56v6). Similarly, in the Tattvasiddhi of S´ antaraks ¯ .ita we find the Sarvadevasamāgama, the Laukikalokottaravajra, and the Vimuktisamudghāt.ana, and in the Caryāmelāpakapradīpa of Aryadeva the ¯ Vajramukhīmahāyoga and the Vinayāmoghasiddhi.

382 Laghuśaṁ vara 27.23–24a as transmitted in Abhidhānottara, Pat.ala 43, A f. 140r1–2f, B f. 180v3–4: tattvasaṁ grahe yad uktaṁca tathoktaṁcakraśaṁ vare

[[162]]

a possibility that Vilasavajra knew the ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara and, therefore, that the existence of this Tantra in the eighth century remains unproveḍ What we can say with confidence is that the Laghuśaṁ vara came af ter the Paramādya, the Vajrabhairava, the Sarvatathāgatasaṁ graha, the Guhyasamāja, and the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara, since it names these,383 and tacitly incorporates verses from the last three in its earliest accessible redactioṇ384 These borrowings do not rule out the possibility that the

| guhyatantre samākhyātaṁ haritantre tathaiva ca k mahābhairavatantre ca japavratādisiddhidam | tad idaṁ dhyānamātreṇ a mantrī sādhayate kṣaṇāt. The reading cakraśaṁ vare (cakrasamvare Coḍ) is confirmed by Bhavabhat.t.a in his commentary on this verse (Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 495).

383 Laghuśaṁ vara f. 4v2–3 (3.22): abhiṣikto bhavet tatra sarvvatantraikam ut taram | tattvasaṁ grahe śaṁ vare vāpi guhye vā vajrabhairave; and f. 23v7 (30.24): vidyārājacakravarti ayam mantro na bhūyo na bhaviṣyati | tattvasaṁ grahe paramādye śaṁ vare guhye vā vajrabhairave. The Sam´. vara here is the Sarva buddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara. The title is commonly so abbreviated; see also Indrabhuti’s comment on the first passage ( ¯ ’Khor lo sdom pa’i rgyud kyi rgyal po bde mchog bsdus pa zhes bya ba’i rnam par bshad, f. 38r7): bde mchog ni sgyu ma bde mchog go ‘The Sam´. vara is the Jālaśaṁ vara’. In his Cakrasaṁ varavr̥tti Indrabhuti takes the ¯ Guhya here to be the Guhyasamāja or the Guhyendumaṇitilaka/Guhyendutilaka (Toḥ 477) (f. 38r7): ¯ gsang ba ni ’dus pa ’am zla gsang thig le’i nor bu’i rgyal po’o. In his Cakrasaṁ varat.īkā Devagupta takes it to be “the Guhyasamāja etc.” (f. 80r5): bsdus pa la sogs par̥ But in his Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā Bhavabhat.t.a glosses guhyatantre in 27.23 as guhyakośādau ‘in the Guhyakośa etc.’.

384 (1) Laghuśaṁ vara (LS) f. 1v5 (1.7c–8b):āntargatena manasā kāmasiddhiṁtu bhāvayet | svaretobindubhir buddhān bodhisattvāṁś ca pūjayet < Sarvatathāgata tattvasaṁ graha, section 2651: antargatena manasā kāmaśuddhiṁtu bhāvayan | svaretobindubhir buddhān pūjayan siddhimāpnuyāt, but influenced in the second line by Guhyasamāja 7.26: svavajraṁ padmasaṁ yuktaṁ dvayendriyaprayogataḥ| svaretobindubhir buddhān vajrasattvāṁś ca pūjayet; (2) bDe mchog nyung ngu, f. 234r5-6 (LS 31.1): ´ de nas sha chen thams cad kyi | ’jigs byed rdo rje skyes yin bshad | ’di ni gdug pa thams cad kyi | ’jigs byed mi bzad par bshad do < Guhyasamāja 5.78: mahāmāṁsena sarveṣāṁ nāśanaṁ vajrajaṁsmr̥tam | eṣo hi sarvakrūrāṇāṁ nāśako dāruṇ aḥsmr̥taḥ; (3) bDe mchog nyung ngu, f. 234v4 (LS 31.12):śa ni spyan zhes bya bar bshad | chu khams mā ma kī ru brjod | me ni gos dkar mor bshad de | rlung ni sgrol mar rab tu brjod < Guhyasamāja 17.51: pr̥thivī locanā khyātā abdhātur māmakī smr̥tā | pāṇ ḍ arākhyā bhavet tejo vāyus tārā prakīrtitā; (4) LS f. 1v (1.1–3) ´ < Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara (SBSD. JS) 1.1–2 ´ etc. (see here p. 154); (5) LS f. 1v5–6 (1.8c–9b): ´ darśanasparśanābhyāṁca śravaṇe smaraṇena ca k mucyate sarvapāpais tu evam eva na saṁśayaḥ < SBSD. JS as ´ quoted in J ñānasiddhi 15.50: darśanasparśanābhyāṁca śravaṇ asmaraṇena ca | sarvapāpair vimucyante *yujyante (eṁ : pūjyante Eḍ) sarvasiddhibhiḥ(= Sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam par sbyor ba f. 152v3 [2.16]); (6) LS ff. 1v7–2r1 (1.11c–13b): ´ madhu raktaṁsakarpūraṁraktacandanayojitam | gaṇ amadhye pratiṣt.han tu [+ sarvocchiṣt.arasāyanam in the earlier redaction incorporated in the Abhidhānottara A f. 146r1–3 (46.3–5b)] sarvavajrāṅkacihnadhr̥ k | anāmāṅguṣt.havaktrābhyāṁ lehayed yogavit sadā k somapānavadāsvādya siddhimāpnoti śāśvatīm < Sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam par sbyor ba f. 158v4–5 (SBSD. JS 6.15–17): ´ dmar

[[163]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Laghuśaṁ vara was composed in that century, since none of the works is later than that time. But three considerations suggest a later date. (1) No text of the Cakrasaṁ vara corpus, or any other Yoginītantra, was translated into Tibetan during the earlier diffusion of Buddhism (snga dar) that occurred from the eighth century to the middle of the ninth, during Tibet’s imperial period: this new literature reached the Tibetans only during the later transmission (phyi dar), that began c. 1000. (2) Among the many surviving stone, metalwork, and painted Indian images of Sam ´. vara none is demonstrably earlier than the tenth century.385 Finally (3), there is, as we have seen, no evidence of commentatorial work on the Laghuśaṁ vara before c. 900. Of course, none of these facts proves conclusively that the Laghuśaṁ vara was not in existence at an earlier date. But they do incline one to consider a later date more probable. This is particularly so in the case of the absence of commentarieṣThe Laghuśaṁ vara is so problematic text from the Buddhist point of view that it is hard to imagine that it could have survived for long without the support of learned exegesiṣ

Whatever its date, the Laghuśaṁ vara is likely to be a product of the first phase of the development of the Yoginītantras, if not the earliest of them all. This surmise rests on the assumption that Yoginītantras that are less sophis ticated in the sense that they show a less developed Mahayāna Buddhist theo- ¯

chen dang ni ga bur bcas | tsa ndan dmar por sbyar ba dag | tshogs kyi dbus su bzhag pa ni | ra sa ya na kun slong ba | rang gi lha yo sbyor ldan pas | srin lag dang ni mthe bo’i rtses | zhi ba’i btung pa bzhin myangs na | rtag pa yi ni dngos grub thob (*mahāraktaṁsakarpūraṁraktacandanayoji tam | svādhidaivatayogena sarvocchiṣt.arasāyanam | anāmāṅguṣt.havaktrābhyāṁ <++++++++> | somapānavadāsvādya siddhimāpnoti śāśvatīm); and (7) LS f. 12r6– ´ 7 (13.2): yad yad indriyamārgatvaṁ yāyāt tat tat svabhāvataḥ| paramāhitayogena sarvaṁ buddhamayaṁ vahet <SBSD. JS as quoted in ´ Caryāmelāpakapradīpa, p. 90: yad yad indriyamārgatvam yāyāt tat tat svabhāvataḥ| asamāhitayogena sarvabud dhamayam vahet.

385 A Kashmirian Sam ´. vara of leaded brass inlaid with copper and silver in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art from the Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck Collection appears to have been assigned by PAL to c. 725 in his catalogue of the exhibition ‘The Arts of Kashmir’ (2007, p. 91, fig. 92). However, he has kindly informed me (personal communication, 1 March, 2008) that this surprisingly early date is not his own but that of the museum (for which see http://collectionsonline.lacma.org) recorded on the loan agreement forṁ The lending museum insisted on this date and it was substituted for his own without consulting hiṁ He had assigned it to “ca. 9th century”. In an earlier publication (1975, p. 173, plṣ64a,b) he had proposed the tentḥ REEDY (1997, p. 162, fig. K62) gives ‘9th–10th century’. LINROTHE (1999, p. 289, fig. 211) has found these dates too early and suggests the late tenth or early eleventh century. In the absence of a detailed art-historical demonstration of the date, which I suspect could in any case be no more than tentative given the small population of comparable pieces, I am inclined in the light of the other historical evidence to agree with LINROTHE.

[[164]]

retical framework are likely to be earlier than those in which the level of the oretical assimilation is more advanceḍ By this criterion the Hevajra must be placed after the Laghuśaṁ vara. This also assumes that the development of the Mantranaya was not unilinear throughout, since if it were we would have to place the Laghuśaṁ vara before the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi, Sarvatathā gatatattvasaṁ graha, Guhyasamāja, and Sarvabuddhasamāyoga. It assumes, then, that the Yoginītantras represent a new phase with its own humble begin ning, and that it was only later in this phase that the tradition got up to speed, as it were, by fully integrating the new world of practice whose entry marks its commencement by providing it with a thoroughly Buddhist encoding. While it is possible that this assimilation of the text began long after its first redaction it seems more probable in the absence of firm evidence to the contrary that if so problematic a creation were to have remained for long without the benefit of learned exegesis it would be likely to have disappeared without trace.

As for the provenance of the Laghuśaṁ vara, it was certainly eastern India, the region in which most of the Indian learned exegesis of this Tantric corpus was produceḍ The Tantra does not state this explicitly. Claiming the status of revelation it would have been averse to doing so. Nonetheless, it reveals its provenance in spite of itself by giving BA in its encoding of some of the syllables of Mantras where correct Sanskrit requires VA. This is evidently an effect of the fact that va is pronounced ba in the Indo-Aryan vernaculars of this regioṇ386 Thus 5.4 yields BHAGABATE rather than BHAGAVATE: pa ñcamasya yac caturthaṁ prathamasya tr̥tīyam | trayoviṁśas tathaiva ca caturthasya yaḥ prathamam (f. 5r3–4) ‘the fourth of the fifth [class of consonants] (BHA), the third of the first (GA), the twenty-third (BA), and the first of the fourth (T-)’ ; and 30.20–21 yields BHAGABAM¯.rather than BHAGAVAM¯.(for BHAGAVAN¯ ): koṣt.hakād daśamaṁcaiva vilomena tu sādhakaḥ| koṣt.hakā ekonaviṁśatimaṁtathā trayoviṁśatikoṣt.hakād | dvitīyakoṣt.hasaṁ yuktaṁ bindunāūrdhvabhūṣitaṁ(f. 23v4–5) ‘The Sadhaka should select the tenth counting backwards from the ¯ compartment [of HA] (BHA), the nineteenth from that [of A] (GA), and the [letter] from the twenty-third box (B-) together with [the letter in] the second box adorned above with a dot (AM¯.)’.

Variant readings giving the correct spellings in these cases are founḍ In 5.4 Jayabhadra and Bhavabhat.t.a read ekonnatriṁśa- (sic) and ekonatriṁśati ‘the twenty-ninth’ (VA) rather than the trayoviṁśa- ‘the twenty-third’ (BA) seen in the Baroda manuscript; and this reading is also found in the Tibetan translation (de bzhin nyi shu tsa dgu la [= ekonatriṁśaṁtathaiva ca]) and the redaction

386 This is so in Bihar¯ī, Maithilī, Bengali, Kumaun ¯ī, Nepali, Assamese, and Or ¯ .iya.¯ [[165]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

of this passage in Pat.ala 54 of the Abhidhānottara (A f. 166r3: ekonnatrinśaṁ tathaiva ca). Likewise in 30.21 we find Jayabhadra giving ekonatriṁśati- (VA) in place of the reading trayoviṁśati (BA) attested by the manuscript, but here the ‘incorrect’ reading is also supported by the Tibetan translation and the commen tary of Bhavabhat.t.a. There can be little doubt that the non-standard readings giving BA rather than VA are original. For it is not surprising there should have been attempts to correct an original BA to VA, whereas it would be most unlikely that any redactor would have made the effort to rewrite a reading that gave VA in order to yield BA.387

Also indicative of the east-Indian provenance and development of this cor pus are the form chaṁ doha- in place of saṁ doha-,388 and the pervasive promis cuity of the forms -sam´ . vara- and -saṁ vara- in the names of its deity, in the title of the primary Tantra, and in the compound in which this form is pre ceded by ḍākinījāla- or yoginījāla-. I use the forms Sam ´. vara and Cakrasaṁ vara. Laghuśaṁ vara and Cakrasaṁ vara here in keeping with the usual Tibetan trans lations, namely bDe mchog and ’Khor lo sdom pa; and this accords with se mantic analyses of these names and titles in the Sanskrit commentatorṣThus Bhavabhat.t.a explains the second element of the second in the sense ‘he who re strains’ from the the verb saṁ vr̥-, and construes the whole to mean ‘he who by means of the wheel (cakra-) [of the Dharma] restrains [the minds of living be ings from the wrong path] (-saṁ varaḥ)’ (*cakreṇ a saṁ vr̥notīti cakrasaṁ varaḥ), telling us further that the name is extended to the Tantra because this de ity is its subject.389 As for the form Sam ´. vara, that too is widely supporteḍ

387 It is not probable that the Laghuśaṁ vara was alone among the Yoginītantras in being of east-Indian origiṇ We see the same tell-tale B- for V- in 1.4.27–28 of the Catuṣpīt.ha, the Mantra syllables VAD. AVE being encoded there as BAD. ABE. More over, it is probable that the Apabhraṁ sa seen in some verses of the ´ Hevajra is of the eastern variety. This is suggesred by the noṁ sg. endings -aho and -aha in kibiḍ aho in 2.4.6 and hutāsanaha in 2.4.67; see TAGARE 1987, p. 110–111. An investigation of the language of the Apabhraṁ sa verses that are found in such Yogin ´ītantras as the Hevajra, Khasama, Catuṣpīt.ha, and D.ākārṇ ava, in comparison with that of the Dohā collections of Kan¯ . ha and Saraha, may be expected to shed more light on this question of provenance.

388 See here p. 180.

389 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, explaining the title with the prefixed honoric Sr´ī- when it occurs in the final colophon in the words śrīcakrasaṁ varanāmni mahā yoginītantrarāje ‘in the great king among the Yoginītantras called śrīcakrasaṁ vara’ in the final colophon: śrīḥ puṇ yaj ñānasaṁ bhāraḥ| cakraṁ dharmacakram | śrīmac cakraṁśrīcakram | tena kāpathāt sattvānāṁ manaḥsaṁ vr̥ṇ otīti śrīcakrasaṁ varaḥ śrīherukaḥ| tadabhidhāyitvāt tantram api tathocyate ‘The word Sr´ī- ‘glory’ denotes the accumulating of [both] merit and gnosiṣThe word -cakra- ‘wheel’ refers to the wheel of the Dharma. It is prefixed by Sr´ī to express the fact that it [, that is to say, the teaching of the Buddha,] entails this [provisioning with both merit and

[[166]]

Ratnakara ¯ s´anti explains it as meaning ‘the Highest ( ¯ varam) Bliss’ (śam) when analysing its occurrence in the neuter in the compound ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam;390 and Bhavabhat.t.a when analysing its occurrence in the masculine gender at the end of the same (ḍākinījālaśaṁ varaḥ) takes it to mean ‘[Heruka,] who protects Bliss (śaṁ vr̥ṇ otīti śaṁ varaḥ) [by keeping it free of all defects]’.391 This line of analysis, which applies a meaning of śam that is well-attested in non-sectarian lexicography,392 is not the invention of these commentatorṣThey draw on the authority of the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga, which refers to its deity Vajrasattva as Sam ´. vara and explains that name as meaning ‘[he who has/is the] Highest Bliss’.393 That the -sam´ . vara form is not only old but also original is established

gnosis]. Heruka is called Sr´īcakrasaṁ vara [here] because he restrains [saṁ vr̥ṇ otīti saṁ varaḥ] by means of this [wheel, in the sense that he restrains] the minds of living beings from the false patḥ [This] Tantra has the same name because it is that which refers to him’.

390 Ratnakara ¯ s´anti, ¯ Mahāmāyāt.īkā on 23d: śaṁ varaṁsukhavaraṁ mahāsukham ‘[śam means ‘bliss’ and -varam ‘best’. So] śaṁ varam means ‘the best bliss’ (sukhavaram) [, i.e.] ‘the Great Bliss’ (mahāsukham)’. The same analysis is tacitly given in such parallel expressions as ḍākinījālasatsukham in Saṁ varodaya 3.6d and 26.10cd; and Vajraḍāka 1.1cd: sarvaḍākinīmayaḥsattvo vajraḍākaḥ param sukham; 1.12cd, 1.50,1.71cd: sarvaḍākinīsamāyogavajraḍākaḥ paraṁsukhaṁ

391 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā on 1.2: ḍākinī śūnyatā. jālam upāyaḥ| jālena hi matsyādibandhanasiddhiḥ| upāyena hi kleśamīnādir niyamyākiṁcitkaraḥ kriy ate | tābhyāṁśaṁsukham avadyebhyo bahiṣkr̥tya vr̥ṇ otīti ḍākinījālaśaṁ varaḥ ‘[The meaning of the name] D. akin ¯ījala ¯ sam´ . vara [applied to Heruka here] is ‘he who protects (-varaḥ[vr̥ṇ otīti varaḥ]) bliss (śam) by means of the D. akin ¯ī and the Net (jālam)’. The term D. akin ¯ī [here] means [‘Emptiness’,] ‘the fact that [all things] are void of [intrinsic reality]’ (śūnyatā); and the term ‘Net’ refers to the method (upāyaḥ) [, namely the compassion (karuṇā) that must accompany awareness of that Empti ness]. It is called a net [metaphorically]. For by using a net one succeeds in catching fish and other creatureṣ[Likewise] by employing the method [that is compassion] one restrains and so renders incapable of activity the ‘fish and other creatures’ that are the afflictions (kleśāḥ)[, namely attachment, hatred and the rest]. He protects bliss by means of these two[, emptiness and compassion,] in the sense that through these he protects it from [those] defects’.

392 See, e.g., Hemacandra, Anekārthasaṁ graha, Pariśiṣt.akāṇ ḍ a 21a: śaṁ kalyāṇe sukhe ’tha; Vardhamana, ¯ Gaṇ aratnamahodadhivr̥tti, p. 39, on 1.15: śaṁ duḥ khopaśame; Yaska, ¯ Nighaṇt.ubhāṣya, p. 521 (on R. gveda 5.4.5: śaṁ no bhavantu vājinaḥ): sukhāḥ no bhavantu vājinaḥ.

393 Sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam par sbyor ba, f. 154r6–7 (1.10): shaṁzhes bya ba bde bar bshad | sangs rgyas kun gyi bde chen yin | sgyu ma thams cad rab sbyor ba | mchog tu bde bas bde ba’i mchog (sukhaṁśam iti vikhyātaṁsarvabauddhaṁ mahāsukham | sarvajālasamāyogaḥsukhavareṇ a śaṁ varaḥ) ‘The word śam means ‘bliss’, the Great Bliss of all the BuddhaṣHe is Sam ´. vara because of [the fact that he possesses] the highest degree of [this] bliss’. The Sanskrit of the first half of this verse is supported by its citation by Vilasavajra while explaining the epithet ¯ mahāsukhaḥin his Nāmamantrārthāvalokinī, f. 57v1–2: mahāsukha iti śrīśaṁ vare | tatra mahāsukha iti yat tāthāgatam anāsravaṁsukhaṁtan mahāsukha ity u cyate | tatraivoktaṁsukhaṁśam iti vikhyātaṁsarvabauddhaṁ mahāsukham iti. [[167]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

by evidence outside the Buddhist corpuṣFor Yoginījala ¯ sam´ . vara is found as the name of a Bhairava in one of the secondary Kalpas taught in the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva ´ Picumata,394 which, as we shall see, was a major unacknowledged source for the redactor of the Laghuśaṁ vara. That the form intended there is -sam´ . vara rather than -saṁ vara- is certain, because the text provides a semantic analysis that takes the first syllable to mean bliss (sukham).395

However, these are not the only viewṣJayabhadra, commenting on 1.2 of the Laghuśaṁ vara, takes the same expression to be D.ākinījālasaṁ vara, un derstanding it to refer to the Laghuśaṁ vara itself and explaining it as ‘The Concealment of the Array of D. akin ¯īs’, deriving the last element of the com pound from saṁ vr̥- ‘to envelop’;396 and while the Tibetans usually render the

The first Pada is also supported by Bhavabhat ¯ .t.a, who quotes it without attribu tion, when explaining ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam in Laghuśaṁ vara 1.2: śaṁsukham iti cākhyātam iti vacanāt.

394 Yoginījala ¯ sam´ . vara in this text is a form of Bhairava and the term refers by extension to his Mantra and the associated system of practice (vratam). See Picumata f. 251r5–v1 (56.4c–6b): śr̥ṇ u devi pravakṣyāmi sarvayogiprasādhanam | yāgamantrasamopetaṁ yoginījālaśaṁ varam | yena vij ñātamātreṇ a trailokye khe carīpadam |āsādya krīḍ ate mantrī kulasiddhisamanvitaḥ‘Listen, O Devī. I shall teach you about Yoginījala ¯ sam´ . vara together with the deities with whom he is to be worshipped (yāga-) and his Mantra, as the means of propitiating the YoginīṣAs soon as the Mantra adept has mastered this he will reach the domain of the Khe carīs and move freely through the triple universe, possessing [all] the supernatural powers of the [Yoginī] clans’.

395 Picumata f. 251v2–3 (56.12–13b): samūhaṁjālam ity uktaṁ yoginīnāṁ maho dayam | śaṁsukhaṁ vara dātr̥tvā *samūhatvavivakṣayā (samūhatva eṁ : samūhatvaṁ Coḍ) | * yogeśiyogabhāvasthaṁ(yogeśiyoga conj. : yogayogīsa Coḍ) ´ yoginījālaśaṁ varam | mantraṁtu kathitaṁ devi bhairavasyāmitātmakam ‘The ex pression Yoginījala [in Yogin ¯ījala ¯ sam´ . vara] means the exalted totality of the Yoginīs, jālam ‘net’ denoting ‘multitude’ [here]. The śaṁ of -sam´ . vara means ‘bliss’ (sukham). The Yoginījala ¯ sam´ . vara[mantra] is so named because it is the bestower (-vara) of that bliss, [-vara- being formed as an agent noun from the verb vr̥- ‘to give’]. It is the granter of this bliss to the Yoginījala in as much as it is located in the inner state ¯ of *the Yoga of the Yogesvar ´īs, the plurality of these being intended in the sense of their totality (conj.). The Mantra of Bhairava [that bears this name] is infinite [in its power]’.

396 Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā on 1.1–2b (athāto rahasyaṁ vakṣye samāsān na tu vistarāt | śrīherukasaṁ yogaṁsarvakāmārthasādhakam | uttarād api cottaraṁ ḍākinījālasaṁ varam ‘Next I shall teach the secret, in brief rather than at length, the congress of Sr´īheruka, the accomplisher of all desires, the D.ākinījālasaṁ vara, higher even than the higher’): uttarād api cottaram iti deśyadeśakayor abhedāt | yāny uttaratantrāṇi samājādīni teṣām apy uttaratvād uktaṁ| ḍākinījālasaṁ varam iti | ḍākinyaḥsarvās tricakravyavasthitāḥ| tāsāṁjālaḥsamūhas tasya saṁ varaḥ| saṁ varaṇ aṁ gopanam ity arthaḥ‘It is referred to as higher even than the higher because it is higher even than the Tantras [of the Yogottara class] headed by the [Guhya]samāja, which are ‘higher’ because the difference between teacher and the taught is absent [in them]. As for [the title] D.ākinījālasaṁ vara, it means the con cealing of the net, that is to say, of the totality of all the D. akin ¯īs that are established [[168]]

Cakra- name ’Khor lo sdom pa and so support the form Cakrasaṁ vara, we also find ’Khor lo bde mchog in their translations, which supports the alternative Cakrasam´ . vara.397

The reason for this inconstancy is evidently that śa and sa are both pro nounced as śa in Bengali, as they were in the Magadh ¯ī Prakrit of the drama tistṣ398 Consequently, instead of attempting to decide which form is correct we should recognize that for the east-Indian followers of this tradition there was in effect only one word here (śaṁ vara/saṁ vara), which could be understood either as ‘the highest (-vara- [Tib. mchog]) bliss (śam [Tib. bde])’ or as ‘fusion’ and the like by derivation from the verbal root vr̥ preceded by the preverb saṁ That this was the case is demonstrated by a passage in the Saṁ varodaya in which the two semantic analyses, explaining śaṁ vara- and saṁ vara- respectively, are given for one and the same worḍ399

S´ AM. VARA/VAJRARUDRA AND VAJRAVAR¯ AH¯ ¯I: THE TRANSFORMATION OF BHAIRAVA AND HIS CONSORT. What marks the new start seen in the Yoginī tantras is a far more comprehensive adoption of the practices of the Śaiva ´ Vidyap¯īt.ha texts, to the extent that there is little in the observances of these texts that does not draw on that source. Heruka is now paired with a lustful consort (Vajravarāh¯ī in the Cakrasaṁ vara texts and Nairatmy ā in those of ¯ Hevajra), and in the case of the Cakrasaṁ vara tradition, so are the principal Yoginīs of his retinue, a feature that matches the practice of the Vidyap¯īt.ha’s Picumata (Brahmayāmala). Moreover, in the case of the tradition elaborated on

the basis of the Laghuśaṁ vara the icon of Heruka has several blatantly obvious features of the iconography of Siva (/Bhairava) in addition to those manifest in ´

in the three circuits [of the Maṇ ḍ ala of Cakrasaṁ vara], saṁ varaḥ being derived from the verb saṁ vr̥- ‘to conceal’ in the sense of the action of concealing’. 397 In the DT ’khor lo sdom pa (cakrasaṁ vara-) occurs about 250 times and ’khor lo bde mchog (cakraśaṁ vara-) about 100; see, e.g., DT, Rgyud ’grel, vol. cha, f. 242v3 (’khor lo bde mchog gi gzugs can); vol. ja, f. 58v7 (’khor lo bde mchog gi rgyud), and f. 102r7 (’khor lo bde mchog gi sngags).

398 See, for Magadh ¯ī, Vararuci, Prākr̥taprakāśa 11.2: ṣasoḥśaḥ‘ś is used in place of both ṣand s’. Generally in Middle and New Indo-Aryan the three Sanskrit sibilants have been reduced to ṣIt has been reported that in the Tantric Buddhist Dohā texts, composed in what has been called Eastern Apabhraṁ sa, ´ ś has been preserved in derivatives of words that have it in Sanskrit (TAGARE 1987, p. 77). It is true that a few such forms are found in the manuscripts (SHAHIDULLAH 1928, p. 37), but there are many cases in which ś does not appear, such as suṇ ṇ a for Skr̥ śūnya. It is likely that the occasional distinction between ś and s was learned window-dressing and that both consonants were pronounced ´ṣ

399 Saṁ varodaya 3.17c–19b: saṁ varaṁsarvabuddhānām evaṁ kāre pratiṣt.hitam k kāyāvākcetasāṁ karma sarvākāraikasaṁ varam | saṁ varaṁsukhavaraṁ bodhir avācyam anidarśanam k rahasyaṁsarvabuddhānāṁ milanaṁsaṁ varaṁ varaṁ

[[169]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

the Heruka of the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga. He is black-bodied, and has twelve arms and four faces, with three eyes in eacḥ He stands in the warrior pose with a Vajra and a Vajra-topped bell in his two principal hands, holding the bleeding hide of a flayed elephant over his back with his two uppermost hands, and in the remaining eight a rattle-drum (ḍ amaruḥ), a battle-axe, a chopping knife, and a trident, a skull-topped staff (khat.vāṅgaḥ), a skull-bowl (kapālam) filled with blood, a lasso (pāśaḥ), and the severed head of the god Brahma, ¯ wearing a long garland of fifty bleeding human heads around his neck, adorned with five ornaments of human bone and the ash of cremation-pyres smeared over his limbs—these, the bone ornaments and ash, are the Six Mudras of the ¯ Kapālikas—, with a tiger skin around his waist, a brahmanical cord in the ¯ form of a snake (nāgayaj ñopavītaḥ), and a chaplet of skulls (kapālamālā) above his forehead, his hair arranged in a high crown-like mass of ascetic’s braids (jat.āmukut.aḥ) adorned at the front with two crossed Vajras (viśvavajram) and the new mooṇ His consort Vajravarāh¯ī stands before him in sexual union, with Heruka holding her to his chest with the hands that hold the Vajra and the Vajra-bell crossed at the wrists behind her back. She is red, one-faced, and two-armed, naked but for a filigree of fragments of human bone adorning her hips (asthimekhalā), her right arm raised aloft holding a chopping-knife, with her index finger extended in a gesture of threatening the wicked, and her left arm, wrapped around Heruka’s neck, holding to their mouths a skull bowl full of human blood and entrails, wearing a garland of fifty desiccated heads and the five Kapālika bone-ornaments, laughing, and intoxicated by lust. They are sur- ¯ rounded by a retinue of thirty-six goddesses termed Yoginīs, D. akin ¯īs, Vīresvar ´īs, or Vīriṇīs visualized in the same Kapālika style, in concentric circuits of four, ¯ twenty-four, and eight, the twenty-four embracing Vīra consorts and worshipped as residing in twenty-four sacred sites covering the whole subcontinent, from Uḍ ḍiyana in the north to R āme ¯ svara at India’s southern tip, from Sindhu in ´ the west to Devīkot.t.a in the east. The whole is surrounded by a ring of eight cremation groundṣ400

The features of Siva’s iconography evident here are the trident, the third ´ eye, the new moon on the piled up braids, the tiger-skin lower garment, the multiple faces and arms, the skull-bowl, the skull-staff, the bleeding elephant hide, the severed head of Brahma, the snake as brahmanical thread, the sharp ¯ fangs, the chaplet of skulls, his dwelling in the cremation grounds, and the ashes

400 This description of Heruka and Vajravarāh¯ī follows that given by Jayabhadra in his Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 109, on Laghuśaṁ vara 1.10. for the iconography of the Yoginīs and Vīras see Bhavabhat.t.a’s Cakrasaṁ varavivr̥ti on Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.ala 4 (vol. 1, pp. 44–47). See also Niṣpannayogāvalī, pp. 26–29.

[[170]]

on his limbṣAll these had entered Siva’s iconography long before the forma- ´ tion of the Tantras of the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle. Siva’s trident appears on sealsānd intaglios during the Kuṣan¯ . a and Kuṣan¯ . o-Sassanian periods in Gandhara ānd Afghanistaṇ401 The third eye appears in sculptures of Siva from Mathurā¯

around the beginning of the third century; and the ascetic’s piled braids and the new moon upon them appear there and elsewhere from the beginning of the fifth;402 and all these characteristics, the trident in his hand, the third eye, the ascetic’s braids, and the new moon, are mentioned in the Mahābhārata,403 as are his tiger-skin, his multiple faces and arms, his skull-bowl, his skull-staff, his brahmanical thread in the form of a snake, his sharp fangs, his garland of skulls, and his living in the cremation grounds smeared with ashes from its funeral pyreṣ404 His wearing a bleeding elephant hide is also a commonplace by that time, being mentioned along with his crematorial characteristics in the works of the poet Kalid āsa. ¯405 As for the severed head of Brahma, this too derives from ā well-known Śaiva myth which though not found in the ´ Mahābhārata in the text common to all the regional versions,406 does appear in the Skandapurāṇ a

401 For a recent analysis of Siva images in the subcontinent, including those on coins, ´ from the first century B.C. to the end of the Kuṣan¯ . a period, see GHOSE 2002, pp. 70–96.

402 KREISEL 1986 (Mathura, c. 400), p. 82; BAKKER 1997, pp. 149–151 (Mansar, c. 400–450).

403 Mahābhārata 3.8.111a (triśūlapāṇeḥ); 13.14.119 (bālendumukut.aṁ. . . tribhir ne traiḥ kr̥toddyotaṁ), 12.122.24b (śūlajat.ādharaḥ), 7.172.59c (jat.āmaṇ ḍ alacandra mauliṁ). 404 See, e.g., Mahābhārata 13.127.18a (vyāghracarmāmbaradharaḥ); 14.8.30d (mahā devaṁcaturmukham), 13.14.116c (aṣt.ādaśabhujaṁsthāṇ uṁ), 14.8.28a (virūpā kṣaṁ daśabhujaṁ), 13.17.40a (daśabāhus tv animiṣo); 12.36.2c (kapālapāṇiḥ khat.vāṅgī), 10.7.4d (khat.vāṅgadhāriṇ aṁ); 13.15.11cd (tīkṣṇ adaṁṣt.raṁ. . . vyāla yaj ñopavītam), 14.8.21a (tīkṣṇ adaṁṣt.rāya karālāya); 10.6.33c (kapālamālinaṁ); 10.7.4a (śmaśānavāsinaṁ); 13.14.153c (śuklabhasmāvaliptāya) .

405 Meghadūta 36c: hara paśupaterārdranāgājinecchāṁ‘Remove Siva’s desire for his ´ [blood-]wet elephant hide’; Kumārasambhava 5.67d: gajājinaṁśoṇitabinduvarṣi ca ‘[his] elephant hide that showers drops of blood’; 5.77b: trilokanāthaḥ pitr̥sadmagocaraḥ‘The Lord of the Three Worlds frequents cremation grounds’; 5.69c, 5.79b: citābhasmarajaḥ‘the ash-dust of funeral pyres’; and 5.71b: kapālinaḥ ‘decked with skulls’. Rudra/Siva frequently has the epithet ´ kr̥ttivāsas- ‘wearer of the hide’ in the Mahābhārata. The Matsyapurāṇ a (Pat.ala 153) relates that this is the hide of the elephant demon Gajasura killed by ¯ Siva in a great battle between ´ the gods and the AsuraṣHow the elephant hide was understood when incorporated into the iconography of Heruka is not stated in most instances of its mentioṇ But in two Kalpas in the Abhidhānottara, those of Samayasam´ . vara and the Heruka of the ekavīravidhānam, it is said to be that of the elephantine Śaiva-brahmanical de- ´ ity Gaṇ apati (B f. 34v1: aparabhujadvayena gaṇ apaticarmāmbara*dharam (corr̥ : dharā Coḍ) and (B f. 40v2–3: aparabhujadvayena gaṇ apaticarmāmbaradharaḥ).

406 There is a reference to it in a supplementary passage of 26 verses inserted within a [[171]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a,407 probably composed in the sixth or perhaps the first half of the seventh century.408 Other features in addition to these, namely the garland of severed or desiccated heads, the chopping knife, the rattle-drum, the Kapālika ¯ bone-ornaments, the consort, the skull-bowl full of blood and entrails, the retinue of Yoginīs, their pairing with Vīra consorts, the sacred sites, the theriocephalic gate-guardians, and the encircling cremation grounds, are commonplaces of the iconography of the Vidyap¯īt.ha textṣOnly the Vajras place a Buddhist seal on the icoṇ

The image, then, has every appearance of representing a Buddhist trans formation of Siva himself in his Bhairava aspect. Indeed in his commentary on ´

the Laghuśaṁ vara Jayabhadra refers to this Heruka as Vajrarudra, that is to say, as Siva/Bhairava converted and liberated by assimilation into the essence of ´ Buddha-hood,409 thereby definitively surrendering and transcending his Śaiva ´ identity. In clear expression of this transcendence Heruka/Vajrarudra and Va jravarāh¯ī are depicted and visualized standing on the sprawling, terrified bodies of a black Bhairava and a red, emaciated Kalar ātri, their own pre-Buddhist iden- ¯ tities as the principal deities of the Vidyap¯īt.ha.410

hymn to Siva (13.14.150–166) after 13.14.153 in the Maithil ´ī and Bengali versions, the Devanagar ¯ī version of the commentator Nīlakaṇt.ha, in several manuscripts of the composite version, and the Kumbhakonam edition (Anuśāsanaparvan, Ap pendix I, no. 6, l. 45): brahmaśiropahartāya ‘[obeisance] to the remover of Brahma’s ¯ head’.

407 5.1–63 (eḍ Adriaensen, Bakker, and Isaacson, pp. 132–141).

408 See here p. 51.

409 Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā on Pat.ala 12: kr̥tapūrvasevo mantrirāt.iti vajrarudrayogavān ‘When the king among Mantra adepts has completed the preparatory service (pūrvasevā), that is to say, when he has achieved a state of complete identification with Vajrarudra . . . ’; and on Pat.ala 27: j ñānahetujam iti | j ñānasya prakarṣaparyantam | tasya hetuḥ kāraṇ aṁ bhagavān vajrarudraḥ| tasmāj jāto bhavatīty arthaḥ‘j ñānahetujam means born from the cause of knowl edge, where knowledge is wisdom’s ultimate degree and its cause is Lord Vajra rudra’. Vajrarudra appears already in the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga in a passage that associates the nine dramatic sentiments (rasāḥ) with Vajrasattva, Tathagata, ¯ Vajradhara, Lokesvara, Vajras ´ urya, Vajrarudra, ¯ S´ akyamuni, ¯ Arali (or perhaps ¯ Aralli), and ¯ S´ a¯svata (Vairocana) respectively. Vajrarudra’s is the sentiment of ter- ´ ror (bhayānakarasaḥ) and it is probable therefore that we should understand Vajra rudra to be Heruka. Sangs rgyas thams cad mnyam par sbyor ba f. 128r3: rdo rje sems dpa’ steg pa la | dpa’ la dpa’ bo de bzhin gshegs | rdo rje ’dzin pa snying rje la | rgod pa ’jig rten dbang phyug mchog | rdo rje nyi ma khro ba la | rdo rje drag po ’jigs pa la | shā kya thub pa mi sdug la | ngo mtshar la ni a ra li | rab tu zhi la sangs rgyas rtag (*śr̥ṅgāre vajrasattvo hi vīre caiva tathāgataḥ| vajradhr̥ k karuṇāyāṁ tu hāsye caiva lokeśvaraḥ| vajrasūryas tathā raudre vajrarudro bhayanake ¯ | śākyamunis tu bībhatseārallir adbhute tathā | praśānte śāśvataś caiva).

410 Kalar ātri here is the fearsome emaciated goddess variously called Carc ā, Carcik ā,¯ Camun ¯ . ḍ a, and Karn ¯ . amot.ī; see here p. 231.

[[172]]

THE RISE OF THE GODDESS TO INDEPENDENCE. Here Heruka’s consort is visibly his dependent: while he has four faces and twelve arms she has only one and two. But in the subsequent development of this tradition we find a strongly S´ akta tendency to elevate her to equality with Heruka and eventually to superi- ¯ ority, just as occurred in the development of the Vidyap¯īt.ha.411 Thus in certain other Kalpas in which Heruka is united with Vajravarāh¯ī at the centre of the Maṇ ḍ ala her status is raised by endowing her with four faces and four or more armṣThis is the case in the Kalpa of the sixth Pat.ala of the Abhidhānottara, which teaches what it calls the ekavīravidhānam, the procedure in which the two deities alone are worshipped as ‘solitary heroes’ (ekavīra-), that is to say, without the the retinue of the thirty-six Yoginīs and twenty-four VīraṣHere Heruka has twelve arms and Vajravarāh¯ī four, holding a blood-filled skull-bowl, a chopping knife raised aloft with the gesture of threat, a rattle-drum, and a skull-staff. But both have four faceṣ412 In the seventh Pat.ala a two-faced, six-armed Vajrasattva transforms into a six-faced, twelve-armed Heruka Manjuvajramah ˜ asukha ac- ¯ companied by a Vajravarāh¯ī who has the same number of faces and arms and holds the same attributes in her handṣBrahma’s severed head is absent here, ¯ but Brahma himself is not: his flayed skin takes the place of the elephant hide; ānd in place of a tiger skin we see that of Bhairava.413 We see the same equality in the tenth Pat.ala, where both Heruka and Vajravarāh¯ī are five-faced and ten

411 See SANDERSON 1988, pp. 668–678.

412 Abhidhānottara B f. 40r3: athānya<ṁ > saṁ pravakṣyāmi ekavīravidhānakam | . . . (f. 40r6) śrīherukamātmānaṁ bhāvayet | caturmukhaṁ dvādaśabhujam . . . (f. 41r1–3) tasyāgratoālikālisthitā bhagavatī vajravārāhī raktavarṇā catur vaktrā caturbhujā trinetrā muktakeśī | nagnā khaṇ ḍ amaṇ ḍitamekhalā | vāme bhujāliṅganakapālaṁca duṣt.amārādyasr̥ gbodhicittaparipūrṇ aṁ dakṣiṇe tar janīvajrakartikā | aparabhujadvaye ḍ amarukhat.vāṅga. The retinue is absent only in the sense that the deities are not positioned around Heruka and Vajravarāh¯ī. Instead the twenty-four Yoginī-Vīra couples are installed from the head of Heruka down to his feet, and the four Yoginīs of the innermost circuit and the eight of the outermost are installed in the twelve objects in his handṣ

413 Abhidhānottara B f. 50v5–6: tatparāvr̥ttyā sadvajraṁ vajrasattvaṁ vibhāvayet | trimukhaṁṣaḍ bhujaṁcaiva trinetraṁ karuṇārasam | . . . (ff. 52v5–53r3) anena codito nātho bījam utpannam uttamam | kuṅkumākāravarṇābhaṁ vajracihna samutthitam | *ṣaṇ mukhaṁ(corr̥ : khanmukhaṁ Coḍ) dvādaśabhujaṁ vārāhyāsamalaṁ kr̥tam | *ṣaḍ a(?)vīramahāvīraṁ ardhaparyaṅkasaṁsthitam | tri netraṁ hasitaṁraudraṁ karālaṁ bībhatsaṁ *lelihānanaṁ(eṁ : lelihānalaṁ Coḍ) karuṇārasam | bhairavaṁ kālarātriṁca pādākrāntatale sthitam | athavālīḍ hasaṁsthānakr̥tayogaṁ *mahādbhutam (conj. : mahadbhūtaṁ Coḍ) | . . . (f. 53r5–v2) *brahmaṇ aḥ(eṁ : brāhmaṇ a Coḍ) kr̥ttim utkr̥ttya pr̥ṣt.haprāvr̥ta vigraham | raudrabhairavacarmeṇ a kat.im (corr̥ : kat.ir Coḍ)āveṣt.ya saṁsthitam | kapālakhat.vāṅgadhara<ṁ > asi-utpalaśaradhāriṇ am | aṅkuśapāśaḍ amarumuṇ ḍ a cāpadharaṁtathā | tadvaktrāyudhavārāhyā mahārāgapade sthitā | jaṅghādvaya samāśliṣt.ā mahāsuratasundarī (corr̥ : suṁ dharā Coḍ) | muṇ ḍ asragdāmadehogrā ṣaṇ mudrācihnabhūṣitā | evaṁ bhāvayate yogī ma ñjuvajramahāsukhaṁ

[[173]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

armed,414 and in the eleventh, where a six-faced, twelve-armed Heruka wearing the flayed skin of Rudra on his back embraces a twelve-armed Vajravarāh¯ī;415 and in the twentieth, in which a red five-faced and twelve-armed Heruka em braces a Vajravarāh¯ī with same colour and hand-attributeṣ416

The literature also teaches Kalpas in which Vajravarāh¯ī is worshipped in her own right in the centre of a circuit or circuits of YoginīṣShe may be one-faced and two-armed, as when she is worshipped as Heruka’s consort, standing in the warrior pose at the centre of the circle of the eight cremation grounds, naked, red and menstruating, her face contorted with anger, with large fangs, three red eyes, wearing a chaplet of five skulls framed by two rows of Vajras, with crossed Vajras on her unbound hair, wearing a garland of fifty heads, which are not desiccated, as they are when she is Heruka’s consort, but, like his, freshly severed and dripping blooḍ She holds aloft a red Vajra in her left hand with her index extended, a skull-bowl full of blood in her right, and a long white skull staff resting in the crook of her left arm, She may possess, as before, only the first five of the six Mudras; but some emphasized her pre-eminence by requiring that ¯ since she is now the central deity of the Maṇ ḍ ala she should also be smeared with asheṣShe is surrounded by the thirty-six Yoginīs, disposed as in the Maṇ ḍ ala of Heruka, but with the difference that the Yoginīs, like her, wear garlands of freshly severed heads,417 or by only the inner circuit of four, or with no retinue

414 Abhidhānottara B ff. 71r3–72v5: vajrasattvaparāvr̥ttyā herukatvaṁ vibhāva yet | pa ñcānanaṁ daśabhujaṁ vārāhyāsamalaṁ kr̥tam . . . (f. 72v4–5) tadvarṇ a bhuja*saṁsthānā (corr̥ : saṁsthānaṁ Coḍ) muktakeśī tu nagnikā vyāghracarma nivasanā khaṇ ḍ amaṇ ḍitamekhalā | kapālamālinī raudrī karuṇārāgasuvihvalā. 415 Abhidhānottara B ff. 79v3–80r6: ṣaḍ vaktraṁ vīraṁ bībhatsaṁśr̥ṅgārahasitaṁ raudraṁlelihānanam | ṣaṇ mudrāmudritaṁ dehaṁ nānābharaṇ amaṇ ḍitam | vārāhyā *tu samāpannaṁ(eṁ : nusamāpannā Coḍ) jānudvayasuveṣt.itam . . . (f. 80r2) rudracarmāmbaradharaṁ. . . (f. 80r5–6) tadvarṇ abhujasaṁsthānā mukta keśī tu nagnikā. 416 Abhidhānottara B f. 113r3–v4: herukākāramātmānaṁ ḍākinīcayaparāvr̥tam | mahograṁraktavapuṣaṁ pa ñcaj ñānodbhavodbhavam | raktaṁ nīlaṁca haritaṁ pītaṁśāntasitordhvakam | trinetraṁ dvādaśabhujamālīḍ hapadasaṁsthitam | . . . (f. 113v3–4) agrato vajravārāhyā tadvarṇāyudhadhāriṇī.

417 This is the main Kalpa taught in the Abhisamayama ñjarī (pp. 131, l. 9–133, l. 1). I propose the following emendations and corrections to the text of the pub lished edition: for mithyā dr̥ṣt.iprahāṇā vikr̥taikānanāṁ(p. 131, l. 15) read mithyā dr̥ṣt.iprahāṇād vikr̥taikānanāṁ; for cakrikuṇ ḍ alakaṇt.hikārucakakhat.vāṅga mekhalākhyapa ñcamudrādharām (p. 131, l. 18) read cakrīkuṇ ḍ alakaṇt.hikārucaka khaṇ ḍāṅkamekhalākhyapa ñcamudrādharām; for iti kecit | maṇ ḍ alanāyikātvena ṣaṇ mudritām ity eke read iti maṇ ḍ alanāyikātvena ṣaṇ mudritām ity eke (p. 132, l. 3); for vajrāvalīdvayamadhyākr̥ta- read vajrāvalīdvayamadhyīkr̥ta- (p. 132, l. 9); and for aṣt.avij ñānāṁ nairātmyāsvarūpatvena read aṣt.avij ñānānāṁ nairātmyasvarūpatvena (p. 132, l. 12).

[[174]]

at all.418

There are other forms of this kind, among which one is particulary worthy of note because it shows her four-faced and twelve-armed like Heruka himself, his equal as it were or, rather, the fusion of both within her, since her fanged face is divided down the middle into a male half on her right and a female half on her left (ardhanārīśvaramukhā), a S´ akta reflex of the well-known Ardhan ār¯īsvara ´ image of Siva. She has the same hand-attributes as the twelve-armed Heruka ´ except that the battle-axe and trident have gone, an elephant-goad has taken the latter’s place. The hand that held the skull-staff now holds the skull-bowl, the skull-staff rests in the crook of that arm, and the two hands that are now free form the flame gesture (jvālāmudrā) on her foreheaḍ The place of the elephant hide is taken by the flayed skin of a maṇ She holds the Vajra and bell in her crossed principal hands and turns them over each other in the gesture known as the revolving lotus (kamalāvartaḥ). She is red, naked, and intoxicated with pas sion, adorned with all six Mudras, the new moon and crossed Vajras on her hair, ā chaplet of skulls above her forehead, and the bone-filigree around her hipṣShe dances wildly in the centre of her retinue, visualized at the moment that she stands with her left leg on the ground flexed at the knee and her right foot raised and placed on the inside of her left thigh with the right knee turned out. She is surrounded by the thirty-six Yoginīs with the addition of the four goddesses Mamak ¯ī, Locana, T ārā, and P ān¯ . ḍ aravasin of the ¯ Guhyasamāja Yogottara sys teṁ The four innermost goddesses have the heads of a lion, sow, elephant, and horse, and hold in their four hands the skull-bowl, skull-staff, head of Brahma, ānd chopping-knife. Outside them are the four Yogottara goddesses, each at the centre of a lotus with six petals, six-armed and adorned with the six Mudraṣ¯ They hold in one of their two principal hands the symbol of the Tathagata-family ¯ to which each belongs (a Vajra, a wheel, two crossed Vajras, and a lotus respec tively) and in the other a bell, turning them over each other̥ In the other hands they hold a skull-bowl, the head of Brahma, and a rattle-drum, with a skull-staff ¯ in the crook of the principal left arṁ The twenty-four Yoginīs of the sacred sites are placed in groups of six on the petals of these lotuseṣThey are four-armed, and hold the symbol of the Tathagata-family of the Yogottara goddess on whose ¯ lotus they are placed, a skull-bowl, a skull-staff, and a rattle-druṁ They wear chaplets of skulls and show only five of the six sealṣLike the central goddess they are half male and half female (ardhanārīśvaryaḥ). All the goddesses in the Maṇ ḍ ala up to this point are naked and dancing. Outside them is the final circuit of eight YoginīṣThe four in the four doors of the Maṇ ḍ ala, with the heads of a

418 Abhisamayama ñjarī, p. 142, ll. 13–19.

[[175]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

crow, owl, dog, and sow, stand naked in the warrior-pose, dwarfish, with squint ing eyeṣThe four in the corners have the heads of a buffalo, an ass, a camel, and a horse, and like all but the door-guardians, are visualized in the dance posture. All eight of these outer Yoginīs have the five Mudras and chaplets of skulls, and āre four-armed, holding a skull-bowl, the head of Brahma in their left hands, and ā chopping-knife and rattle-drum in their right. 419

The cult of the independent goddess (Bhagavatī) appears to have been a particularly vigorous development, to judge from the exceptionally large number of variant forms that emergeḍ420 Within the earlier scriptural lit erature the Abhidhānottara contains several sections devoted to Sadhanas of ¯ Vajravarāhi; ¯421 in the Herukābhyudaya eleven of its forty-four chapters are devoted to her Mantras and their procedures;422 and the section of the Tenjur devoted to the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle (Toḥ 1403–1606) contains over sixty texts ¯ devoted to the varieties of her cult as Vajravarāh¯ī or Vajrayoginī (Toḥ 1541– ¯ 1606). S´ akyaraks ¯ .ita, a pupil of Abhayakaragupta (1064–1125), after detailing ¯ the Sadhana of several of her forms in his ¯ Abhisamayama ñjarī,423 adds that these are but a few of the many that were current in his time:424

So it should be understood that in accordance with the various mentalities of those requiring to be trained there are countless traditions of the Goddess such as this, transmitted through the generations from teacher to pupil in accordance with the [founding] instruction of various SiddhaṣWhat I have shown here is no more than an indicative fraction of the whole.

This S´ akta trend is also evidenced in the practice of the Newars of the Kath- ¯ mandu valley down modern timeṣFor their ceremony of initiation before the Maṇ ḍ ala of Cakrasaṁ vara is followed on the final day by initiation before

419 This form is taught in Abhidhānottara ff. 63v1–70r4 (Pat.ala 9 in the enumera tion of this manuscript), from which it entered the Vārāhyabhyudaya. A lightly adjusted version of this Kalpa is found in the collection of Sadhanas of Va- ¯ jravarāh¯ī/Vajrayoginī that came to bear the title Guhyasamayasādhanamālā in the colophons of later manuscripts; see ENGLISH 2002, pp. 54–59.

420 See ENGLISH 2002 for an illustrated survey of these variantṣ

421 Pat.ala 12/9: Varāh¯ī Vajrayoginī (4-faced, 12-armed; ardhanārīśvarīmukhā); 22/19: Mr̥tasaṁjīvanī (4-faced or 8-faced, 16-armed); 36/33: Vajravarāh¯ī (3-faced and 6-armed or 6-faced and 12-armed, surrounded by Guhyottama etc.); 37/34: Va- ¯ jravarāh¯ī surrounded by Yamin ¯ī etc.

422 Pat.alas 6, 8–11, 23–24, 29–31, and 34.

423 The Abhisamayama ñjarī is ascribed to Subhākaragupta in its sole editioṇ This is ān error and goes against the evidence of the colophons of the manuscripts (EN GLISH 2002, p. 357, ṇ 6).

424 Abhisamayama ñjarī, p. 152: tad *evamādayaḥ(eṁ : evamādāya Eḍ) siddho padeśaparamparāyātā vineyāśayabhedād anantā bhagavatyāāmnāyā boddhavyāḥ | diṅmātram idaṁ darśitaṁ

[[176]]

the Maṇ ḍ ala of Vajradevī (Vajravarāh¯ī).425 Nor was this confined to the sub continent. In Tibet too Vajravarāh¯ī/Vajrayoginī rose to a position of special honour, notably in the bKa’ brgyud and Sa skya traditions, but also in later times among the dGe lug pas, rNying ma pas, and Bon poṣ426

There are other compilations, scriptural and secondary, that survive in Nepalese manuscripts but did not reach Tibet, which attest her prominence in the last phase of the Mantranaya: the Vajravārāhīkalpa, of about three thousand verses, which interweaves the D.ākārṇ ava and the Saṁ varodaya, and incorporates thirteen non-scriptural Sadhana texts of Vajrav ārāh¯ī and one of Nairatmy ā, the consort of Hevajra; ¯427 the closely related Yoginījāla, of about one thousand verses; and the collection of forty-six Sadhanas of ¯ Vajrayoginī known as the Guhyasamayasādhanamālā.428 Moreover, two texts devoted to the cult of this goddess were added to the canon of scripture re ceived by the TibetanṣThe first is the Vārāhyabhyudayatantra, a short work of three hundred verses counted among the explanatory Tantras of the Laghuśaṁ vara but consisting almost entirely of passages lifted from the Saṁ put.odbhava, the Abhidhānottara, and the Saṁ varodaya;429 and the second

425 GELLNER 1992, pp. 273–279. His account of the ceremonies is based upon what he was told by the late Asha Kaji Vajracharya (ibiḍ, p. 273). That the Cakrasaṁ vara initiation is followed by a separate Vajradevī initiation is confirmed by the evidence of the Dīkṣāvidhi, the manual in the Newari language that guides these ritualṣ

426 See ENGLISH 2002, pp. xxii–xxvii.

427 I have not yet undertaken a thorough analysis of the whole text. The interweav ing that I report is of D.ākārṇ ava, Pat.ala 2–3 and Saṁ varodaya 2–3 in the first 3 Pat.alaṣThe nidānavākyam of the Saṁ varodaya is borrowed with the substitution of vārāhībhageṣu for the Saṁ varodaya’s yoginībhageṣu. I have noted the incorpo ration of the following Sadhana texts (identified here with the numbers ascribed ¯ in BHATTACHARYA’s composite Sādhanamālā): 217–218 in Pat.ala 36, 219–225 in Pat.ala 37, 226–228 and 231 in Pat.ala 38.

428 This is the title under which the work has been catalogued in TSUKAMOTO et al. 1989, p. 285. It is based, I surmise, on the colophon of the last Sadhana in the ¯ collection, the D.ākinīguhyasamayasādhana of Anangayogiṇ ˙

429 The correspondences are as follows (S = Saṁ put.odbhava; LS = ´ Laghuśaṁ vara; AU = Abhidhānottara; SU = Saṁ varodaya): 1.5–6b = S 6.3.26–27b; 1.17 = S 6.3.44c– 45b; 1.18ab = S 6.3.45cd; 1.20cd ≈ S 6.3.46cd; 1.21 = S 6.3.47; 1.31 ≈ S 6.4.39; 1.33–43b = S 6.4.40–50; 2.15 = LS 1.19; 2.17c–18 ´ = S 6.3.2–3b; 2.24–27b = S 6.3.3c– 6; 2.27cd = S 6.2.2ab and 6.3.7ab; 2.28–29 = S 6.2.2c–4b; 2.31–33b = S 6.2.4c–6b; 2.34–40 = S 6.2.6c–14; 2.43–44d = S 6.2.15c–16; 3.1–2 = S 6.2.27–28; 5.8–14 = S 6.3.11–17; 6.1–2 = SU 7.1–2; 6.3b–6b = SU 7.14c–17; 6.6c–12b = S 6.3.35–40b; 6.14–19b = S 6.3.40c–45; 6.23–30 = AU 14.58–65; 7.3–7 = S 6.3.19c–24; 8.3–5 = AU 3.8c–11b; 8.17c–18 = AU 16.2–3b; 8.20b ≈ AU 16.3c; 8.20c = AU 16.4a; 8.21–22 ≈ AU 16.4b–5; 8.24–37 = AU 16.6–19; 8.39–41 = AU 16.23–25; 9.1c–5 = AU 4.3–7b; 9.6–17a = AU 4.9–20b; 9.21–39a = AU 4.24–38f; 9.39c–41b = AU 4.42c–44b; 9.41c– 44 = AU 4.39–42b; 9.45–51 (‘47’, ‘48’ and ‘50’ are Mantras) = AU 4.44c–46 (with the same Mantras); 9.52ab = AU 4.51ab; 9.54ab = AU 4.51cd; 10 = AU 50.

[[177]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

is the Vidyādharīkramavajrayoginīsādhana, which appears in the Kanjur (Toḥ ¯ 380) between the major Tantras of the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle and those of con tested authenticity,430 included perhaps, in spite of its genre, because it states in its opening words that it is part of the otherwise unattested Mahāmāyājālo rdhvajat.ottaratantra, which, it claims, was extracted from the Trilakṣa, that it to say, from the vast mythical Ur-text of this cycle, the Trilakṣābhidhāna.431

Further evidence of this S´ akta trend is seen in the views of the tradition ¯ concerning the nature of the revelation of this Ur-text, which, it was claimed, contained the required Buddhist preamble (nidānavākyam) that is lacking in the Laghuśaṁ vara itself. Bhavabhat.t.a, taking care not to claim direct access to that mythical source, saying only that his knowledge of its nidānavākyam has reached him through the lineage of his teachers (guruparamparā),432 asserts that it reveals that the teacher of the Tantra was Bhagavan Mah āvajradhara, ¯ the requester his consort Bhagavatī Vajravarāh¯ī, and the reciter Vajrapan¯ .i. These then, it follows for Bhavabhat.t.a, are the dramatis personae of the Laghuśaṁ vara too. But he reports a contrary view that Vajravarāh¯ī was the teacher and Mahavajradhara her pupil. ¯433 The imposition on the text of the claim that it is a dialogue between the deity and his goddess-consort brings it into line with the Śaiva scriptural literature of the Vidyāp¯īt.ha. For there the Tantras take the form of Bhairava’s teachings in answer to the questions of the Goddess (Devī/Bhairavī). In the explanatory Tantras of the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle this model is made explicit in the Vajraḍāka, where Vajrasattva/Vajraḍ aka ¯ teaches in response to the questions of Devī, and in the D.ākārṇ ava and Va jravārāhīkalpa, where Vīresvara responds to the questions of V ´īresvar ´ī. But in the Caturyoginīsaṁ put.a, another of the satellite Tantras of this cycle, the goddess Vajriṇī (Vajravarāh¯ī) is the teacher and Vajrin (Heruka) the ques tioner̥434 That this inversion seen in the view reported by Bhavabhat.t.a and

430 In Sanskrit it is preserved as the twenty-first Sadhana in the ¯ Guhyasamaya sādhanamālā, ff. 85r4–86r1.

431 Guhyasamayasādhanamālā, f. 62r2: athātaḥsaṁ pravakṣyāmi trilakṣākr̥ṣt.amahā māyājālordhvajat.ottaratantre . . . . 432 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, introduction: mahāvajradharo deśakaḥ. . . . bhagavatī vajravārāhy adhyeṣikā vajrapāṇiḥsaṁ gātā . . . vajravārāhy-ādhyeṣitasya bhagavataḥ prativacanam etad athata ¯ ityādi . . . adhyeṣikā devīti ko niyama iti cet | guruparamparāto hi śrūyate mūlatantre saivādhyeṣiketi | tata ihāpi saiveti gamyate.

433 Ibiḍ, following the preceding citation: bhagavān adhyeṣako bhagavatī deśiketi kecit. acintyarūpo hi tathāgatānām abhiprāyaḥ‘Some say that the Lord [Mahavajradhara] was the requester and the Goddess [Vajrav ārāh¯ī] the teacher̥ For the intention of the Tathagatas is inscrutable’. ¯

434 Caturyoginīsaṁ put.a 2.15d–16: atha sā vajriṇī devī idaṁ vākyam udīrayet | abhiṣekaṁ *sukathitaṁ(conj. [=legs par brjod nas Tib.] : kathitaṁ Coḍ)

[[178]]

in the Caturyoginīsaṁ put.a is evidence of a more S´ akta tendency within the ¯ tradition is obvious in itself, but it is confirmed by parallel practice in the most S´ akta of the ¯ Śaiva scriptures, namely the ´ Kālīkulakramasadbhāva, the Kālīkulapa ñcaśataka, and the Manthānabhairava.

THE ADOPTION OF THE VIDYAP¯ ¯IT. HA’S CARYA AND ¯ YOGA. As for the practice of initiates into this tradition, that too shows increased s´aktizatioṇ ¯ For it now enacts the iconography of their deities through the adoption of the Vidyap¯īt.ha’s Kapālika mode of post-initiatory observance ( ¯ caryāvratam). Buddhist Sadhakas now carry the skull-bowl ( ¯ kapālam) and skull-staff (khat.vāṅgaḥ), and put on the Mudras of human bone and a brahmanical thread ¯ (yaj ñopavītam) made of the twisted hair of corpses or human sinew, and dust their bodies with asḥ435

*gaṇ amaṇ ḍ alam eva ca (conj. [=tshogs kyi dkyil ’khor nyid dag dang Tib.] : lack ing in Coḍ) | aparaṁ kathayiṣyāmi devatānyāsam uttamam ‘Then that goddess Vajriṇī uttered the following words: I have fully explained the initiation rites and the Gaṇ amaṇ ḍ ala. Next I shall explain the supreme [rite of the] installation of the deities’. For the verb udīrayet as a past indicative cf. Pali udīrayi.

435 E.g. Yogaratnamālā on Hevajra, p. 155: caryākāle gaṇ acakrādau vā pa ñcānāṁ mudrāṇāṁ dhāraṇā; Laghuśaṁ vara f. 37v3 (51.2): nivasanaṁ pa ñcamudrādi gātrasya; Abhidhānottara B f. 10v2–2 (3.18): pa ñcamudrādharo nityaṁ kapāla kr̥taśekharaḥ| kapālakhat.vāṅgadhārī ca bhasmoddhūlitavigrahaḥ; Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā on Laghuśaṁ vara 51.21a: pa ñcamudrādīti. kaṇt.hikācūḍ a keyūrakuṇ ḍ alabrahmasūtrāṇīti; Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā on Laghu- śaṁ vara: p. 128: pa ñca mudrā rucakaśiromaṇikuṇ ḍ alakaṇt.hikāyaj ñopavītāḥ pa ñca | sarvadā tair avirahito bhavet; Yoginīsaṁcāra 6.12c–13d: kaṇt.hikārucaka kuṇ ḍ alaśiromaṇivibhūṣitāḥ yaj ñopavītaṁ bhasmeti mudrāṣat.kaṁ prakīrtitam; Khrag ’thung mngon par ’byung ba f. 13r4 (Herukābhyudaya 15.27): nub mo ru ni dam tshig ste | dpa’ bo rtag tu gcer bu yin | sgrub pos sngags dang phyag rgya dang | phyag rgya lnga dang yang dag ldan ‘Observing the vows (samayī), the Sadhaka Hero ( ¯ vīraḥ) [should] always [be] naked at night (rātrau ca satataṁ nagnaḥ[?]), equipped with the Mantras and Mudras ( ¯ mantramudrānvitaḥ), and wearing the five [bone] Mudras ( ¯ pa ñcamudrāsamanvitaḥ)’; Hevajra 1.3.14: cakrī kuṇ ḍ ala kaṇt.hī ca haste rūcaka mekhalā | pa ñcabuddhaviśuddhyā ca etā mudrāḥ prakīrtitāḥ; 1.6.2a: śirasi cakrī dhartavyā (= śiromaṇiḥ, a circlet of bone; the mekhalā is a filigree made of small pieces of bone worn around the hips); Hevajra 1.6.16cd: bhasma keśapavitraṁca yogī bibharti caryayā; Muktāvalī ad loc.: keśapavitraṁ keśayaj ñopavītam; Vajrāvalī B, p. 218: athavā nr̥naharumayaṁ keśakr̥taṁ vā brahmasūtram ‘or the sacred thread may be made of human sinew or hair’; Abhisamayama ñjarī, pp. 131–132: cakrīkuṇ ḍ ala kaṇt.hikārucakakhaṇ ḍāṅkamekhalākhyapa ñcamudrādharām (see here p. 174) | kaṇt.hikārucakakuṇ ḍ alāni śiromaṇivibhūṣitam | yaj ñopavītaṁ bhasmeti mudrā ṣat.kaṁ prakīrtitam iti kecit. For the Śaiva case see, e.g.,śvacchandoddyota on 3.2b: mudrālaṅkārabhūṣitaḥśikhākarṇ aprakoṣt.hapratiṣt.hāpitapa ñcamudraḥ; Picumata, f. 101r3 (21.104): karṇ au śirasi bāhūbhyām asthikhaṇ ḍ air vibhūṣitaḥ; a verse cited by Yamun ācārya in his ¯ Agamaprāmān ¯. ya, p. 93 (Y), edited here by collation with the closely related verse cited by Nirmalamaṇi as cited by Brun ner in Somaśambhupaddhati vol. 3, p. 681, ṇ 7 (N): *kaṇt.hikā (eṁ : karṇikā [[179]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

The pan-Indian topography of the S´ akta ¯ Śaivas’ sacred sites, their P ´īt.has, Kṣetras, Upakṣetras, Saṁ dohas/Chandohas,436 and the like, is also adopteḍ Two lists of such sites are found: one in the Vajraḍāka and the other in the Laghuśaṁ vara.437 Also adopted is the practice of visiting these sacred sites (pīt.habhramaṇ am)438 in search of meetings with the Yoginīs/D. akin ¯īs that are

Y : kuṇ ḍikā N) kuṇ ḍ alaṁcaiva *rucakaṁ(Y : uragaṁ N) ca *śikhāmaṇiḥ(ṇiḥ N : ṇim Y) | *bhasma yaj ñopavītaṁca (Y : keśayaj ñopavītaṁca N) *mudrā ṣat.kaṁ pracakṣate (Y : mudrā ete mahāvratāḥ[< mahāvrate]) ‘The [Kapālikas] ¯ teach that the six Mudras are (1) the necklace, (2) the earrings, (3) the bracelets, ¯ (4) the hair-jewel, (5) ashes and (6) the sacred thread [made from human hair]’. This followed in Y by a second verse: kapālam atha khat.vāṅgam upamudre prakīrtite |ābhir mudritadehas tu na bhūya iha jāyate ‘The skull-bowl and skull staff are called the sub-MudraṣOne whose body is sealed by these [eight] is not ¯ born again in this [world]’; Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, f. 201v3: dvitīyaṁtu vrataṁ vakṣye ghorakāpālarūpiṇ a | śire kapālamukut.aṁśiromālāvibhūṣitam | kare karṇ au tathā pādau asthikhaṇ ḍ air vibhūṣitau | vāme kapālaṁ khat.vāṅgaṁ tathā vai dakṣiṇe kare. The six Mudras minus the ashes, that is to say, the ¯ five of the Buddhist lists, are defined, but not numbered, in Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 1, f. 139r1–3 (23.33–36b), in the order earrings, bracelets, hair-jewel, sa cred thread of human hair, and necklace: vīrāṇāṁ nr̥ paśārdūla tantre ’smin bhairavārcite | śubhraśaṅkhe prakartavye dvyaṅgule karṇike śubhe | rucake (eṁ : caruke Coḍ) dvyaṅgule śaste turyāṅguṣt.ḥ aḥśikhāmaṇiḥ| trivr̥nnarakacotpannas tripa ñcasarikaḥsamaḥ| kaṇt.hāj jaghanasaṁsparśī (ja corr̥ : jaṅ Coḍ) śastaḥ pa ñcavat.o ’pi ca k suvr̥ttamaṇisaṁ ghāta(corr̥ : taḥ Coḍ)saṁ ghātaikāvalī samā | dhāryā sādhakacandreṇ a śeṣabhūtā tadicchayā (eṁ : gā Cod). The 80th chap ter of the Picumata describes, but does not number, (1) the hair-jewel, (2) earrings, (3) a necklace (kaṇt.hamudrā), (4) the sacred thread, and (5) ornaments of bone on hands, arms and hipṣThe last takes the place of the bracelets (rucake) listed elsewhere and in Vajrayanist texts ( ¯ Picumata ff. 311v-312r): cūḍāmaṇikapālena śikhāyāṁ yo niveśitaḥ|īśvaras tatra vij ñeyo adhidevo varānane | j ñānaśaktiḥ kriyākhyā ca karṇike parikīrtite | kaṇt.he sthitā tu yā mudrā ahaṁtatrādhidevatam | rudro mātr̥ gaṇ aiḥsārdhaṁj ñātavyas tu varānane | anantā hy upavīte tu śaktiḥ sarvādhvagā parā | hastabāhukat.isthaiś ca viṣṇ ur j ñeyo ’dhidevatam | śaktayo vividhākārā jat.ānām adhidevatam | etan mahārthadaṁ devi yo vijānāti tattvataḥ| śivavat sa tu boddhavyo viruddhācaraṇ o ’pi yaḥ.

436 The Śaiva termśaṁ dohaḥfor one class of site consistently appears in Buddhist treatments in the form chandohaḥ(e.g. Laghuśaṁ vara 50.22 and Hevajra 1.6.10). This substitution of initial ch- for s-/ś- is probably an east-Indianism; cf. Oriya cha ñcibā < Skt. saṁcayati; Bengali chātu < Skt. saktuḥ; Oriya chāc, chacā < Skt. satya-; Bengali chut, Bengali and Oriya chutā < Skt. sūtram; Oriya chaṇ a < Skt. śaṇ aḥ; Bengali chādlā < Skt. śādvalam; and Bengali chikal, chikli < Skt. śr̥ṅkhala-, śr̥ṅkhalikā.

437 On these lists see here pp. 192–203.

438 See, e.g. Saṁ varodaya 8.29b,d: pīt.hādideśagamanena viśuddhadehaṁ. . . vande sadā guruvaraṁśirasā natena ‘At all times, with head bowed, I venerate the best of Gurus, . . . whose body has been purified by going to the Pīt.has and other [such] sites’; 9.25: pīt.hopapīt.hasevanān nirmalo bhavati mānavaḥ| bhraman nimittaṁsaṁlakṣya nirvikalpena dhīmataḥ‘A man becomes pure by frequent ing Pīt.has and Upapīt.haṣThe adept should wander [there] without hesita tion, observing [any] signs [that may arise] without inhibition’; 26.14 . . . 18c–19: [[180]]

believed to frequent them and to be incarnate there in human women enlight ened from birth or in childhood;439 classifying such women as belonging to one

pīt.he kṣetre ca cchandohe melāpakaśmaśānake k pūjyapūjakasaṁ bandhe amr̥tam argham uttamam k . . . pratiṣt.hāhomakāleṣu pīt.habhramaṇ agocare k naimitte yo ginīpūjye mantrasādhanatatkṣaṇe | evaṁ bahuvidhā j ñeyā tasya doṣo na vidyate ‘In a Pīt.ha, Kṣetra, Chandoha, Melapaka, a cremation-ground, or an encounter ¯ between worshipper and worshipped, wine is the highest guest-water̥ . . . on the occasion of installation ceremonies, when wandering through the Pīt.has, during worship of the Yoginīs occasioned by some event, and when doing the Sadhana of ā Mantra. He should know that there are a manifold [occasions] such as these [on which he may drink wine]. He will not be at fault’. Cf. Niśisaṁcāra, f. 10v2–3: evam eva prakāreṇ a ghorasādhanatatparam | kṣetra paryat.amānasya sādhakasya mahādhiye | śabdaṁ dadāti yaḥ kaścit tasya praśnaṁ vadāmy aham ‘O you of great understanding, I shall teach [you] the requests [that should be addressed] to any [di vine being] who speaks to the Sadhaka as he wanders in this manner visiting the ¯ Kṣetras, intent on the Ghorasadhana’; ¯ Tantrāloka 29.40ab: iti saṁ ketābhij ño bhra mate pīt.heṣu yadi sa siddhīpsuḥ‘If a person seeking Siddhis wanders from Pīt.ha to Pīt.ha knowing these signs[, the chummāḥ] . . . .

439 Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā on 26.1, p. 125: yāvanti kṣetropakṣetrāṇi yo gapīt.hāni tatra vyavasthitā dūtyaḥsiddhidāś cumbanāvagūhanād etāḥ viśeṣeṇeti yāvat ‘Dut¯īs are present in all the Yogapīt.has, the Kṣetras, and UpakṣetraṣThese bestow Siddhi, especially through kissing and copulating [with the Sadhaka]’; ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara 41.4c–5, reconstucted from the lemmata in the Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā of Bhavabhat.t.a, the commentary Sādhananidhi of Kam balapada (K), this passage as incorporated in ¯ Vajraḍāka f. 41v2 (18.2) (V), and the Tibetan translation (T): sarvottareṣu pīt.hādi ḍākinyas tu sarvavyāpinī | deśe deśe *’bhijāyante (V, mngon par skye T : jāyante K) j ñānayuktāḥsvayoniṣu | ḍākinyas tāḥsamākhyātāḥ vajramaṇ ḍ alanāyikāḥ‘In all these superior [sites] in various re gions, namely the Pīt.has and the rest, women are born who are endowed with knowledge in their mother’s wombṣIt is these that are called D. akin ¯īs, leaders of the Vajramaṇ ḍ ala’. Cf. Tantrasadbhāva f. 115v3–4 (16.279c–280): vij ñāna-m udayaṁ māsāṁ kathyamānaṁ nibodha me | pīt.hajāś cāṣt.abhir varṣaiḥ kṣetrajā dvādaśābdikāḥ| dvāre ṣoḍ aśabhir devi yonijāḥsaptaviṁśati ‘Listen to my account of the emergence of the enlightenment of these [Yoginīs]. Those born in Pīt.has [achieve it] at the age of eight, those born in Kṣetras at the age of twelve, [those born in] Dvaras at the age of sixteen, and those born of [lowly] wombs at the āge of twenty-seven’. Cf. Tantrāloka 15.97cd–100b: bāhye tu tādr̥śāntaḥsthayoga mārgaviśāradāḥk devyaḥsvabhāvāj jāyante pīt.haṁtad bāhyam ucyate | yathā svabhāvato mlecchā adharmapathavartinaḥk tatra deśe niyatyetthaṁj ñānayogau sthitau kvacit | yathā cātanmayo ’py eti pāpitāṁtaiḥsamāgamāt k tathā pīt.has thito ’py eti j ñānayogādipātratām ‘In the outer [Pīt.has, Kṣetras and the rest as opposed to these transposed into the person of the worshipper] divine women are born who are innately adept in the path of such internal meditatioṇ Just as the barbarians of other lands naturally follow paths outside of ordained religion, so in some [women] in these places enlightenment and meditation-trance are naturally present. And just as a person becomes a sinner through association with those [bar barians], even though he makes no effort to assimilate, so a person residing in a Pīt.ha becomes the beneficiary of enlightenment, meditation-trance, and [Siddhis]’; and 29.40: iti saṁ ketābhij ño bhramate pīt.heṣu yadi sa siddhīpsuḥ| acirāl labhate tat tat prāpyaṁ yad yoginīvadanāt ‘If a person seeking Siddhis wanders from Pīt.ha to Pīt.ha knowing these signs[, the chummāḥ], he quickly attains from the mouths

[[181]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

or other a fixed number of deity-clans (kulam) and of specifying various charac teristics of appearance and behaviour that enable the adept to determine these clan-affiliations;440 the consumption and offering of meat and alcoholic liquor in their rites;441 the consumption of foul substances without inhibition as an ini tiatory test of nondual awareness;442 the sacrifice and consumption of the flesh

of Yoginīs whatever he wishes’.

440 Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.alas 16–24 (> Abhidhānottara, Saṁ put.odbhava, Saṁ varodaya, Mahāmudrātilaka, Vajraḍāka); and parallel passages in the Vidyap¯īt.ha texts Yo ginīsaṁcāra, Tantrasadbhāva, Siddhayogeśvarīmata, and Picumata. For full refer ences see SANDERSON 2001, pp. 42–43 (Table I). 441 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 497:āsu pūjanīyā madyaiś ca māṁsair api vajradevyaḥ| tāḥ pūjitā bhaktimato janasya śrīherukasyābhiratiṁ gatasya saṁtuṣt.acittā varadā bhavanti ‘On these [lunar days] [the women who embody] the Vajra goddesses should be worshipped with offerings of alcohol and flesḥ When they have been worshipped they become delighted and bestow boons on any devotee who is attached to Heruka’; Abhidhānottara B f. 48v5– (6.50d–56a): vividhai<ḥ > samayottamaiḥk *madyair (eṁ : padma Coḍ) nānāvidhai<ś> caiva surāpānais tathottamaiḥ| *vīramelāpakaṁ(vīra corr̥ : vīrā Coḍ) divyaṁ yoginī vivi dhottamā<ḥ > k kapālakhat.vāṅgakarā<ḥ > kartikāḍ amarukottamā<ḥ > | vādyai nānāvidhair divyai bhojyabhakṣyarasottamaiḥk vividhaiś cumbanāliṅgaiś coṣyalehyottamottamaiḥ| evaṁ vidhaṁśmaśānaṁtu yakṣavetāḍ arākṣasaiḥk baliṁtatraiva dātavyaṁ *herukarūpam (eṁ : heruko rūpam Coḍ) udvahet | ḍ amaruvajraghaṇt.ā<ṁ > ca vādyanr̥tya<ṁ > prakurvati k digvāsā mudrayā yukto hūṁ phat.kilakilāyate |ālīḍ hapadayogena jvālāmudrāṁtu bhāvayet k mukhamāpūrya samayaiḥ‘The illustrious assembly of Vīras [with Yoginīs should be cele brated] with [the eating of] the various superior sacramental meats [detailed above], with various wines and excellent draughts of rice-beer̥ The various Yoginīs, holding the skull-bowl, skull-staff, a chopping-knife, and a rattle-drum [should be gratified] with various forms of music, the savours of excellent foods soft and hard, with kisses and embraces, with foods to be sucked and lickeḍ Such [should be] the cremation ground [on this occasion]. There he should offer Bali to the Yakṣas, Vetalas, and ¯ Raks ¯ .asaṣHe should assume the form of Heruka. He should [sound] the rattle drum and Vajra-bell, dance, and make music and dance. Naked together with his consort (mudrā) he utters the syllables HUM. PHAT. and cries of joy. Standing in the warrior pose he should make the Flame Mudra with his hands, having filled his ¯ mouth with the sacramental meats’. Pat.ala 16 of the Saṁ varodaya is devoted to the preparation and use of alcoholic drinkṣAt its end (16.51abc) it says: madyapānaṁ vinā pūjā homaś caiva ghr̥taṁ vinā | sadguruṁca vinā dharmaṁ‘There cannot be worship without drinking wine, fire-sacrifice without clarified butter, or religious practice without the Guru’. Cf. the scriptural passages on the indispensability of wine in Kaula worship cited by Jayaratha on Tantrāloka 29.1–13. One of those passages says that beer is the Goddess and wine Bhairava; surā ca paramā śaktir madyaṁ bhairava ucyate (p. 9, line 2). Cf. Saṁ varodaya 16.12cd: yā surā *vajrayo ginyā (conj. : vajrayoginyo Eḍ) yo madaḥsa ca herukaḥ‘Beer is Vajrayoginī and wine is Heruka.’

442 See, e.g., Kumaracandra, ¯ Herukābhyudayapa ñjikā, p. 156: tatreti maṇ ḍ ale ’mbhojabhājane saṁskr̥ta<ṁ > biḍālaviḍādikaṁ dakṣiṇābhimukhācāryo vāso baddhāsyaṁśiṣyamānīya oṁ kārādigāyatryā rakṣitvā *potaṅgīpratipotaṅgī praśnottarakriyāpūrvakaṁ(corr̥ : potaṅgīṁ pratipotaṅgīṁ Eḍ) praveśya tadāsye niveśayet ‘There, that is to say, before the Maṇ ḍ ala, the Acārya, facing south, ¯

[[182]]

of human beings believed to have been reincarnated seven times for this pur pose (saptāvartaḥ), recognized in both traditions on the basis of similar physical characteristics, and the use of their skulls as skull-bowls;443 the practice of visu alizations in which the Sadhaka enters the body of a victim through the channels ¯ of his vital energy (nāḍī), extracts his vital essences, and draws them into him self;444 that of yogically raising one’s consciousness out of one’s body through

should sacramentalize in a skull-bowl some substance such as cat excrement. He should then lead the blindfolded candidate forward, protect him with the Gayatr ¯ī [of Heruka] beginning with OM., and after addressing him with the word POTANG˙ ¯I[, the chommā of welcome] and having received [the chommā] PRATIPOTANG˙ ¯I in re sponse, he should bring him before [the Maṇ ḍ ala] and place that substance in his mouth’. For the Śaiva literature see the passages cited in SāNDERSON 2005c, pp. 113–114, fn. 63.

443 See, e.g, Laghuśaṁ vara f. 10r3–4 (11.1–2) and 49.4–13 (49.4–8 = f. 35v5–7; 49.8–13 = bDe mchog nyung ngu, f. 244r2–5); Abhidhanottara, Pat.ala 63; Herukābhyudaya, Pat.ala 13 (Khrag ’thung mngon par ’byung ba f. 10r7–v6); Hevajratantra 1.11.10– 11; Mahāmudrātilaka f. 23r3–4 (12.20–21): tādrśaṁ yatnāt saptajanmānamānayet | nānāpūjopahāreṇ a pūjayet taṁsamāhitaḥk tasyottamāṅgam utkr̥tya kārayet padmabhājanam | tatraiva pātre madanaṁ pāyayet praj ñayā saha ‘He should with all effort bring such a man of seven rebirthṣWith concentrated mind he should honour him with the various offering-substanceṣHaving decapitated him he should make the head into a skull-bowl. In that vessel he should drink wine with his consort’; f. 51r5–v2 (24.1–3c): athānyaṁ *caiva (conj. : caika Coḍ) karmākhyaṁ pravakṣyāmyādarāc chr̥ṇ u | yena prāśitamātreṇ aāśu siddhiḥ pravar tate k susnigdhaś ca sugandhāṅgaḥsugandhasvedamaṇ ḍitaḥ| satyavādī salajjātmā niveśati ciraṁsadā | kr̥ pāparaḥ kṣāntiyutaḥsatyavādī nirāśrayaḥ| saptajanmā trijanmā vā. In the Vidyap¯īt.ha literature see the treatments of this topic in Jayadrathayāmala S. at.ka 3, Yoginīsaṁcāra, Kālaj ñānapat.ala; Tantrasadbhāva, Adhikāra 7; and Tantrāloka 16.63–64 and Jayaratha’s introduction to this passage.

444 See, e.g., Herukābhyudayapa ñjikā on Herukābhyudaya, Pat.ala 13 p. 155: svadehāt ḍākinīḥsphārayitvā sādhye gudena praveśya navadvārair nāḍīmārgeṇ a paśoḥ sādhyasya *bījaṁ(conj. : bījaṁjīvaṁ bījaṁ Eḍ) śukrādikaṁ grāhayitvā niṣkāśya svadehe praveśayet ‘He should emanate the D. akin ¯īs from inside his body, have them enter the victim through his anus [or any one of] the nine apertures and passing through the channels of the victim’s vital energies, seize his seed, his se men and other [vital essences]. Then he should have them exit [the victim] and return [with these] into [his own body]’; on Herukābhyudaya, Pat.ala 42, p. 167: athavā sādhyamākr̥ṣya tacchukrādi pītvā bhakṣayet ‘Having attracted the vic tim he should [extract and] drink his semen and other [essences], then eat [the flesh]’; Abhidhānottara B f. 51v1–3 (9.62–64b): vārāhyātmabhāvena tarjanyā nābhi vedhayet | ḍākinyādi tu cakrasthā devya<ḥ > *śūcyākr̥tīs (eṁ : sūcyākr̥tās Coḍ) tathā k navadvāre *praveśyaitā (conj. : praveśya tāṁ Coḍ) vedhayed (corr̥ : vi dhayed Coḍ) dhr̥dayapaṅkajam | yoginyā hatamātre (conj. : mātraṁ Coḍ) tu pibet kṣatajam uttamam k hataṁca bhakṣayet so hi buddho bhaviṣyati nānyathā ‘By identifying with Varāh¯ī he should pierce the navel [of the victim] with his in dex finger [in the gesture of threat] and cause the D. akin ¯īs and other goddesses of the Maṇ ḍ ala to take on the form of a needle [through visualization]. When he has made them enter [the victim in this form] through the nine apertures [of the body] he should have them pierce through the lotus of his heart. As soon as the Yoginīs have killed him he should drink his excellent blood and eat his flesḥ For it is certain

[[183]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

the central channel as a means of ending one’s life and ascending to a paradise or liberation, a practice known as utkrāntiḥin Śaiva sources and thence in the ´ Buddhist Yoginītantras (Tib. ’pho ba);445 the adaptation of this practice as a

that [thus] he will become a Buddha’; Mahāmāyā 2.10–14b. On the extraction of the vital essences by such yogic means in Vidyap¯īt.ha sources see, e.g., Picumata f. 10v1– 4 (3.198c–207): praviśya ca puraṁ divyaṁ *japtvā (eṁ : japtā Coḍ) cāṣt.aśataṁ punaḥk 199 avadhūtatanur bhūtvā prayogam idamārabhet | paśubījasamāyuktaṁ U¯ -kāreṇ aiva bheditam k 200 karṣaye tu samādhistho raktaughaṁraktayā saha | tena raktena mantraj ñaḥ paripūrṇ akapālake k 3.201 sugandhakusumair yukte tenārghaṁtu pradāpayet | devīnāṁ devadevāya sarvasiddhyarthakāraṇ am k 3.202 datte ’rghe tu prasiddhyeta trailokyaṁ nātra saṁśayaḥ| athavā caiva U¯ -kāraṁ paśubījasamanvitam k 3.203 codayitvā udānena avadhūtatanuḥ *sadā (corr̥ : sadāḥ Coḍ) | nirācāreṇ a bhāvena paśudehaṁ viśet tataḥk 3.204 tatrastho grahaṇ aṁ kuryāt bhūtānāṁ mantracintakaḥ| apānena tataḥśīghraṁsvadehaṁ praviśed budhaḥk 3.205 pa ñcabhūtāni cākr̥ṣya pūjayīta kapāladhr̥ k | raktena prathamā<ṁ > devī<ṁ > dvitīyā<ṁ > māṁsabhakṣaṇe k 3.206 tr̥tīyā tvak-ca-bhakṣā tu caturthī medabhakṣaṇā | snehena tarpayed devaṁ pa ñcavyomāntasaṁsthitam k 3.207 etat te paramaṁ guhyaṁ yogeśīnāṁtu pūjanam | siddhyarthaṁcaiva mantrīṇāṁ khecaratvajigīṣuṇām ‘After entering before the celestial Maṇ ḍ ala he should repeat the Mantra eight hundred timeṣWhen [in this way] he has become one whose body has transcended all duality he should commence the following pro cedure. In deep meditation he should draw out a stream of the [victim’s] blood with the [Mantra of] Rakta conjoined with the Victim-seed with ¯ Uās the [final] vowel. The Mantra adept should place fragrant flowers in a skull, fill it with that blood, and present it as the guest-offering to the goddesses and Bhairava as the means of accomplishing all SiddhiṣAlternatively he should propel the letter U¯ combined with the Victim-seed up [along the central channel] with the ascending vital energy and in the state that transcends convention he should enter the victim’s body. Once within it the adept should take hold of the gross elements [of the victim’s body] while meditating on the Mantra and then swiftly return into his own body by draw ing in his breatḥ When he has drawn them into himself the Kapālika ( ¯ kapāladhr̥ k) should worship [his deities with them]. He worships the first goddess by offering her the blood, and the second by offering her the flesh to eat. The third eats the skin and the fourth the fat. With the fluid of the body he should gratify the god [Kapal¯īsabhairava] who resides beyond the five voids [along the central channel]. ´ This worship is the highest secret of the Yogesvar ´īṣ[I have taught it] to you so that Mantra adepts that seek to master the state of the Khecara may succeed’. See also Tantrasadbhāva, ff. 181v5–182r2 (27.1–10); Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, f. 184r6 (Yoginīsaṁcāra 5.40): yasmātra karmaṇ o siddhī raktākarṣaṇ apūrvikā | tarpaṇ aṁ devatānāṁca ‘For in this [system] the success of the ritual and the gratification of the deities requires the extraction of [the victim’s] blood’; Tantrāloka 16.35c–51b, describing the yogic process in detail; and Netratantra 20, which describes how Yoginīs extract life-essences from their victims in this way in order to offer them up to Mahabhairava and thereby liberate theṁ ¯

445 Catuṣpīt.ha ff. 68v–70r (Guhyapīt.ha, Pat.ala 3) and Bhavabhat.t.a thereon (Catuṣpīt.hanibandha ff. 50v4–52v7); Vajraḍāka ff. 50r7–52r3 (Pat.ala 21); Saṁ put.odbhava ff. 78r5–80r6 (Kalpa 8, Prakaraṇ a 3); Saṁ varodaya 5.67–69 and 19.35c–47. In Tibetan tradition this practice is one of the nā ro chos drug or Six Teachings of Narop ā (956–1040), commonly known in English as his Six Yogaṣ¯ These have been the object of extensive Tibetan exegesiṣFor English transla tions of some of these works, including the Chos drug gi man ngag attributed to

[[184]]

means of assisting the dying and the dead—we have seen a ritualized realiza tion of this in the Mantranaya’s funeral ceremony taught by Padmasr´īmitra and S´unyasam ādhi ¯446—; and the practice of transferring one’s consciousness out of one’s body to pass into and animate a corpse (parakāyapraveśaḥ).447

Nor is the adoption of the Vidyap¯īt.ha’s practices restricted to externalṣIt also extended into the domain of Yoga. For one of the most striking features that distinguish the Yoginītantras from the Yogatantras and indeed from all that pre ceded them in the history of Buddhism is that they based their inner practice on the theory that the body is pervaded and sustained by a network of energy channels (nāḍī), variously numbered, with three pre-eminent: two vertical lat eral channels, lalanā and rasanā, and a hidden third extending between up the centre of the body to the head, called avadhūtī or caṇ ḍālī, with Cakras located along its course, which was to be awakened and perceived as the means of access to the bliss (sahajānandaḥ, mahāsukham) of enlightened awarenesṣThis Yoga of meditation on the channels of the vital energy and the Cakras is not found in the transitional Sarvabuddhasamāyoga448 nor indeed in the Laghuśaṁ vara,

Tilopa, the ¯ sNyan rgyud rdo rje’i tshig rkang attributed to Narop ā, and the ¯ Nā ro chos drug gi ’khrid rim yid ches gsum ldan of Tsong kha pa (1357–1419) (Gsung ’bum, vol. ta, pp. 401–532) see MULLIN 1996 and 1997. For Tsong kha pa’s detailed treatment of this practice of ascent from the body see MULLIN 1996, pp. 209–215. His sources are those Tantras listed here: the Catuṣpīt.ha (and Bhavabhat.t.a’s com mentary), the Vajraḍāka, the Saṁ put.a (= Saṁ put.odbhava), and the Saṁ varodaya. MULLIN translates the Tibetan rendering of these titles into Englisḥ He identifies his ‘Mystic Kiss Tantra’ as the Caturyoginīsaṁ put.a. It is in fact the Saṁ put.a, the work that also appears in this translation as the Sambhuta Tantra, reproducing a faulty Tibetan transcription of the same title. Tsong kha pa notes that this prac tice of ascent from one’s body (utkrāntiḥ) is a unique feature of the highest (bla na med) Buddhist Tantra class (MULLIN 1996, p. 209). That is so within the Buddhist Tantras; but the source of the practice is the Śaiva tradition, whose texts have al- ´ ways placed a great emphasis on it both in the Atimarga and in the Mantram ārga; ¯ see Pāśupatasūtra 5.30–40; Pampāmāhātmya 11.54–71 (explaining that pas sage); Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a, Adhyāya 182; Rauravasūtrasaṁ graha, Pat.ala 9; Sārdhatriśatikālottara 11.13–19b; Dviśatika-Kālottara ff. 2v9–3r6; Tray odaśaśatika-Kālottara ff. 30r9–31r7; Kiraṇ a, Pat.ala 59; Mataṅgapārameśvara, Caryāpāda, Pat.ala 9; Picumata, Pat.ala 100; Mālinīvijayottara 17.25–33; Tantrasadbhāva f. 36r11–v10 (9.294–321); Tantrāloka 28.292–302; and, in Java/Bali, J ñānasiddhānta, chapters 3, 5–7, and 20.

446 See here pp.126–128. For the Śaiva adaptation of this practice as a means of liberat- ´ ing the dying see, e.g., Tantrāloka 19.1–56 (sadya-utkrāntidīkṣā utkrāmaṇī dīkṣā). 447 Vajraḍāka f. 51r1–3 (21.19–22). In the Śaiva literature see ´ Niśvāsatattvasaṁ hitā f. 22v4 (Niśvāsamula 7.20), (>) Svacchanda 7.328c–329b; Picumata f. 11v (3.228– 232b); (5.95–101); f. 356r4–v3 (96.19–35); Tantrasadbhāva ff. 181v5–182r3 (27.1– 11); Mālinīvijayottara 21.9–19; and Tantrāloka 28.294–300. This practice too is one of the ‘Six Yogas of Narop ā’ ( ¯ nā ro chos drug); see Tsong kha pa, op. cit. translated in MULLIN 1996, pp. 215–216.

448 See also TANAKA 1996, p. 272.

[[185]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

but it is much developed in the latter’s ancillary scriptures such as the Vajraḍāka and Saṁ varodaya, and elsewhere in the Yoginītantras, notably in the Hevajra, the Saṁ put.odbhava, the Mahāmudrātilaka, and the Kālacakra.449

The elements of this model are ‘purifed through equation’ (viśuddha-) with Buddhist soteriological factors, either newly acquired, such as the twenty-four sacred sites or long established in the Mahayāna, such as the three bodies of ā Buddha (nirmāṇ akāyaḥ, saṁ bhogakāyaḥ, and dharmakāyaḥ), equated with the three principal channels, and Means (upāyaḥ) and Wisdom (praj ñā), whose co-functioning (yuganaddhavāhitā) is the way to liberation, equated with the lateral pair̥450 But the basic conception is derived from the Yoga of the Śaivas in ´ general and the S´ akta ¯ Śaivas in particular̥ ´

THE INCORPORATION OF TEXT-PASSAGES FROM THE VIDYAP¯ ¯IT. HA. In the light of this evidence of the pervasive similarities between the Yoginītantras and the Saivism of the Vidyāp¯īt.ha, and considering the fact that these similarities set the Yoginītantras apart from all earlier forms of Buddhism, the reader will not be surprised to know that there is also evidence that this tradition incorporated

449 That the Yoga of the energy channels was one of the principal features that distin guished the Yoginītantras was asserted by the learned of the Mantranaya itself; see Sraddhākaravarman cited here on p.239; also Mkhas grub rje, ¯ rGyud spyi, p. 256, ll. 6–7: phung khams skye mched kyi rnam dag gtso bor ston pa’s rgyud yin na pha rgyud | rtsa’i rnam dag gtso bor ston pa ma rgyud ‘If a Tantra principally teaches the purification of the Skandhas, Dhatus, and ¯ Ayatanas it is a Father Tantra. A Mother ¯ Tantra principally teaches the purification of the energy channels’. In this pas sage the distinction is between the esoteric Yogatantras (Mahayogatantras, Yogot- ¯ taratantras) headed by the Guhyasamāja and the Yoginītantras or Yoganiruttara tantras exemplified by the Tantras of Sam ´. vara and Hevajra, the two divisions of what the Tibetans called bla med kyi rgyud ‘the unsurpassed Tantra [class]’. Mkhas grub rje’s tradition rejects this criterion for distinguishing between the two divi sions on the grounds that there are Yoginītantras (Mother Tantras) that also teach the purification of the Skandhas and the rest. That is true. We find this, for exam ple, in the Hevajra (1.7.12; 1.9.6–9, 13–14; 2.2.31–36) and the Abhidhānottara (e.g. B ff. 20v5–21r1; f. 26r3; f. 36r3–v6; f. 51r3–4; ff. 69v2–70r1). But that is because the second-wave Yoginītantras sought to encompass the tradition of the Guhyasamāja by incorporating many of its elementṣHe does not, we may note, support his argu ment by pointing to the presence of the purification of the energy channels in any Father Tantra. From the historian’s point of view the distinction that he rejects remains accurate in spite of his objectionṣVAN SCHAIK (2008, p. 50) has noted the absence of material on the manipulation of the internal energies in the Dunhuang manuscripts, which represent Tantric Buddhism up to about the middle of the ninth century.

450 For a comprehensive listing of ‘purifying equations’ for the principal channels and four Cakras (the Nirman¯ . acakra at the root of the navel, the Dharmacakra in the heart, the Saṁ bhogacakra in the throat, and the Mahasukhacakra in the head) see ¯ J ñānodayatantra, p. 6, ll. 1–14 (the four Cakras), and p. 6, l. 20–p. 7, l. 9 (the three channels).

[[186]]

and adapted much textual material from the Śaiva scriptures in the process of ´ producing its owṇ

This is particularly evident in the case of the Laghuśaṁ vara and its satelliteṣI have reported and tabulated elsewhere correspondences with passages in five Śaiva scriptures: (1) the ´ Yoginīsaṁcāra of the third S. at.ka of the Jayadrathayāmala,451 (2) the short redaction of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata— a much longer redaction, known to Abhinavagupta, has not come down to us—, (3) the Tantrasadbhāva, (4) the Picumata (/Brahmayāmala), and (5) the Niśisaṁcāra, all of which are texts of the Vidyap¯īt.ha. There are also a few correspondences with earlier texts of the Buddhist Mantranaya;452 but unlike those the Laghuśaṁ vara’s parallels with the Vidyap¯īt.ha are not short passages of one or two verses but detailed and continuous expositions that run in two cases over several chapters, amounting in all to some 200 verses out of a total of

451 The Yoginīsaṁcāra, though it comes to us as part of the Jayadrathayāmala, has very probably been incorporated from another source. This is evident from the reg ister of its Sanskrit, from its style, and from its content. This source may be a text closely related to the lost Yoginījālaśaṁ vara. For it claims at its beginning to be about to explain what has already been taught in that Tantra. Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, f. 169r8 (Yoginīsaṁcāra 1.1–6b): devy uvāca k purā tu sam´.vare tantre yad uktaṁ parameśvara | tan na (eṁ : tatra Coḍ) j ñātaṁ mayā deva guhyatantrasya vistarāt k 2 kathaṁsa bhairavo dehas tvayi deva mahābalaḥ| kathaṁ devyo yajanty enaṁ kulās tāsāṁ kati smr̥tāḥk 3 kathaṁ kramaṁ mahāgūḍ ha<ṁ > cāraṁtāsāṁ kathaṁ vibho | carusiddhiḥ kathaṁtāsām etan me brūhi vistaram k 4 evamākarṇ ya deveśyāvadanāmburuhacyutam | vacomr̥taṁ mahādevo bhūyo vacanam abravīt k 5 sādhu sādhu mahābhage sarvaj ñānārthabhājane | mahārahasyam atulaṁ yo ginīcāram uttamam k 6 pravakṣyāmi samāsena śr̥ṇ uṣv’ ekāgramānasā ‘The goddess said: Paramesvara, I have not understood the teaching that you gave of old in theśam´.varatantra, because of the great length of [that] esoteric text. What is the nature, O god, of your mighty embodiment as Bhairava? How do the goddesses worship it? How many are their families held to be? How is the most secret proce dure of their worship? How, O lord, do they rotate? And how is one to obtain the sacramental substances for them? Explain this to me at lengtḥ Having heard thus the nectar in the form of words that fell from the lotus of the mouth of the goddess Mahadeva replied and said: I congratulate you, illustrious and worthy receptacle of ¯ the teachings of omniscience. I shall concisely teach you the incomparable great se cret, the unsurpassed Rotation of the YoginīṣListen with attentive mind’. The last part of the first chapter of the Yoginīsaṁcāra gives an account of the many classes of female supernaturals as the constituents of the body mentioned in the list of questions and ends with the words: ity evaṁ yoganiyamaṁ yoginıjāla ¯ sam´.vare (corr̥ : saṁcare D) | yathotpannaṁtu kathitaṁ *niyogaṁ(eṁ : niryogaṁ D) śr̥ṇ u sāṁ pratam (D f. 172v4–5, 1.72c–f) ‘Thus I have explained to you the arising of the order of the pantheon of powers as [taught] in the Yoginıjāla ¯ sam´.vara. Hear now its application(s)’. See also D f. 199v6–7 (7.124c–125b): uktāni yāni karmāṇi yoginī jālaśaṁ vare k ayutaṁjaptvā tu sarvāṇi karoty eva hi līlayā ‘After repeating the Mantra ten thousand times he easily accomplishes all the rites that I have taught in the Yoginıjāla ¯ sam´.vara’.

452 See here p. 163.

[[187]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

about 700 with some prose equivalent in length to about 80 more. They teach the characteristics by which the initiate may recognize women as belonging to various classes of Yoginī, D. akin ¯ī, and Lamā, and vocabularies of special ¯ words and gestures (chommāḥ) for communicating with them when encountered (Pat.alas 15–24), the rules (samayāḥ) that bind initiates as they engage in post-initiatory caryā (Pat.alas 26–29), the system of Pīt.has and other sacred pilgrimage centres for wandering ascetics engaged in this practice (Pat.ala 41), and the characteristics of the ideal sacrificial victim known as a saptāvartaḥ or saptajanmā (Pat.ala 49).453

These parallels demonstrate a high degree of overlap with the Śaiva ´ Vidyap¯īt.ha in the parts of the text and its satellites that deal with the religious discipline (samayācāraḥ) of the adherents of this form of Buddhisṁ Still lacking, however, was evidence of textual dependence in those parts that deal with that discipline’s ritual core. But that gap can now be closeḍ For since publishing those results I have located further evidence in what survives of the Vidyap¯īt.ha’s scriptures that this corpus was also the source of substantial parts of the Laghuśaṁ vara’s instruction in this domaiṇ The areas of prescription in which this textual dependence has emerged are (1) the daily worship of the ‘Kulika’ prescribed in the first chapter of the ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara, (2) the ceremony of initiation before the Maṇ ḍ ala through which a candidate becomes qualified and obliged to practice the Tantra’s rites and observance, which is taught from the end of the first chapter to the beginning of the fourth; and (3) the ritual procedures for supernatural effects, mostly hostile sorcery, that form a considerable part of the work and take the form of fire-sacrifices (homaḥ), and the use of the Mantras and the name of the target (sādhyanāma) to empower substances in various ways and combinations to bring about these resultṣThese new parallels are as follows:

1. The worship of the Kulika: ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara 1.4–7b (< Herukābhyudaya 15.6–10) < Picumata 84.9c–16.

2. The initiation ceremony: Laghuśaṁ vara 1.15–4.1 < 8.3–28 of the Yo ginīsaṁcāra.

3. The ritual procedures for supernatural effects:

（a）Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.ala 34 < Picumata 41.1–3, 49.3c–4c, 41.4–7b, 41.12abc, and 41.15ḍ

（b）Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.ala 35 < Picumata 26.1–2b, 26.41c–44.

453 For my tabulation of these correspondences see SANDERSON 2001, pp. 41–47. See also SANDERSON 1985, p. 214, note 106; SANDERSON 1988, pp. 678–679; and SANDERSON 1994, esp. pp. 92–96.

[[188]]

（c）Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.ala 36 < Picumata 26.45c–48b.

（d）Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.ala 37 < Picumata 29.1ab, 30.1, 29.35, 29.38–48b, 29.50 [cf. 20.56–57], 29.61ab.

（e）Laghuśaṁ vara, Pat.ala 50, up to v. 19 (the point at which the earlier redaction of the text ends) < Picumata 5.17–18, 5.23c–28, 5.63, 5.67, 5.70.

Comparison of the textual parallels reveals that it is the Cakrasaṁ vara cor pus that has adopted and adapted the Śaiva sources rather than the other way ´

rounḍ For the Buddhist versions abound in instances in which it can be seen that Śaiva material has been misunderstood, crudely, artificially, and incom- ´ pletely modified, or rendered contextually incongruouṣThe Śaiva versions, on ´ the other hand, seem to me to be entirely free of signs of textual dependence on Buddhist originalṣ

Before proceeding to demonstrate this through the presentation and analy sis of examples I wish first to address an objection that has been raised against my conclusioṇ454 I do so before my analysis because that objection, if it were valid, would block in advance the force of all my evidence, being based not on contrary analyses of particular parallels but on a perceived characteristic of all the materials I have identifieḍ This characteristic is that the Buddhist versions are less clear in meaning, less grammatically correct. By concluding that the direction of redaction is from Śaiva materials to the Buddhist in spite of this ´ characteristic I am held to have overlooked or violated the textual critic’s maxim lectio difficilior potior ‘The more difficult reading is to be preferred’. This maxim means that when one is confronted by two readings, both of which are plausible, one should prefer that which is less easily explained as the result of the alter ation, accidental or deliberate, of the other, provided there is a clearly established line of transmission between the sources of the divergent readingṣThus, it is implied, the less clear and more incorrect Buddhist versions should be judged to have preceded the clearer and more correct Śaiva versions on the grounds that it ´ is conceivable that a Śaiva redactor revised a deficient Buddhist version but not ´ that a Buddhist spoiled a superior Śaiva versioṇ ´ 455

What exactly the concept of lack of clarity is thought to cover in this argu

454 DAVIDSON 2002, p. 386, ṇ 105; and GRAY 2005, p. 8, ṇ 19.

455 In fact it is not clear whether these authors think that the application of this princi ple means that the Buddhist versions cannot be secondary or only that it less likely that they are. The second alternative alone would accord with a more fundamental principle of textual criticism, namely that there are no hard-and-fast rules because every textual problem must be regarded as possibly unique (HOUSMAN 1921, pp. 68–69).

[[189]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

ment is unclear; but I assume that the authors had in mind not merely gram matical deviations from the Paninian standard of high scholarship, since those are seldom difficult to understand, being characteristic of a particular register of the language, but also and principally lack of clarity in meaning caused by syntactical incoherence and the like, which is indeed a conspicuous defect in the Buddhist versionṣIndeed they are sometimes barely intelligible, as is revealed by fact that the commentators confronted by these passages offer widely diver gent but equally arbitary interpretationṣ456

Now, the objection that a version which is less clear in this sense must have preceded one that is freer of these defects, proceeds from a serious misunder standing of how the rule of the lectio difficilior is to be applieḍ Firstly, like all other ‘rules’ of textual criticism, it should never be put to work mechanically and in advance, without the application of thought to the weighing of probabilities in each case; and secondly, it should never be invoked to give precedence to readings that are grammatically defective, incoherent, or contextually awkwarḍ457 Lack of clarity is hardly likely to the fault of the original framers of the text-passages, who, after all, probably knew what they wanted to say in whatever register of Sanskrit they chose to adopt. It is much more likely to be the result of incompe tence and/or carelessness on the part of Buddhist redactors who had difficulty in understanding the Śaiva texts they were cannibalizing. ´

The secondary status of the Buddhist versions is also apparent in another deficiency: their greater metrical irregularity. In principle that might be ex plained either as the result of the Śaivas’ having polished the Buddhist versions ´ or as the result of indifference to the preservation of metrical form on the part of Buddhist redactors as they adapted metrically correct Śaiva materialṣBut the ´ latter explanation is much to be preferreḍ For, as we shall see, metrical irreg ularity is particularly noticeable in the Buddhist versions at those places where the imprint of Buddhism is apparent.458

Let us assume, however, that there are indeed readings in the Buddhist ver sions which do not derive from the Śaiva parallels that I have identifieḍ Would ´ these not refute my conclusion that the Buddhist versions are secondary? No. For

456 See here p. 216.

457 This point has been made against DAVIDSON and GRAY by SZANT ´ O´ (2008b, p. 218). On the principle invoked here, that a ‘more difficult reading’ must be plausible, see WEST 1973, p. 51: “When we choose the ‘more difficult reading’ . . . we must be sure that it is in itself a plausible reading. The principle should not be used in support of dubious syntax, or phrasing that it would not have been natural for the author to use. There is an important difference between a more difficult reading and a more unlikely reading”; CHADWICK 1957, p. 255: “The principle lectio difficilior potior does not extend to nonsense, . . . ”.

458 See here p. 207.

[[190]]

the inference that they would rests on the assumption that I consider that the Śaiva text-passages redacted into the Buddhist versions were ´ exactly those seen in these parallelṣIn fact I hold that the collation of these parallels with the Bud dhist passages demonstrates that the former are, in most cases at least, closely related variants of the passages on which the Buddhist redactors drew, and that these passages were accessed in what were probably earlier and less elaborate redactions of the works in which I have found the parallels, or else in texts of the same corpus which are now out of reach, such as the Yoginījālaśaṁ vara, the Sarvavīrasamāyoga, the long version of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, and the Pa ñcāmr̥ta.459 For what survives in the manuscript collections of India and Nepal is only a part of what once existed, as we learn both from citations of other texts in the works of learned Śaiva commentators and from the surviv- ´ ing scriptural redactions themselves, which, when listing the canon of texts to which they belong, mention many works, such as those mentioned above, which have not survived or await discovery.460 My argument, then, is not that these Śaiva parallels are the direct sources of the Buddhist versions but only that the ´ Śaiva parallels are close enough to the Buddhist versions to reveal the direction ´

459 On these sources see SANDERSON 2007, pp. 234–237, footnotes 15–16, and 21–22. 460 See, for example, the list of Tantras ‘venerated by the circle of Yoginīs’ given in the first chapter of the Yoginīsaṁcāra as sources on the matters it covers (Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, ff. D 170v2–171r3 [1.29–42b]): mūla tantraṁ kubjika¯ ca yoginījālaśamvaram | *at.t.aśambaranāmānaṁ(ABCE : at.t.aśasvaranāgānaṁ D) hat.t.adhūlis tathāparā k 1.30 calākṣaraṁ mahātantraṁ viśvakrīḍāvatārakam | mahāmāyottaraṁ nāma sarvavīramataṁtathā | 1.31 alaṁ grāsaṁ mahātantraṁ *ku ñcikodghāt.am (eṁ : kru ñcikodghāt.am ABCDE) eva ca | siddhacakraṁ prakāśaṁca pat.aṁtūraṁ *tathāparam (em : yathāparaṁ ABCDE) k 1.32 siddhakaulaṁ mahājālaṁtathā bhairavagahvaram | kulagahvaranāmānaṁ kulaḍāmarabhairavam k 1.33 jhāṅkārakulam atyugraṁ tathā siddhāmataṁśubham | kācanāmatam evānyat kusumālikasaṁj ñitam k 1.34 siddhayogesvar ´ ıtantram ¯.trikasārottaraṁtathā | picutantraṁ mahāraudraṁ vimalocchuṣmasaṁj ñitam | 1.35 khaḍ garāvaṇ anāmānaṁtathānyaṁt.aka maṇ ḍ alam (eṁ : t.akamaṇ ḍ anam ABCDE) | karot.ī muṇ ḍ amālākhyaṁ śiracchedaṁ bhayānakam k 1.36 hāhārāvottaraṁtantraṁ krodham unmat tabhairavam | ruruyāmalam atyugraṁtathānyaṁrudrayāmalam k 1.37 umāyāmalam evānyad gaurīyāmalam eva ca | skandayāmalam evānyaṁ tathā bhairavayāmalam k 1.38 viṣṇ uyāmalam eva syān nandiyāmalam eva ca | śukrayāmalam evānyac chakrayāmalam eva ca k 1.39 kapālīśamataṁ nāma meghanādīśvaraṁtathā | haṁsayamala ¯ nāmānaṁcaṇ ḍ ograṁ hāt.akeśvaram k 1.40 mahāvāmeśvarītantraṁlaṅkeśīmatam uttamam | lampat.ādyaṁca raktādyaṁ tathā haḍ ḍāmataṁ param k 1.41 durvāsamatam evānyam evamādyā hy anekaśaḥ | ete tantravarāḥ proktā yoginīcakravanditāḥk 1.42 eṣu tantravareṣv eva tāsāṁ cāraṁ vicāritaṁ The great majority of these works appear to have been lost. Works that have survived with titles listed here are distinguished by bold charac terṣWorks here that are known only by citations or as loci of attribution in early colophons have been underlineḍ

[[191]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

of dependence. It is possible, therefore, that any ‘more difficult readings’ were in herited from this earlier stratum in the development of the Vidyap¯īt.ha; and this mere possibility is sufficient to invalidate the inference of the priority of the Bud dhist versionṣIf I am mistaken in my conclusion that the Buddhist versions are secondary that will have to be demonstrated by presenting a persuasive contrary analysis of the relationship between the Śaiva and Buddhist versions based on a ´ detailed examination of the particulars I have identifieḍ General arguments of this kind, which attempt to settle the matter in advance without engaging with the specifics of the parallels, will not suffice.461

Having dealt with this objection I can now turn to the evidence. In advance of a more thoroughgoing demonstration I consider a few passages here that re veal that the Buddhist redactors were using Śaiva materials and enable us tośee how they did so.

I have mentioned the entry into the Cakrasaṁ vara corpus of two lists of S´ akta sacred siteṣThat found in the ¯ Vajraḍāka, ff. 42r1–43v3 (18.10–60) cor responds very closely in the Vidyap¯īt.ha to Niśisaṁcāra, ff. 16v–19v (4.6b–5.11), both in content and wording. The passage lists twenty-four sacred sites and identifies for each its presiding goddess, the high Tantric goddess to whose family she is assigned, her weapon (āyudham), the site’s sacred tree, and a guardian Bhairava (kṣetrapālaḥ).462 The version in the Vajraḍāka leaves

461 The same applies to a line of defence that objects to my conclusion in a manner that renders even a non-specific engagement with the parallels unnecessary. Confronted with the information that such parallels have been claimed some are inclined to respond with the question “Why would Buddhists have drawn on Śaiva sources?” ´ The question is purely rhetorical and somewhat plaintive, implying that since the authors of these texts were Buddhists they would surely not have drawn on non Buddhist scriptureṣThe inference has no force at all, because it invokes a notion of the nature of Buddhism and consequently of what Buddhists can or cannot have done that is derived from texts other than those of this corpuṣNo amount of evi dence that other Buddhist scriptures were free of dependence on non-Buddhist texts can counter evidence that these Buddhist scriptures were not.

462 Closely related to the Niśisaṁcāra text is a version seen in Kubjikāmata 22.23– 46, which lacks one of its elements, namely the specification of the high Tantric goddesses to whose families these local goddesses belong. Another, somewhat di vergent and giving the sites alone and the points on the body that should be empowered by them through nyāsaḥ, appears in the Vidyap¯īt.ha’s Mādhavakula (Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 4, f. 124r1–5 [Kālikākule pūjānirṇ ayaḥ, vv. 16–22 (fol lowed in Tantrāloka 29.59–63 (TA): parts of a Kashmirian redaction of the text āre cited in Tantrālokaviveka on these verses (TAV)]; the procedure of the ¯ nyāsaḥ is put in Paddhati form in Kālīkulakramārcana, f. 22r5–v5 [KKK]): at.t.ahāsaṁ śikhāsthāne caritraṁca karandhrake | *kulagiryaṁ(corr̥ : kullagirye Coḍ) priye *karṇe (corr̥ : karṇ ṇ aṁ Coḍ) *jayantyā (corr̥ : jayaṁtya Coḍ) *uttare punaḥ (conj. [cf. jayantīpīt.hapāda vāmakarṇe KKK] : uttaroyaṇe Coḍ) | 17 *ujjayanyā (corr̥ : ujjayanyāṁ Coḍ) tu bhrūmadhye prayāgaṁ vaktramadhyagam | vārāṇ asī tu hr̥daye śrīpīt.haṁskandhayor dvayoḥ| 18 kaṇt.hadeśe tu virajaṁ *hy eruṇ ḍ yā

[[192]]

this Śaiva pantheon and its ancillaries intact, the only major deviation being ´ that it has four sites that differ from those in the Niśisaṁcāra. Particularly striking in the Vajraḍāka’s version is not only the fact that it transmits all the details of this distinctively Śaiva religious map, which includes such well-known ´ deities as Mahalaks ¯ .mī of Kollagiri (Kolhapur), Hetuka[bhairava] of Dev ¯īkot.t.a, and Vettad¯ . a/Vet ālā of Nagara (P āt¯ .aliputra/Kusumapura),463 but also that it preserves the classification of the goddesses of these sites as belonging to one or other of the families of Rakta, Kar āl¯ī, Caṇ ḍ aks ¯ .ī, Mahocchuṣma, Kar ālā, ¯ Dantura, Bh ¯īmavakta, and Mah ābal ā, information that is revelant only in the ¯ Śaiva context, since these are the four Guhyakās and their attendants that form ¯ the inner retinue of Kapal¯īsabhairava and Can ´ . ḍ a Kāpālin ¯ī in the Picumata of the Vidyap¯īt.ha464 and are not encountered to my knowledge in any Buddhist

(eṁ [cf. eruṇ ḍīpīt.hapāda | udare KKK] : heruṁ ḍ ya Coḍ) udare priye | *alampuraṁ (Coḍ KKK : alipuraṁ TAV : ¯ hālā TA) ¯ nābhimadhye *saṁ dohailāpuraṁ priye (Coḍ [cf. elāpurapīt.hapāda medasi KKK] : kandordhve parameśvari TAV) ¯| 19 kandādhāre tu gokarṇ aṁ *marudeśaṁ(corr̥ : maruddeśaṁ Coḍ : marukośaṁ TA) ¯ bhagāntare | atha meḍ hropari bhadre j ñātavyaṁsādhakena tu | 20 dakṣiṇe *sak thni (TAV : ¯ sakti Coḍ) *nagaraṁ(corr̥ : nagare Coḍ) *vāme syāt (TAV : ¯ vāmeśyāḥ Coḍ) *pauṇ ḍravardhanam (corr̥ TAV : ¯ pauḍravarddhane Coḍ) | vāmaskandhe purastīraṁ *pr̥ṣt.hāpuraṁ(Coḍ [cf. pr̥ṣt.hāpurapīt.hapāda dakṣaskandhe KKK] : elāpuraṁ TAV) ¯tu dakṣiṇe | 21 *kuḍ yākeśī (TAV : ¯ uḍ yākeśī Coḍ) * jānumadhye (Coḍ [cf. kuṇ ḍ akeśīpīt.hapāda jānumadhye KKK] : dakṣajānau TAV) * ¯ sopāraṁ (Coḍ : sopānaṁ TA T ¯ AV) * ¯ cottare (eṁ [=TAV] : ¯ cāntare Coḍ) smr̥tam | *kṣīrikā (corr̥ : kṣīrikāṁ Coḍ) *vāmahaste (Coḍ [cf. kṣīrikāpīt.hapāda vāmahaste KKK] tu *māyāpuryā (corr̥ : māyāpuryān Coḍ) tu dakṣiṇe | 22āmrātakeśvaraṁ gulphe vāme rājagr̥haṁśubham | pādādhāre tu brahmāṇī kālāgnyavadhidhārakī.

463 The name of the goddess of this city is Vettavasin ¯ī in the Niśisaṁcāra (f. 17v [4.43]; eṁ : vet.t.avāsinī Coḍ) Vetrakacchanivasā in the ¯ Kubjikāmata (22.37c; eṁ [MSS E and K] : cetrakacchanivāsā BCDJG : caitrakacchanivāsā Eḍ), and Vetra¯ in the Kālikākulakramārcana (eṁ : vatrā Coḍ). In the Buddhist version we see Vettad¯ . a in the ¯ Vajraḍāka (eṁ : vettaheti Coḍ) and Vetad¯ . a in the ¯ D.ākārṇ ava. The Vāsavadattā of Subandhu (p. 16, l. 2 to p. 17, l. 4) independently identifies her as ‘the Katy āyayan ¯ī called Vetalā’: ¯ kusumapuraṁ. . . yatra . . . kātyāyanī vetālābhidhā. We therefore have two phonetically related but semantically unrelated names, one meaning the goddess ‘who dwells in the thicket of reeds (vetra-)’ and the other ‘the female Vetala’, ¯ vettāḍ a- and vetāḍ a- being well-attested variant forms of vetāla-. I propose that the latter evolved from the former through a vernacular synonym *Vettalā corresponding to Sanskrit Vetr ālay ā. Cf. Panj āb¯ī and Hindīālā from Skt.ālayaḥ; Panjab¯ī śivālā, Maithilī and Hindī siwālā from Skt. śivālayaḥ; and Panjab¯ī dewālā from Skt. devālayaḥ. The Mahayānist ¯ Mahāsaṁ nipātasūtra’s Candragarb hasūtra, preserved only in a Chinese translation made by Narendrayasas in 566, ´ gives in its 18th chapter (Mahāsaṁ nipātasūtra, chapter 55) a listing of the pre siding deities of 55 places extending from India through Central Asia to China (55a–58a [prose]; 59a–60a [verse resume]). The name of the guardian goddess of ´ Pat¯ .aliputra is said there to be Bi-lu-chi or Bi-lu-tuo (LEVI ´ 1905b, p. 265). It is tempting to see this as a deformation of the same name caused by an inadvertent inversion of the last two syllableṣBut I am not qualified to judge the matter̥

464 See, e.g., Picumata f. 19r2–3 (4.254c–256): guhyakādyaṁtato vakṣye nāmato [[193]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

context outside this text-passage and its derivativeṣThus, for example, the Niśisaṁcāra (4.10–13), covering Kolagiri (Kolh āpur) and Jayant ¯ī, reads:

10 kolagiry ā¯ <ṁ > mahalaks ¯. mı kar ālā¯ yonisaṁ bhavā |

kālarūpā sthitā devī daṇ ḍ ahastā subhīṣaṇā k

11 tasmin kṣetre sthitā devi parvatāgrasamāśritā |

agniketi ca vikhyātaḥ kṣetrapālo mahātape k

12 jayantya¯ <ṁ > dantura¯ yoni jvalāmukhe ¯ ti viśrutā |

khaḍ gahastā sthitā devi sarvasattvabhayaṁ karī k

13 tasmin kṣetre sthitā devi nimbavr̥ kṣasamāśritā |

mahaprete ¯ ti vikhyātas tasmin kṣetre mahābalaḥk

ff. 16v4–17r3

13a tasmin kṣetre corr̥ : tasmiṁ kṣetrā Coḍ

and the corresponding passage in the Vajraḍāka (18.12–14) reads:

12 kollagiryam¯. mahalaks ¯. mı kar ālā¯ yonisaṁ bhavā |

karālarūpā sthitā devi vikr̥tā cātibhīṣaṇā k

13 tasmin nagare sthitā cogrā parvatāgrasamāśritā |465

varṇ atas tathā k 255 raktā karālī *caṇ ḍākhyā (corr̥ : caṇ ḍākhyāṁ Coḍ) mahocchuṣmā tathaiva ca | ucchuṣmatantre nāmāni guhyakānāṁ na saṁśayaḥ k 256 karālā danturā caiva bhīmavaktrā mahābalā | guhyakānucarā hy etāḥ kiṁ karyo ’nukrameṇ a tu ‘Next I shall explain the [retinue] that begins with the Guhyakas, giving their names and colourṣIn [this scripture,] the ¯ Ucchuṣmatantra, the names of the Guhyakas are, without doubt, Rakt ā, Kar āl¯ī, Caṇ ḍ akhy ā¯ (/Caṇ ḍ aks ¯ .ī), and Mahocchuṣma. Kar ālā, Dantur ā, Bh ¯īmavaktra, and Mah ābal ā:¯ these are respectively their attendant servants’. The Ucchuṣmatantra is the Picumata itself (f. 185r4: ity ucchuṣmatantre picumate nāḍīsaṁcārapat.alaḥṣat.- triṁśatimaḥ). The four secondary goddesses that attend the Guhyakas are also ¯ called their Dut¯īṣI have not emended caṇ ḍākhyāṁ, because although Caṇ ḍ aks ¯ .ī is the standard form of the name there are several other places in this text in which the goddess is called Caṇ ḍ akhy ā.¯

465 Both the Niśisaṁcāra and the Vajraḍāka read parvatāgrasamāśritā (rDo rje mkha’ ’gro f. 49r7: ri yi rtse mor brten te gnas) ‘on a hilltop’ here. This is surpris ing because what we expect is a reference to the site’s sacred tree, as in the parallel expression nimbavr̥ kṣasamāśritā ‘by a Nimba tree’ in the next verse. It is tempting to emend, therefore to parpat.āgrasamāśritā ‘in front of a Box [tree]’, since this is so close to the transmitted reading. However, two consid erations oppose this: (1) in a passage on Kollagiri in the ¯ Picumata (f. 7r3–4 [3.84–87]), which agrees in giving Mahalaks ¯ .mī as the goddess, Agnika as the Kṣetrapala, and ¯ daṇ ḍ aḥ as the weapon, the sacred tree of the site is said to be a Vaibhītaka (84 dakṣiṇena likhen mantrī mahāghoraṁ bhayāvaham | mahāraudraṁ śmaśānaṁtu nāmnā kollagirī tathā k 85 tatra daṇ ḍ aṁsamālikhya madhye vaibhıtakadrumam ¯ | nānāvr̥ kṣasamākīrṇ aṁ kollāgiryoparis tathā k 86 citibhiḥ prajvalantībhiḥsamantāt parivāritam | dikṣuś caiva vidikṣuś ca bahis tasya mahāyaśe k 87 tasyādhastāl likhet padmam aṣt.apatraṁsakarṇikam | agnikaṁ kṣetrapālaṁtu mahalaks ¯. mı¯bhayāvaham); and (2) in the Kubjikāmata’s parallel version of this material Mahalaks ¯ .mī is described as ‘residing on a hill’ (22.25: ag-

[[194]]

agnimukheti vikhyātaḥ kṣetrapālo varānanaḥ|

14 jvalāmukh ¯ ı¯ti vikhyātā |

khaḍ gahastā sthitā ghorā nimbavr̥ kṣasamāśritā |

kṣetrapālo mahākāyo mahavrate ¯ ti viśrutaḥk

f. 42r2–4

13c vikhyātaḥcorr̥ : vikhyātā Coḍ 14b khaḍ gahastā sthitā eṁ : khaḍ ga hastasthitā Coḍ

Moreover, this Buddhist parallel provides additional evidence of the direc tion of redaction through the state of verse 14. For it lacks the first quarter, which contained information vital to the coherence of the passage, namely the name of the site over which the goddess Jvalāmukh ¯ī presides and the goddess of the Picumata to whose family she is assigneḍ As a result of this error, commit ted either by a Buddhist redactor or inherited from a defective Śaiva manuscript, ´ what was originally the second quarter has become the first. Aware that the met rical cadences required at the end of first and second quarters of a verse in this metre are different the redactor has removed the resulting metrical blemish by substituting the synonym vikhyātā for viśrutā. But this was not enough, since to mend the unmetrical mess that resulted from the omission he would have had also to recast the quarters that follow. This was evidently beyond his competence or required more effort than he thought necessary. The result is a verse with five quarters (a, a, b, a, b) or one and a half verses of which the first half verse consists of a prior quarter without the posterior quarter required to complete it.

As for the four sites found in the Vajraḍāka’s version but not in the Niśisaṁcāra, namely Uḍ ḍiyana, J ālandhara, Tibet, and M ālava, there can be ¯ little doubt that the presence of the third is the work of a Buddhist redactor, since Tibet had no religious significance for the Śaivas but much for the Bud- ´ dhists from the eight century onwardṣAs for the other three, their presence might be explained by assuming that the direct source of the Vajraḍāka’s passage was not the Niśisaṁcāra as we find it in its single surviving Nepalese manuscript but rather a closely related redaction either within another version of the Niśisaṁcāra, such as we find in the paraphrases and citations of a work of this name in the Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta and Jayaratha’s commentary,466

nikena samopetāṁ daṇ ḍ ahastāṁ nagaukasam¯ | kolāgirye mahālakṣmīṁ naumi lakṣmīvivardhanīm). The hypermetrical reading karālarūpā in 12c, which was also that of the Tibetan translation (rDo rje mkha’ ’gro f. 49r6: gtsigs pa’i gzugs can), is no doubt an error for kālarūpā, echoing karālā in the preceding quarter̥

466 See the paraphrase of the Niśisaṁcāra’s treatment of these twenty-four S´ akta ¯ sacred sites in Tantrāloka 15.88–97b and the direct citations in Jayaratha’s commentary on these verseṣThese show a list that differs somewhat from that found in the Nepalese manuscriptṣThe latter has At.t.ahasa, Caritra, ¯

[[195]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

or within some other Śaiva source. However, this is improbable in the light ´ of the Vajraḍāka’s treatments of all four of these siteṣFor what they have in common is that they deviate from the pattern of the rest of the passage in that their presiding goddesses, Mahadev ¯ī of Uḍ ḍiyana, Can ¯ . ḍ alin ¯ī of Jalandhara, ¯ Sahaja of Tibet, and Sek ā of M ālava, are not assigned to one or other of the ¯ eight goddesses of the Picumata. Instead, in the case of the first three the redactor has filled in the text at these points by assigning them to the families of Guhya ( ¯ guhyākhyāyonisaṁ bhavā), Soma (somasaṁ bhava), and Svayambhu¯ (svayambhuyonisambhavā), and in the case of the fourth omitting to assign her to any deity.467 Why he chose these names is unknown to me. Only one is a goddess and not one of them is of any significance in Tantric Buddhism, unless the Svayambhu intended is that of the famous Svayambh ¯ ucaitya of Kathmandu. ¯ It seems likely that he supplied these names at random in order to maintain the compositional structure. In any case, since it would have been an easy task to insert names from among those of the eight goddesses that structure his Śaivaśource, it is evident that they meant nothing to hiṁ

The other list of sacred places appears in Laghuśaṁ vara 41.6–15. The verses first list these places (6–8b) and then state the classes of Yoginīs and other female supernaturals said to be present in them, though without covering them all.468 The Śaiva source, or rather a later redactional variant of it, is seen ´ in the following passage in the Tantrasadbhāva:

Kolagiri, Jayant ¯ī, Ujjayinī, Prayaga, Varan ¯ . a, and Kot ¯īvarṣa (/Devīkot.t.a) (the eight Kṣetras); Viraja, Eruḍī, Hatapura, Elapura, Gokarn ¯ . a, Marukesvara, Na- ´ gara (Pat¯ .aliputra), and Puṇ ḍravardhana (the eight Saṁ dohas); and Parastīra, Pr̥ṣt.hapura, Kuṇ ḍī, Choṣmara, Ks ¯ .īrika, Mayāpur ¯ī, Amr ātike ¯ svara, and Rājagr ¯ .ha (the eight Upakṣetras). The list in the redaction known to Abhinavagupta and Jayaratha has Prayaga, Varan ¯ . a, At ¯ .t.ahasa, Jayant ¯ī, Varān¯ . asī, Kalinga, Kul ˙ utā,ānd Lahul ā (the eight Ks ¯ .etras); Viraja, Erud ¯ .ī, Halā, El āpura, Ks ¯ .īrapurī, Na gara, Mayāpur ¯ī, and Marudesa (the eight Sam ´ . dohas); and Jalandhara, Nep āla, ¯ Kasm´īra, Gargika, Hara, Mlecchadigdv āravr ¯ .tti, Kurukṣetra, and Khet.aka (the eight Upasaṁ dohas). It is striking that this introduces a number of Himalayan re gions, namely Kulutā (Kulu), L āhul ā (Lahul), Nep āla, Ka ¯ sm´īra, and also Gargika,¯ if that refers to Garhwal. Mlecchadigdvaravr ¯ .tti ‘the pass (?) to the region of the barbarians’ is also likely to refer to a location in the Himalaya or Hindu Kusḥ

467 Vajraḍāka f. 43r1–2 (18.43): oḍ yāyane mahādevī (corr̥ : mahādevi Coḍ) guhyākhyāyonisaṁ bhavā | vajraśr̥ṅkhaladharā devyā sughorā divyarūpiṇī; f. 43r2–3 (18.45): jālandhare tu caṇ ḍālinī j ñeyā mudra kat.t.ārikodyatā | soma sambhava mahādevi sarvaiśvaryapradāyikā (eṁ : dāyikā Coḍ); f. 43r7–v1 (18.55): bhot.aviṣaye sahajākhyā makaradhvajadhāriṇī | svayambhuyonisambhavā saumyāsyā divyarūpiṇī; f. 43v1–2 (18.57): mālave tu tathā sekā mudrāmud garadhāriṇī (corr̥ : dhāraṇī Coḍ) | sādhakānāṁ *priyā (corr̥ : prayā Coḍ) nityaṁ †jasasvini prasāsyāḥ†syuḥ.

468 A related system of thirty-two sacred sites is taught in Hevajra 1.6.10–19, and, with some differences, in Mahāmudrātilaka, Pat.ala 10 (ff. 17v1–20v5).

[[196]]

kulūtāyām araṇ yeśe sindhudeśe nageśvare k

62 samudrakukṣyāṁsaurāṣt.re pretapuryāṁ himālaye |

kā ñcyāṁlampākaviṣaye kaliṅge kauśale sthale k

63 triśakunis tathā cauḍre kāmarūpe ca mālave |

devīkot.t.e sudhārāme godāvaryās tat.e ’rbude k

64 eṣu deśeṣu yāḥ kanyāḥstriyo vā klinnayonayaḥ|

sarvās tāḥ kāmarūpiṇ yo manovegānuvr̥ttayaḥk

65 śeṣeṣu yās samutpannāḥśākinyo ghoramātaraḥ|

ṣaḍ yoginyaḥ kulūtāyāṁ araṇ yeśe ca mātarāḥk

66 sindhudeśe bhaginyas tu nageśe kulanāyikāḥ|

samudrakukṣyāṁ kāmpilyaḥsaurāṣt.re gr̥hadevatāḥk

67 pretapuryāṁ mahākālyo rūpiṇ yo himavadgirau |

kā ñcyām ambāḥsamākhyātā lampākaviṣaye ’mr̥tāḥk

68 kaliṅge vratadhāriṇ yaḥ kauśale piśitāśanāḥ|

cakravākyāḥsthale proktās triśakunyāmarāḥsmr̥tāḥk

69 deśadvaye ca śākinyo nāyikā vīranāyikā<ḥ > |

. . .

126 yāś cānyāś ca vinirdiṣt.ā raudrā bhairavamātaraḥ|

mahāmanthānarudras tu tāsāṁ maṇ ḍ alanāyakaḥ469 k

ff. 109v5–110r1, 111v1 (16.61c–69a, 16.126)

62a samudrakukṣyāṁcorr̥ : samudrakukṣyā Coḍ 62c kā ñcyāṁ eṁ : kaṁcyā Coḍ 63a cauḍre corr̥ : coḍre Coḍ 64a eṣu eṁ : eṣa Coḍ 68b triśakunyāmarāḥ conj. [Aisa Sandhi for ´ triśakunyām amarāḥ] : trisaṁ yāmarāḥ Coḍ

The corresponding passage of the Laghuśaṁ vara is not present in the in complete Sanskrit manuscript accessible to me, since the folios that contained it, covering 38.13c to the end of Pat.ala 44, are among those it lackṣBut it can be restored with some confidence, except in the matter of the presence or absence of a few particles, by combining the evidence of the Tibetan translation,470 the

469 The fact that the text of 69ab and 126 are contiguous in the Buddhist version indi cates that the Śaiva text on which it drew was not the ´ Tantrasadbhāva, at least not in its surviving redaction, but an earlier source to which 69c–125, which contain a further, much longer list of Sthanayogin ¯īs and their classification as belonging to the families of one or other of the seven Mothers (sapta mātr̥ kulāni), have been addeḍ The alternative, that the Buddhist redactor removed this section because he had no use for this list and its scheme of classification, is not impossible. However, it seems unlikely that in that case he would have taken the special trouble of re taining 126. It is not needed to complete the sense and proved awkward to integrate because he had it in what was evidently an already corrupted forṁ

470 bDe mchog nyung ngu, f. 238v1–5 (= Laghuśaṁ vara 41.6–15): kuluta dang dgon pa dang | si ndhu’i yul dang grong khyer dbang | gser gyi gling dang sau rā ṣt.a | de bzhin lha yi khyim dang ni | yi dags grong dang kha ba’i gnas | kā ñci ’am la mpā ka yi yul | ka li ngga dang ko sa la | tri sha ku ne o tre dang | kā ma rū pa mā la wa lha mo’i mkhar dang rā ma’i dbang | go da ba ri a rbu da | au ḍ ya na dzā la ndhar dang

[[197]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

lemmata in the surviving Sanskrit commentaries, and a rewriting of parts of the passage in the Vajraḍāka:471

41.6 kulatāyāṁ araṇ ye ca sindhudeśe nagareśvare |

suvarṇ advīpe saurāṣt.re tatha ca gr ¯. hadevata¯

pretapuryāṁ himālaye k

7 kā ñcyāṁlampākaviṣaye kaliṅge c[aiva] kosale |

triśakunis tathā oḍre kāmarūpe [ca] mālave k

8 devīkot.t.e rāmeśvare godāvaryāṁ[tathā]rbude |

oḍ ḍiyanaj ālandharapull ¯ ıramalay ādis ¯.u k

9 eteṣu deśeṣu kanyā yā vīrādvayavyāpinī |

sarvās tāḥ kāmarūpiṇ yo manoveganivr̥ttayaḥk

10 ṣaḍ yoginyaḥ kulatāyāṁ marudeśe ca mātarāḥ|

sindhudeśe [ca] lāmās tu nagare kulanāyikāḥ|

11 lampāke saurāṣt.re kuladevatāḥ|

pretapuryāṁ mahākālyo ḍākinī saha rūpiṇī k

12 himagirau kā ñcyāṁsabālikāḥ|

pa ñcālaviṣaye gr̥ hadevata¯ k

13 kaliṅge vratadhāriṇ yaḥ kośale piśitāśanāḥ|

pretapuryāṁ vajraḍākyaḥsthaleśvare k

14 triśakunyāṁ[ca] amarāḥ pullīramalaye |

kanakagirau antyajāḥstriyaḥsahasrāṇ y ekaviṁśatiḥk

| pu llī ra ma la ya sogs | yul ’di dag gi bu mo gang | dpa’ bo gnyis med rnal ’byor ma | de kun ’dod pa’i gzugs can te | yid kyi shugs kyis ’jug pa yis | rnal ’byor ma drug ku lu tar | myang ma yul na ma mo rnams | si ndhu’i yul na lā ma ste | rigs kyi gtso mo na ga rar | la mpā ka dang sau rā ṣt.ra | rigs kyi lha mo rnams yin no | yi dags grong dang nags chen por | mkha’ ’gro rū pi ka ru bcas | kha ba’i ri dang kā ñcir ni | byis bcas ma ru bshad pa ste | pā ñca la yi yul dag na | khyim gyi lha mo ka li nggar | brtul zhugs ’dzin pa rnams yin no | ko sa lar ni sha za ba | yi dags grong du de bzhin du | rdo rje mkha’ ’gro sbom dbang phyug | tri sha ku ner du ma skyes ma | pu li ra ma la ya de bzhin | gser rir sme sha can rigs skyes | bud med stong phrag nyi shu gcig | lhag ma gzhan dag ji snyed pa | dpal ldan he ru ka yi ni | ’khor lo’i rnal ’byor ma yin no | he ru ka dpal sbyor ba che de yi dkyil ’khor gtso mo yiṇ

471 Vajraḍāka f. 41v3–6 (18.3c–10b): ṣaḍ yoginyas tu sādhakāḥ mlecchabhāṣaṁtu bhāṣitam | 18.4 kulatāyāṁtu marudeśe ca yā mātarāḥk sindhau ca nagare *ca yāḥ(corr̥ : caryā Coḍ) kulanāyikāḥ| 18.5 lampāke saurāṣt.re yā<ḥ > kuladevatāḥ | himagirau *kā ñcyāṁ yāḥsabālikāḥ(eṁ : kā ñcāyāṁ yā bālikā Coḍ) | 18.6 pa ñcāla gr̥hadevatāyāṁ yā kanyā sahajarūpiṇī | kaliṅge *kośale (corr̥ : kauśale Coḍ) caiva vratadhāriṇī piśitāśanā (eṁ : pisitāsinā Coḍ) | 18.7 pretapuryāṁ triśakunau ca sthūleśvarī khaṇ ḍ arohikā (eṁ : rohitā Coḍ) sthitā | *pūrṇ agirau (corr̥ : puṇ ṇ agirau Coḍ) jālandhare caṇ ḍālajāḥstriyaḥ| 18.8 oḍre kāmarūpe ca mahākanyāḥ devikot.e rāmeśvare ca yā kanyā matā | *godāvaryām arbude ca (corr̥ : godāvaryāṁ bude va Coḍ) ḍākinī parameśvarī | 18.9 suvarṇ advīpa<ṁ > *yathoddiṣt.aṁ(corr̥ : yathodhiṣt.aṁ Coḍ) uḍ yāyanaṁtathaiva ca | eteṣu deśeṣu yā kanyā vīrādvayavyāpinī | 18.10 sarvās tāḥ kāmarūpiṇ yo *manoveganivr̥ttayaḥ (corr̥ : manovegonivr̥ttayaḥ Coḍ).

[[198]]

15 anyāpi śeṣāś ca yāvatyaḥśrīherukasya yoginī |

mahāmanthāna tāsāṁ maṇ ḍ alanāyikā k

The words within square brackets are purely conjectural

TESTIMONIA: BhBh = Bhavabhat.t.a ad loc.; DG = Devagupta ad loc.; JBh = Jaya bhadra ad loc.; KP = Kambalapada ad loc.; Tib. = ¯ bDe mchog nyung ngu; VD. = Vajraḍāka f. 41v3–6 (18.3c–10b).

LEMMATA: 6a kulatāyām ityādinā BhBh • araṇ yaṁ marubhūmiḥ JBh 6d gr̥hadevateti saptamīlopāt BhBh 8aāraṇ o rāmeśvaraḥ JBh 8cd oḍ ḍiyānajālan dharapullīramalayāādibhūtā yeṣāṁta oḍ ḍiyānajālandharapullīramalayādayo ’rbudādayaḥ BhBh; pullīramalayo na nirdiṣt.aḥ JBh 9ab eteṣu deśeṣu KP, BhBh, VD. • yā kanyā vīrādvayavyāpinī VD., BhBh, KP; bu mo gang dpa’ bo gnyis med rnal ’byor ma (yā kanyā vīrādvayayoginī) Tib.; 9c kāmarūpiṇ ya iti BhBh, VD. 9d manoveganivr̥ttaya iti BhBh, KP, VD. 10a ṣaḍ yoginyaḥ BhBh, KP, JBh, VD. 10b marudeśe BhBh, KP • mātārā iti BhBh; mātaraḥ kākāsyādyāḥ JBh 10ab kulatāyāṁ marudeśe ca mātaretyādi KP, VD. 10c lāmās tv iti JBh; lāmā iti BhBh 10d kulanāyikāḥ JBh, BhBh 11ab la mpā ka dang sau rā ṣt.ra Tib.; lampāke saurāṣt.re yā<ḥ > kuladevatāḥ VD.; lampāyāṁsaurāṣt.re kuladevatāḥ BhBh; 11c mahākālo mahābhairavaḥ 11cd pretapuryāṁ mahākanyā ḍākinīsaharūpiṇīti BhBh; ḍākinībhir iti sahārthe tr̥tīyā | kiṁ bhūtābhiḥsaha | rūpiṇ yaḥ| rūpiṇīty anyā rūpiṇ yaś cumbikāsabālikāprabhr̥tayaḥ pr̥thagbhūtāḥsaha rūpiṇībhir iti draṣt.avyāḥ 12ab himagirau kā ñcyāṁsabālikā iti BhBh 12cd pa ñcālaviṣaye | gr̥hadevatā gr̥hadevatāyām BhBh; pa ñcāla iti JBh 13a ka li nggar | brtul zhugs ’dzin pa rnams yin no (kaliṅge vratadhāriṇ yaḥ) Tib.; kaliṅge ca vratadhāriṇ yaḥ BhBh 13b kośale piśitāśanāḥ BhBh 13cd pretapuryāṁ vajraḍākinyaḥ BhBh 14bcd pullīramalaye kanakagirāv iti | ihāntyajāḥstriyaḥ| sahasrāṇ y ekaviṁśatir iti bāhulyasūcanārtham BhBh; sahasrāṇ y ekaviṁśatir iti KP 15ab śeṣānyeṣu yāvatyaḥśrīherukacakrayoginītyādi KP, BhK (lhag ma gzhan dag ji snyed pa | dpal ldan he ru ka yi ni | ’khor lo’i rnal ’byor ma yin no), DG (lhag ma gzhan rnams ji snyed pa | dpal ldan he ru ka yi ni | ’khor lo’i rnal ’byor ma yin no); śeṣānyeṣu hi yāvantya iti | śrīherukasya yoginīti prathamābahuvacanalope BhBh; anyā api śeṣāś ca devatyaḥśrīherukayoginyaḥ JBh (cf. DG: lha mo gzhan dag ji snyed pa | dpal ldan he ru ka yi ni | zhes bya ba la sogs pa smos so | ji ltar zhen | he ru ka yi sbyor chen las | de yi dkyil ’khor gtso mo yin | zhes bya ba la sogs pa la) 15cd mahāmanthāna iti śrīherukasya manthānayogyāḥ| tāsām iti nirdhāraṇe ṣaṣt.hī | maṇ ḍ alanāyikā iti tricakravartinyaś caturviṁśatir ḍākinyaḥ JBh; mahāmanthānaṁ praj ñopāyasvarūpatvam upāyo vā | tenānvitaḥ śrīherukaḥ praj ñārūpaḥtasya saṁ bandhinīnāṁtāsāṁ madhye maṇ ḍ alanāyikā vajravārāhī samāpanneti bhāvaḥ| mahāmanthānaṁ nirmāṇ aṁ nirvibhaktikaṁ | tāsāṁ nirmāṇ aṁśrīherukenaiva saṁ pādyaṁ yataḥ| śrīherukamahāmudrā maṇ ḍ alanāyiketi kecit BhBh

In the Buddhist version the total of twenty-one sites has been raised by the addition of Oḍ ḍiyana, J ālandhara, and Pull ¯īramalaya at the end of the first sec tion (8cd). The reason for the addition is not made explicit in the Laghuśaṁ vara itself; but the fourth Pat.ala had listed twenty-four Yoginīs from Mahav¯īrya to ¯ Pracaṇ ḍ a; ¯472 and in the ritual system followed by the commentators and the

472 Laghuśaṁ vara f. 4v4–6: *tato (JAYABHADRA : tataḥ Coḍ) ḍākinyo bhuvanāni vijr̥ mbhayanti | 4.1 mahāvīryā cakravartinī mahābalā suvīrā cakravarmiṇī |

[[199]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

corpus of explanatory Tantras the sacred sites, as we have seen, are likewise twenty-four because each is the location of one of these YoginīṣWe have evi dence of two stages in the modification of the text that produced this result. For the earlier redaction, attested by Jayabhadra, states that Pullīramalaya is not mentioned in this passage but must be understood to be includeḍ473 It is clear

then that his text mentioned only Oḍ ḍiyana and J ālandhara in addition to the ¯ twenty-one of the Śaiva source. Jayabhadra does not cite the actual wording ´

of the insertion, and no other indications allow us to establish it. However, it is unlikely that the redactor took the trouble of stretching his interpolation of

śauṇ ḍinī khaṇ ḍ arohā cakravegā khagānanā k 2 haya*karṇā (corr̥ : varṇ ṇā Coḍ) subhadrā ca *śyāmādevī (corr̥ : syāmāthavī Coḍ) tathaiva ca | surābhakṣī vāyuvegā tathā mahābhairavā k 3 airāvatī drumacchāyā laṅkeśvarī kharvarī tathā | vīramatī mahānāsā prabhāvatī caiva caṇ ḍākṣī pracaṇ ḍā ca sādhakaḥk 4 etāḥsiddhās tu vai pūrvaṁcaturviṁśati ḍākinyaḥ. This list too has parallels in the Vidyap¯īt.ha, though I have found only partial matcheṣThus the Yoginīsaṁcāra of Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, gives the following list of twenty-four Yoginīs whose names when ut tered draw in the Smaś´anabh ¯ utas (f. 202r5–7 [9.58–61]): ¯ śarabhānā suvırā¯ ca vajribhā *rāsabhā (conj. : rāsibhā Coḍ) tathā | *cakravartı¯ (corr̥ : cakravarti Coḍ) ca *saun ´. ḍı¯ (eṁ : pauṇ ḍī Coḍ) ca khaḍ gakarṇā mahātapā k 59 cakravega¯ mahāyāmyā subhadra¯ gajakarṇikā | carā vai somadevī ca gavākṣī vayuvegag ā¯ k 60 airavat ¯ ı mah ānāsā¯ daṁṣt.rālī ca sukarkaśā | vedhanī ca tathā bhat.t.ā droṇā kākenakā tathā k 61 yatra nāmāni yogīnām uccāryante mahātape | tatra śmaśānabhūtāś ca sāṁ nidhyaṁ yāti tatkṣaṇāt. The eight names in bold char acters are those that are among the twenty-four of the Laghuśaṁ vara. Compare also the names Sarabhānan ā, Khad ¯ . gakarṇ a, Gajakarn ¯ .ika, and Somadev ¯ī with the Laghuśaṁ vara’s Khaganan ā, Hayakarn ¯ . a, and ¯ Sy´ amādev ¯ī. The names of four of the Laghuśaṁ vara’s D. akin ¯īs are found among the fourteen inner goddesses of the Picumata, i.e., the four Guhyakas, their four D ¯ utis, and the six Yogin ¯īs, namely Caṇ ḍ aks ¯ .ī (the third Guhyaka), Mah ābal ā (the fourth D ¯ ut¯ī), and Cakravega and ¯ Mahanāsā (the fifth and sixth Yogin ¯īs). For the first eight see 4.254c–256 cited here p. 193. For the six Yoginīs see f. 19r3 (4.257): kroṣt.ukī vijayā caiva gajakarṇā mahāmukhī | cakravega mah ānāsā¯ ṣaḍ yoginyaḥ prakīrtitāḥ. Suvırāāppears in Kubjikāmata 21.45c and Matasāra f. 138r1, Khaganan āās one of the eight S´ aktasiddh ās of the K āl¯īkula/Krama, Lanke ˙ svar ´ ı¯ in Matasāra f. 81r1 as one of eight Yoginīs in a variant of the inner retinue of the Picumata, and Prabhavat ¯ ı¯ in Kubjikāmata 11.115a and 12.23b.

473 See here p.158. Kan¯ . ha, Yogaratnamālā on Hevajra 1.7.12, identifies Pullīramalaya with Purn ¯ . agiri and that appears in its place in listings of these sacred places in later texts of the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle, as in Saṁ varodaya 9.14. In the treatment of the thirty-two sacred sites of the Hevajra system in the tenth Pat.ala of the Mahāmudrātilaka we find Purn ¯ . agiri and Pullīra denoting the same place (f. 17r5– v1: oḍiyānaṁ pīt.hamākhyātaṁ pīt.haṁjālandharaṁsmr̥tam | pīt.haṁ purn ¯. agiris´ caiva kāmarūpaṁtathaiva ca . . . f. 18r1–2: śirasi sthitaṁ vajrapīt.haṁśikhāyāṁ jādisaṁj ñitam | pullıram ¯. mastake j ñeyaṁ bhrūmadhye kāmarūpakam). On the location of Purn ¯ . agiri, in the Deccan, see SANDERSON 2007a, pp. 298–299. In S´ akta ¯ Śaiva sources it is one of the principal P ´īt.has and is often referred to, but never under the name Pullīramalaya/Pullīra.

[[200]]

the names of these two places to fill a whole line (8cd).474 The later reading, oḍ ḍiyānajālandharapullīramayādiṣu, attested by the Tibetan translation and by the lemmata in the commentaries of Bhavyakīrti and Bhavabhat.t.a, supplies the missing Pullīramalaya and, incidentally, is an almost metrical half-verse: its first half (oḍ ḍiyānajālandhara) is unmetrical, but the second is not, and together they provide the required total of sixteen syllableṣAs for the meaning of the in sertion, ordinary usage suggests that it is ‘Oḍ ḍiyana, J ālandhara, Pull ¯īramalaya, and others’. But that would not sit well with the closed list of twenty-four Yo ginīs to which the sacred places were required to corresponḍ Thus it has been interpreted by Bhavabhat.t.a to mean ‘beginning with Oḍ ḍiyana, J ālandhara, and ¯ Pullīramalaya’, this compound with its locative plural ending being read as qual ifying the twenty-one sites, each listed in the common text with actual or virtual locative singular endingṣThus we have twenty-four Yoginīs in twenty-four siteṣAll that was needed to make this fit the system known to the commentators was to claim that the Laghuśaṁ vara is deliberately concealing the true order of the items, both the names of the Yoginīs in Pat.ala 4475 and the names of the sacred sites in Pat.ala 41. For in their system that order is not Oḍ ḍiyana, J ālandhara, ānd Pullīramalaya followed by the twenty-one from Kuluta to Arbuda, as the ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara itself indicates, but the added three in reverse order followed by the twenty-one in reverse order, with the order of the Yoginīs also reversed, so that the true sequence is from Pracaṇ ḍ a in Pull ¯īramalaya to Mahav¯īrya in Ar- ¯ buda.476

474 The frequent deviations from correct metrical form in this corpus create the im pression that the redactors were largely indifferent to this aspect of composition, happily inserting and deleting without feeling the need to rewrite the result to con form to the rules of the Anuṣt.ubh metre. The alternative, that they lacked not the inclination but the ability to do so, seems to me less likely. In the texts of the Śaiva Vidyāp¯īt.ha, even when the Sanskrit is of a register well below that of the learned, the metrical structure is generally sounḍ Indeed since we find forms from both learned and scriptural (Aisa) registers used in the same texts it seems that by ´ drawing on both the redactors were not only asserting that their compositions were divine rather than human utterances but also making the task of metrical compo sition easier for themselves by using an Aisa form that fitted the metre when the ´ Paninian would not, as, for example, in the case of the not infrequent use of Aisa´ genitives plural in -ām in place of the Paninian -ānāṁ

475 On the passage listing the twenty-four Yoginīs/D. akin ¯īs in Pat.ala 4 Jayabhadra com ments (Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 115): tricakravyavasthitānāṁ ḍākinīnāṁ pr̥thak pr̥thaṅ nāmāni kathyante | mahāvīryetyādinā vilomena kathitam ‘The names of each of the D. akin ¯īs that occupy the three circuits are now taught. This has been done in the reverse order, beginning with Mahav¯īrya [and ending with Pracan ¯ . ḍ a]’. ¯ The order in which Mahav¯īrya is the last and Pracan ¯ . ḍ a the first, the order of their ¯ ritual application, is, however, indicated later in the text, in f. 35r7 (48.13): yoginyaḥ pracaṇ ḍādayas tathā.

476 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, f. 126v1–3 (Eḍ p. 547): oḍ ḍiyānajālandhara- [[201]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Most of the few other differences between the version in Laghuśaṁ vara 41 and that seen in the Śaiva source are of little significance. But there is ´

one that is more revealing. The Tantrasadbhāva has Sthala between Kosala and Trisakuni (16.62c–63b: ´ kā ñcyāṁlampākaviṣaye kaliṅge kauśale sthale | triśakunis tathā cauḍre kāmarūpe ca mālave), whereas the Laghuśaṁ vara lacks it (41.7: kā ñcyāṁlampākaviṣaye kaliṅge c[aiva] kosale | triśakunis tathā oḍre kāmarūpe [ca] mālave), and instead between Sauras¯ .t.ra and Pre tapurī has Gr̥hadevata (41.6: ¯ kulatāyāṁ araṇ ye ca sindhudeśe nagareśvare | suvarṇ advīpe saurāṣt.re tatha ca gr ¯. hadevata¯ pretapuryāṁ himālaye), which the Tantrasadbhāva lacks (16.61c–62b: kulūtāyām araṇ yeśe sindhudeśe nageśvare | samudrakukṣyāṁsaurāṣt.re pretapuryāṁ himālaye). Two features are immediately obvious here. The first is that the additional words tathā ca gr̥hadevatā have been added to an otherwise metrically correct verse with the result that it has five Padas rather than the required four, with the fourth and ¯ fifth both with the cadence restricted to the second and fourth Padas of the ¯ Anuṣt.ubh, thus crudely violating the required metrical alternation of evenly and unevenly numbered Padas that is hallmark of this metre. The second is that ¯ Gr̥hadevata, meaning ‘household deity’ is a most implausible place name. The ¯ key to the mistake, which became a permanent part of the ritual system of the Cakrasaṁ vara cycle, is in the second part of the passage in the version of the Tantrasadbhāva, which tells the reader the classes of supernaturals that are present in the sacred siteṣFor there gr̥hadevatāḥ‘household deities’ are said to be present in Sauras¯ .t.ra in a verse in which the items Sauras¯ .t.ra, gr̥hadevatāḥ, and Pretapurī are stated in that order (16.66c–67b: samudrakukṣyāṁ kāmpilyas sauras¯.t.re gr̥ hadevatah¯.| pretapuryam¯. mahākālyo rūpiṇ yo himavadgirau ‘In Samudrakukṣī Kampil ¯īs, in Sauras¯ .t.ra Gr̥hadevatas, in Pretapur ¯ī Mahakāl¯īs, in Himalaya R ¯ upin ¯ .īs’). Evidently the redactor has read the sequence saurāṣt.re gr̥hadevatāḥ pretapuryāṁ as though these were three sites rather than one site followed by its resident supernaturals and another site. Probably his manuscript read gr̥hadevatā rather than gr̥hadevatāḥ and he took it as a stem-form to be un derstood as locative, a licence of kind seen elsewhere in both the Laghuśaṁ vara and its Śaiva sources, as, apparently, in the unmetrical insertion that this ´

error prompted: suvarṇ advīpe saurāṣt.re tathā ca gr̥ hadevata¯ pretapuryāṁ himālaye. Bhavabhat.t.a duly comments on the occurrence of gr̥hadevatā in that

pullīramalayāādibhūtā yeṣāṁta oḍ ḍiyānajālandharapullīramalayādayo ’rbudā dayaḥ kulatāntāḥ| bhāvaś cāyaṁ *pullīramalayamādiṁ(Coḍ : pullīramalayādiṁ Eḍ) kr̥tvā jālandharauḍ ḍiyānārbudādiṣu santīty upadeśārtham vyatikrama nirdeśaḥ| etena maṇ ḍ ale śarīre ca pullīramalayādiṣu yoginīnyāsaḥ kathitaḥ; ff. 126v6–127r1 (Eḍ p. 547) pullīramalayādiṣu pracaṇ ḍādaya OM. KARA KARA PRACAN. D. E HUM¯. HUM¯. PHAD.ityādimantrajā bhāvyāḥ.

[[202]]

part of the passage with the words gr̥hadevateti saptamīlopāt ‘[We have the form] gr̥hadevatā [here] because zero has been substituted for the ending of the locative’.

The direction of redaction is also unmistakeable in the passage of the

Laghuśaṁ vara (1.15–4.1) (B) that prescribes the ritual of initiatioṇ This has evidently been redacted on the basis a Śaiva source of which an expanded variant ´

is seen in 8.3–28 of the Yoginīsaṁcāra (A) redacted in the Jayadrathayāmala:

A B

8.3 girigahvaraguhyeṣu 1.15 girigahvaraku ñjeṣu

mahodadhitat.eṣu ca mahodadhitat.eṣu vā

ādisiddhe śmaśāne vāādisiddhe śmaśāne ca

ālikhen maṇ ḍ alaṁśubham tatra maṇ ḍ alamālikhet

iti herukābhidhāne

maṇ ḍ alāvatārapat.alaḥ prathamaḥ

8.4 śmaśānabhasmanā miśraṁ 2.1 tatra pānagomayena

kapilāgomayaṁśubham maṇ ḍ alabhūmi pralepayet

raktodakavimisreṇ a śmaśānabhasmanā yuktaṁ tena bhūmiṁ pralepayet pa ñcāmr̥tasamanvitam

2.2 upalipya tato bhūmiṁ

tatra maṇ ḍ alamārabhet

śmaśānaṁtu samācaret

8.5 śmaśānabhasma saṁ gr̥hya 2.3 cityaṅgāracūrṇena

śmaśāne ’ṣt.adalaṁśubham śmaśāneṣt.akasaṁ yutam

śmaśānāṅgāracūrṇ aṁtuālikhen maṇ ḍ alaṁ divyaṁ

ācāryaḥsusalakṣaṇ aḥ

trirekhaṁ maṇ ḍ alaṁlikhet

8.6 ekahastaṁ dvihastaṁ vā

caturaṣt.akaraṁtathā

Cf. B 2.12cd

sūtrayed rudhirāktena

śavasūtreṇ a sūtradhr̥ k

Cf. B 2.11cḍ

2.4 samyagj ñānatantraj ñaḥ

śrīherukamantraj ñaḥ

8.7 akrodhano śucir dakṣo akrodhanaḥśucir dakṣo

ācāryo j ñānapāragaḥ yogaj ño j ñānapāragaḥ

kapālamālābharaṇ o 2.5 kapālakr̥tamūrdhajaḥ

raudrabhasmāvaguṇt.hitaḥ bhasmānuliptāṅgaḥ

[[203]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

8.8 pa ñcamudrāvratadharo

bhairavāṅgair vibhūṣitaḥsaṁ bhavān mātrair vibhūṣitagātraḥ mahābhūtāstrajālena

samantāt pariveṣt.itam

mudrāmantrair alaṁ kr̥tam

8.9ālikhen maṇ ḍ alavaraṁ 2.11ālikhen maṇ ḍ alaṁ ghoraṁ ghorasiddhipradāyakam mahāsiddhipradāyakam tato mr̥takasūtreṇ a

mahārudhirara ñjitena vā

Cf. A 8.6cd

2.12 sūtrayen maṇ ḍ alaṁ ghoraṁ

herukasya paraṁ puram

ekahastaṁcatur aṣt.aṁca

Cf. A 8.6ab

caturaśraṁcaturdvāraṁcaturasraṁtu samantataḥ 2.13 caturdvārasamākīrṇ aṁ

catustoraṇ abhūṣitam

vicared dviguṇ aṁ mantrī

yajed ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam

madhye padmavibhūṣitam 2.14 tasya madhye pratiṣt.hāpya 8.10 aṣt.apatraṁtu tat padmaṁsapatraṁ karṇikojjvalam karṇikādhiṣt.hitaṁśubham puṣkaraiś ca kesarānvitaṁ tasya madhye nyased devi 2.15 karṇikāyāṁ nyased vīraṁ bhairavaṁ bhīmavikramam mahābhairava bhīṣaṇ am 8.11 dakṣiṇābhimukhaṁ dīptaṁtejaskaṁtu sudīptāṅgam bhīmarūpaṁ bhayāvaham at.t.āt.t.ahāsamahāravam 2.16 kapālamālābharaṇ aṁ

divyaṁtrinetraṁcaturmukham

hasticarmāvaruddhaṁca

vajrasaṁ bhinnasabhruvam

2.17 khat.vāṅgakr̥tahastaṁtu

śatamālārdhabhūṣitam

tasyāgrataḥsthitā devī tasyāgrataḥsthitāṁ devīṁ aghorā ghoravikramā vajravārāhīṁsughorām 8.12 bhairavābhimukhāṁ kruddhāṁ 2.18 mahābhairavābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu raudrarūpāṁ nyaset tataḥtrimukhīṁraudrarūpiṇīm . . . . . .

8.19c tataḥśiṣyān praveśayet

sopavāsā ñ śucīn snātān

arcayed uttarāmukhān

8.20 kapālena śiraḥspr̥ṣt.vā

saṁ put.āṁ hr̥daye nyaset

khat.vāṅgena tu sarvāṅgān

ālabhet putrakasya tu

[[204]]

3.2 ghaṇt.ānādamālambya

puṣpadhūpair alaṁ kr̥tām

8.21 agrato vādayed ghaṇt.āṁ ghaṇt.āṁ vādayet susvarāṁ pat.ahīṁ ḍ amaruṁtathā pat.ahikām vāpi sādhakaḥ 3.3 hāhākāraṁca kārayet

evam vidhivat pūjya

maṇ ḍ alaṁsarvakāmikam

vastracchannamukhaṁ devi 3.4 saṁchādya pat.avastreṇ a mukhaṁteṣāṁtu putrakām

puṣpā ñjalidharaṁtathā puṣpapūrṇā ñjaliṁ prakṣipet 8.22 pradakṣiṇīkr̥tya puraṁ 3.5 pradakṣiṇ aṁca tataḥ kr̥tvā sādhakaḥsusamāhitaḥ

praveśayet tat puravaraṁramyaṁ

dakṣiṇāmūrtimāśritaḥ dakṣiṇāmūrtimāśritya tato dāvāpayet puṣpān 3.6 puṣpā ñjalin tataḥ kṣipet devasyopari putrakam maṇ ḍ alasyopari 8.23 yasmiṁs tat patate puṣpaṁ yasmin patati tat puṣpaṁ tat tasya kulamādiśet kulaṁtatra vinirdiśet 3.7 śrīherukādipīt.ha darśayet

tataḥ pūjayen mudrām

ācāryaḥsusamāhitaḥ

3.8 śiṣyāṇān tu dvitīye ahani

hr̥nmantraparijaptena raktena trijaptena tilakān teṣu kārayet tilakaṁtasya kārayet 8.24 raktena darśayet tasya mukham udghāt.ya śiṣyaṁ mukham udghāt.ya maṇ ḍ alam darśayen maṇ ḍ alaṁtataḥ yad yasya devatāsthānaṁ 3.9 yad yasya devatāsthānaṁ tat sarvaṁtasya darśayet tatra tāṁ darśayet samyak 8.25 samayā ñ śrāvayitvā tu

praṇipatya puraṁ guroḥ praṇipatya tataḥ paścād suśrāvya pūrvavidhinā

saṁsiddhaputrakānvitam

8.26 guruṁsaṁ pūjya vidhivad 3.11 tatas tu gurave dadyāt vittaśāt.hyavivarjitaḥtathāgatoktadakṣiṇām . . .

3.15c tatas tasya tuṣyanti

pragr̥hya kulajān mantrān

vratāṁś ca samayāṁs tathā

8.27 tāvadārādhayed devi

yoginyo mātaro gurum ḍākinyo yogamātarāḥ ḍākinyo lāmayaś caiva

khaṇ ḍ arohā tu rūpiṇī

mātr̥dūtyo vratāṁś caiva

yāvadantaṁ krameṇ a tu

[[205]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

8.28ārādhanakramād yāti

triṣaṣt.icaruśodhitaḥ

bhairavībhuvanā devi 4.1 tato ḍākinyo bhuvanāni vijr̥ mbhayanti mahāvīryā

sarvaśaktibhirāvr̥taḥ

APPARATUS CRITICUS OF A

Codḍ : A ff. 286v2–; B ff. 182r4–; C ff. 166v3–; D ff. 200r2–; E ff. 183v7–.

8.3cādisiddhe śmaśāne B :ādisiddhai śmaśānair ACDE 8.7a akrodhano eṁ : śakrodhano Codḍ 8.10d bhairavaṁ eṁ : bhairavī Codḍ 8.11d vikramā eṁ : vikramān AC : vikramāṁ B : vikramāt DE. Cf. Picumata 1.2d: aghorī bhīmavikramā 8.19d uttarāmukhān eṁ : uttarāmukham C : uttarāṁ mukham ABDE 8.20b saṁ put.āṁcorr̥ : saṁ put.ā Codḍ 8.20c sarvāṅgān eṁ : sarvāṅgā ACD : sarvāṅgo B 8.21a vādayed conj. : vādaye Codḍ 8.21b pat.ahīṁ eṁ : pat.aho Codḍ • ḍ amaruṁ eṁ : ḍ amaras Codḍ 8.21d dharaṁ eṁ : varaṁ Codḍ 8.22d putrakam eṁ : putrakaḥ Codḍ 8.25a samayā ñ eṁ : samayaṁ Codḍ • śrāvayitvā B : śrāvayitvās Codḍ 8.25d saṁsiddhaputrakānvitam conj. : saṁsiddhaṁ putrakāṁ vitam A : saṁsiddhaṁ putrakāṁcitam BCDE 8.28aārādhana conj. : aropanā Codḍ • kramād yāti conj. : kramaprāpti Codḍ

APPARATUS CRITICUS OF B

Coḍ: f. 2r3–. TESTIMONIA : AbhU = Abhidhānottara 46.10–57 (A f. 146r6– [<La ghuśaṁ vara 2.1–]); BhBh = Bhavabhat.t.a ad loc.; BhK = Bhavyakīrti ad loc.; IBh = Indrabhuti ad loc.; JBh = Jayabhadra ad loc.; ¯ SV =ś´ a¯svatavajra ad loc.; Tib. = ´ bDe mchog nyung ngu; VV = Vīravajra ad loc.

1.15cādisiddhe BhBh :ādisiddha Coḍ 2.1a tatra pānagomayena Coḍ AbhU, BhBh, SV ( ´ chu dang ba byung blangs ‘water and cow dung’) : *tatrāpātagomayena Tib. (der ni lci ba ma lhung bas), BhK (de la lci ba ma ltung bas) 2.1b prale payet Coḍ, AbhU : upalepayet BhBh 2.3a cityaṅgāra BhBh : cityāṅgāra Coḍ : cityaṅgāraka AbhU 2.3b saṁ yutam conj. (= AbhU); cf. Picumata 5.116cd: kākaviṣt.a samādāya śmaśāneṣt.akasaṁ yutam) : saṁ yuktaṁ Coḍ 2.4a samyagj ñānatantraj ñaḥ Coḍ, BhBh : samyagj ñāneṣu tattvaj ñaḥ AbhU 2.4c akrodhanaḥ JBh AbhU : akrodhaś ca Coḍ BhBh 2.11d mahārudhirara ñjitena vā Coḍ, Tib. (de nas sems med srad bu ’am | ru di ra ni chen pos brlan) mahārudhirā ñjitena vā BhBh : mahārudhirara ñjitam AbhU, Tib. 2.13d yajed JBh : japed Coḍ : pūjayed BhBh, Tib. (mkha’ ’gro dra ba’i bde mchog mchod) 2.17c tasyāgrataḥsthitāṁ devīṁ JBh, BhBh, Tib. (de mdun gnas pa’i lha mo ni) : tasyāliṅgatāsthitā devī Coḍ 2.18a mahābhairavābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu JBh : mahābhairavābhimukhīṁ AbhU, VV (rab ’jigs byed che la phyogs) : śrīherukābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu Coḍ BhBh : *mahāśrīherukābhimukhīṁ Tib. (he ru ka dpal che la phyogs) : *śrīherukaj ñānābhimukha- (he ru ka dpal ye shes phyogs ni IBh 3.2c vādayet Coḍ : nādayet BhBh 3.3a pūjya BhBh : sampūjya Coḍ 3.4b putrakāṁ eṁ [Aisa geṇ pl.; =AbhU] : ´ putrakān BhBh : putrakānāṁ Coḍ 3.7a śrīherukādipīt.ha BhBh (śrīherukādipīt.heti dvitīyālope) : śrīherukādiṁ pīt.han Coḍ 3.7bc tataḥ pūjayen mudrāmācāryaḥsusamāhitaḥ BhBh, Tib. (de nas slob dpon legs par ni | mnyam par bzhag ste phyag rgya mchod): tataḥ pūjayen mudrācāryaḥsusamāhitaḥ Coḍ : tato hi pūjayet mudrāmācāryaḥsusamāhitaḥ AbhU : tataḥ pūjayen mudrāṁsvamudrāṁsusamāhitaḥ JBh 3.9a yad yasya JBh, BhBh : yo yasya Coḍ, AbhU.

[[206]]

Here we see several tell-tale signṣIn the Buddhist version the disciples undergoing the initiation are referred to as putrakāḥ(3.4ab: saṁcchādya pat.avastreṇ a mukhaṁteṣāṁtu putrakāṁ‘Having covered the faces of those disciples with a piece of cloth’), a term that is standard in this technical sense in the Śaiva literature but to my knowledge appears with it nowhere else in ´ Buddhist Tantric sourceṣ

In 2.15 the installation of the main deity in the centre of the initiation Maṇ ḍ ala is described as follows: karṇikāyāṁ nyased vīraṁ mahābhairava bhīṣaṇ am ‘On the pericarp [at the centre of the lotus diagram] he should install the terrifying Vīra Mahabhairava’. The ¯ Śaiva version (8.10cd) has ´tasya madhye

nyased devi bhairavaṁ bhīmavikramam ‘O Devī, in the centre of that [lotus] he should install Bhairava of terrible might’. But for this parallel we might have been tempted to read the Buddhist version not as mahābhairava bhīṣaṇ aṁ, with mahābhairava as a stem-form substituted for the accusative mahābhairavaṁ for metrical convenience, a common licence in this register of the language, but as mahābhairavabhīṣaṇ am, preferring a pleonasm ‘most frightening [and] terrible’ to a reading that shows the name of the deity of the Vidyap¯īt.ha, a clear sign of incomplete assimilatioṇ

The Śaiva text follows this with ´tasyāgrataḥsthitāṁ devīm aghorāṁ ghoravikramām | bhairavābhimukhīṁ kruddhāṁraudrarūpāṁ nyaset tataḥ ‘Then he should install the goddess Aghora of frightening might standing before ¯ him, facing Bhairava, furious and of terrible aspect’. The Buddhist version first inserts a description of some of the male deity’s iconographic features and then returns to redact its Śaiva exemplar as follows: ´tasyāgrataḥsthitāṁ devīṁ vajravārāhīṁsughorām | mahābhairavābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu trinetrīṁ raudrarūpiṇīm ‘[and] the most frightening goddess Vajravarāh¯ī standing be fore him, three-eyed, of terrible aspect, making her face Mahabhairava’. The ¯ Buddhist name of Heruka’s consort has been inserted but the redactor has not troubled to do the same for Heruka, leaving the Śaiva name unchangeḍ Theāccessible Sanskrit manuscript does give the name of Heruka here, reading śrīherukābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu, and this reading is supported by the commenta tors Bhavabhat.t.a (śrīherukābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā) and Indrabhuti ( ¯ he ru ka dpal ye shes phyogs ni [*śrīherukaj ñānābhimukha-]), and the Tibetan translation (he ru ka dpal che la phyogs [*mahāśrīherukābhimukha-]). But it is certain that this is a later improvement, because mahābhairavābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu is what we find in the older redaction attested in Jayabhadra’s commentary, and in the text as incorporated in the Abhidhānottara (mahābhairavābhimukhīṁ). It is also supported by the commentary on the later form of the Laghuśaṁ vara by Vīravajra, who gives rab ’jigs byed che la phyogs ‘facing Mahabhairava’ here. ¯

[[207]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Further, in most places where a Buddhist imprint is visible the text be comes unmetrical. This is most economically explained by the hypothesis stated above477 that what we are seeing is a Śaiva source after its redaction by a Bud- ´ dhist with little concern for metrical accuracy.478

Finally, the Laghuśaṁ vara’s account of initiation is remarkably un Buddhist in its content. This is not so much because it adheres so closely to the structure and detail of the ceremony outlined in the Yoginīsaṁcāra, including such distinctive details as the pitching of the lines of the Maṇ ḍ ala with a cord soaked with human blood and made from the hair or sinews of a corpse (2.11), the use of such substances as the five nectars of the body (pa ñcāmr̥tam) and the ash and powdered charcoal of cremation pyres on the ground of the Maṇ ḍ ala (2.1–3),479 the beating of a drum in its worship (3.2–3), and the marking of the

477 See here p. 190.

478 See 2.4ab: samyagj ñānatantraj ñaḥśrīherukamantraj ñaḥ; 2.13d: yajed ḍākinījālaśaṁ varam; and 3.7a: śrīherukādipīt.ha darśayet. The reading mahābhairavābhimukhāṁ kr̥tvā tu (2.18a) probably represents a first attempt to differentiate the Buddhist version from its metrical Śaiva prototype by adding ´ mahā-.

479 This substitution of inauspicious and dangerous substances in the preparation of the Maṇ ḍ ala is a marked feature of accounts of initiation found in Vidyap¯īt.ha textṣSee, e.g., Picumata f. 5v1 (3.12ab), concerning the Aghorīmaṇ ḍ ala): asthi cūrṇ atadaṅgāraiḥ mantraj ñoālikhet puram ‘The mantra-master should draw the Maṇ ḍ ala with powdered bone and charred bone’; f. 5v6 (3.31ab): śmaśānotthena sūtreṇ a sūtrakāryaṁtu kārayet ‘He should do the outlining with a cord from the cremation ground’; f. 10r2–3 (3.184–185): śmaśānotthāni bhāṇ ḍāni vas trasūtrādikāni tu | vastrai dhvajā tu kartavyā sūtreṇ a karaṇī tathā k keśair darbhā yathānyāyam *acchinnāgrān (corr̥ : acchinnāgrāḥ Coḍ) prakalpayet | veṣt.ayen maṇ ḍ alaṁtais tu astrajaptaiḥsamantataḥ‘The vases, cloths and cords should be made with what has come from cremation groundṣWith [funeral] shrouds he should make the banners and with threads [therefrom] the pitch ing corḍ With the hair [of corpses] he should provide the uncut-ended stems of [protective] Darbha grasṣAfter empowering them with the weapon[-mantra] he should surround the maṇ ḍ ala with them’; Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 4, f. 65v7 (Rāviṇīyāgapat.ala, [concerning the Maṇ ḍ ala of Ravin ¯ .ī in the Kālīkula section of the Jayadrathayāmalatantra], v. 101cd: śavasūtreṇ a saṁsūtrya asthicūrṇādibhir likhet ‘He should colour [the Maṇ ḍ ala] with powdered [human] bone and the like after pitching its lines with a corpse-cord’; Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, f. 200r5– 6: sūtrayed rudhirāktena *śavasūtreṇ a (corr̥ : ṣavasūtreṇ a Coḍ) ‘He should outline the Maṇ ḍ ala with a corpse-cord smeared with blood’. The nature of this cord is indicated by Kṣemaraja on ¯ Svacchandatantra 13.21b: mr̥tasūtreṇ a vakṣyamāṇ acchummakāyuktyā mr̥tasnāyunā ‘The expression ‘with a corpse-thread’ means ‘with the sinew of a corpse’ in accordance with the secret vocabulary to be taught below’. He refers here to Svacchandatantra 15.5: snāyuḥsūtraṁ prakīrtitam ‘The word cord means sinew’. This understanding is also seen in Bud dhist Tantric literature. In his commentary (-piṇ ḍārthat.īkā) on the Hevajratantra Vajragarbha glosses śmaśānasūtreṇ a ‘cremation ground cord’ as ro’i rgyus pa rnams kyis byas pa’i srang bus ‘a cord made from the sinews of a [human] corpse’ (SNELL GROVE 1959, Pt. 1, p. 51, ṇ1, who mistranslates this to refer to ‘a thread made

[[208]]

foreheads of the candidates with human blood (3.8).480 It is more because the redactor has not added what from the time of the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi onwards had been the most marked characteristic of the Mantranaya’s adap tation of Śaiva Man ´. ḍ ala initiation, namely the series of consecrations known as abhiṣekaḥ. The commentators evidently could not accept that this crucial Buddhist signature might be absent. For they have resorted to strained exegesis in order to impose it. Jayabhadra claims that the terse injunction to worship the Mudra in 3.7 alludes to the ¯ guhyābhiṣekaḥ, in which the Guru unites with a consort (mudrā) and the candidate swallows the semeṇ Then avoiding the difficult task of reading in allusions to any of the six consecrations that normally preceded this climactic act in his time he simply asserts that they should be done following the procedure familiar from other Tantraṣ481 Bhavabhat.t.a, however, adopts a more bold and imaginative strategy, finding all seven con

from the guts of a corpse’). We also read of the use of the hair of corpses for this purpose: Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, f. 181r4:ālikhen maṇ ḍ alavaraṁtato raudreṇ a bhasmanā | prathamaṁsūtrayitvā tu śavamūrdhajarajjunā ‘He should draw the excellent Maṇ ḍ ala with human ash after first pitching its lines with a cord of corpse-hair’; Siddhayogeśvarīmata 8.8: narakeśasamutthena karpāsādimayena vā | sūtrayen maṇ ḍ alaṁ divyaṁsarvasiddhiphalodayam ‘He should trace the ex cellent Maṇ ḍ ala, which bestows the reward of all the Siddhis, with [a cord] made from human hair or from fibres such as cotton’. This option is no doubt fixed: cremation-ground substances for ascetics and conventional substances for house holders; see, e.g., Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 2 f. 9v2 (Vāmeśvarīyāgapat.ala, vv. 48c–49): vāmāmr̥tādibhir lipya tatra maṇ ḍ alamālikhet k rajobhir *vīramārgasthaś (eṁ : vīramārgasthaiś Coḍ) *cityaṅgārādibhasmabhiḥ(cityaṅgārādi conj. : cityāṅgārādi Codac : citāṅgārādi Codpc) | ratnādiśālijātaiś ca gr̥hasthaś cālikhet tataḥ‘Having smeared [the ground] with wine and the like he should draw the Maṇ ḍ ala upon it with powders such as the charcoal and ash of funeral pyres, if he follows the path of Heroes, and with [ground] precious stones or rice flour [etc.], if he is a housholder’.

480 Both versions say only that this is to be done ‘with blood’ (raktena). But a variant specifying human blood (mahāraktena) is attested by the Tibetan translation (mt shal chen gsum lan bzlas pa yis [mahāraktena trijaptena]) and the commentators Durjayacandra (mtshal chen lan gsum brzlas pa yis), Vīravajra (iḍ), and Indrabhuti ¯ (mtshal chen ni).

481 Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 114, ll. 9–11: kulaṁtasya vinirdiśed (3.6) itiparyantaṁsukaram eva | tadanantaraṁtantrānantaraprasiddhena vidhinā sar vam abhiṣekaṁ nivartyedānīṁ guhyābhiṣekavidhipradhānatvāt pūjayen mudrām (3.7) ityādinā guhyābhiṣekaṁsūcayati ‘The text up to ‘he should indicate his Fam ily’ is easy. He now alludes to the guhyābhiṣekaḥ with the words beginning ‘he should worship the Mudra’. He does so because this is the most important [of the ¯ consecrations]. [It is should be understood that] ‘he should worship the Mudra [i.e. ¯ the consort] after he has completed the whole consecration [process that should be performed] immediately after that [determining of the candidate’s Family by cast ing the flower] following the procedure that is well known from other Tantras’. The expression ‘the whole consecration’, though singular, should be understood to refer to the whole sequence of the consecrations that precede the guhyābhiṣekaḥ.

[[209]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

secrations up to and including the guhyābhiṣekaḥin 3.2–3.3a.: ghaṇt.ānādamālambya puṣpadhūpair alaṁ kr̥tām | ghaṇt.āṁ vādayet susvarāṁ pat.ahikām vāpi sādhakaḥ| hāhākāraṁca kārayet ‘Resorting to the resonance of the bell the Sadhaka should ring the bell after it has been adorned with flowers and ¯ [fumigated with] incense; or he may [beat] a druṁ He should also laugh wildly’. He asks us to accept that the ringing of the bell refers to the consecration of [the giving of] the bell (ghant.ābhiṣekaḥ)482 and, more astonishingly, that the wild laughter enjoined, literally ‘the sound hā hā’, is the consecration of [the giving of the initiatory] name (nāmābhiṣekaḥ).483 Having conjured up these two consecrations he then asserts that the three that precede them are therefore implicitly intended, namely the consecration with water (udakābhiṣekaḥ), the consecration with the crown (makut.ābhiṣekaḥ), and the consecration with the Vajra (vajrādhipatyabhiṣekaḥ).484 He then subjects this same passage to a second reading in order to force it to refer also to the two consecrations that follow these five: theācāryābhiṣekaḥ, which qualifies the initiate to officiate as a Vajracārya, and the consecration of the secret ( ¯ guhyābhiṣekaḥ). He claims that in this second reading the resonance of the bell, the ringing of the bell, and the beating of the drum refer to the Guru’s uniting for the purpose of the second of these consecrations with a girl of twenty-five, twelve, or sixteen respectively.485

482 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 37, l. 17: ghaṇt.ānādam ityādinā ghaṇt.ā bhiṣekaḥ pratipādyate ‘The passage beginning with ghaṇt.ānādam teaches the con secration of the bell’. 483 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā p. 38, ll. 6–7: hāhākāraṁca kārayed iti | hāhākāro nāmābhiṣekaḥ| taṁ gurubhat.t.ārakenātmanaḥ kārayet ‘In the expression “He should have the hāhākāraḥ done”, the hāhākāraḥis the consecration of the

name. He should have that done for himself by the venerable Guru’. 484 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 38, l. 10: tata udakamaulivajrādhi patyabhiṣekānāṁ grahaṇ aṁtatpūrvakatvāt tayoḥ‘From this [reference to the con secrations of the bell and the name] it follows that the text also refers [by implica tion] to the consecrations of water, crown, and the Vajra Lord, because those two have to be preceded by these [three]’. The five consecrations covered here are as in Saṁ varodaya 18.27, where they are associated with the five Tathagataṣ¯ 485 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 38, ll. 13–14: ghaṇt.ānādaḥ *svaliṅgā vasthitapa ñcaviṁśatikādhidhānam (eṁ : svaliṅgāvasthitaḥ pa ñcaviṁśatikābhi dhānam Eḍ) | ghaṇt.ā dvādaśābdikā | pat.ahikā ṣoḍ aśābdikā | ghaṇt.ānādo vajra kulam | ghaṇt.ā ratnakulam | pat.ahikā padmakulam | hāhākāras tathāgatakulam | cakārād anyac ca | *ghaṇt.ānādādīnām anyatamāmācāryaḥsevayet (eṁ : ghaṇt.ā dīnām anyatamānocāsevayet Eḍ) | ghaṇt.ānādam aho sukheti mantraṁsādhakaḥ śiṣyaḥ kārayed uccārayed ity arthaḥ| kuto ’nantaram ityāha | anāmetyādi | anāmā-ṅguṣt.havaktrābhyāṁlehayed yogavit sadā | somapānavadāsvādya siddhimāpnoti śāśvatīm (1.12c–13a) iti gātheha yojitavyā | tato ’syā idam arthāntaram | pūrvokta praj ñāsevayā yad bhūtaṁtad anāmāṅguṣt.havaktrābhyāmācāryaḥśiṣyaṁlehayet | sa ca śiṣyaḥtataḥsomapānavadāsvādya siddhimāpnotīti guhyābhiṣeko ’yam ‘The resonance of the bell denotes a girl of twenty-five mounted on one’s penis; the bell is a girl of twelve; and the drum is a girl of sixteeṇ [In addition] the resonance of the

[[210]]

Having made the text refer to the guhyābhiṣekaḥ, he finds theācāryābhiṣekaḥ by using the same argument that he had employed to arrive at the full sequence of the five consecrations that precede it, namely that its presence is entailed by the supposed reference to the guhyābhiṣekaḥ, because that requires it as its antecedent.486 He finds a reference to the final consecration that he needed to discover here, that of wisdom (praj ñābhiṣekaḥ), in the statement in 3.7 that Jayabhadra had taken to allude to the preceding guhyābhiṣekaḥ: tataḥ pūjayen mudrāmācāryaḥsusamāhitaḥ‘Then the Acārya, fully concentrated, should ¯ worship the Mudra’. If, as is highly probable, the consecration understood by ¯ Bhavabhat.t.a here was the praj ñāj ñānābhiṣekaḥ of the initiation manuals, then there would appear to a problem, because the active agent in that consecration was not the Acārya but the candidate, who now unites with the consort himself. ¯

Bhavabhat.t.a is very terse at this point but it is likely that he was attempting to remove this difficulty when he wrote that the text refers to the agent as Acārya ¯

here because he is endowed with such qualities as self-control. I take him to mean that it is indeed the candidate rather than the officiant that is the agent here and that he is referred as an officiant only figuratively, because he has all the qualities that are required of an officiant.487 These readings are, of course,

bell is [a women of] the Vajra Family, the bell [one of] the Jewel Family, the drum [one of] the Lotus Family, and the wild laughter [one of] the Tathagata Family. The ¯ word ‘and’ [in ‘and he should laugh wildly’ indicates [one of] the other [Family, that of Action]. The officiant should have intercourse with one or other of these women of whom the first is ‘the resonance of the bell’. The meaning is [also] that the Sadhaka, ¯ [that is to say,] the candidate, should make, that is to say, utter, ‘the resonance of the bell’, that is to say, the Mantra AHO SUKHA [‘Oh, Bliss’]. He [also] tells us that after which [he should utter this Mantra] in the passage [of this Tantra] that begins with anāmā-. At this point one must read in the following verse (1.12c–13a) ‘The master of Yoga should always lick [it, taking it] with the tips of his ring finger and thumb. Having relished it as though it were a draught of Soma he attains eternal success’. So there is another sense of this [verse], namely that the officiant should make the candidate take into his mouth [lit. ‘lick’] the product of his sexual union with the aforesaid consort with the tips of his ring finger and thumb; and that can didate, having relished it like a draught of Soma attains Siddhi. This, then, is the guhyābhiṣekaḥ’.

486 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 38, ll. 23–24: sa ca śiṣyaḥtataḥ somapānavadāsvādya siddhimāpnotīti guhyābhiṣeko ’yam | ata evācāryābhiṣekaḥ siddhaḥtatpūrvakatvāt tasya ‘This is the guhyābhiṣekaḥ. This itself establishes the presence of theācāryābhiṣekaḥ, because the former is preceded by the latter’.

487 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 39, ll. 21–22: tata ityādinā praj ñābhiṣekaṁ darśayati | tato guhyābhiṣekānantaram |ācārya iti dhairyādiguṇ ayogāt ‘In the pas sage beginning tataḥ he reveals the Wisdom Consecratioṇ The word tataḥ(‘next’) means directly after the guhyābhiṣekaḥ. He is termed the officiant [here] because he has such qualities as self-control’. Bhavabhat.t.a is probably alluding to the qual ities of the good Acārya as stated in vv. 8–9 of the ¯ Gurupa ñcāśikā: dhīro vinīto matimān kṣamāvānārjavo ’śat.haḥ| . . . .

[[211]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

artificial and could be imposed on the text only because Bhavabhat.t.a, like Jayabhadra, could not accept the possibility that there might be no reference to the consecrations in a Buddhist Tantra’s treatment of initiatioṇ

Further exemplification of the direction of redaction can be seen in the first of the new parallels listed above, that on the subject of the regular rite of wor shipping the Kulika (as the ¯ Laghuśaṁ vara has it). For ease of comparison I give in bold characters those parts of each of the three related texts, the Picumata, the Herukābhyudaya, and the Laghuśaṁ vara, that partly or completely corre spond to passages in one or both of the other two. The Picumata passage is as follows:

mūlasūtrādikānāṁtu kramaṁsādhanalakṣaṇ am k

10 durlabhaṁtriṣu lokeṣu samayacārap ālanam ¯.|

yāgaṁ vidhis tatha j ¯ n˜ anam ¯.cakraṁ yogaṁca śobhanam k

11 kathayāmi mahādevi yat tvayā coditaṁ *balam (?) |

madhyamottamacchagena gandhodasahitena tu ¯ k

12 vat.ikam pr ā¯ sayet prāj¯ nah ˜. pujākāle vi ¯ ses ´. ataḥ|

vidhānan tu sadā yojyaṁcarvāhāreṇ a suvrate k

13 samaye sādhane caiva dravyālabhanakarmaṇi |

tasyaiva dutayah ¯.siddhah¯.sahaja¯ vīravandite k

14 guruṇādivibhāgena sr̥ṣt.idravyādisaṁ grahe |

r̥tuyogaviyogena anulomavilomajā k

15 yāgādhordhvagatā devi sarvakāmavilakṣaṇā |

kuṇ ḍ agolodbhavenaiva svayambhukusumena ca k

16 japahomarcanam ¯.snānaṁ bukapuṣpasamanvitam |

niyojyaṁsvena mārgeṇ a svakāle yāgapūrvakam k

f. 319v3–5

11c madhyamottamacchāgena eṁ : adhamottamacchāgena Coḍ488

The related passage in the Herukābhyudaya is accessible only in its Tibetan translatioṇ I give that here with a reconstruction of the Sanskrit of the parts

488 I propose this emendation for two reasonṣThe first is that the reading contradicts information given later in this chapter̥ According to that there are three grades of flesh for use in the preparation of the sacrament (caruḥ): goat, cow, and humaṇ The first is said to be inferior (adhama-), the second intermediate (madhyama-), and the third superior (uttama-): adhamaṁcchāgam ity uktaṁ madhyamaṁ gobhavaṁ bhavet | puruṣottamaṁ mahādevi tridhā tu caravaḥsmr̥tāḥ(f. 320r5–v1 [84.36c– 37b]). Consequently without this emendation we have nonsense: ‘with the inferior [i.e. goat], the superior [i.e. human], and goat’. With it we have a statement that is consistent with this classification: ‘with the intermediate [i.e. cow], the superior [i.e. human] and [the inferior, i.e.] goat. The second reason is that the emendation has the support of the Buddhist parallels, which, as we shall see, read madhyamot tomaśvāsena or madhyamottamocchvāsena here.

[[212]]

that match the passage in the Picumata:

(15.6) sngags dang phyag rgya sbyar bar bya |

dam tshig thams cad bskyang bya ste |

’jig rten gsum na rnyed dka’ ba (durlabhaṁtriṣu lokeṣu) |

g.yon nas skyes pas byed pa yin |

(7) dam tshig spyod pa’i mtshan nyid dang (samayacāralaks ¯. aṇ am) | sbyor nyid cho ga’i yi ge shes ni (yoga eva vidhijn˜ anam ¯ ) |

de ni nga yis bshad kyis nyon (tan me nigaditaṁsr´. ṇ u) |

dbugs dbyung mchog gi bar dag ni (madhyamottamasv´ asena ¯ ) |

(8) dri yi chu dang bcas pa dang (gandhodakasahitena [tu]) |

rtag tu ril bu bza’ par bya (vat.ikam¯. pra¯ sayen nityam ´ ) |

mchod pa’i dus kyi bye brag la (pujākālavi ¯ ses ´. ataḥ) |

pho nyas lhan cig skyes dngos grub pa (dutayah ¯.sahajah¯.siddha¯) | (9) dman pa mchog dang ’bring rnams kyi (adhamottamamadhyamah¯.) | de yis sbyor bas dngos grub ’gyur (tabhir yogena siddhih ¯.syat¯ ) |

’dod pa’i don kun sgrub pa’o (sarvakamārthas ādhakah ¯.) |

dpal ldan he ru ka las byung (sr´ ıherukodbhavam ¯ ) |

(10) rang byung me tog nyid dag gis (svayambhukusumair api) |

cho ga shes pas kun tu spyod (vidhij ñānasamācāra-) |

bzlas dang bsam gtan mchod pa dang (japadhy ānap ¯ ujā¯ ) |

me tog gcig dang yang dag ldan (ekapuṣpasamanvitam) |

Khrag ’thung mngon par ’byung ba D f. 12r6–v2 (Herukābhyudaya 15.6–10)

TESTIMONIUM— Kumaracandra, ¯ Katipayākṣarā nāma Herukābhyudayapa ñjikā, p. 156: evaṁ mayā nigaditaṁsr´. ṇ u | madhyamottamasv´ asah ¯.pa ñca pradīpāḥ | gandhodakaṁpa ñcāmr̥tāni | vat.ikam¯. pra¯ sya ´ (Coḍ [f. 3v6] : prāpya Eḍ) *bhāvanāgaṇ amaṇ ḍ alādau (bhāvanāgaṇ a corr̥ : bhāvanā gaṇ a Eḍ) dūtīṁ pūjayet | adhamah¯. mantrajāḥ| uttamah¯.sahajāḥ| madhyamah¯.kṣetrajāḥ| tabhih ¯.siddhiḥsyat¯ tasya yoginaḥ.

The version of the Laghuśaṁ vara reads:

1.4 sambhavān nādarūpād viniṣkrāntāḥsamayacāra ¯ gocarāḥ|

durlabhaṁtriṣu lokeṣuādimadhyāntasaṁsthitam k

5 manthyamanthānasaṁ yogaṁ yathā tathā mantrajāpadhyānādiyuktaṁ| yogas caiva vidhij ´ n˜ anam ¯.tantre nigaditaṁsr´. ṇ u k

6 madhyamottamocchvasena gandhodakasahitena tu ¯ |

kulikam¯. pujayen nityam ¯. kalavi ¯ ses ´.eṇ a tu k

7 dutayah ¯.sahajah¯.siddha adhamottamamadhyam āh¯.|

f. 1v2–5

6a madhyamottamocchvāsena JAYABHADRA : madhyamottamaśvāsena Coḍ BHAVABHAT. T. A

The Herukābhyudaya, then, shows a version that is closer than the [[213]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Laghuśaṁ vara to the text of the Picumata in some details and covers more of it. It is particularly striking that it preserves the Picumata’s vat.ikāṁ prāśayet prāj ñaḥ pūjākāle viśeṣataḥ(84.12ab), reading rtag tu ril bu bza’ par bya | mchod pa’i dus kyi bye brag la ‘Let him always swallow the sacramental pellet, especially at the time of worship’, diverging from the Picumata only in having nityam (rtag tu) and pūjākālaviśeṣataḥ where that has prāj ñaḥ and pūjākāle viśeṣataḥ. That the Sanskrit read vat.ikāṁis shown by the gloss vat.ikāṁ prāśya in the Herukābhyudayapa ñjikā (f. 3v6).

Even so it shows signs of having had difficulty in understanding some of the Śaiva proto-text’s technical terms and of having dealt with this difficulty by ´ resorting to rewriting. Thus in 15.10 me tog gcig dang yang dag ldan ‘together with a single flower’ corresponds to bukapuṣpasamanvitam ‘together with the Buka flower’ in Picumata 84.16, so that the Sanskrit may be restored from the Tibetan with some confidence as ekapuṣpasamanvitaṁ The context is a listing of impure ingredients to be consumed at the time of practice. Now, ‘a single flower’ yields no appropriate sense in this context, whereas ‘Buka flower’ (bukapuṣpam) doeṣFor the Picumata tells us that in its secret vocabulary bukam means ‘the impurity of the male organ’ (84.38a: buko liṅgamalo j ñeyas; 87.196d: bukaṁliṅgamalaṁsmr̥tam), and the Kubjikāmata tells us that bukapuṣpam has the same meaning (25.226ab: bukapuṣpa kaṇākhyaṁca liṅgapaṅkamalaṁtathā). It is probable that the Buddhist redactor, failing to understand this obscure term, modified the text to produce something that had at least the appearance of sense. Kumaracandra confirms the reading ¯ ekapuṣpa in his Herukābhyudayapa ñjikā and ventures to explain it as ‘the blood of a [woman’s] first menstruation’: ekapuṣpaṁ prathamaṁrajaḥ vajrapadmābhyāṁ sādhyamānaṁ kapālasthaṁ(p. 156) ‘[After putting it] in a skull-bowl [he should swallow] the ‘one flower’, i.e. the first menses, produced by the penis and vagina’. But this gloss is not only strained: it also leads the text into an implausible repetition, since the blood of first menstruation has just been mentioned in 15.10a, in the term rang byung me tog (= svayambhukusumam). He also seems not to have understood the expression kuṇ ḍ agolodbhava- seen in Picumata 84.15c (kuṇ ḍ agolodbhavenaiva), another ‘secret’ Vidyap¯īt.ha term, referring to the mingled ejaculateṣHe resolves his quandary by substituting the name of his deity, the Tibetan dpal ldan he ru ka las byung (15.9d) evidently rendering śrīherukodbhavaṁ

In the abbreviated version seen in the Laghuśaṁ vara we have kulikāṁ pūjayen nityaṁ‘let him constantly worship the Kulika’ in place of the reading ¯ vat.ikāṁ prāśayen nityam seen in the Herukābhyudaya and in the Śaiva proto- ´ text. This is evidently the result of a corruption of a redaction which read not

[[214]]

vat.ikāṁ but the exact synonym gulikāṁ;489 and this hypothesis is confirmed by the Abhidhānottara, which in its own first chapter preserves gulikāṁin a pas sage modelled on these verses of the Laghuśaṁ vara, thus bearing witness to a stage of the redaction of this text that is earlier even than that known to our ear liest commentator, since Jayabhadra accords with all later witnesses in reading kulikāṁ here:

1.7 nādarūpād viniṣkrāntā samayācāragocaram |

durlabhaṁtriṣu lokeṣuādimadhyāntanirmalam k

8 manthamanthānayogena saṁ yogād yatra yat tathā |

prakr̥tiprabhāsvaraṁśuddhaṁ guhyapīt.hodbhavodbhavam k

9 nirdoṣaṁśāśvataṁśāntaṁ khasamaṁsr̥ṣt.ikārakam |

svabhāvaśuddham svayaṁ bhūtaṁ yoginīnāṁsukhapradam k

10 jāpadhyānādibhir yuktaṁ yogasyaiva vidhij ñatā |

tantre nigaditaṁtattvaṁ guhyakādhipate śr̥ṇ u k

11 madhyamottamasv´ asena gandhodakasahitena tu ¯ |

gulikam¯. karayed dh ¯ ımān¯ pūjayet parṣamaṇ ḍ alam490 k

12 kālavelāviśeṣeṇ a pūjayet tatra dūtayaḥ|

sahajāḥsiddhidāḥsarvā adhamottamamadhyamāḥk

13 antargatena manasā kāmasiddhiṁtu sādhayet |

Abhidhānottara A f. 2r2–6; B f. 2r4–v3

7ab nādārūpād eṁ : nādarūpo B : nādarū + A • viniṣkrāntā samayācāragocaram B : + + + + + + cāragocaram A 7d nirmalaṁ A : nirmmalaḥ B 8b saṁ yogād yatra tatra yathā B : sayogād yatra yat tathā A : *yatra tatra yathā tathā (Tib. srub dang bsrub par yang dag sbyor | gang la de la ji ltar bzhin) 8cd prakr̥tiprabhāsvaraṁ śuddhaṁ guhyapīt.hodbhavodbhavam B : prakr̥tiprabhāsva + + + + + + t.hodbhavodbhavam A 9a śāśvataṁ A : sāsanaṁ B 9c śuddhaṁsvayaṁ bhūtaṁ conj. [= Tib. dag pa rang byung ste] : śuddhasambhūtaṁ B : śuddham adbhūtaṁ A 10ab dhyānādibhir yuktaṁ yogasyaiva B : dhyānādibhir yu + + + + va A • j ñatā A : j ñeyā B

The otherwise unattested kulikāṁ was then construed by force to mean yoginīṁ ‘a/the Yoginī’, and the verb prāśayet ‘let him swallow’, since it now made no sense, altered to pūjayet ‘let him worship’.491

489 For gulikā (variant forms: gut.ikā and guḍikā) see here p. 217.

490 The reading of 11c is further supported by the Tibetan translation: mkhas pas dril bur byas nas ni. Note that dhīmān (mkhas pas) here is synonymous with prāj ñaḥ found at the corresponding point in the version seen in the Picumata (vat.ikāṁ prāśayet prāj ñaḥ). This, then, has probably survived from the Śaiva source on ´ which the first Buddhist version drew.

491 Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 20: kulika¯ yoginī | tāṁ pujayed ¯ārādhayet | nityaṁsarvakālaṁ pratidinam ity arthaḥ‘[The word] kulikā [means] yoginī. It is she that he should propitiate [in this way]; and he should do so constantly, at all times, that is to say, every day’. Cf. Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 110: kulikam¯ iti tantre samayabhāṣā | vajravārāhīsvarūpāṁ bāhyāṅganāṁ pujayed ¯

[[215]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

That the Buddhist versions arose from Śaiva prototypes is clear from the ´ detailed analysis of these and many other parallelṣOther features reinforce this conclusioṇ In all cases the Śaiva passages fit neatly into the contexts in ´ which they occur, without ragged edges, as it were, at their beginning and end, whereas this is often not so with the parallels in the Buddhist texts, a circum stance that fits well with a scenario in which the latter where constructed by a rather careless process of extraction, insertion, and superficial editing.

The same is suggested by the high degree of divergence between the various Buddhist commentators in their attempts to tell us what these new texts meaṇ They were caught out, as it were, by new materials that lacked roots in the Buddhist textual corpus in which they were traineḍ They did their best to make sense of what were in many cases barely intelligible passages; but without much guidance from existing Buddhist sources and with no central authority to impose consistency on their efforts they were bound to diverge.

We have a good example of this in the passage just discussed, in the words madhyamottamaśvāsena gandhodakasahitena tu . . . . The meaning of the Śaiva ´ prototype as seen in the version of the Picumata, namely madhyamottamacchā gena gandhodasahitena tu | vat.ikāṁ prāśayet prāj ñaḥ, is perfectly clear to any one who has read the whole chapter of which it is part. It means ‘The wise [initiate] should swallow a pellet made from beef, human flesh, or goat mixed with scented water’.492 The case is very different with the Buddhist versionṣTheir madhyamottamaśvāsena surely began life as a copyist’s corruption; for it yields no sense in either Śaiva or Buddhist terms in the context of this rite of ´ the pellet or, indeed, in any other̥ Kumaracandra, therefore, in his commen- ¯ tary on the passage as it appears in the Herukābhyudaya, could only guess at the meaning on the basis of the one part of the sentence that made undoubted sense, namely the injunction to swallow a pellet. Knowing that such pellets were made in practice from the five meats and the five body nectars he tells us that madhyamottamaśvāsaḥ‘the intermediate and upper breath’ means those meats and that the gandhodakam ‘scented water’ with which this ‘breath’ is to be mixed

iti | yathā saṁtoṣo jāyate tathā karaṇīyam ity arthaḥ‘The word kulikāṁis used in [this] Tantra following [its own special] conventioṇ It refers to the physical woman [who is the practitioner’s consort, when she is perceived as] identical with Va jravarāh¯ī. He should worship her, which means that he should do whatever is neces sary to satisfy her’. In his Kālacakra-influenced commentary on the Laghuśaṁ vara (Laghutantrat.īkā) Vajrapan¯ .i interprets kulikā more esoterically as referring to Va jravarāh¯ī as the non-conceptual central energy-channel: kulikāṁ pūjayen nityam iti | iha kulikā madhyamāvadhūtī vajravārāhī nirāvaraṇā grāhyagrāhakavarjitā (p. 59).

492 See the footnote on my emendation madhyamottamacchāgena on p. 212. [[216]]

means those nectarṣ493

Jayabhadra and Bhavabhat.t.a commenting on the same expression when it occurs in the Laghuśaṁ vara, where the second part of the sentence has emerged through further confusion as kulikāṁ pūjayet, impose quite different but equally arbitrary interpretations, which are based not on the text itself but, in the ab sence of evident meaning, on their own notions of what the text ought to be saying here. Thus Jayabhadra, who has the variant madhyamottamocchvāsena, makes madhyama- mean ‘vagina’, uttamocchvāsaḥ‘the placing of the tongue’, and gandhodakam ‘semen’, interpreting the sentence to mean that the adept should worship the Kulika, that is to say, his female consort identified with ¯ Vajravarāh¯ī, by placing his tongue (uttamocchvāsena) together with his semen (gandhodakasahitena) in her vagina (madhyama-).494

493 Kumaracandra, ¯ Herukābhyudayapa ñjikā, p. 156: madhyamottamaśvāsaḥ pa ñca pradīpāḥ| gandhodakaṁ pa ñcāmr̥tāni ‘The word madhyamottamaśvāsaḥ means the five ‘lights’; and gandhodakaṁ means the five nectars’. On the five lights and five nectars see, e.g., Vag¯īsvarak ´īrti, Tattvaratnāvalokavivaraṇ a 18: pa ñca pradīpaśabdena gokudahanalakṣaṇ asya amr̥taśabdena vimūmāraśulakṣaṇ asya satatānuṣt.hānam eva sādhyaṁ manyante ‘[The learned] hold that the expres sion pa ñcapradīpa- refers to the accomplished regular practice of the [five meats] of the cow (go-), dog (ku[kkura]-), horse (da[mya]-), elephant (ha[sti]-), and man (na[ra]-), and the expression amr̥ta- to that of excrement (vi[t.]-), urine (mū[tra]-), flesh (mā[ṁsa]-), blood (ra[kta]-), and semen (śu[kra]-)’. Cf. Jaya bhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 108:ādau tāvan manonukūle sthāne niṣadya pa ñcāmr̥takr̥tagulikāṁ mukhe kr̥tvā . . . ‘At the beginning [before he begins the Sadhana] he should sit in a place conducive to meditation, place a pellet of the ¯ five nectars in his mouth, . . . ’; Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 24: goku dahanānāṁ pa ñcāmr̥tasya ca vat.ikāṁ bhāvanārambhe bhakṣayet ‘At the begin ning of his meditation he should swallow a pellet consisting of [the flesh of] cow, dog, horse, elephant, and man, and the five nectars’; Sādhanamālā 251 (Advaya vajra, Saptākṣarasādhana), p. 490: yogī prātar utthāya samayagulikāṁ mukhe prakṣipya . . . ‘The meditator, having risen before sunrise and placed a Samaya pellet in his mouth . . . ’. The term samaya- in samayagulikā means the five nectars; see Bhavabhat.t.a, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā p. 18: samayapālanaṁsamayarakṣaṇ aṁ pa ñcāmr̥tabhakṣaṇ aṁ‘maintaining the samaya- means keeping the pledges [and] swallowing the five nectars’; Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 109: samayo dvividhaḥrakṣaṇīyo bhakṣaṇīyaś ca ‘The samayaḥis of two kinds: that which is to be maintained [i.e. the post-initiatory pledges] and that which is to be swallowed [i.e. the five nectars]’.

494 Jayabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 110 : madhye bhavatīti madhyamaḥ| padma ucyate | tasminn uttamocchvāso jihvāvinyāsaḥ| tena kiṁ bhūtena | gandho dakasahitena tu bodhicittasahitenaivety arthaḥ| kulikām iti tantre samayabhāṣā | vajravārāhīsvarūpāṁ bāhyāṅganām pūjayed iti | yathā saṁtoṣo jāyate tathā karaṇīyam ity arthaḥ‘The word madhyama-, meaning ‘that which is in the centre’, refers to the Lotus [i.e. the vagina]. The word uttamocchvāsaḥ means ‘the placing of the tongue’ [and madhyamottamocchvāsena is a locative Tatpuruṣa compound meaning ‘by the placing of (his) tongue] in that. The words gandhodakasahitena tu ‘together with the scented water’ describe that [placing of his tongue in her vagina] and mean that it should be together with [his] Intention to Attain Enlightenement

[[217]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

In Bhavabhat.t.a’s commentary we find an entirely different understanding. According to him madhyamottamaśvāsena gandhodakasahitena tu | kulikāṁ pūjayet means ‘he should worship the Yoginī with the place or time (-śvāsena) of fire (madhyama-) and earth (-uttama-) together with wind (gandha-) and water (udaka-)’. The purpose of this invention, which the Sanskrit entirely fails to support, is to find a reference (1) to the symbols of the four elements as constituting the thrones of the various groups of Yoginīs in the Maṇ ḍ ala and (2) to various time periods considered to be governed by these elements as the occa sions for the successful performance of rituals for hostile purposes (abhicāraḥ), re-invigoration (pauṣt.ikam), expulsion (uccāt.anam), and the averting of danger (śāntikam) respectively. That Bhavabhat.t.a has decided what he would like to find here and then imposed it is clear from the extreme artificiality of the glosses that bend the text to his will: ‘the intermediate’ (madhyama-) is fire (vahniḥ) because it is falls in the middle of the list of the four elements (actually in the penultimate position); the ‘highest’ (-uttama-) is that of Mahendra, the presiding deity of the symbol of earth (pr̥thivī), because he is the king of the gods; gandhaḥ means not ‘fragrance’, its lexical meaning, but ‘that which possesses fragrance’, namely the wind (vāyuḥ), since that is the bearer of fragrance; udaka- is not udakam ‘water’ but an unattested udakaḥ meaning Varuṇ a, literally ‘he who possesses the waters’, since Varuṇ a is the presiding deity of the symbol of water (udakam); and śvāsaḥ means not ‘breath’ but ‘that in which X breathes’, that is to say, by an entirely unwarranted leap, the locus or time of X’s operatioṇ495

[i.e. his semen]. The word kulikā is a term specific to the esoteric jargon of this Tantra. It denotes the physical woman [as] identical with Vajravarāh¯ī. By saying that one should ‘worship’ her the text means that one must do what is necessary to satisfy her’.

495 Bhavabhadra, Cakrasaṁ varapa ñjikā, p. 20: madhyama uttamaḥśvasity asminn aneneti vā | śvāsaḥsthānaṁ kālo vā | madhyamo vahniḥ pr̥thivyaptejovāyava iti vacanena madhyodbhavatvāt | †madhyodbhūtatve ’py upāyagrahaṇ aṁ yatas tāṁ vakṣyati† | uttamo māhendro devarājatvāt | madhyamottamayoḥśvāsaḥsthānaṁ kālo vety arthaḥ| tena kulikāṁ pūjayed iti saṁ bandhaḥ| kiṁ bhūtenetyāha gandhe tyādi | gandho ’syāstīti gandho gandhavāhatvād vāyuḥ| udakam asyāstīty udako varuṇ aḥ| tayoḥsthānena sahito gandhodakasahita iti madhyapadalopī samāsaḥ ghr̥tapūrṇ o ghat.o ghr̥taghat.o yathā ‘The term śvāsaḥis to be understood here to be derived from the root śvas ‘to breath’ in the meaning ‘that in which X breathes’, X in this case being madhyamaḥ and uttamaḥ. The śvāsaḥ, then, is the locus of these or their time-perioḍ The madhyamaḥ‘intermediate’ is ‘fire’, because it arises in the middle, in accordance with the text ‘earth, water, fire, and wind’; and the uttamaḥ ‘highest’ is the [symbol] of Mahendra[, the presiding deity of the earth symbol], be cause he is the king of the godṣSo the meaning of madhyamottamaśvāsaḥis ‘the locus or time of the madhyamaḥ and the uttamaḥ’. With this he should worship the Kulika. Such is the core syntax. The compound beginning ¯ gandha- describes this śvāsaḥfurther as ‘accompanied by gandha- and udaka-’, meaning ‘together with the locus of these [other] two (gandhodakasthana ¯ sahitaḥ). This is a com-

[[218]]

Since these confused and barely comprehensible verses are found in the opening chapter of the Laghuśaṁ vara the redactor has made a greater effort than usual to assimilate them to their new Buddhist milieu. But he has not done this by rewriting them in such a way that Buddhists would recognize and understand them as formulated within their own established discourse. His ap proach is rather that of montage or bricolage, in which bits and pieces of various texts have been clumsily combineḍ Instead of rewriting the verses he has sand wiched them between others derived from well-known Buddhist sourceṣThus the opening verses of the work (1.1–3), which immediately precede this pas sage, are a version of the opening of the Buddhist Sarvabuddhasamāyoga;496 and the verses (1.7c–13b) that follow it contain awkwardly collocated variants of verses found in that text and the Buddhist Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha and Guhyasamāja.497

But this attempt to lend the compilation a Buddhist character by embedding the passage from the Śaiva Vidyāp¯īt.ha between verses that Buddhist Tantrics would immediately recognize as Buddhist is mostly restricted to this first sec tioṇ The rest of the work up to the point at which the redaction known to Jaya

pound of the type in which an intermediate word is dropped, as when one says ‘a pot of ghee’ (ghr̥taghat.aḥ) when what one means is ‘a pot full of ghee’. The other two are gandhaḥ and udakaḥ. The first is a primary derivative of gandhaḥ‘fra grance’ in the meaning ‘that which has fragrance’ and refers to the wind, because that is the bearer of fragrance. The second is [likewise] a primary derivative of udakam ‘water’ in the meaning ‘that which has water’, i.e. Varuṇ a[, the God of Wa ter]’. The application of this explanation then followṣOne is instructed to meditate on the Yoginīs one by one in a fixed order of rotation tied to the passage of time. Thus on the first Tithi of the lunar fortnight one meditates on the first eight Yo ginīs during the day-time, each for one eighth of the day, the second eight during the eight half Praharas of the night, the third eight during the day of the second Tithi, the fourth eight during the night, and so oṇ Bhavabhat.t.a explains there that the three eights that make up the 24 Yoginīs associated with the sacred sites must have the symbols of fire, water, and earth as their thrones (pp. 21–22: devīnāmāsanaṁ vahnimaṇ ḍ alam iti dinabhāgaḥ; devīnāmāsanaṁ vāruṇ amaṇ ḍ alam iti rātribhāgaḥ; devīnāṁ māhendramaṇ ḍ alamāsanam iti dinabhāgaḥ). This, evi dently, is what he means by śvāsaḥin the sense of ‘place’. He explains its sec ond meaning as ‘time’ in the following: agnyādiyogo ’py abhicārādau tathaiva j ñeyaḥ| yathābhicāre cittacakrasya vahnikṣaṇe śāntike vākcakrasya varuṇ akṣaṇe pauṣt.ike kāyacakrasya māhendrakṣaṇe uccāt.ane śmaśānacakrasya vāyukṣaṇe yo ginīnām anyatamā bhāvyā ‘This application of fire and the others should also be understood in the case of hostile rites and the like. Thus in a hostile rite one should meditate on one of the Yoginīs of the Circuit of Mind (the first eight) at a fire mo ment, on one of those of the Circuit of Speech (the second eight) at a Varuṇ a moment in a rite to avert danger, on one of those of the Circuit of the Body (the third eight) at a Mahendra moment in a rite of re-invigoration, and on one of those of the Circuit of ¯ the Cremation Grounds (the fourth eight) at a wind moment in a rite of expulsion’. 496 See here p. 154.

497 See here p. 163, parallels 1, 5, and 6.

[[219]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

bhadra and Bhavyakīrti ends consists almost entirely of (1) sections for which I have found close Śaiva parallels, (2) sections for which I have not found such ´ parallels but which are of the same type, and (3) sections devoted to giving the MantraṣThese, of course, have not been lifted directly from Śaiva sources, be- ´ cause the Mantras so taught are peculiar to this and related TantraṣHowever, the Mantras themselves are Śaiva in style; and the method of teaching them by ´

giving them letter by letter in encoded form (mantroddhāraḥ) has been adopted in imitation of Śaiva scriptural practice, appearing first, as we have seen, in the ´

Sarvakalpasamuccaya that supplements the proto-Yoginītantra Sarvabuddha samāyoga.498 In the light of this one readily understands why the redactor of the version known to Bhavabhat.t.a and the other later commentators and seen in the one accessible manuscript and the Tibetan translation felt the need to add explicitly Buddhist material at the end of the work, thus accomplishing for the whole an unambiguously Buddhist frame, which in the earlier redaction had been present only in the first chapter̥499

CONVERTING THE OUTSIDERS. The textual dependence of these Buddhist

Yoginītantras on the scriptural corpus of the Vidyap¯īt.ha would surely have been obvious to any learned S´ akta ¯ Śaiva who examined them; and there is evidence ´ that it was indeed noticeḍ We do not find this evidence in the Tantric Śaiva ´ literature, since the only historical data that intrude there are the spiritual ge nealogies of its teacherṣFor the rest it is concerned purely with what it sees as the timeless realities of fact and injunction, and it is interested in relations between its own and other traditions only to the extent that it establishes a hi erarchy among these traditions by ranking their various goals along an ascent that culminates in its owṇ If awareness of this textual dependence was to find expression in Śaiva literature then it could only be in the distorting mirror of ´ mythology, where the specifics of the tensions between sects could be translated

498 See here p. 154.

499 The special character of the added, 51st chapter is indicated in the spiritual biogra phy (rnam thar) of Tilopa ascribed to Marpa (Mar pa chos kyi blo gros). For there ¯ the Jn˜anad ¯ . akin ¯ī and her retinue are said to have taught it to Tilopa together with ¯ the oral transmission (TORRICELLI and NAGA 1995, p. 12): gsungs nas rtsa rgyud le’u nga gcig pa bshad rgyud dang bcas pa dang snyan rgyud gnang ngo. The ex tended Tantra was already current when at least some of the Vyakhy ātantras were ¯ redacteḍ The Adhidhānottara contains 50.20c–51.12b. It is possible that the text was extended first only to this point. Parts of the 50th chapter after this point are seen in the Saṁ put.odbhava: 50.21–23b and 24ab > Saṁ put.odbhava 5.1.16–19b; and 50.25 > Saṁ put.odbhava 5.1.19cḍ Verses from the remainder of the longer text, from 51.12c to the end, are found in the Yoginīsaṁcāra and the Saṁ varodaya: 51.7ab > Yoginīsaṁcāra 17.10ab; 51.13c–16b > Yoginīsaṁcāra 17.21c-24b; 51.18–19 > Saṁ varodaya 32.29c–30b; and 51.21d > Saṁ varodaya 32.31ḍ

[[220]]

into accounts of the interaction of the gods with demons and meṇ Thus we find our evidence in a variant of the famous narrative of Siva’s burning of the celestial ´

cities of the three demons (tripuradahanam) given in the Haracaritacintāmaṇi, a collection of Śaiva myths for the instruction of the laity compiled in the thir- ´ teenth century by the Kashmirian S´ akta ¯ Śaiva Jayadratha. ´ 500

According to that account Br̥haspati, the ingenious Guru of the gods, puts an end to the invincibility of these demons, the reward of their devotion to Siva, ´ by fooling them into abandoning the worship of that deity. He composes and in troduces to them various texts for the visualization of Buddhist deities in which Siva and other ´ Śaiva deities are portrayed as their inferiorṣThen, once they ´ have become used to these, he adds Mantras by adapting those of the Śaiva ´ Tantras and composes passages giving instruction in Tantric ritual procedures by cobbling together various excerpts from the same sourceṣFinally, he com poses Buddhist treatises which supplement this Tantric corpus with reasoned arguments designed to undermine the demons’ commitment to their rites and belief in God:501

500 Jayadratha was the brother of Jayaratha, author of the Tantrālokaviveka, on whose date see SANDERSON 2007a, pp. 418–419. That Jayadratha shared his brother’s S´ akta ¯ Śaiva adherence, in keeping with the family’s long-established tradition, is ´ evident throughout his work, but particularly in the opening verses of each chap ter, in which he gives a metaphysical reading of the myth that followṣThus in 13.1, introducing this narrative of the destruction of the three cities, whose point is to glorify the Kashmirian sacred site of the volcanic fire-Linga ( ˙ jvālāliṅgam) at Suyam (Svayambhu) (on which see S ¯ TEIN 1900, vol. 2, pp. 484–485), he equates the three cities with the cognizer, cognition, and the cognized differentiated in contracted consciousness, and the fire that destroys them with the all-inclusive nonduality whose emergence bestows liberation: etad vedakavedyavedanamayaṁ dagdhvā purāṇāṁtrayaṁ pūrṇādvairahutāśanena śamayan māyāmayopadravam | jvālāliṅgatayā *sphura ñ (A : sphuraj Eḍ) jagadanugrāhī svayambhūr asau devaḥ saṁ prati bhāsatāṁ mama parām ullāsayan nirvr̥tim ‘May that god Svayambhu¯ blaze forth for me now, revealing the highest bliss, he who has favoured the world by manifesting himself as the fire-Linga after burning these three cities that are ˙ the cognizer, the cognized, and cognition, putting an end to the torment of bound existence with the fire of all-inclusive nonduality’. This is exactly in the conceptual mode of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva nondualism of Kashmir̥ ´

501 Haracaritacintāmaṇi 13.61–83: ripūṇāṁ bhagavadbhaktir vijaye mūlakāraṇ am | sā śaithilyam avāpnoti kena yatnena cintyatām k 62 tatrābhyupāyaḥ prāyeṇ a kaścit saṁcintito mayā | śukrasya saṁ nidhāne tu kathaṁ kāraṁ pragalbhate k 63 teṣāṁ hitaṁ *prāpayituṁ(conj. : prārthayituṁ Codḍ Eḍ) śukra eva dine dine | bhagavadbhaktidārḍ hyāya prayatnam adhitiṣt.hati k 64 svayaṁ yady api *te (Codḍ : ye Eḍ) bhaktās tathāpy aiśvaryagarvitāḥ| mitapraj ñāś ca yojyante helayaiva viparyaye k 65 ity uktavān mahendreṇ a *pr̥cchyate (Apc: pr̥cchate Eḍ AacBC) sma sa kautukāt | bhagavan brūhi tāṁ yuktiṁteṣāṁliṅgārcanāpahām k 66 śrutveti so ’bravīt paśya prāyaḥsarve ’pi sarvadā | uttarottaram utkarṣaṁ j ñātvā rajyanti jantavaḥk 67 tadīśvarād r̥te ko ’tra sarveṣāṁ mūrdhani sthitaḥ | svavikalpena tasyāpi kaścidūrdhvastha ucyate k 68 evaṁ māyāmayaṁteṣāṁ varṇ yate svopakalpitam | śāstraṁca darśyate kiṁcil likhitvā nijayā dhiyā k

[[221]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

[Br̥haspati:] “The root cause of the victory of our enemies is their devotion to Siva. ´ We must think carefully what will cause that to fade. I have already thought in general terms of a means of accomplishing that. But how[, I wonder,] will it suc ceed while [their Guru] Sukra is with them? For he exerts himself day after day ´ to strengthen their devotion to the Lord in order to *secure (conj.) their welfare. [But] although they are genuinely devoted [to Siva] they are proud of their powerānd of low intelligence. It should therefore be easy to lead them astray”. When he had said this Indra eagerly asked him to explain the stratagem that would put an end to their worship of the Linga. Having heard this he replied and said: “Beholḍ ˙ All persons usually assign their devotion on the basis of their understanding of an ascending hierarchy. Who but Siva is at the summit [of this hierarchy], surpass- ´ ing all [others]? Nonetheless I shall use my imagination and tell [them] that there is a being above even hiṁ In this way I shall give them false instruction of my own inventioṇ I shall also use my wits to compose and show them some learned writing [in support of my teaching]. I shall deceitfully write visualization-texts of deities in relation to whom this Siva will be placed in a position of inferiority,ānd I shall tell them that these show that there is another being who is greater even than him, so that they may give up their worship of the Linga and so be de- ˙ stroyeḍ However, these false teachings will have no effect while Sukra is present. ´

69 dhyānāni devatānāṁca likhyante tāni kaitavāt | yāsāṁ maheśvaro py eṣa nyagbhāvena *niveśyate (Codḍ : nyaveśyate Eḍ) k 70 evaṁ maheśvarād anya utkr̥ṣt.a iti kathyate | teṣāṁ yato bhavel liṅgapūjāśaithilyataḥ *kṣatiḥ(Eḍ : kṣitiḥ A : matiḥ BC) k 71 śukrasya saṁ nidhāne tu prathante na kaduktayaḥ | *sa pratītyopapattyā (A : sapratīpopapattyā Eḍ BC) ca paramārthaviśāradaḥ k 72 ity uktavānāṅgiraso vāsavena sagauravam | abhyarthyate sma sā yuk tir akhaṇ ḍā kathyatām iti k 73 uvāca sa tataḥ *śakram (A : śukram Eḍ BC)ākalayya br̥haspatiḥ| bhavato bhagavalliṅgavaimukhye naucitī kvacit k 74 eṣām upaplāvayituṁ *matiṁ(BC : bhaktim A : satyam Eḍ) eṣa mama kramaḥ| buddherāgatam ity etad darśanaṁ bauddham ucyate k 75 buddhaḥ prasiddhas tatraikaḥ *saṁ kalpyeta (Codḍ : saṁ kalpeta Eḍ) *sureśvaraḥ(Eḍ AC : sureśvara B) | dhyāne yacchatradhartr̥tve likhyante kāraṇāny api k 76 gaṇ apatyādayo ye ca śaivā atyuttamāḥsthitāḥ| teṣāṁ mūrdhani likhyante devā bauddhā *amī iti (Codḍ : amīti ca Eḍ) k 77 mithyopakalpitāny evaṁ dhyānānyālokya dānavāḥ| śivād utkarṣavanto ’mī iti *muhyanty asaṁśayam (AB Eḍ : muhyanti saṁśayam C). 78 evaṁ dhyāneṣu siddheṣu prasiddhiṁ *lambhiteṣu (A Eḍ : lambiteṣu BC) ca | śaivatantrānuvādena mantrān api niyojaye k 79 uddhr̥tya śivaśāstrebhyaḥ khaṇ ḍān khaṇ ḍān niyojaye | mantratantrādikaṁ kr̥tyaṁ yat kiṁcic copakalpi tam k 80 bandhamokṣavyavasthāyāṁśāstraṁ yac ca viracyate | tatra *tīvrataraḥ praj ñāprakarṣaḥ(tīvrataraḥ Codḍ : tīvratara Eḍ) *paripoṣakaḥ(Codḍ : pari toṣakaḥ Eḍ) k 81 liṅgārcanādikas tatra bandhas tāvan nigadyate | muktis tu śūnyataiva syād itikartavyahāriṇī k 82 yaj ñādikā kriyā *yeyaṁ(A : seyaṁ Eḍ BC) sā tatra pratihanyate |ātmā nāstīti saṁcintya dūṣyate parameśvaraḥk 83 evaṁ vidhaṁ mayā śāstraṁ viracayya puraṁ dara | hr̥di *praveśya (conj. : praviśya Codḍ Eḍ) bhagavadbhaktis teṣāṁ vihanyate k 84 *śukrasyāsaṁ nidhānaṁ(Codḍ : śukrasya saṁ nidhānaṁ Eḍ) tu tatra siddhyai *pratīkṣyate (Codḍ : pratīkṣate Eḍ).

[[222]]

[For] he, through intuition and reason, is fully conversant with ultimate reality”. Thus said the Atharvavedic priest [of the gods]. Then Indra respectfully asked him to explain the stratagem more fully. After some reflection Br̥haspati said to Indra: “It is entirely inappropriate that it should be you that has to divert [these demons] from the worship of Siva’s Li ´ nga. [So I shall take on this task myself.] ˙ My way of destroying their understanding will be thiṣI shall call this teaching Buddhist, [appropriately enough] since it will be born of [nothing more than] my intellect (buddhiḥ). The well-known Buddha will be conceived therein as the sole lord of the godṣEven the greatest deities will be portrayed as his chowry-bearerṣ

Gods that I shall call Buddhist will be depicted positioned on top of Gaṇ apati and others of the highest Śaiva deitieṣWhen the demons see these falsely conceived ´

visualization-texts they will certainly make the mistake of thinking that these gods are greater than Siva. Once these texts have been established and I haveāccustomed the demons to them I shall introduce Mantras modelled on [those of] the Śaiva Tantras ( ´śaivatantrānuvādena) and by redacting various passages from these same scriptures (uddhr̥tya śivaśāstrebhyaḥ khaṇ ḍān khaṇ ḍān) I shall add a worthless, concocted system of [Tantric] observances involving Mantras, ritual, and the rest. The learned [Buddhist] literature that I shall compose to define bondage and liberation will be nourished by higher reasoning of an exceptional degree of rigour̥ It will explain, of course, that of these two bondage includes such activities as worshipping the Linga; and liberation will be [defined as] a voidness ˙ [of self] that [once accepted] will subvert [their commitment to their] religious dutieṣTheir sacrifices and other rituals will be opposed there; and coming to be lieve [though this teaching] that there is no soul they will denigrate Siva himself ´ [for teaching otherwise]. Indra, when I have composed learned teachings of this kind I shall insinuate them into their hearts and so put an end to their devotion to Siva. For the plan to succeed we have only to wait untilśukra is absent”. ´

Br̥haspati’s plan workṣThe demons’ Śaiva Guru leaves for a year to attend aśacrifice. Br̥haspati takes on his appearance and thus disguised sets about con verting them to Tantric Buddhisṁ They become so anti-Śaiva that they can no ´ longer bear even to mention the Sivali ´ nga, let alone worship it, ˙502 thus making it possible for Siva to destroy theṁ ´

Evidently the Buddhist Tantric scriptures that Br̥haspati is represented here as having concocted are the Yoginītantras as typified by the Laghuśaṁ vara and its satellites;503 and the fact that this understanding of the nature of the

502 Haracaritacintāmaṇi 13.127c–128b: *tataḥ prabhr̥ti (A : tadāprabhr̥ti Eḍ B) te daityāḥśivabhaktiparāṅmukhāḥ| asahanta na liṅgasya nāmāpi kim utārcanaṁ 503 That this is the Buddhism envisaged here is in keeping with another anti-Buddhist myth in this collection (Haracaritacintāmaṇi, chapter 17 and SANDERSON 1995b, p. 94 for a summary). For there the adherents of Buddhism are said to be led by three demons: Heruka, Sam ´. vara (the two Vajraḍ akas), and ¯ Adibuddha (K ālacakra). ¯

[[223]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

genesis of these texts appears in a work of this kind suggests that it was com

mon knowledge. For the Haracaritacintāmaṇi, being concerned with the cults of Siva at sacred sites, is not addressed to the narrow community of the initiated ´ but to the widest possible audience for a Śaiva text in Sanskrit, that is to say, ´ the uninitiated Śaiva laity. Nor can this text be seen in spite of this as reflecting ´ the knowledge of a learned minority at the time of its compositioṇ For between the opening and closing verses of each chapter the text is written in a rather unpolished style that is so similar to that of the anonymous Puran¯ .ic tracts in praise of sacred sites that it should not be seen as a composition in the full sense of that term but rather as a compilation in which Jayadratha has lightly edited pre-existent materials of this popular genre.504

The redactional relation between the Yoginītantras and Śaiva Tantras of the ´ Vidyap¯īt.ha may not, of course, have been so obvious to learned Buddhists once these texts had been propagated and the work of commentary undertaken, let

17.4: māyāśambariko nāmnā herukākhyaś ca dāruṇ aḥ|ādibuddhābhidhānaś cety asurās trayaāsate; 17.9: vajraḍākāv iti khyātau tadā herukaśambarau |ādibuddhena sahitau surāṇāṁcakratur bhayaṁ Heruka here is evidently Heva jra, since he is described as eight-headed, four-legged, sixteen-armed, and em braced by Nairatmy ā (17.5). He leads the Buddhists in their war against the godṣ¯ He is surrounded by an army of Madhyamikas ( ¯ madhyamanāmānaḥ), followers of the Mantranaya (mantranayātmakāḥ), bhramamohātmakāḥ, mithyāj ñānātmakāḥ, Sr´ avakas ( ¯ śrāvakātmānaḥ), and Buddhas copulating with their consorts (17.7–8). The meaning of the terms bhramamohātmakāḥ and mithyāj ñānātmakāḥis not immediately obviouṣSince it is clear from the context that they refer to dis tinct groups among the Buddhists (bhramamohātmakāḥ kecin mithyāj ñānātmakāḥ pare) I take them to mean ‘those who are devoted to the delusion of [the ob jective existence of] non-objective cognitions’) and ‘those who are devoted to the view that [belief in this reality of] cognitions [containing the appearance of their objects] is false’, understanding these expressions to refer to the two kinds of Yogacāras, those who hold mind-only with form and mind-only with- ¯ out form respectively to be ultimately real, that is to say Sakāravij ¯ n˜ anav ādins ānd Nirakāravij ¯ n˜anav ādinṣClassifying Mah āyāna Buddhists into M ādhyamikas ānd these two kinds of Yogacāras and the classification of all these into those ¯ who follow the Mantranaya and those who do not, that is to say, those who follow the non-Tantric Paramit ānaya, is a commonplace in the doxographical ¯ tradition of late Indian Buddhism; see, e.g., Advayavajra, Tattvaratnāvalī, pp. 4–8; Sahajavajra, Sthitisamāsa ff. 4v1–6r2 (nirākārayogācārasthitisamāsaḥ), ff. 6r2–7r1 (sākārayogācārasthitisamāsaḥ), ff. 7r1–11r3 (madhyamāsthitisamāsaḥ), and ff. 11r3–18v5 (Mantranaya); Vag¯īsvarak ´īrti, Tattvaratnāvalokavivaraṇ a, pp. 141–142 (mantranaye ca vij ñānavādamadhyamakamatayor eva pradhānatvāt . . . ); Mokṣakaragupta, ¯ Tarkabhāṣā, pp. 107–110; and KAJIYAMA 1998, pp. 148–151, 154–158.

504 Consider Jayadratha’s own statement at the beginning of the work (1.5): deśe śrīvijayeśasya nivasan preraṇāt tayoḥ| caritrāṇi trinetrasya śāstradr̥ṣt.āni gumphaye ‘While living in the land of Siva Vijayeśvara I shall string together the ´ deeds of the Three-Eyed [God] as I have seen them in the sacred texts, at the insti gation of these two [teachers]’.

[[224]]

alone to the ordinary lay devotee of the Buddha. But the iconographical reper toire, the retinue types, the style of worship and Kapālika observance, and the ¯ growing autonomy and diversification of the goddess, are so closely parallel to what we see among the S´ akta ¯ Śaivas that it is hard to believe that any Indian, ´ learned or not, could have seen these deities and observed the practices of those

that propitiated them without being aware of this fact.

This must have been especially so in east India. For the S´ akta tradition was ¯ particularly strong there, as it still is, and had deep roots in the domain of pop ular religion, as is evident from such Puran¯ . as of the region as the Devīpurāṇ a, Br̥hannāradīyapurāṇ a, Br̥haddharmapurāṇ a, and Kālikāpurāṇ a,505 from non eastern testimony,506 from the fact that east-Indian locations are conspicuous in early lists of the S´ akta sacred sites, ¯507 and from the inscriptions and other his

505 See CHAKRABARTI 2001 passiṁ The Devīpurāṇ a (39.143–145) lists places where the Mother goddesses are especially present. In this list are Varendra, Rad¯ .ha,ānd Kamar ¯ upa: ¯ veśyāsu gopabālāsu tuḍ ahūṇ akhaseṣu ca | pīt.he himavataś *cālpa (?) *jālandhare (corr̥ : jālandhara Eḍ) savaidiśe k *mahodare (?) varendre ca rāḍ hāyāṁ kośale pure | bhot.t.adeśe sakāmākhye *kiṣkindhe (corr̥ : kiṣkindhye) ca nagottame k malaye *kollanāme (conj. : kolunāme Eḍ) ca kā ñcyāṁca hastināpure | ujjayinyāṁca tā vidyā viśeṣeṇ a vyavasthitāḥ‘Those Vidyas are especially present āmong courtesans, cowherd girls, Tud¯ . as (?), Hun¯ . as, and Khasas, in the sacred site of Himalaya . . . (?), in J ālandhara, Vidi ¯ s´a, *Mahodara (?), Varendra, R ād¯ .ha,¯ the capital of Kosala, Tibet, Kamar ¯ upa, the great mountain of Kis ¯ .kindha, Malaya, ¯ *Kolla[giri] (conj.), Ka¯nc˜ī, Hastinapura, and Ujjayin ¯ī’.

506 A verse in a Puran¯ .ic passage on the calendrical festivals of Kashmir cited by Lakṣmīdhara early in the twelfth century in the Niyatakālakāṇ ḍ a of his Kr̥tyakalpataru (p. 410, ll. 4–5) associates the sanguinary cult of Durga/Bhadrak āl¯ī with the peoples of Bengal and Orissa (Anga, Va ˙ nga, and Kali ˙ nga), the Kinnaras, ˙ the Barbaras, and the Sakas: ´ evaṁ nānāmlecchagaṇ aiḥ pūjyate sarvadasyubhiḥ| aṅgavaṅgakaliṅgaiś ca kiṁ narair barbaraiḥśakaiḥ‘She is worshipped in this way by various foreign communities, by all the Dasyus: the people of Anga, Va ˙ nga, and ˙ Kalinga, the Kinnaras, the Barbaras, and the ˙ Sakas’. In this list only the people ´ of Anga, Va ˙ nga, and Kali ˙ nga and the Iranian ˙ Sakas (if this reading is sound) are ´ well-knowṇ As for the Kinnaras and Barbaras, Varahamihira locates the former, ¯ under the synonym Asvavadana, in the east ( ´ Br̥hatsaṁ hitā 14.6ab: khasamagadha- śibiragirimithilasamatat.oḍrāśvavadanadanturakāḥ), and the latter in the south west (14.18c).

507 See SANDERSON 2001, p. 7, fn. 4. This is particularly clear in the case of the eight principal sites among the twenty-four: the eight Kṣetras, namely At.t.ahasa, ¯ Caritra, Kolagiri, Jayant ¯ī, Ujjayinī, Prayaga, Varan ¯ . a/Vārān¯ . asī, and Kot.ivarṣa (see here p. 195), or, in a variant, Prayaga, Varan ¯ . a/Vārān¯ . asī, Kollagiri, At.t.ahasa, ¯ Jayantī, Caritra, Ekamra, and Dev ¯īkot.a (see, e.g., citation of the Mādhavakula in Tantrālokaviveka on 29.67; Kularatnoddyota f. 13r3–4: prayāgā varuṇā kollā at.t.ahāsā jayantikā | caritraikāmrakaṁcaiva *devikot.t.aṁ[corr̥ : devikoṣt.haṁ Coḍ] tathāṣt.amam). At.t.ahasa, Kot ¯ .ivarṣa/Devīkot.a, Caritra, and Ekamra are all in east- ¯ ern India, the first two in Bengal and the last two in Orissa. The location of Jayantī is uncertaiṇ It too is east-Indian if it is the Jayantīpura in the Ganjam District of Orissa rather than that in Karṇ at¯ .aka (Banavasi). Other east-Indian sites among the twenty-four are Viraja (Jajpur in Orissa), Nagara (Pat¯ .aliputra, in

[[225]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

torical records of this perioḍ Thus when Devapala is eulogized in an inscription ¯ of his son Mahendrapala it is for two achievements: his martial success and, as ¯ we have seen, his building of two exceptional temples, one of the Buddha and the other of the Śaiva Goddess;ś´ akta ¯ Śaiva deities figure strongly, as we have seen, ´ in the various pious works of Nayapala detailed in the Siy ān inscription: several ¯ Vaḍ abhī temples for goddesses, one of them for a hill-top Carcika installed by his ¯ predecessor Mahendrapala, temples for the Nine Durg ās, and temples for the ¯ [Bhairava] Hetukesvara and a Bhairava accompanied by a retinue of sixty-four ´ Mothers;508 and Madanapala, the patron of Sam ¯ . dhyakaranandin, is described in ¯ that poet’s Rāmacarita as having attained his success in war through the favour of Caṇ ḍī.509 Even the Saiddhantika Pra ¯ sasti from Bān¯ . garh has a S´ akta context, ¯ its immediate purpose being to report the building by the Rajaguru M ¯ urti ¯ siva ofā Vaḍ abhī temple for Carcika. ¯510

[Murti ¯ siva], being devoted to pious works, has constructed this Vad ´ . abhī temple which seems to embody his two halves miraculously transformed in a mountain of snow and a mountain of golḍ I fancy that Indra’s elephant, now that he can see the wondrous reflection of the lions [on its roof] in the waters of the heavenly Ganges, will recoil [in fear] and no longer drink its waterṣ

That the temple is described as a Vaḍ abhī surmounted by lions establishes that it is a temple of a goddesṣ511 The inscription does not state explicitly that this goddess is a Carcika: it did not need to do so since the inscription was not doubt ¯ in situ. But we can infer that she was from the fact that the inscription begins with obeisance to her followed by two benedictory verses in her praise:512

Bihar), and Puṇ ḍravardhana (in Bengal) among the eight Saṁ dohas or Upakṣetras (Niśisaṁcāra f. 15v1 [3.26]; Kubjikāmata 22.32–38), and Pr̥ṣt.hapura (Pis ¯ .t.apura in ¯ Kalinga, in the East Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh), and R ˙ ajagr ¯ .ha (in Bi har) among the eight Upakṣetras or Saṁ dohas (Niśisaṁcāra f. 15v3–4 [3.29]; Kub jikāmata 39–46). We see the same emphasis on the east of India in the scheme of nine sacred sites (three Pīt.has, three, Upapīt.has, and three Saṁ dohas) taught in the Niśisaṁcāra. In the version of that text known to Abhinavagupta and his com mentator Jayaratha the three Pīt.has are Kamar ¯ upa (Assam), P ¯ urn ¯ . agiri (in the Dec can), and Uḍ ḍiyana (Swat). The Upap ¯īt.has and Saṁ dohas are Puṇ ḍravardhana, Varendra, Ek āmra, Dev ¯īkot.a (all four in eastern India), Ujjayinī, and Kollagiri; see Tantrāloka 15.83c–88.

508 For Nayapala’s foundations see here pp. 111–114. ¯

509 Saṁ dhyakaranandin, ¯ Rāmacarita 4.21: caṇ ḍīcaraṇ asarojaprasādasaṁ panna vigrahaśrīkam | na khalu madanaṁsāṅgeśamīśam agāj jagadvijayaśrīḥ‘Did not the glory of world-conquest come to King Madana when, with the king of Anga, he ˙ had achieved success in battle by the favour of the lotus-like feet of Caṇ ḍī?’

510 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 25: teneyaṁ himakā ñcanācalamahākautūhalāveśitasvīyārdhā rdhavapuṣmatīva vaḍ abhī puṇ yātmanā nirmitā | yatsiṁ hapratibimvam ambara dhunītoyeṣu manye ’dbhutaṁ dr̥ṣt.vā saṁ kucadaṅghrir adya na jalāny airāvataḥ *pāsyati (eṁ : paśyati Ep.).

511 See here p. 112.

512 om namaś carcikāyai k surāsuraśiraḥśreṇipat.avāsasamā jagat | pāntu viśvakr̥tā- [[226]]

Obeisance to Carcika.¯

May the world be protected by the dust from the feet of Carcika, worshipped by ¯ the creator of the universe, fragrant powder for the heads of all the gods and demonṣ

May Carcika protect the world, who at the aeon’s end, garlanded with human ¯ skulls, with her body becoming desiccated out of anxiety at the poverty of her fare, thinks: “What shall I eat? If I devour this universe in a single bite, it will be no more than a fragment that will lodge between my teetḥ What shall I drink? The water of [all] the seven oceans is insufficient to be visible in the hollow of my palṁ513

That a Saiddhantika Guru should have built a temple for a fearsome goddess ¯ of this kind is compelling evidence of the strength of S´ aktism in the P āla realṁ ¯ For there is nothing in the Siddhanta itself to prompt such a construction, that ¯ tradition generally marking itself off from the cults of such deities with their gruesome iconography and their ecstatic and transgressive riteṣ

Indeed, as this anomalous foundation suggests, the cult of the emaciated Carcika seems to have been particularly well-established in the regioṇ There āre numerous surviving images of this goddess at or from sites in Bihar, West Bengal, Bangladesh, and Orissa, dating from the ninth century to the four teenth;514 she figures prominently in the east-Indian S´ akta ¯ Devīpurāṇ a;515 and

bhyarcāś carcācaraṇ areṇ avaḥk daṁṣt.rāsaṁ dhinilīnam ekakavalam viśvaṁtad aśnāmi kiṁsaptāmbhodhijalāni hastasuṣire guptāni kim pīyate | ityāhāradaridra tākulatayā śuṣyattanum bibhratī kalpānte nr̥ kapālamaṇ ḍ anavidhiḥ pāyāj jagac carcikā.

513 With these verses compare those of the east-Indian poets Bhasoka and ¯ Umapatidhara in the anthology ¯ Saduktikarṇāmr̥ta (vv. 126 and 129), compiled by the east-Indian Sr´īdharadasa in 1205 under Laks ¯ .maṇ asena. Bhasoka’s being ¯ east-Indian is evident from his name in -oka; see the many names of this kind in the east-Indian anthologies Subhāṣitaratnakoṣa, and Saduktikarṇāmr̥ta, Amr̥toka, Sangok ˙ a, Ucchoka in the inscriptions of Bengal (N.G. M ¯ AJUMDAR 2003, pp. 179, 27, 37, 178), and Dibboka and Rudoka in the commentary on Rāmacarita 1.39. Umapatidhara composed the Deop ārā inscription of the Sena king Vijayasena (r̥ ¯ c. 1096–1159) and is reported in Merutunga’s ˙ Prabandhacintāmaṇi to have been a minister of the Sena Lakṣmaṇ asena (r̥ c. 1179–1206); see N.G. MAJUMDAR 2003, p. 45.

514 See Camunda (Camun ¯ . ḍ a) in the ¯ Huntington Archive. For Orissa see also DONALD SON 1991.

515 See in particular Devīpurāṇ a, Patalas 7 and 9 (> Agnipurāṇ a 135) on Camun ¯ . ḍ a’s ¯ Padamalāmantra. In that Mantra C āmun ¯ . ḍ a is described as having her body clothed ¯ with an elephant hide (gajacarmaprāvr̥taśarīre). This feature, which was borrowed from the iconography of Siva not only by Cāmun ¯ . ḍ a but also, as we have seen, by ¯ Cakrasaṁ vara and Vajravarāh¯ī, is found in most of her east-Indian imageṣSee Huntington Archive, Scans 0058416 (Bangladesh), 0006042 (Itahar, North Dina jpur District, West Bengal), 0013693 (findspot not recorded), 0013697 (findspot not recorded), 0002686 (Harsinghpur, Darbhanga, Bihar), 0000308 (West Bengal),

[[227]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

in early canonical treatments of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva sacred sites this goddess is said ´ to preside at Devīkot.a,516 Puṇ ḍravardhana,517 both in Varendrī, and Ekamra ¯ (Bhubaneswar) in Orissa.518 In the first she has the name Karṇ amot.ī,519 accord ing to the Niśisaṁcāra, Picumata, and Kubjikāmata, and Bahumam¯ . sa according ¯ to the Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākāṇ ḍ a.520 In the other two she is called Camun ¯ . ḍ a. ¯

0013061 (Dighapatiya, Natore District, Bangladesh), 0002607 (Munger [Monghyr], Bihar), 0013063 (Bangladesh), 0013062 (Mahatore, Dinajpur District), and 0013476 ¯ (Vikramapura, Dacca District, Bangladesh); also AIISPL Acc. no. 32782 (Advahati, Burdwan, West Bengal). It is not generally seen in images of Camun ¯ . ḍ a from other ¯ regionṣAn exception is a fine sculpture at Khajuraho (AIISPL Acc. no. 45199) from the Chandella period (c. 900–1150). It is perhaps to be introduced by emen dation into the description of Camun ¯ . ḍ a’s icon in ¯ Agnipurāṇ a 50.21c–23b: cāmuṇ ḍā kot.arakṣī syān nirmāṁsā tu trilocanā k nirmāṁsā asthisārā vāūrdhvakeśī kr̥śodarī | *dvipacarmadharā (dvipa conj. : dvīpi Eḍ) vāme kapālaṁ pat.t.iśaṁ kare k śūlaṁ kartrī dakṣiṇe ’syāḥśavārūḍ hāsthibhūṣaṇā.

516 See here p. 112.

517 Niśisaṁcāra f. 18v2–3 (4.35–36): camun ¯. ḍeti ca *vikhyātā (eṁ : vikhyā Coḍ) devyā vā puṇ ḍravardhane (corr̥ : puṇ ḍ a Coḍ) | mahābalākulotpannā khat.vāṅga karaśobhitā k 36 bhuktimuktikarā devyā saṁ dohakṣetrasaṁsthitā | kumbhākhyo kṣetrapālaś ca tasmin kṣetre vyavasthitaḥ; Kālīkulakramārcana f. 21v1: HR¯IM. SR´ ¯IM. SR´ ¯IPUN. D. RAVARDHANAMAHOPAKS. ETRE CAMUN ¯. D. A¯ -AMBAP¯ ADA ¯ (puṇ ḍra corr̥ : pūṇ ḍ a Coḍ).

518 Niśisaṁcāra f. 31r1–2: ekamre ¯ (eṁ : ekātye Coḍ) saṁsthito (corr̥ : saṁsthitā Coḍ) devi kīrtivāseti (corr̥ : tāseti Coḍ) kīrtitaḥ(corr̥ : kīrtitā Coḍ) | ca-¯ muṇ ḍ aya¯ (corr̥ : cāmuṇ ḍāyā Coḍ) samāyuktaḥ(corr̥ : ktaṁ Coḍ) sthāna balisamanvitam (corr̥ : taḥ Coḍ); Kubjikāmata 15.28–30: vartamānikakalpe tu ekamraka ¯ vanāntagāḥ| kapālīśa*kuleśānacamun ¯. ḍ a¯ cakramadhyagāḥ(kuleśāna corr̥ : kuleśānaṁ Eḍ) k 29 śrīkuleśvaradevasya hr̥tpadme ’ṣt.adale sthitāḥ|īśānakramayogena sr̥ṣt.imārgāvalambikāḥk 30 karṇikāyāṁsthito devaś catuṣka parivāritaḥ| raktākarālācaṇ ḍākṣīmahocchuṣmāsamanvitaḥ; Kularatnoddyota f. 16r2 (3.140c–142b): ekamraka ¯ vanāntasthā utpannā<ḥ > parameśvari k 141 kapālīśasamopetāś camun ¯. ḍ a¯ *cakramadhyagāḥ(corr̥ : ścakra Coḍ) | pīt.hasthānā- śrayodbhūtāś catasro ’nyā<ḥ > parāmbike | 142 raktā karālā caṇ ḍākṣī ucchuṣmeti prakīrtitāḥ.

519 Karṇ amot.ī is listed as a synonym of Camun ¯ . ḍ a in ¯ Amarakośa 1.1.92 (see here p. 231). The name appears for Camun ¯ . ḍ a in the series of eight Mother goddesses ¯ when these are given as the deities of the seven sets of sounds of the Sanskrit syl labary plus KS. A in Siddhayogeśvarīmata 16.41c–43c: kavarge saṁsthitā brāhmī cavarge caiva vaiṣṇ avī k māheśvarī t.avargasthā yāmyā pūjyā ta-m-ādinā | kaumārī sarpavalayā pādyenaitāṁ prapūjayet k yavarge vāsavī tatra karṇ amot.ī śa-m-ādinā | krodhe *j ñeyā (conj. : seyā Eḍ) parā śaktir aghoreśī ‘Brahm ¯ī is in the gutturals, Vaiṣṇ avī in the palatals, Mahe ¯ svar ´ī in the retroflexes, and Yamy ā in the dentalṣ¯ He should worship snake-bangled Kaumar¯ī with the labialṣAindrī is in the semi vowels and Karṇ amot.ī (= Camun ¯ . ḍ a) in the sibilantṣKnow that the goddess in ¯ kṣa is the supreme Power Aghoresvar ´ī’. The origin of the name is unknown, the common interpretation ‘Ear-pearl’ being implausible since it fails to account for the retroflex t..

520 Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a 171.109, 112, 124 This name is probably an epithet that served as this Karṇ amot.ī’s personal name and so does not indicate a different goddesṣThe epithet, meaning ‘having much meat’, no doubt refers to her insa-

[[228]]

Of these sites Devīkot.a appears to have been of special importance from early timeṣThe Mādhavakula refers to it simply as Sr´īpīt.ha, that is to say, as the Seat [of the Goddess];521 and the Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a describes it522 as a city originally fashioned by Brahma where this goddess and the other ¯ Mothers who accompany her were created by Siva and the other gods from ´ their own bodies in order to destroy the demons who had seized it. After the city has been freed Siva declares that henceforth it will be the Mothers’ sacredābode,523 that he will reside here with them as Hetukesvara, ´524 and that they will be worshipped following ritual procedures taught in Tantras that will be composed for this purpose by the grateful godṣThe titles of these Tantras of the Mothers (mātr̥tantrāṇi), which are listed in the narrative, reveal them to be Yamalatantras, headed by the ¯ Brahmayāmala.525

tiable appetite for animal sacrificeṣThe alternative, that it means ‘fleshy’, that is to say, full-bodied, is highly implausible, since she is described here as the de stroyer of the universe and as having a hideous form (171.108c–109: tato devo ’sr̥jad devīṁrudrāṇīṁ mātaraṁśubhām | vikr̥taṁrūpamāsthāya dvitīyām api mātaram | nāmnā tu bahumāṁsāṁtāṁjagatsaṁ hārarūpiṇīm ‘Then the deity [Siva] em-ānated the fine Mother goddess Rudran¯ .ī, and, taking on a hideous form, a second Mother, the [well-known goddess] called Bahumam¯ . sa, who embodies the destruc- ¯ tion of the universe’.

521 See here p. 192 and Tantrāloka 29.60cḍ

522 Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a 171.78–137, referring to Devīkot.a under its name Kot.ivarṣa. See here p. 113.

523 Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a 171.120c–121b [Siva addresses the Mothers]: ´ bha vatīnām idaṁsthānaṁ kot.īvarṣam iti śrutam | bhaviṣyati jagatkhyātaṁsar vapāpapramocanam ‘This place known as Kot.īvarṣa will be yours, famed through out the world, with the power to free from any sin’; 171.133cd: kot.īvarṣam idaṁ sthānaṁ māt¯r̥ṇāṁ priyam uttamaṁ

524 Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a 171.121c–122b [Siva addresses the Mothers]:āhaṁ hetur hi yuṣmākaṁ yasmāt sr̥ṣt.ā mayaiva ca k herukeśvaranāmnāhaṁsthāsyāmy atra varapradaḥ| yuṣmābhiḥsaha vatsyāmi nāyakatve vyavasthitaḥk yas tu yuṣmān mayā sārdhaṁ vidhivat pūjayiṣyati | sarvapāpavimuktātmā sa parāṁ gatimāpsyati ‘Because I am your cause (hetuḥ) and it was I that created [you], I shall be present here to bestow boons with the name Hetukesvara. I shall dwell ´ here with you as your leader̥ Whoever correctly worships you with me will be freed from all sins and attain the highest goal’.

525 Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a 171.127–132b [Siva addresses the Mothers]:āhaṁ brahmā ca viṣṇ uś ca r̥ṣayaś ca tapodhanāḥ| mātr̥tantrāṇi divyāni mātr̥ yaj ñavidhiṁ *prati (conj. : param Coḍ) k 128 puṇ yāni prakariṣyāmo yajanaṁ yair avāpsyatha | brāhmaṁsvāyambhuvaṁcaiva kaumāraṁ yāmalaṁtathā k 129 sārasvataṁca gāndhāram aiśānaṁ nandiyāmalam | tantrāṇ y etāni yuṣmākaṁtathānyāny sa hasraśaḥk 130 bhaviṣyanti narā yais tu yuṣmān yakṣyanti bhaktitaḥ| narāṇāṁ yajamānānāṁ varān yūyaṁ pradāsyatha k 131 divyasiddhipradā devyo di vyayogā bhaviṣyatha | yāś ca nāryaḥsadā yuṣmān yakṣyante sarahasyataḥk 132 yogeśvaryo bhaviṣyanti rāmā divyaparākramāḥ‘I, Brahma, Vis ¯ .ṇ u, and the as cetic sages will compose excellent and holy Matr ¯ .tantras for the rites of the wor ship of the Mothers, by means of which you shall receive offeringṣThe Brah- [[229]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Moreover, it is probable that some at least of the surviving east-Indian im ages of the emaciated goddess reproduce the iconography of this important local forṁ An image of Carcika from the Dinajpur District of Bangladesh, in which ¯ Devīkot.a was located, shows the goddess seated beneath a banyan tree;526 and we see the same in an image from an unrecorded site in West Bengal.527 In both images severed human heads are attached by their hair to the tree’s branches, in dicating that the site of this tree is a cremation ground, since cremation grounds were also places of executioṇ528 Now, in the tradition of the Picumata and the Niśisaṁcāra each of the major S´ akta sites is a cremation ground with its ¯ own distinctive sacred tree; and in the case of Kot.ivarṣa/Devīkot.a this is in

mayāmala, the Svayambhūyāmala, the Skandayāmala, the Sārasvatayāmala, the Gāndhārayāmala, the ¯Iśānayāmala, and the Nandiyāmala: you shall have these Tantras and others in thousands, and with them men will sacrifice to you in devo tioṇ You will grant boons to men who sacrifice to you. Being goddesses of celestial power you will bestow celestial SiddhiṣAnd women who sacrifice to you regularly with the secret [rites] will become Yogesvar ´īs, women of celestial might’. On the list of Yamalatantras in this passage and its relation to lists of such texts in the ¯ Vidyap¯īt.ha see SANDERSON 2001, pp. 6–7, fn. 4. The Brahmayāmala, also called Picumata, teaches the worship of Bhairava as Hetuka surrounded with the God dess by eight Vīras and twenty-four Yoginīs in its eightieth chapter (f. 306r2–3; 80.32–33): hetukaṁ devadeveśaṁ kapālakr̥tabhūṣaṇ am | vīrāṣt.akayutaṁ madhye devadevaṁ parodayaṁk kālāgnivāyusaṁ yuktam adhordhvakr̥tasaṁ gatiṁ| nyaset svarūpabhāsvantaṁtato yogigaṇ aṁ nyaset. It is striking that this reference to Hetuka, presumably the Bhairava of Devīkot.a, is found in a chapter which is dis tinguished by being one of the very few passages in the Vidyap¯īt.ha that departs from the Tantric norm by containing material of the Puran¯ .ic type, the subject which gives it its title being a myth of the origin of the skull-bowl and skull-staff (kapālakhat.vāṅgotpattiḥ).

526 Pala period; black stone; 9 inches in height; now in the Varendra Museum in Ra- ¯ jshahi: Huntington Archive, Scan 0013117.

527 Sena period; black stone; 25.75 inches in height; now in the National Museum, New Delhi: Huntington Archive Scan 0000308.

528 See, e.g., Kumārasambhava 5.73cd; Kathāsaritsāgara 18.130d; Rājataraṅgiṇī 2.79–84; Picumata 3.32d–93, describing the depiction of the cremation ground at Prabhasa: ¯ tato nimbaṁsamālikhet | saptaḍālaṁ mahābhīmaṁcitibhiḥ prajvalantibhiḥ| ekaikasmiṁlikhet ḍāle nagnam udbaddhakaṁ naram ‘Then he should depict a Nimba tree with seven branches, most frightening with the burning pyres [around it]. On each branch he should draw a naked hanged man’; 15.16: kr̥ṣṇāṣt.amyāṁcaturdaśyāṁśavaṁ gr̥hya tha sādhakaḥ| udbaddhaṁśūlaprotaṁ vā akṣatāṅgaṁtu dārakam; Jayadrathayāmala, S. at.ka 3, Yoginīsaṁcāraprakaraṇ a 8.71c–72b, describing the depiction of cremation grounds: yāmyādyair nairr̥tāntais tu diśair vr̥ kṣāṇsamālikhet k udbaddhanarapracchannān; Vajragarbha on Hevajra 1.7.21 (dhvajaṁśastrahataṁcaiva) quoted in SNELLGROVE 1959, Pt. 1, p. 71, ṇ: rgyal mtshan ni rgyal pos rkun po la sogs pa skyes pa ’am bud med ’ga’ zhig chad pas bcad de lus mtshon gyis dral nas ro shing la dpyangs pa’o ‘a dhvajaḥis a corpse of some man or woman guilty of theft or some other crime whom the king has had executed with the sword, which has then been hung up on a tree [in the cremation ground]’.

[[230]]

deed the banyan (vat.avr̥ kṣaḥ).529 This strongly suggests that the local Carcika¯ of Devīkot.a may have been multiplied in the manner of the Nat.araja of the Tamil ¯ country, which though originally the deity of Cidambaram was established in sec ondary forms in temples throughout the regioṇ We may note also that most of the surviving east-Indian Carcikas hold the trident, often as the most conspic- ¯ uous of their held attributeṣBoth the Picumata and the Niśisaṁcāra specify this as the weapon distinctive of the Karṇ amot.ī of Devīkot.a, and the Skanda purāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a says that it is because the goddess of this place slew the demons with her trident here that the site contains a sacred bathing-place called S´ulakun ¯ . ḍ a ‘the pond of the trident’ and that anyone who drinks its water (śūlodakam) after doing obeisance to her will be safe from all harmful beings (171.124–125). The Picumata too refers to this Kuṇ ḍ a.530

Finally, the pre-eminence of the emaciated goddess in the S´ aktism of eastern ¯ India during this period is strongly underlined by the fact it is she that the Bud

dhists of the cult of Cakrasaṁ vara chose to represent supine beneath the right foot of Sam ´. vara and Vajravarāh¯ī as the female representative of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva ´ traditioṇ

In textual references to that Buddhist icon she is generally called Kalar ātri. ¯ But there can be no doubt about her identity. For (1) she is called Carcika¯ in the Vajravārāhīsādhana of the Siddha Luy¯ī,531 and Camun ¯ . ḍ a in a Kalpa of ¯ the Abhidhānottara and in the anonymous Trayodaśātmakavajraḍākinīvajra vārāhīsādhana, which is based upon it;532 (2) Carcika is called K ālar ātri in a ¯

529 See here p. 112. That the sacred sites are the cremation grounds (śmaśānam) of the places listed is clear from the context in the Picumata, that (3.8–127) being a description of the nine cremation grounds that must be installed in the initiation Maṇ ḍ ala (mahāmaṇ ḍ alam), one at the centre (Prayaga) and eight āround the periphery (Varān¯ . asī, Viraja [Jajpur in Orissa], Kollagiri [Kolh āpur ¯ in Karṇ at¯ .aka], Prabhasa [in Kathiawar], Ujjayin ¯ī [in Malwa], Bhute ¯ svara [in ´ Mathura?], Ek āmraka [Bhubaneswar in Orissa], and Kot ¯ .ivarṣa). It is also clear from the account of Kot.ivarṣa given in the Skandapurāṇ a-Ambikākhaṇ ḍ a, since that prophesies that the site will become a great cremation ground (171.133c–134b): kot.īvarṣam idaṁsthānaṁ māt¯r̥ṇāṁ priyam uttamam k śmaśānaṁ pravaraṁ divyaṁ bhaviṣyati sukhapradaṁ

530 Picumata f. 8r3 (3.119c–121b):īśāne tu diśābhāge kot.ivarṣaṁprakalpayet k 120 vat.aṁtatra samālikhya tatra śūlodakaṁlikhet | dikṣu caiva vidikṣu ca śūlaprotā likhet tathā k 121 śūla tasyāgrato likhya kuṇ ḍ asyaiva mahātape. It appears from this that the pond (kuṇ ḍ am) was also known as the S´ulodaka. ¯

531 Guhyasamayasādhanamālā f. 11r1–2: vāmabāhustanamaṇ ḍ alahr̥dayasambhava- *mīlitadakṣiṇāṅghriṁ(eṁ : mīlitā | dakṣiṇāṁ ghri Coḍ) carcikā<ṁ > raktā<ṁ > dakṣiṇ aśiraḥ patitā<ṁ >.

532 Abhidhānottara, Pat.ala 56, A f. 173v2: pādatalākrāntabhairavacāmuṇ ḍā ‘treading on Bhairava and Camun ¯ . ḍ a with the soles of her feet’; ¯ Trayodaśātmakavajraḍākinī vajravārāhīsādhana in Guhyasamayasādhanamālā, f. 78r4–5: pādākrānta*kr̥ta- śambhucāmuṇ ḍām (eṁ : kr̥tāṁ| śambhuścāmuṇ ḍāṁ Coḍ). For the full visualiza-

[[231]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

verse by the east-Indian poet Bhasoka; ¯533 and (3) the goddess beneath the foot of Sam ´. vara/Vajravarāh¯ī is depicted as emaciated, with sunken eyes and withered breasts, holding a skull-bowl and chopping knife in her two handṣ534 The ema ciated Carcikas of our surviving images have four, six, eight, or ten arms, but the ¯ skull-bowl (kapālam) and chopping knife (kartrikā) are indeed among their four primary attributes, the other two being the trident and a severed heaḍ535 The goddess beneath the right foot is, as it were, the east-Indian Carcika reduced to ¯ essentials: the emaciated body, the red colour, and only two arms, brandishing what were felt to be her two most basic attributeṣ

It is inconceivable, therefore, that east-Indians, for whom S´ akta ¯ Saivism wasśo central, then as now, would not have been conscious of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva guise ´ of this new Buddhism; and it is equally inconceivable that they would have been blind to the fact that the humilated goddess supine beneath Sam ´. vara’s and Va jravarāh¯ī’s feet was the pre-eminent goddess of the east-Indian S´ akta traditioṇ ¯

Clearly the east-Indian Buddhists who developed this iconography chose this goddess precisely because she occupied so prominent a position in that tradition and therefore would be instantly recognizeḍ

In explanation of why this profound transformation of Buddhism occurred, we might be tempted to say that Buddhism was simply yielding ever more com pletely to the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva religious tradition then dominant in the region, failing,ās it were, to maintain its original purity in the face of this external pressure and the concomitant expectations of its patronṣThis was perhaps how the matter would have been represented by the Sr´ avakay ānists; and no doubt there is some ¯ truth in this assessment, since it is extremely unlikely that east-Indian Bud dhists would have chosen to develop this new manifestation of their religion if S´ akta ¯ Saivism had not become the pre-eminent religious idiom of the regioṇ But ´

tion text of which this is part see ENGLISH 2002, p. 407, ṇ 207.

533 Saduktikarṇāmr̥ta 126. For the east-Indian character of names in -oka see here p. 227.

534 For this depiction see two stone sculptures from Ratnagiri in Orissa (LINROTHE 1999, figṣ198–202), two bronzes, one from Vikramas´īla and the other from an unrecorded site in eastern India (LINROTHE 1999, figṣ206–208), a Kashmirian bronze (PAL 1975, Plate 64a,b; LINROTHE 1999, fig. 211; Huntington Archive Scan 0059531), some early Tibetan bronzes (LINROTHE 1999, figṣ213–214), a Nepalese bronze of the fourteenth century (PAL 2003, fig. 31), a Nepalese bronze dated 1772 (REEDY 1997, fig. N299), a painting from Khara-khoto, before 1227 (RHIE and THURMAN 1991, fig. 92), and a Nepalese painting of the early seventeenth century (KREIJGER 1999, p. 53). In some Tibetan paintings Kalar ātri’s emaciation is absent ¯ (e.g., PAL 2003, fig. 117; KOSSAK and SINGER 1998, fig. 43; RHIE and THURMAN 1991, fig. 69.2); but that this is a secondary development can be inferred from its much more restricted occurrence.

535 See Camunda (Camun ¯ . ḍ a) in ¯ Huntington Archive.

[[232]]

the iconography of the humiliation of Carcika and Bhairava and the extensive ¯ learned literature that developed around the kernel of the Yoginītantras alert us to the fact that those who created and refined this tradition saw the matter in an entirely different light. In their view they were not succumbing passively to an alien influence. Fully conscious that they were assimilating the dominant S´ akta ¯ Śaiva idiom of the region, they justified their doing so as a means of converting ´ non-Buddhists, taking their practices and encoding them with Buddhist mean ing so that outsiders could rise effortlessly through what was familiar to them to what would save them, a view exactly reflected in Jayadratha’s myth of the com pilation of anti-Śaiva iconography,ś´ akta ¯ Śaiva liturgy, Mantras, and Buddhist ´ doctrine as a means of luring devout Śaivas away from their faitḥ ´

For while the learned literature of Tantric Buddhism claims with sincere conviction that its special methods are designed for exceptionally able aspirants within the Buddhist fold,536 its point of entry, namely initiatory introduction be fore the Maṇ ḍ ala, was designed to facilitate the recruitment of those outside it and to this end access was rendered as easy as possible. Thus in the seventh century the Mahāvairocanābhisaṁ bodhi sets out a number of qualities to be sought in candidates but states that if even only one of these is present there is no need to investigate further;537 and in the eight century the Sarvatathāgata

536 See, for example, the doctrine of the four points of superiority of the Tantric form of the Mahayāna, the Mantranaya, over the non-Tantric Way of the Perfections ¯ (pāramitānayaḥ) asserted in the *Nayatrayapradīpa by an author whose name ap pears in the Tenjur as Tripit.akamala, an implausible name, perhaps an error for Tripit.akamalla (Tshul gsum gyi sgron ma, f. 16v3: de yang pha rol tu phyin pa’i theg pa chen po dang don gcig pa las de’i khyad par gang dag yod pa de brjod par bya’o | don gcig nyid ’ang ma rmongs dang | thabs mang dka’ ba med phyir dang | dbang po rnon po’i dbang byas pas | sngags kyi bstan bcos khyad par ’phags ‘More over, although there may be no difference in the goal [of the Mantramahayāna] ¯ from that of the Paramit āmah āyāna the points that distinguish [the former] should ¯ be stated[. This has been done done in the following verse]: “Though the goal is one and the same the Mantras´astra is superior (1) because it is free of delusion ¯ [on the path], (2) because it offers many methods [for reaching the goal], (3) be cause it is free of difficulties, and (4) because only those with the highest capacity are qualified [to undertake it]”’. The Sanskrit of the verse is preserved through citation (without attribution) in the Tattvaratnāvalī of Advayavajra (p. 8) (A), the Sthitisamāsa of his disciple Sahajavajra (f. 11v2 [6.5]) (B), and the anonymous Subhāṣitasaṁ graha (part 2, p. 31) (C): ekārthatve ’py asaṁ mohād *bahūpāyād (AB Tib. [thabs mang] : vajropāyād C) aduṣkarāt | tīkṣṇendriyādhikārāc ca mantraśāstraṁ viśiṣyate. It has also been cited by Ka ro pa (Karop ā?), wrongly āttributing it to a *Pradīpoddyotanatantra (sgron ma gsal ba’i rgyud), in his com mentary on the Caturmudrānvaya (MATHES 2008, p. 96). According to the view of some, as reported by Gzhon nu dpal, Ka ro pa was another disciple of Advayavajra (Blue Annals, pp. 842–843, 847–849, reported by MATHES [2008, p. 89] as saying that he was a disciple of Advayavajra’s disciple Vajrapan¯ .i).

537 rNam par snang mdzad chen po mngon par byang chub pa’i rgyud (Mahāvairocanā- [[233]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

tattvasaṁ graha goes so far as to prohibit the application of any criteria for dis tinguishing between those who are and are not worthy. Furthermore, it makes this open-door policy absolutely clear by specifying those to whom introduction before its Maṇ ḍ ala is intended to appeal:538

Next is [the topic of] the detailed procedure that begins with the entry of Va jra disciples into this Great Maṇ ḍ ala of the Vajradhatu. In this the first step is ¯ entry in as much it is the means of rescuing all persons without exception and of bringing about the accomplishment of the highest joy for the benefit of all. With regard to this entry before the Great Maṇ ḍ ala [the officiant] need not ex amine candidates to determine who is and is not worthy. Why is that? Venerable Tathagatas, there are (1) people who have commited great sinṣBy seeing and ¯ entering this Great Maṇ ḍ ala of the Vajradhatu they will be freed of all the bad re- ¯ births [that would be the consequences of those sins].539 Venerable [Tathagatas], ¯

bhisaṁ bodhitantra), f. 162v4–6: de nas de yi phyi de nyin | slob ma dad cing rigs btsun pa | de bzhin dkon mchog gsum la dad | zab mo yi ni blo dang ldan | spro ba che zhing tshul khrims ldan | bzod dang ldan zhing ser sna med | dpa’ la yi dam brtan pa ni | bcu ’am brgyad dam bdun nam lnga | gcig gnyis bzhi las lhag kyang rung | dpyad mi dgos par gzung bar bya ‘Then, the next day, he should assemble candidates (1) with faith, (2) of good family, (3) with belief in the Three Jewels, (4) with deep understanding, (5) with great energy, (6) adhering to moral conduct, (7) patient, (8) free of envy, (9) intrepid, and (10) steadfast in their observanceṣThey are acceptable without need for [further] examination if they have [all] ten, or eight, seven, five, one, two, four, or more [of these qualities].’

538 Sarvatathāgatasaṁ graha, sections 210–213: athātra vajradhātumahāmaṇ ḍ ale vajraśiṣyapraveśādividhivistaro bhavati | tatra prathamaṁtāvat praveśo bhavaty aśeṣānavaśeṣasattvadhātuparitrāṇ asarvahitasukhottamasiddhikāryakaraṇ atayā tra mahāmaṇ ḍ alapraveśe pātrāpātraparīkṣā na kāryā | tat kasmād dhetoḥ| santi bhagavantas tathāgatāḥ kecit sattvā mahāpāpakāriṇ aḥ| ta idaṁ vajra dhātumahāmaṇ ḍ alaṁ dr̥ṣt.vā praviṣt.vā ca sarvāpāyavigatā bhaviṣyanti | santi ca bhagavantaḥsattvāḥsarvārthabhojanapānakāmaguṇ agr̥ddhāḥsamayadviṣt.āḥ puraścaraṇādiṣv aśaktāḥ| teṣām apy atra yathākāmakaraṇīyatayā praviṣt.ānāṁsa rvāśāparipūrir bhaviṣyati | santi ca bhagavantaḥsattvāḥ nr̥ttagāyahāsyalāsyāhā ravihārapriyatayā sarvatathāgatamahāyānābhisamayadharmatānavabodhatvād anyadevakulamaṇ ḍ alāni praviśanti | sarvāśāparipūrisaṁ grahabhūteṣu niruttara ratiprītiharṣasaṁ bhavakareṣu sarvatathāgatakulamaṇ ḍ aleṣu śikṣāpadabhayabhī tā na praviśanti | teṣām apāyamaṇ ḍ alapraveśapathāvasthitamukhānām ayam eva vajradhātumahāmaṇ ḍ alapraveśo yujyate sarvaratiprītyuttamasiddhisukhasau manasyānubhavanārthaṁsarvāpāyapratipraveśābhimukhapathavinivartanāya ca | santi ca punar bhagavanto dhārmikāḥsattvāḥsarvatathāgataśīlasamādhi praj ñottamasiddhyupāyair buddhabodhiṁ prārthayanto dhyānavimokṣādibhir bhūmibhir yatantaḥ kliśyante | teṣām atraiva vajradhātumahāmaṇ ḍ alapraveśa mātreṇ aiva sarvatathāgatatvam api na durlabhaṁ kim aṅga punar anyā siddhir iti.

539 The doctrine that the mere sight of the Maṇ ḍ ala destroys all one’s sins is seen here in section 900: tato yathāvan mukhabandhaṁ muktvā mahāmaṇ ḍ alaṁ darśayet | maṇ ḍ ale dr̥ṣt.amātre tu sarvapāpair vimucyate ‘Then after duly removing the blindfold he should show him the Great Maṇ ḍ ala. As soon as he has seen it he is freed of all his sins’. But it is much older̥ It is already found in the Mahā-

[[234]]

there are (2) people who are attached to every [kind of] wealth, food, drink, and other sense objects, who are [therefore] averse to [submitting to] the rules [of the initiated] (samayāḥ) and incapable of such disciplines as the Preliminary Obser vance (puraścaraṇ am).540 If they enter this [Maṇ ḍ ala] they too will have all their

maṇivipulavimānasupratiṣt.hitaguhyaparamarahasyakalpadhāraṇī, which may be the earliest Buddhist text teaching consecration in the context of introduction to a Maṇ ḍ ala, here with the peculiarity that consecration precedes entry, while in the later tradition entry precedes consecration: f. 53v1–5 (Tib. f. 384v7): tataḥ anena mantreṇābhiṣi ñcya praveśayet: OM. MAN.IVIPULASUPRATIS. T. HITA*SIDDHE (Tib. : siddha Coḍ) ABHIS.INCA M ˜ AM¯. *SARVATATHAGAT ¯ ABHIS ¯. EKAIR (Tib. : SARVATATHAGAT ¯ ABHIS ¯. EKAI Coḍ) BHARA BHARA *SAM. BHARA SAM. BHARA (Tib. : SAM. BHARA Coḍ) HUM¯. HUM¯.(Coḍ : HUM¯. Tib.) | yathābhiṣiktamātraś ca sarvapāpāvaraṇāni pūrvajanmasaṁjātāni karmāvaraṇāni viśuddhāni bha vanti sarvaśuddhiparigr̥hīto (śuddhi eṁ : śuddha Coḍ) bhavati sarvatathā gatādhiṣt.hitaḥsarvatathāgatābhiṣiktaḥ‘Then he should introduce him into the Maṇ ḍ ala after consecrating him with the Mantra OM. MAN.IVIPULASUPRATIS. T. HITA SIDDHE ABHIS.INCA M ˜ AM¯. SARVATATHAGAT ¯ ABHIS ¯. EKAIR BHARA BHARA SAM. BHARA SAM. BHARA HUM¯. HUM¯.. Merely through this consecration the obscurations of all his sins, the obscurations of his actions committed in previous lives, are eliminateḍ He possesses all purity. He has been entered-and-empowered by all the Tathagataṣ¯ All the Tathagatas have consecrated him’. According to the Zhen Yuan Catalogue ¯ of A.D. 800 (T. 2157–935a:26) the Chinese translation of this text (T. 1007) was pre pared by an unknown translator of the Liang dynasty (503–557). However, I do not yet know if this passage is found in that translatioṇ

540 This is the practice otherwise known as pūrvasevā. It consists of a high number of repetitions of a Mantra along with ascetic restraints by means of which the practitioner qualifies himself to undertake procedures that require its use. See, e.g., Ma ñjuśriyamūlakalpa, p. 236:ādau tāvat parvatāgramāruhya viṁśallakṣā ṇi japet | pūrvasevā kr̥tā bhavati | kṣīrāhāreṇ a mauninā nānyatra mantragata cittena triśaraṇ aparigr̥hītena utpāditabodhicittena ca poṣadhaśīlasaṁ varasamā dāpanābodhisattvasaṁ varaparigr̥hītena japtavyam | tataḥ karmāṇi bhavanti ‘Be fore [beginning the Kalpa] he must first climb to a mountain top and [there] re peat the Mantra two million timeṣ[Thus] the Preliminary Service [of the Mantra] will have been accomplisheḍ He must repeat the Mantra while sustaining himself with [nothing but] milk, maintaining silence, with his mind fixed on the Mantra and nothing else, after taking the three Refuges, having formally resolved to attain the Awakening, and having taken up the Poṣadha fast, the restraint of morality, and the restraint of a Bodhisattva. [Only] then can the rituals be undertakeṇ’ This, barring the specifically Buddhist vows, is exactly as prescribed in the Śaiva ´ Mantramarga, where, as here, the terms ¯ pūrvasevā and puraścaraṇ am/puraścaryā are standard and synonymouṣSee, e.g., Niśvāsaguhya, f. 80v3: japamāna-m eva māsena pūrvasevā kr̥tā bhavati ‘By repeating the Mantra for a month the Pre liminary Service will have been accomplished’; and Kṣemaraja ¯ Svacchandoddy ota ad 7.104cd: puraścaryā prathamam eva mantragrahapūrvaṁ vrataṁ niyata japādikaraṇ am ‘The puraścaryā is the observance that follows immediately after receiving the Mantra. It is to do a fixed number of repetitions [of that Mantra] with certain other [requirements].’ Living on a diet of milk and maintaining silence is also a standard feature of Śaiva Mantra observances; see, e.g., ´ Niśvāsaguhya f. 81r4: daśāhaṁ kṣīrāhāreṇ a japtavyaḥ kālamr̥tyuṁjayati; f. 82vr4: naktāśī kṣīrāhāro vā maunena tu japed yas tu | sa śivo ’bdena mānavaḥ; f. 84v6: anena mantreṇ a kṣīrāhāro saṁ vatsaraṁjapet.

[[235]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

hopes fulfilled in accordance with their desireṣVenerable [Tathagatas], there are ¯ (3) people who cannot grasp the nature of the understanding of the Mahayāna of āll the Tathagatas because they are attached to dancing, singing, joking, amuse- ¯ ments, and the pleasures of eating, and [so] take initiation before the Maṇ ḍ alas of other[, non-Buddhist] families of deitieṣBeing afraid of the moral regulations [of Buddhism] they do not enter the Maṇ ḍ alas of the family of all the Buddhas, which comprise the fulfilment of all aspirations, which bestow the highest happiness, de light, and joy. It is for these too, who are inclined to enter the way of Maṇ ḍ alas that lead to bad rebirths, that this entry into the Maṇ ḍ ala of Vajradhatu is ap- ¯ propriate, so that they may experience every happiness and delight, the highest Siddhi, joy, and contentment and be turned aside from the path that leads them to enter all [Maṇ ḍ alas that result in] bad rebirthṣVenerable [Tathagatas], there āre also (4) pious persons, who seek the Buddhas’ enlightenment by means of the morality (śīlam), concentrations (samādhiḥ), and wisdom (praj ñā) of all the Tathagatas but who experience hardship as they strive to attain the levels of the ¯ meditations (dhyānam), liberations (vimokṣaḥ), and the other [states on the path taught in the Paramit ānaya]. They will easily attain All-Buddha-hood without ¯ difficulty in this very life (atraiva), all the more so other Siddhis, simply by enter ing this Maṇ ḍ ala of Vajradhatu. ¯

Thus the text offered Maṇ ḍ ala initiation not only to Buddhists, and in par ticular to those who had found themselves unable to progress on the exacting path of the Paramit ānaya, but also to sinners and sensualists regardless of their ¯ religion, and, most important in the present context, to outsiders who had al ready taken a non-Buddhist Tantric initiation or might otherwise be expected do so.

The Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha does not tell us whether it has particu lar kinds of non-Buddhist Tantrics in minḍ We can only guess from the character of the initiation ceremony, with its emphasis on possession, and the cult to which initiation leads, with its erotic and sensual elements, that S´ akta ¯ Śaivas must ´ have been intendeḍ Later sources, however, do make clear that it is indeed the non-Buddhist followers of the kinds of practice being adapted by the Buddhists that are in minḍ Thus Anandagarbha, the period of whose activity, though not ¯ yet narrowly determined, may be assigned to the ninth century,541 attempting

541 The dating of Anandagarbha in the ninth century seems probable solely on the ¯ grounds of the range of his exegesis, which covers the Yogatantra systems of the Sarvatathāgataattvasaṁ graha (his Sarvavajrodaya, his commentaries on the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṁ graha [Toḥ 2511]), the ¯ Paramādya (his commentary [Toḥ 2512]), the ¯ Māyājāla (his commentary [Toḥ 2513]), ¯ Guhyasamāja (his com mentary [Toḥ 1917]), and the ¯ Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālaśaṁ vara (his com mentary on the Sarvakalpasamuccaya [Toḥ 1662]). In the last of these Tantric ¯ systems we also have in Sanskrit but not in Tibetan translation his Vajrajvālodayā nāma śrīherukasādhanopayikā in a codex photographed by Rahula S ā¯nkr ˙ .tyayana ¯

[[236]]

in his commentary on the Guhyasamājatantra to explain the extraordinary fact that the place where the Buddha is said to have been residing at the time that he revealed this Tantra is the vaginas of the goddesses, declares:542

If it is asked why he was residing in their private parts, the answer is [that this is] in order to bring it about that those devoted to the Tantras of Viṣṇ u and the other [gods], who have not yet abandoned [their attachment to] the objects of the senses, may come through desire itself to delight in the abandoning of desire. For they seek to attain the Siddhis of such [gods] as Viṣṇ u by resorting to women, and using such [offerings] as beef and urine. Those engaged in the quest for the Siddhis taught by these [gods do indeed] copulate with women [for this purpose]. For [it is said in their texts]: “Viṣṇ u is Bhagavan [‘the possessor of ¯ bhaga-’] in that he resides in the genitals (bhaga-) of womeṇ He is called Narāyan ¯ . a [for the same reason,] because [by residing there] he gives pleasure to men”.543

in the Ngor monastery in Tibet which comprises apart from this work forty-one items pertaining to the cult of Hevajra (ISAACSON 1999). The dating is supported by the tradition (Blue Annals, p. 373) that he was a pupil of Dīpankarabhadra, who ˙ was a pupil of Buddhajn˜ana, a contemporary of king Dharmap āla (r̥ ¯ c. 775–812) (see here p. 93).

542 gSang ba ’dus pa’i dka’ grel, f. 4r3–5: ci’i phyir de dag gis gsang ba la bzhugs she na | smras pa khyab ’jug la sogs pa’i rgyud la mngon par dga’ zhing yul yongs su mi spong ba rnams ni ’dod chags kyis ’dod chags spong ba ’di la dga’ ba bskyed par bya’i phyir te | ’di ltar bud med bsten pa dang *ba sha dang (conj. : bshad Derge, Cone, Ganden) gci la sogs pa bsten pas khyad ’jug la sogs pa bsgrub par ’dod cing | des bstan pa’i dngos grub tshol pa la zhugs pa de dag btsun mo’i gsang pa la mngon par ’jug par ’gyur te | de yang | bha ga legs ldan khyab ’jug ste | bud med kyi ni mdoms na gnas | mi rnams dga’ bar byed pas na | des na sred med bu zhes bya zhes bshad do.

543 The unknown author of this verse intends a nirvacanam of nārāyaṇ aḥ. A nirva canam is a kind of semantic analysis that explains why a word is appropriate to that to which it is applied (anvartha-). When this is not thought to be adequately revealed through ordinary grammatical analysis one may resort to an analysis in which the meaning sought is discovered by deriving one or more of a word’s syl lables from a verbal root that resembles it in sounḍ See the analysis of Yaska’s ¯ statement of this principle in KAHRS 1998, pp. 35–39. In this case the name is made to mean ‘he who gives pleasure to men’. The first component in this analy sis of nārāyaṇ aḥ was evidently nāra-, understood as either as ‘sons of man’ (nara-) by Aṣt.ādhyāyī 4.3.120 (tasyedam; cf. Manusmr̥ti 1.10ab in another nirvacanam of nārāyaṇ aḥ:āpo nārā iti proktāāpo vai narasūnavaḥ), or as ‘men’ (nara-) by ap plication of Aṣt.ādhyāyī 6.3.136 (anyeṣām api dr̥śyate) to account for non-standard lengthening of the first vowel. For these two alternatives see Kulluka on ¯ Manusmr̥ti 1.10ab and Medhatithi on the same for the seconḍ Since āya- can mean ‘good for tune’, I speculate that the author found his meaning by deriving the last syllable, -na, from √nī- ‘to lead [to]’, arriving by this artifice at ‘he who leads men to good fortune, i.e. happiness’ (nārān ayaṁsukhaṁ nayatīti nārāyaṇ aḥ), the substitu tion of ṇfor n being caused by the preceding r̥ The artificial derivation of -na from √nī- is seen in the semantic analysis of samānaḥfor the fourth of the five vi tal energies implicit in, e.g., Niśvāsanaya 4.124ab (Niśvāsatattvasaṁ hitā f. 40r3) (> Svacchandatantra 7.308d): samānaḥsamatāṁ nayet, and Sārdhatriśatikālottara

[[237]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

It comes as a surprise that Anandagarbha attributes the extreme Tantric ¯ practices that he details here to Vaiṣṇ avas, since nothing of this kind has been noted in their known literature. Because of this and because the use of female consorts, cow-flesh, urine and other products of the male and female body in the propitiation of deities for the attaining of supernatural powers or effects appears in our sources to be the hallmark of the Śaiva Vidyāp¯īt.ha, and of the Picumata in particular,544 it is tempting to propose that Anandagarbha has made a mistake ¯

and that had he been better informed or less careless he would have attributed these practices to those whom we know to have adopted theṁ But this cannot easily be accepted in the light of the fact that he backs up his attribution by citing a verse that supports it. I conclude, therefore, that his claim is rather evi dence that some Vaiṣṇ avas had assimilated the transgressive, S´ akta ¯ Śaiva style ´ of observance, just as the Buddhists haḍ In any case, whatever the accuracy of this attribution, it is extremely unlikely that Anandagarbha did not also have ¯ the S´ akta ¯ Śaivas in mind when he referred to “those devoted to the Tantras of ´ Viṣṇ u and other [gods]”.

Similarly Sraddhākaravarman, one of the Indian teachers of the Ti- ¯ betan translator Rin chen bzang po (958–1055), says in his *Yoganiruttara

10.10cd: samaṁ nayati gātreṣu samāno nāma mārutaḥ.

544 See, e.g., Picumata f. 280v4: 67.71 saktigarte ks ´.ipel lingam ˙.tataḥ pūjā<ṁ > samārabhet | gati-r-āgatiyogena śaktivikṣobhatatparaḥ‘He should insert his pe nis into the vagina of his consort and then begin the worship, intent on bringing his consort to orgasm through to-and-fro motion’; f. 106v3–4: 22.152 saktim ´.tu kṣobhayen mantrī vidyāyāṣt.asataṁjapet | mantrasya vā japec caiva svayāgavidhicoditaṁk 153 dravyaprāśya purā kr̥tvā gomam¯.saṁki ñcisaṁ yutaṁ | surāṣt.hinā samāyuktaṁ piṣt.aṁ piṇ ḍīkr̥tan tathā k 154 kṣobhadravyeṇ a saṁ mardya liṅgākāraṁtu kārayet | prakṣiped yonimadhye tu nimiṣaṁcālya pīḍ ayet k 155 mantram uccārayen mantrī saṁ khyāyāṣt.aśataṁtathā | karṣayitvā tu taṁliṅgaṁ guḍikāṁ kārayet tataḥk 156 japārcanavidhau nityaṁ pūjayet sādhakottamaḥ‘The Mantra-adept should arouse his consort and [as he does so] repeat the Vidya 108 timeṣHe should do the repetition of his Mantra as pre- ¯ scribed in the procedure for his set of deitieṣFirst he should swallow the sub stanceṣThen he should grind cow-flesh mixed with faeces and surāṣt.hi (urine?) into a ball, kneed it with the ejaculates, make it into the shape of a Linga, insert ˙ it into [his consort’s] vagina, move it about for a short while and then compress it. The Mantra-adept should utter the Mantra 108 times, then withdraw the Linga, ˙ and make it into a pellet. The best of Sadhakas should always offer [this] when he ¯ performs the repetition of the Mantras and the act of worship’; f. 10v5: gomam¯.saṁ guggulaṁcaiva piṇ yākaṁlaśunaṁtathā k 3.210 siddhyarthaṁ guḍikā hy eta homayen nityakarmaṇi | maṇ ḍ ale tarpaṇ aṁ kr̥tvā gomam¯.sasurayānvitaṁ‘Cow flesh, bdellium, oil-cake, and garlic: he should offer this [mixture as a] pellet into the consecrated fire in his daily ritual’; f. 141v2 (28.38cd): gomam¯.saṁsurayā miśraṁ homayīta vicakṣaṇ aḥ‘The adept should offer into the fire cow-flesh mixed with wine’; f. 39v3 (5.40ab): saṁ put.e sthāpayitvā tu mutra ¯ homaṁtu kārayet ‘He should place urine in a bowl and offer it into the fire’.

[[238]]

tantrārthāvatārasaṁ graha, referring to the Yogatantras as the Tantras of Method (Upayatantras) and to the Yogin ¯ītantras as the Tantras of Wisdom (Prajn˜atantras): ¯545

A Method Tantra is one in which the Maṇ ḍ ala shows mainly male deities in order to train (vinī-) men and insiders (svayūthya-), whereas a Wisdom Tantra is one in which, in order to train women and non-Buddhist outsiders (bāhyatīrthika-), the Maṇ ḍ ala shows mainly female deities, deities, that is, who are appropriate for these.546 A Method Tantra is one that exhibits deities that purify the outer and inner aggregates of personality (skandhāḥ), the elements (dhātavaḥ), and the faculties and their objects (āyatanāni), whereas a Wisdom Tantra is one that exhibits deities that purify the outer and inner channels of the vital energy (nāḍī) and the Bodhicitta [semen]. A Method Tantra is one that exhibits deities [whose appearance and conduct are] in conformity with the [norms of] the world, whereas a Wisdom Tantra is one that exhibits deities [whose appearance is] contrary to [these norms of] the worlḍ

Since Sraddhākaravarman states here that the predominance of female deities ¯ is designed to recruit non-Buddhists he can mean only the followers of S´ akta ¯ Saivism, since there is no other known group to whom this feature would have ´ been particularly appealing. As for the other features that he identifies as dis tinctive of the Yoginītantras, he does not state explicitly that they were intro duced with the same purpose in mind; but it seems to me probable that he means this to be understood, since the transgressive character of these deities, his third distinctive feature, is indeed a fundamental characteristic of the goddesses wor shipped by these outsiderṣ

The Buddhism sponsored by the Palas had come a long way: too far, in fact, ¯ for those conservative Buddhist monks at Vajrasana who adhered to the ancient ¯

545 rNal ’byor bla na med pa’i rgyud kyi don la ’jugs pa bsdus pa, ff. 103v7–104r3: gang du skyes pa dang rang gi sde pa ’dul ba’i phyir lha po’i rnam pa mang par ston pa’i dkyil ’khor ni thabs kyi rgyud do | gang du bud med dang phyi rol mu stegs can ’dul ba’i phyir de dag dang rjes su mthun pa’i lha mo’i rnam pa mang pa’i dkyil ’khor ston pa ni shes rab kyi rgyud do | gang du phyi nang gi phung po dang khams dang skye mched kyi rnam par dag pa’i lha ston pa ni thabs kyi rgyud do | gang du phyi nang gi rtsa dang byang chub kyi sems rnam par dag pa’i lha ston pa ni shes rab kyi rgyud do | gang du ’jig rten dang rjes su mthun pa’i lha’i rnam pa ston pa ni thabs kyi rgyud do | gang du ’jig rten dang ’gal ba’i lha’i rnam pa ston pa ni shes rab kyi rgyuḍ

546 Part of this formulation, namely the doctrine that the Yogatantras are designed to appeal to men and the Yoginītantras to women, has scriptural status, being found in the mKha’ ’gro ma’i dra ba’i rdo rje gur rgyud (D.ākinīvajrapa ñjaratantra), f. 104v5– 6: skyes bu rnams ni gdul ba’i phyir | rnal ’byor rgyud ni yang dag bshad | btsun mo rnams ni bsdu ba’i phyir | rnal ’byor ma yi rgyud bshad do ‘The Yogatantras were taught in order to train (*vinayanāya) meṇ The Yoginītantras were taught in order to recruit (*saṁ grahāya) women’.

[[239]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Buddhism of the Sr´ avakay āna. For according to the testimony of T āran ātha ¯ they broke up the silver image of Heruka in the temple and burnt the collection of Tantras housed there, saying that these were the teachings not of the Buddha but of Mara, the evil obstructor of the Buddha’s enlightenment. ¯547

THE REFLUX OF BUDDHIST S´ AKTISM INTO THE ¯ S´ AKTISM OF ¯ BENGAL. In deed, Buddhism had assimilated the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva style of religion so thoroughly ´ that some of its creations went on to be adopted into the later S´ akta ¯ Saivism of ´ eastern India with little or no revisioṇ This is the case with the goddesses Chin namasta and Ugrat ārā. The Buddhist origin of Chinnamast ā is certain, since ¯ her S´ akta Mantra is ¯ SR´ ¯IM. HR¯IM. KL¯IM. AIM. VAJRAVAIROCAN¯IYE HUM¯. HUM¯. PHAT. SVAH¯ A¯, and the two companions that flank her are D. akin ¯ī and Varṇinī.548 In the Buddhist prototype the flanking goddesses are Vajravarṇ anī and Vajravairocanī, and the Mantra for recitation (jāpamantraḥ) is OM. SARVABUDDHAD. AKIN ¯ ¯IYE OM. OM. VAJRAVARN. AN¯IYE OM. VAJRAVAIROCAN¯IYE HUM¯. HUM¯. HUM¯. PHAT. PHAT. SVAH¯ A¯.549 Moreover, the procedure of her visualization retains features dis tinctive of her Buddhist Sadhana, notably that one is to visualize the goddess ¯ standing on a red sun-disk marked with a Yoni triangle on a white lotus in one’s navel.550 The only differences here are that in the Buddhist Sadhana the triangle ¯

547 Rgya gar chos ’byung, p. 168, ll. 14–: he ru ka’i sku dngul las byas pa chen po zhig dang | sngags kyi glegs bam mang dag cig yod pa si nga gling pa sogs nyan thos se ndha pa ’ga’ zhig gis ’di dag ni bdud kyis byas pa’o zhes byas nas | glegs bam rnams kyis bud shing byas | sku gzugs de yang dum bur bgos nas rnyed pa byas so ‘There was a great silver statue of Heruka and many manuscripts of [texts of the] Mantra[naya]. Some Saindhava Sr´ avakas from such [regions] as Sri Lanka, ¯ saying that these manuscripts had been created by Mara, used them as fuel, and, ¯ moreover, after dividing up the image into pieces pocketed them’; HBI, p. 279.

548 Sāktapramoda ´, p. 222 (her Mantra); pp. 221, 224–225 (the visualization of Chinna masta, D ¯ . akin ¯ī and Varṇinī)

549 Abhisamayama ñjarī, pp. 151–152.

550 Sāktapramoda ´, pp. 224–225, Puraścaryārṇ ava, p. 816, Karmakāṇ ḍ a, vol. 4, p. 239d–240a (in the Kashmirian S´ akta ¯ sr´ addha): ¯ svanābhau nīrajaṁ dhyāyec chuddhaṁ vikasitaṁsitam | tatpadmakośamadhye tu maṇ ḍ alaṁcaṇ ḍ a rociṣaḥ| japākusumasaṁ kāśaṁraktabandhūkasaṁ nibham | rajaḥsattvatamo rekhāyonimaṇ ḍ alamaṇ ḍitam | madhye tasya mahādevīṁsūryakot.isamaprabhām | chinnamastāṁ kare vāme dhārayantīṁsvamastakam | prasāritamukhīṁ bhīmāṁlelihānāgrajihvikām | pibantīṁraudhirīṁ dhārāṁ nijakaṇt.havinirgatām | vikīrṇ akeśapāśāṁca nānāpuṣpasamanvitām | dakṣiṇe ca kare kartrīṁ muṇ ḍ amālāvibhūṣitām | digambarāṁ mahāghorāṁ pratyālīḍ hapade sthitām | asthimālādharāṁ devīṁ nāgayaj ñopavītinīm | ratikāmopariṣt.hāṁca sadā dhyāyanti mantriṇ aḥ‘He should visualize a pure, open, white lotus in his navel, the disc of the sun in the centre of the seed-pod of that lotus with the colour of the Japa flower, resembling the red Bandh ¯ uka blossom, adorned by a Yoni triangle ¯ with [three] lines[, red, white, and black representing the Guṇ as] Rajas, Sattva, and TamaṣAt its centre Mantra adepts always visualize the Great Goddess Chin-

[[240]]

has the strictly Buddhist name dharmodayā and that the goddess is visualized as a transformation out of a yellow HR¯IH. visualized in that triangle.551 In the case of Tarā the Buddhist origin is even more apparent, since here the ¯ dependence extends to textual borrowing. For the S´ akta literature of the worship ¯ of this goddess has incorporated the Mahācīnakramatārāsādhana of the Bud dhist S´ a¯svatavajra, which appears almost in its entirety in the eleventh chapter ´ of the S´ akta ¯ Phetkāriṇītantra.

I am unable to determine within narrow limits how long after S´ a¯svatavajra ´ this Tantra was composeḍ552 The earliest mention of the text in sources known to me is in 2.15 of the Sarvollāsatantra of Sarvanandan ātha, in a list of a canon ¯ of sixty-four Tantras cited from the Toḍ alatantra but not appearing in the pub lished text of that work. It is probable that Sarvanandan ātha, who wrote his ¯ work in Senhati in what is now Bangladesh, was born around the beginning of the fifteenth century.553 It is tempting to assume that the Phetkāriṇī was written at a time closer to S´ a¯svatavajra’s than to Sarvānandan ātha’s, that is to ¯

namasta shining like ten million suns, holding her own [severed] head in her left ¯ hand, fearsome, with the mouth [of her severed head] open wide, with the tip of her tongue licking greedily, drinking the stream of blood that gushes from her neck, her hair loosened, adorned with various flowers, holding a chopping-knife in her right hand, adorned with a garland of heads, naked, most terrible, standing in the Pratyal¯īḍha posture, with a necklace of bones and a snake as her sacred thread, standing on Kama and Rati’. ¯

551 Abhisamayama ñjarī, p. 151: svanābhisthaśuklakamalasūryasthitasindūrāruṇ a dharmodayāmadhye pītahrīḥ kārajā svayam eva kartitasvamastakaṁ vāmahasta sthitaṁ dhārayantī . . . ‘Arising by transformation of a yellow syllable HR¯IH.in the centre of a vermilion-red Dharmodaya triangle upon a sun[-disc] on a white lotus in ¯ his navel, holding her own head, which she herself has severed, in her hand . . . ’.

552 The take-over of S´ a¯svatavajra’sśādhana of Ugratarā (= ¯ Sādhanamālā 101) by the Phetkāriṇītantra and its subsequent influence have been demonstrated by BUHNEMANN ¨ (1996). S´ a¯svatavajra flourished around the last decades the tenth ´ century and the first decades of the eleventḥ His Bāhyapūjāvidhi (= Sādhanamālā 252), Hastapūjāvidhi (= Sādhanamālā 253), and Cakrasaṁ varabalividhi are found in the series of ritual texts published in FINOT 1934 from a manuscript brought to China in 1057 by the Dhyana master Baocang on his return from India. His ¯ Sādhana of Ugratarā is found in the * ¯ Sādhanaśataka (a facsimile of an undated Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscript from Tibet has been published in BUHNEMANN ¨ 1994 = Toḥ 3306 ff.) and was translated into Tibetan by the Indian Pan ¯ . ḍita *Amogha vajra and the Tibetan monk Bari Rin chen grags of Khams (Toḥ 3373; DT, Rgyud, ¯ Mu, f. 49v1, colophon: rgya nag po’i rim pa’i sgrol ma’i sgrub thabs slob dpon rtag pa’i rdo rjes mdzad brjogs so | pa ṇ ḍi ta don yod rdo rje dang khams pa lo tsā ba dge slong ba ris bsgyur cing zhus so). The latter was born in 1040 (Blue Annals, pp. 73 and 405) and was appointed to the chair of Sa skya in 1103 (Blue Annals, p. 211). A Sanskrit manuscript of his most important work, his commentary on the Laghuśaṁ vara, translated by Bu ston Rin chen grub (Toḥ 1410), survives in the ¯ Potala Palace in Lhasa, where it awaits study.

553 SANDERSON 2007b, p. 236, fn. 89.

[[241]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

say, when the Buddhist Mantranaya was still at its height in eastern India, be fore the destruction of the great monasteries around 1200. But this destruction did not eliminate Tantric Buddhism and its literature from the region at a sin gle stroke. For it was still alive in the early fifteenth century, when Vanaratna (1384–1468) travelled to Tibet in 1426, 1433, and 1453, gave various Tantric ini tiations, notably in the Kālacakra according to the system of Anupamarakṣita, and assisted in the translation of Tantric texts, as is attested in the biography of this extraordinary figure given by Gzhon nu dpal (1392–1481), 554 who col laborated with him in a translation of the *Trayodaśātmakaśrīcakrasaṁ vara maṇ ḍ alavidhi (Toḥ 1489). We also have the ¯ Vanaratnastotrasaptaka, a San skrit hymn in praise of Vanaratna composed during his lifetime by a devout lay Buddhist Aditya, whom both the Sanskrit and Tibetan colophons say was ā native of Magadha;555 and we have a manuscript of the Mahayāna classic ¯ Bod hicaryāvatāra copied by a lay Buddhist in Bengali characters at Veṇ ugrama in ¯ 1436.556

After her incorporation from the Mantranaya Tarā became with Daks ¯ .inakal¯ī and Tripurasundarī one of the three principal deities in the east-Indian S´ akta ¯

system of the ten Mahavidy ās, which soon became widely disseminated through- ¯ out the subcontinent. Thus in a passage cited from the scripture J ñānadvīpa in

the Sarvollāsatantra (3.1–29) the ten Mahavidy ās are said to be [Daks ¯ .iṇ a]kal¯ī (Sy´ amā), T ārā, and Tripurasundar ¯ī (S. oḍ as´ī), with the third dividing into eight: herself and the seven others that make up the total of ten, namely Bhuvanesvar ´ī, Bhairavī, Chinnamasta, Dh ¯ umāvat ¯ī, Bagalamukh ¯ī, Mata ¯ ng˙ī, and Kamala. The ¯ centrality of these three goddesses is reflected in the corpus of east-Indian S´ akta ¯ scriptureṣThe Toḍ alatantra teaches the rites of these three alone, and the Br̥hannīlatantra follows the same model but adds Kamākhy ā, the great goddess ¯ of Assaṁ Their centrality is also evident among the Paippaladin Atharvavedins ¯ of Orissa; for when they absorbed the influence of the S´ aktism of Bengal in the ¯ latest stratum of their diverse Aṅgirasakalpa ¯ corpus it was principally the rites of Dakṣiṇ akal¯ī and Tarā that they adopteḍ ¯557

The importance of Tarā in late east-Indian ¯ S´ aktism is independently ¯

554 Blue Annals, pp. 797–805. On the career of Vanaratna see ERHARD 2004. 555 HAHN 1996, p. 37: samāptam idaṁ[vana]ratnastotrasaptakam | kr̥tir magadha deśīyādityānām iti; p. 40: dpal ldan bla ma nags kyi rin chen bstod pa bdun pa ’di ni rdzogs so | yul ma ga dhā nas byung ba’i bsnyen dam pa nyi ma pa zhes bya bas mdzad pa’o (*samāptam idam śrīguruvanaratnastotrasaptakam | kr̥tir magadha deśīyaparamopāsakādityānām). 556 SHASTRI 1917, p. 21: ASB MS 8067. The scribe identifies himself as Sadbauddha karaṇ akayasthat ¯ .hakkura Amitabha. ¯

557 SANDERSON 2007b, pp. 235–236, fn. 88.

[[242]]

confirmed by the existence of substantial texts devoted exclusively to her worship, notably the Tārārahasyavr̥tti of Gauḍīya Sa´ nkara composed in 1630, ˙ the Tārābhaktisudhārṇ ava, a work in some 11,000 verses composed by Nr̥siṁ ha T. hakkura c. 1688, the Tārābhaktitaraṅgiṇi of Ka¯s´īnatha, composed in 1682 āt the request of Kr̥ṣṇ acandra, Maharāja of Nadia in West Bengal, and two ¯ other works with the same title, one by Vimalanandan ātha and the other by ¯ Praka¯s´anandan ātha. ¯

THE JAINS’ ADAPTATION OF THE S´ AIVA MANTRAS´ ASTRA ¯

Jainism too enjoyed royal support during this period, notably in western India under the Caulukyas and in Karṇ ataka among the Ga ¯ ngas of Tal ˙ .akad¯ ., the Ras¯ .t.rakut¯ .as, and Hoysal.as;558 and it too developed a Tantric ritual culture along Śaiva lines for the propitiation ( ´ārādhanā) of Mantra-goddesses for mun

dane benefits using Mudras, Japa, and offerings into fire ( ¯ homaḥ). Among god desses worshipped in Jaina rites for such purposes are Lakṣmī and Vag¯īsvar ´ī (Sarasvatī) belonging to the higher world, the Vidyadev ¯īs belonging to the mid dle,559 and, most important, in the lower world the Yakṣī attendants of the Tīrthankaras, associated with major Jaina pilgrimage sites, notably Ambik ˙ a¯

(/Kus¯ .man¯ . ḍinī), the attendant of Neminatha at Girn ār, Cakre ¯ svar ´ī, the attendant of R.ṣabha at Satru ´ njaya, Padm ˜ avat ¯ī, the attendant of Par¯ svanātha at ¯ Sravan ´. a Bel.gol.a, and Jvalāmālin ¯ī, the attendant of Candraprabha.560 That these deities were developed on the basis of the Śaiva tradition ´

is more transparently obvious here than in Buddhisṁ Thus the Bhairava padmāvatīkalpa, the Digambara Malliṣeṇ a’s Paddhati on the propitiation of Padmavat ¯ī, written in 1057 equates her with Totala, Tvarit ā, Nity ā, Tripur ā, ānd Tripurabhairavī, all well-known Mantra-goddesses of the S´ akta ¯ Śaivaṣ´ 561

558 See STEIN 1998, especially pp. 147–152.

559 In the classical listing these are the following eighteen: Rohiṇī, Prajnapti, ˜ Vajrasr´.nkhal ˙ a, Vajr ā¯nku ˙ s´a, Apraticakr ā, Purus ¯ .adatta, K āl¯ī, Mahakāl¯ī, Gaurī, Gandh ār¯ī, Sarvastramah ājv ālā, M ānav ¯ī, Vairot.ya, Acchupt ā, M ānas ¯ī, and Mahamānas ¯ī.

560 For images of Ambika, Cakre ¯ svar ´ī, Padmavat ¯ī, and Jvalāmālin ¯ī see, e.g., AIISPL, Accession numbers 45246, 10029, 58659, and 19995. On the cult of Padmavat ¯ī see JHAVERY 1944. On the cult of Jvalāmālin ¯ī see SETTAR 1969.

561 On the worship of goddesses in Jainism and their division between the three worlds (¯urdhvalokaḥ, tiryaglokaḥ, and adholokaḥ) see CORT 1987. On the centrality of the culture of Mantras and Mantrasiddhas in medieval Jainism see the survey and analysis by Paul DUNDAS (1998), who writes there of “the Jain mantraśāstra’s partial linkage to an ultimately Śaiva-inspired style of religiosity” (p. 36), of the ´ J ñānārṇ ava of the Digambara Subhacandra, probably in the tenth century, that ´ it “blends much of the “software” of Śaiva ´ mantraśāstra with specifically Jaina so-

[[243]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Unlike Saivism, Pa ´ ncar ˜ atra, and Tantric Buddhism in its mature form, ¯ Jaina Tantrism did not claim to offer Jainas a new path to liberatioṇ It remained entirely focused on mundane benefitṣNonetheless it was not the preserve of the laity. Monks produced the manuals and monks were held to perform these propitiationṣThus Yasobhadras ´ uri and other Mantra-adepts ¯ (māntrikāḥ) use the power that they have obtained by propitiating the goddess Kurukulla to unblock the throat of Dev ācārya when on the sixteenth day of a ¯ debate in the court of the Caulukya Siddharaja between him and the Digambara ¯ Kumudacandra the latter had used his supernatural power to silence him by causing him to choke;562 the Jaina Guru of king Ajayapala undertakes a ¯ two-month propitiation of Ambika on the Raivataka mountain at Girn ār in ¯ order to gain for himself the boon of equality with the renowned Svetāmbara ¯ Hemacandra and for his patron that of equality with Kumarap āla, the great ¯ Caulukya king of Gujarat.563 Hemacandra, Devendrasuri, and Malayagiris ¯ uri ¯ go to the same mountain at night to undertake the propitiation of the Siddha cakramantra, after first performing preliminary rites to summon the presiding goddess Ambika into their presence; ¯564 and Hemacandra propitiates the spell goddess Tribhuvanasvamin ¯ī in Aṇ ahillapattana, the Caulukya capital, in order to ask her about the previous birth of his pupil Kumarap āla. ¯565

As in the non-Jaina tradition the goddesses were put to work to serve the interests of rulers. The Prabandhacintāmaṇi of Merutung˙ acārya, written at ¯ Vardhamana (Vad ¯ .hvan) in eastern K āt¯ .hiavād¯ .in 1304, claims that Padmavat ¯ī was propitiated by means of a fire-sacrifice by a Digambara monk in order to protect Varān¯ . asī, the capital of king Jayacandra (in the late twelfth century), from attack by a Muslim army;566 bards in Karṇ at¯ .aka at the court of Yasodhara ´

teriological concerns” (p. 35), and of the Bhairavapadmāvatīkalpa that it “contains an account of the well-known six magical arts (ṣat.karmāṇi), not greatly dissimilar from their Hindu equivalents” (p. 33).

562 Merutunga, ˙ Prabandhacintāmaṇi, p. 169: ṣoḍ aśe dineākasmike devācāryasya ka ṇt.hāvagrahe māntrikaiḥśrīyaśobhadrasūribhir atulyakurukullādevīprasādalab dhavarais tatkaṇt.hapīt.hāt kṣaṇāt kṣapaṇ akakr̥takārmaṇānubhāvāt keśakaṇ ḍ ukaḥ pātayāṁcakre.

563 Kumārapāladevaprabandha §54: cintitaṁ devatārādhanaṁ vinā manorathānāṁ siddhir na | ato raivatake gatvā devīm ambāṁ paritoṣya hemācāryasamo bhavi ṣyāmi | upavāsatrayaṁtad anu talahat.t.ikāyāṁ pāraṇ am | ekaḥ paricaryākaraḥ| evaṁ māsa 2 tapaḥ prānte devy ambā pratyakṣā jātā kāryaṁ vada | tenoktaṁ yādr̥- śaḥ kumārapāladevas tādr̥śam ajayapāladevaṁ yādr̥śo hemācāryas tādr̥śaṁ māṁ vidhehīti.

564 Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §61. On the worship of the Siddhacakra see JHAVERY 1944, pp. 167–169.

565 Kumārapāladevaprabandha §21.

566 Prabandhacintāmaṇi, pp. 294–295.

[[244]]

are said to have invoked Aparajit ā to secure the king victory in battle; ¯567 and these powers are fully confirmed by the manuals for these riteṣAccording to the unpublished Jvālāmālinīkalpa, composed by the Digambara Indranandin in Karṇ at¯ .aka in 939, the benefits that can be attained by propitiating Jvalāmālin ¯ī include the splitting open of the gates of enemy forts; and the Bhairava padmāvatīkalpa teaches a spell (vidyā) for making one’s enemies fall asleep and magical receipts both for causing dissension among them (vidveṣaṇ am) and causing their death (māraṇ am). Moreover, Padmavat ¯ī was the lineage goddess (kuladevī) of a number of Jaina ruling houses in Karṇ at¯ .aka568 and functioned in this capacity much as she would have done if they had not been converteḍ Thus she appears in a local manifestation as the Padmavat ¯ī of Sa´ sakapura (Sosav ´ uru) ¯ in a Jaina myth of the origin of the name of the Hoysal.a (/Poysal.a) dynasty related in an inscription of 1133.569 When a Jaina ascetic Yogin was trying to subjugate this goddess with a Mantra and a tiger sprang out to break its power the ascetic commanded king Sal.a, saying “Strike [it], O Sal.a” (poy sal.a).570 The king then worshipped the goddess under the name Vasantik ā. Since this story ¯ introduces an account of the conquests of the dynasty it is probable that the goddess is seen here in the manner of the martial lineage goddesses of the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva type venerated by non-Jaina kings during the early medieval period as ´ the source of their sovereignty and military might.

In one important respect, however, Jaina lineage goddesses were bound to differ from their non-Jaina counterpartṣSince Jainas are the strictest of vege tarians and are rigorously opposed to the harming of any living creature, their goddesses, like those of the Buddhists, had to renounce the animal sacrifices that were so conspicuous a part of their cult in non-Jaina lineageṣ571 Thus the Osval¯

567 CORT 1987, p. 248.

568 Notably the Silāhāras, R āt¯ .t.as, and S´ antaras; see C ¯ ORT 1987, p. 243. 569 EC 5:124.

570 Cf. EI 6:10, l. 6: sa hoy sal.eti prāpat taṁ kila vinihatya hoysal.ākhyāṁ 571 In the Buddhist case, however, animal sacrifice, though unusual, does occur̥ We see it in the mahābali sacrifice performed by the Buddhist Newars at Lagankhel ˙ on the occasion of the chariot festival of Bugmalokesvara (Karun ´ . amaya); see S ¯ IN CLAIR 2008. Nor is this a recent innovatioṇ See Catuṣpīt.hatantra ff. 30r2–32r3. The Mantra for the Bali there (f. 31v2–) is derived from a Śaiva prototype seen ´ in the Vidyap¯īt.ha’s Niśisaṁcāra (14.56–63; ff. 47v5–48v2: ekavr̥ kṣe śmaśāne vā . . . ). My pupil Peter-Dāniel Szānt ´ o has kindly informed me (personal communi- ´ cation, 4 March, 2009) that the verses that immediately precede that Mantra in this manuscript, containing the reference to sanguinary offerings, are not part of the original Catuṣpīt.ha but have been added from the Catuṣpīt.hamaṇ ḍ alopāyikā of Caryavratip āda (19.30–33 [f. 20r]). On that work, its author, and the incorpo- ¯ ration of material from it in this MS of the Catuṣpīt.ha see SZANT ´ O´ 2008a. He has also drawn my attention to references to sanguinary offerings elsewhere in the Catuṣpīt.ha itself, in the Sadhana of D ¯ . akin ¯ī (2.4.63–66) and in that of Cus¯ .iṇī (2.4.75),

[[245]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Jainas of Rajasthan and Saurashtra hold that their lineage deity Saccika or Sac- ¯ ciya adopted her present non-violence only when she and they were converted ¯ to Jainism by the monk Ratnaprabhasuri, probably in the twelfth century, ¯572 in consequence of his having miraculously cured a boy of snake-bite when he had already been thought dead and prepared for crematioṇ They claim that be fore their conversion they had been Rajput warriors—a claim also found among other Jain castes—573 and she a fierce Camun ¯ . ḍ a whom they propitiated with the ¯ Tantric rites of the Vamam ārga. Her pre-Jaina past is still visible in her tem- ¯ ple at Osian near Jodhpur, the Osv āls’ original home. For the outer wall of her ¯ innermost shrine shows images of Camun ¯ . ḍ a, Mahis ¯ .asuramardin ¯ī, S´ītala, and a ¯ naked Bhairava.574

We have another story of the conversion of a lineage goddess in Jaina accounts of the life of the Caulukya king Kumarap āla of Gujarat (r̥ 1143– ¯ 1174), who converted from Saivism to Jainism under the influence of the ´ illustrious Svetāmbara scholar monk Hemacandra. According to these accounts ¯ Kaṇt.hesvar ´ī, the lineage goddess of the Caulukyas, and the other goddesses associated with her had always been placated during the nine days of the annual

and to a reference to the attracting of animal and human victims (paśuḥ) at the end of the ninth chapter of the Vajraḍāka. That passage is derived from Laghuśaṁ vara 32.1–2 and 31.2–3b. See also here p. 182, on human sacrifice.

572 See DUNDAS 2002, p. 149.

573 On the claims of Rajput kṣatriya ancestry among the Jain castes of the Osvals, ¯ Khaṇ ḍ elvals, Agrav āls, and ¯ Sr´īmals see B ¯ ABB 1993, pp. 7–8.

574 AGRAWALA 1954 and 1956; CORT 1987, pp. 243–244; and BABB 1993, pp. 9–10, following accounts in BHUT¯. ORIYA¯ 1988. For photographs of the Camun ¯ . ḍ a and ¯ Mahiṣasuramardin ¯ī see AIISPL, Accession numbers 59386 and 59388. An account of the conversion of Saccika is found in a chronicle, the ¯ Upakeśagacchapat.t.āvalī, of the monastic community followed by the Osval laity, which ends with the in- ¯ stallation of Siddhasuri in [Vikrama] 1655. See pp. 237–238 of the translation by ¯ HOERNLE (1890), who does not provide the original, for which see AGRAWALA 1954. Ratnaprabhasuri describes Saccik ā in that account as follows (H ¯ OERNLE’s transla tion, p. 237), addressing her former devotees: ‘O ye faithful, ye should not go to the temple of Sachchika-dev ¯ī; she is merciless, and incessantly delights in hearing the sound of the breaking of bones and the killing of buffaloes, goats, and other animals; the floor of her temple is stained with blood, and it is hung about with festoons of fresh skins; the teachers of her devotion, rites, and service, are cruel men; she is altogether disgusting and horrible’. The text continues: ‘Hearing these words of the Achārya ¯, they replied,— “What you say, O Lord, is quite true; but if we do not go to worship that cruel Devī, she will slay us and our familieṣ” The Achārya ¯, however, promised to protect them; whereupon they ceased to go any longer to the temple of the Devī’. Ratnaprabhasuri then goes on to convert the goddess, a tradition also āsserted in an inscription of 1598 (CORT 1987, p. 244). Thereafter, it is said, she would accept no sanguinary offerings and not even red flowers, because they resem ble such offeringṣ

[[246]]

Navaratra festival by the sacrifice of thousands of goats and buffaloeṣ¯575 But this stops when Kumarap āla, now a convert to Jainism, declares a fourteen-year ¯ ban on the taking of life. Kaṇt.hesvar ´ī appears before the king and demands to know why she and the other goddesses have been denied their usual sacrificeṣWhen he explains that he cannot sacrifice to her now that he is a Jaina she is enraged and strikes him on the head with her trident, causing leprous sores to break out on his body. Hemacandra miraculously cures his affliction, tries to persuade the goddess to accept in future offerings of vegetarian food of equal value, and when this fails binds her with a Mantra. Thoroughly humbled, she begs the king to free her, promising that if she is released she will give up her ways and work instead to police his ban on the slaughter of animals throughout his realṁ With Hemacandra’s permission he releases her and she takes to her new role as the king’s informer with all the zeal of the convert.576 She reports a vassal king in Sauras¯ .t.ra for secretly butchering goats in his home: Kumarap āla ¯ sends his minister Udayana at the head of an army to punish hiṁ577 She reports a merchant for plucking a louse from his wife’s head and crushing it: his entire property is seized and the money used to fund the building of a Jaina monastery, named accordingly the Monastery of the Louse (Yukāvih āra). ¯578

575 Three thousand seven hundred goats and thirty-seven buffaloes were to be sac rificed: a hundred goats and one buffalo on the first day, two hundred goats and two buffaloes on the second, three hundred goats and three buffaloes on the third, and so on, so that nine hundred goats and nine buffaloes were sacrificed on the ninth (Mahanavam ¯ī). See Somatilakasuri, ¯ Kumārapāladevacarita vv. 387– 389: śuddhasamyaktvapūtātmā mahānavamīparvaṇi | kumārapālabhūpālaāmigādibhirākhyata k 388 devī *kaṇt.heśvarī (corr̥ : kaṁt.eśvarī Eḍ) gotradevī svaṁ bhāvyamīhate | ekaṁchāgaśataṁcaiko mahiṣaḥ pratipaddine k 389 etāvad eva dviguṇ aṁ dvitīye divase punaḥ| tr̥tīye triguṇ aṁ yāvan navame *navasaṁ guṇ am (corr̥ : nava saṁ guṇ am Eḍ); and Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §75: athāmāriṁ pravartayati rājaniāśvinaśuklapakṣo ’gāt | tatra *kaṇt.ḥeśvaryādidevatānām (kaṇt.ḥeśvaryādi corr̥ : kaṇt.eśvaryādi Eḍ) arcakair vij ñaptaṁ deva saptamyāṁ sapta śatāni paśavaḥsapta mahiṣāś ca devatānāṁ puro dīyante rāj ñā | evam aṣt.amyām aṣt.au śatāni navamyāṁ nava śatānīti. In the editions of the Kumārapāladevacarita and the Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha the goddess’ name appears in the form Kaṇt.esvar ´ī. I have corrected this to Kaṇt.hesvar ´ī on the dubious strength of a passage in the Prabandhacintāmaṇi of Merutunga in which ˙ the author implies that she owes her name to the fact that in the eighth century Vanaraja, the founder of the C āpotkat ¯ .a dynasty that preceded the Caulukyas at Aṇ ahillapattana, had a shrine built for her in the kaṇt.haḥ(‘narrow entrance’?) of his palace (p. 35: tathā ca tena dhavalagr̥hakaṇt.he kaṇt.heśvarīprāsādaś ca kāritaḥ).

576 Kumārapāladevacarita, vv. 387–396 and Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §75. 577 Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §85.

578 Kumārapāladevacarita, vv. 404–406; cf. Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §77. The same sources relate another occasion on which the Jaina Mantravada was used ¯ to curb a sanguinary goddesṣHemacandra and Yasa´ scandra fly through the ´

[[247]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Thus, while drawing heavily on the S´ akta ¯ Śaiva tradition of the propitia- ´ tion of Mantra-goddesses, the Jain Mantravada, was bound to keep itself free of ¯ the sanguinary aspects of those cults and, also, one would assume, of all other transgressive elements that would conflict with the ascetic character of the Jaina path, notably the use of flesh and alcohol, and the employment of female consortṣHowever, that exclusion was not as complete as one would expect in respect of the last of these elementṣThis is apparent in the accounts of two of the pro pitiations mentioned above. We are told that when Hemacandra, Devendrasuri, ānd Malayagirisuri undertook the propitiation of the Siddhacakramantra on the ¯ Raivataka mountain they did so with a Padminī in the person of the wife of a vil lage headman as their Tantric assistant (uttarasādhakatvena).579 How the wife of the village headman assisted in the propitiation is not stateḍ But the story of Hemacandra’s propitiation of Tribhuvanasvamin ¯ī is more explicit. Again he has the assistance of a Padminī. The daughter-in-law of a farmer is brought to the city for this purpose and the goddess shows her favour after Hemacandra has

air from Aṇ ahillapattana to Bhr̥gupura (Bhr̥gukaccha, Bharukaccha, modern Bharuch/Broach) and attempt to tame the Tantric goddess Saindhava, who had ¯ possessed the minister Ambad ¯. a. She shows her contempt for Hemacandra by stick ing out her tongue. Yasa´ scandra punishes her by pounding some grains of rice inā mortar̥ The first blow causes her temple to quake, and the second and third cause her image to shudder and then be dislodgeḍ She falls at Hemacandra’s feet begging for his protectioṇ See Somatilakasuri’s ¯ Kumārapāladevacarita, vv. 76–85 and Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §87. Saindhava is no doubt the Sindhav ā¯ī Ma whose temple is located outside the walls of Broach to the north, not far from ¯ the temple of Nīlakaṇt.ha. She was receiving goat sacrifices on Mahanavam ¯ī up to the 1940s (DESAI 1993, p. 48). According to Somatilakasuri, she was the principal ¯ of the non-Jaina deities of the city. Sindhava¯ī Ma also has temples in Ahmedabad, ¯ near Bilimora, and Kayavarohana, Vadodara.

579 Kumārapālaprabodhaprabandha §61: te ca trayaḥ kr̥tapūrvakr̥tyāḥśrī-ambikā kr̥tasānnidhyāḥśubhadhyānadhīradhiyaḥśrīraivatādevatādr̥ṣt.au triyāminyāmā hvānāvaguṇt.hanamudrākaraṇ amantranyāsavisarjanādibhir upacārair gurūktavi dhinā samīpasthapadminīstrīkr̥tottarasādhakakriyāḥśrīsiddhacakramantram *a sādhayan (eṁ : asādhayat Eḍ). ‘And those three, after performing the prelimi nary service (pūrvasevā) and bringing about the presence of Ambika, with their ¯ mind firmly concentrated in the ‘pure’ mode of meditation, in the sight of the goddess of the Raivataka mountain, performed at night the Sadhana of the Sid- ¯ dhacakramantra following the procedure taught by the Guru, with all the [re quired] rites of summoning, enclosing, making the Mudras, installing the Mantras ¯ [on their bodies], dismissing and the rest, with the actions of the Tantric as sistant performed by that Padminī beside them’. According to the erotologi cal literature Padminīs are one of four classes of ideal love-partner (nāyikā); see, e.g., Pa ñcasāyakama ñjarī 1.6: sampūrṇendumukhī kuraṅganayanā pīnastanī dakṣiṇā mr̥dvaṅgī vikacāravindasurabhiḥśyāmātha gauradyutiḥ| alpāhāraratā vilāsakuśalā haṁsasvanā sadgatir lajjālur gurudevapūjanaparā syān nāyikā pad minī; and in Tantric literature Hevajratantra 2.7.2–5 and Saṁ varodayatantra 31.3–5b.

[[248]]

repeated the Mantra for three days on the Padminī’s vulva (tasyā yonau).580 The text tells us that Hemacandra’s mind remained undisturbed during this prac tice, no doubt wishing to stress that he was not compromising the monastic rule of celibacy. Indeed there is no evidence of which I am aware that the Jaina Mantravada, unlike ¯ Saivism and Tantric Buddhism in its later phases, created ´ two levels of discipline, one for ordinary practitioners and one for an elite that ´ transcended the rules that apply to the first. Nonetheless, we see from this story that it had gone surprisingly far in this direction, too far for some, one suspects, who would have preferred monks to avoid any practice in which they could be suspected of departing from the straight and narrow Jain path of purificatioṇ

S´ AIVISM IN THE BRAHMANICAL SUBSTRATE

As for the long-established brahmanical tradition, the Śaivas saw it as sub-śumed within their own, accepting it as the only valid source of authority in what they saw as the lesser domain of mundane religion (laukiko dharmaḥ). This per ception is much emphasised in their literature,581 and it is expressed through the

580 Kumārapāladevaprabandha §21: atha śrīhemācāryais tribhuvanasvāminīṁ vidyāmārādhayitukāmā bhāṇ ḍāgārikaṁ kapardinaṁ prāhur yan mehatāgrāme trihuṇ asiṁ haḥ kaut.umbikaḥ| tasya putrāś catvāraḥ| laghor vadhūḥ padminī | yadi sāyāti tadā *tasyā avācyapradeśe (corr̥ :tasyāvācyapradeśe Eḍ) dinatrayaṁ jāpe datte devī prasīdati | etad atiduṣkaram | kapardinoktam | cintā na vidheyā | bhāṇ ḍāgārikas tatra gataḥ kaut.umbikagr̥he | tena satkr̥taḥ| prayojanaṁ pr̥ṣt.aḥ| bhāṇ ḍāgārikenoktam laghuputravadhūṁ mamārpaya | tenoktaṁ kim idamādiśasi | evam eva | vicāro ’pi na kartavyaḥ| tenoktaṁ yadi bhavatāṁ *vicāre samāyātam idam (?) tadaivam astu | sukhāsane ’dhiropya pattane samāgataḥ| śrīhemasūribhiḥ paramānnāhāraparair avikr̥tacittais tasyā yonau dinatrayaṁjāpaḥ kr̥taḥ| devī tuṣt.ā ‘Then Hemacārya, desiring to propitiate the spell-deity Tribhuvanasv āmin ¯ī said to his treasurer Kapardin: “There is a farmer called Trihuṇ asiṁ ha in Mehata¯ village. He has four sonṣThe wife of the youngest is a Padminī. If she comes here and I offer Japa for three days on her unmentionable part the goddess will favour me. This is extremely difficult [to accomplish]”. Kapardin told him not to worry. So the treasurer went to the home of the farmer in that [village] and after being hon oured was asked his purpose. The treasurer said: “Give me the wife of your youngest son”. [The farmer] said: “Is this an order?”. He replied that it was but that he should not be concerneḍ [The farmer] said: “So be it, if this is *what you have decided after due deliberation (?)”. So [the treasurer] put her in a comfortable sedan and returned with her to the capital. The venerable Hemasuri did the Mantra-recitation on her ¯ vulva for three days, intent on eating paramānnam, with his mind undisturbed [by lust]’. The goddess was pleased’. The food paramānnam is, I presume, the dish of rice, milk, and sugar or jaggery otherwise known as pāyasam and considered the ideal food for offering to a vegetarian deity.

581 It is encapsulated in the often cited words of their scripture Bhārgavottara: iti varṇāśramācārān manasāpi na laṅghayet | yo yasminnāśrame tiṣt.han dīkṣitaḥ śivaśāsane | sa tasminn eva saṁtiṣt.hec chivadharmaṁca pālayet ‘So he should not transgress the practices of his caste and [brahmanical] discipline even in thought.

[[249]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

collocation of the epithets paramamāheśvaraḥ and paramabrahmaṇ yaḥthat is sometimes found with the titles of our kings in inscriptionṣ582 But the brahmanical tradition was not merely accepted by the ŚaivaṣIt ´ was also influenced by theṁ During this period we find an ever-growing cor pus of traditions that while claiming to be on the brahmanical side of the divide derive from the Śaiva, both ´ Śaiva devotional literature assigned to the Purān¯ . as and a form of worship that followed Śaiva modelṣIn Purān¯ .ic texts such as the Uttarabhāga of the Liṅgapurāṇ a,583 the Kālikāpurāṇ a, the Devīpurāṇ a, and the Agnipurāṇ a,584 the boundary between the Smarta and Tantric domains has ālmost completely dissolved, prompting the conservative brahmanical author Ballalasena, the twelfth-century Sena king of Gaud ¯ . a, to reject them as invalid as sources of the knowledge of religious duty, objecting particularly to their con taining instruction on such matters as Śaiva initiation and idol consecratioṇ ´ 585 In reality there was no reasonable hope of turning the tide by this period, as had to be conceded even by so conservative an authority as the Nibandha on the Yāj ñavalkyasmr̥ti compiled by or under Aparaditya, the ¯ Silāhāra king ¯ of Konkan ˙ . a in the last quarter of the twelfth century. While firmly denying in general the validity of the practices taught in the Śaiva scriptures, it admits a ´

partial exception in the case of the Sthapaka, the priest who consecrates idols ānd shrineṣIt is admitted that he may draw on these texts to supplement the

He should remain in the discipline in which he was when he was initiated into the Śaiva religion and [at the same time] maintain the ordinances ofśiva’; see SāNDER SON 1988, p. 662 (= 1990, p. 139); 1995, p. 23; 2005a, p. 389; 2007a, pp. 231–232. The Śaivas’ understanding of how the relation between the general, Vaidika ordi- ´ nances and those of the Śaiva scriptures should be perceived is explored at length ´ in SANDERSON forthcoming b.

582 We see this combination in the case of the Pan¯ . ḍuvaṁ sins/Pān¯ . ḍ avas of Mekala in ¯ the fifth century (SHASTRI 1995, noṣII: I–II), the Sailodbhava Mādhavar āja of ¯ Kongod ˙ . a in the seventh (EI 6:14), the Pallavas Paramesvaravarman I ( ´ c. 669–690) and Narasiṁ havarman II (c. 690–728/9) (MAHALINGAM 1988, noṣ45, 53) around the turn of the seventh and eighth, the Bhanja Net ˜ .t.abhanja of Orissa in the eighth ˜ (EI 28:41, ll. 16–17), the descendants of King Nimbara of Kartikeyapura in Hi- ¯ machal Pradesh in the ninth and tenth (EI 31:38), and the Eastern Calukyas in ¯ the eleventh (EI 6:35; EI 6:36).

583 On the presence of the Śaiva Mantramārga in its Saiddh āntika, Daks ¯ .iṇ a (Bhairava), and S´ akta forms in the ¯ Uttarabhaga of the Liṅgapurāṇ a see SANDER SON 2005b, pp. 235–236.

584 On the Agnipurāṇ a’s incorporation of the Saiddhantika ¯ Śaiva Paddhati ofśomasambhu see p.65 above. ´

585 In vv. 55-67 of the introduction to his Dānasāgara Ballalasena rejects on these ānd allied grounds the Garuḍ apurāṇ a, the Brahmapurāṇ a, the Agnipurāṇ a, the Vaiṣṇ avapurāṇ a in twenty-three thousand verses, the Liṅgapurāṇ a in six thou sand, the Devīpurāṇ a, and parts of the Bhaviṣyapurāṇ a. That he did not include the Kālikāpurāṇ a in his list strongly suggests that it postdates hiṁ

[[250]]

ritual of consecration when installing a Siva, and likewise on the other appropri-āte bodies of non-Vedic scripture when consecrating images of the Goddess and the like, provided that his Vedic procedure needs to be supplemented, provided that the imported auxiliary does not offend the Vedic procedure in any way, and provided that he does not take the initiations (dīkṣā) which those scriptures re quire.586 In other words it had to be conceded that a hybrid of Tantric and Vedic rituals procedures was already an institutional reality; and that this was so is confirmed by a Śaiva source, which protests against their existence, insisting ´ that patrons should engage only initiated Śaiva officiants of full conviction, who ´ would perform Śaiva rituals of consecration uncontaminated by such hybridiza- ´ tioṇ587

586 This position is established at length in the course of the commentary on Yāj ñavalkyasmr̥ti 1.7, which lists the valid sources of knowledge of religious duty (dharmamūlam), namely Sruti, Smr ´.ti, and observation of the practice of exemplary brahmins, supplemented by personal judgement and preference where the other sources of knowledge leave scope for theṁ Aparaditya consid- ¯ ers at length and rejects the proposition that the scriptures of the Pa¯supatas, ´ Śaivas, Pā¯ncar ˜ atrikas, and others not rooted in the Veda ( ¯ vedamūla-) should be added to the list (vol. 1, p. 10, l. 6 ff.). He concludes: tataś ca devapūjādau narasiṁ hapurāṇādiprasiddhaivetikartavyā grāhyā nānyā | evaṁ dīkṣāyām apy avagantavyam | na hi purāṇ aprasiddhāyāṁ dīkṣāyāṁjātiśodhanam asti (vol. 1, p. 14, ll. 17–19) . . . evaṁ pratiṣt.hāyām api purāṇādyuktaivetikartavyatā grāhyā nānyā teṣām eva vyāmiśradharmapramāṇ atvena bhaviṣyatpurāṇe parij ñātatvāt (p. 15, ll. 1–2) ‘And so the procedure for such [rituals] as the worship of deities that may be adopted is that taught in such Puran¯ . as as the Narasiṁ ha-, and no other̥ The same should be understood to apply in the case of initiatioṇ For in the initiation established in the Puran¯ . as the [objectionable Śaiva] rite of the elim- ´ ination of [the initiand’s] caste is lacking. . . . Equally, in the case of rituals for the installation [of the image of a deity and the like only the procedure taught in Puran¯ . as and [related texts] may be adopted, since the Bhaviṣyatpurāṇ a acknowl edges none but these as sources of valid knowedge of hybrid religious duty’. By ‘hybrid’ (vyāmiśra-) Aparaditya means procedures that incorporate auxiliary ele- ¯ ments from the TantraṣThe issue of this hybrid installation rituals is taken up in detail on pp. 16, l. 1–19, l. 12.

587 This source is the Saiddhantika scripture ¯ Devyāmata. It devotes several verses to distinguishing types of Sthapaka and to exhorting patrons to avoid all but one, ¯ who is described as learned both in the general Śaiva scriptures and in the special- ´ ized Tantras of Installation, as content with the teaching of Siva, focused wholely ´ upon it, strictly adhering to the discipline of the initiated (samayācāraḥ), with out any inclination towards the scriptures of the uninitiated (paśuśāstram), tak ing no pleasure in the mundane religion, but delighting in the religion of Sivaālone: (2.16cd, 17ab, 19ab, 20ab):ācāryaḥśivaśāstraj ñaḥ pratiṣt.hātantrapāragaḥk . . . 17 śivaśāstrārthasaṁtuṣt.aḥsamayācārapālakaḥ| . . . 19ab śivaśāstraikacittātmā paśuśāstraparāṅmukhaḥ| . . . 20 virakto laukike dharme śivadharmānura ñjitaḥ. Sthapakas to be avoided are those who are Vaidika in their religious commit- ¯ ment and learning. Some of these have no more than a partial knowledge of the Tantras of Installation; but they should be avoided even if they mastered both the Tantras of Installation and the general Śaiva scriptures (2.7–8b and 2.13–14): ´

[[251]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Instances of incorporation of Śaiva ritual in the Smārta domain can be ad- ¯ duced from most regions and periods;588 but perhaps the most striking because it was so widely disseminated and accepted by those who considered themselves to be on the Smarta side of the divide is represented by the ¯ Prapa ñcasāra attributed to Sa´ nkar ˙ acārya and the closely related ¯ Sāradātilaka ´ of Lakṣmaṇ adesika. These ´ two texts, which, I have argued, were composed in Orissa or on the basis of Oris san tradition, most probably in the twelfth century,589 present a system of ritual that differs from the properly Tantric only in its catholic character—in Smarta ¯ fashion it includes rituals of propitiation for all the main deities—, its avoidance of all the elements of ‘impure’ practice that the Smartas castigated in the ¯ Śaiva ´ cults of Bhairava and the Goddess, and its expurgation of doctrines that were contrary to what could be found in acceptably brahmanical sources, notably the doctrine of the thirty-six levels of reality (tattvāni).

THE CAUSES OF THE DOMINANCE OF SAIVISM ´

Saivism, then, was undoutedly the most successful among the religious sys- ´ tems that received royal patronage during the early medieval perioḍ It was the most commonly adopteḍ Of the others some were absorbed by it and the rest while flourishing independently beside it came to remodel themselves along Śaiva lineṣ´

No doubt there were many factors that led to Saivism’s rise to dominance ´ within this complex environment, and no doubt many of these will remain in visible to us, since they could be discerned and weighed only if we had access to much more detailed evidence of the activities and motivations of individuals and institutions, both religious and political. Nonetheless, I venture a general explanatioṇ

THE EARLY MEDIEVAL PROCESS

On the basis of the epigraphical record of acts of patronage, and consider ing evidence of changes over time within the Śaivas’ prescriptive literature, I ´

pratiṣt.hātantraki ñcijj ñaḥ paśuśāstrānura ñjitaḥ| tattvopadeśahīnaś ca nācāryo na ca sādhakaḥk 8 tena saṁsthāpitaṁliṅgaṁsiddhidaṁ na kadā cana | . . . 13 pa davākyapramāṇ aj ño brāhmaṇ o vedapāragaḥ| pratiṣt.hātantraki ñcijj ñaḥsthāpako na praśasyate k 2.14 pratiṣt.hātantratattvaj ñaḥśivaśāstraviśāradaḥ| so ’pi na sthā pakair iṣt.aḥ paśuśāstrānura ñjitaḥ.

588 One of these, the assimilation of S´ akta ¯ Śaiva propitiation rites by the Athar- ´ vavedic tradition of the Paippaladins of Orissa, has been demonstrated at length ¯ in SANDERSON 2007b.

589 SANDERSON 2007b, pp. 230–233.

[[252]]

propose that the fundamental reason for the religion’s success, underlying and structuring the mass of particulars now lost to view, was that it greatly increased its appeal to royal patrons by extending and adapting its repertoire to contain a body of rituals and theory that legitimated, empowered, or promoted key ele ments of the social, political and economic process that characterizes the early medieval perioḍ

These elements were:

1. the spread of the monarchical model of government through the emergence of numerous new dynasties at subregional, regional, and supraregional levels;

2. the multiplication of land-owning temples, both royal temples in nuclear areas and lesser temples in peripheral zones, often established by subor dinate local lords, thus promoting the rural economy and the progressive penetration of the authority of the centre into new territories;

3. the proliferation of new urban centres, both commercial centres that grew from below through a process of agglomeration, and planned settlements, growths from above, founded by rulers;

4. the expansion of the agrarian base through the creation of villages, land reclamation, and the construction of water-reservoirs, wells, and other means of irrigation, with the steady growth in population that these de velopments imply; and

5. the cultural and religious assimilation of the growing population of com munities caught up in this expansioṇ590

At the same time it took steps to integrate itself with the brahmanical sub

590 For this positive characterization of the period I am indebted to the work of a num ber of historians who in recent decades have shown the invalidity of the widespread view that it was a time of decline, de-urbanization, fragmentation, and general im poverishment in the aftermath of a glorious classical age that culminated under the Gupta kings and ended with their demise. I acknowledge in particular the research, conclusions, and hypotheses of Noboru KARASHIMA (1984), R. CHAMPAKALAKSHMI (1986), Hermann KULKE (1990, 1995a, b), Brajadulal CHATTOPADHYAYA (1994), Upinder SINGH (1994), Burton STEIN (1994, 1998), James HEITZMAN (1995), and Cynthia TALBOT (2001). That judgement, which owes more, one suspects, to the concept of the European Dark Ages after the collapse of the Roman empire than to unbiased analysis of India’s epigraphical and archaeological record, has its coun terpart in the not uncommon assessment that these centuries also witnessed a pro gressive degeneration of Sanskritic literary, intellectual, and religious culture. It is refreshing to see that the work of those historians who are engaging vigorously with the epigraphical and archaeological evidence of the age has brought forth a view that is more consonant with the abundant literary evidence of intellectual and aesthetic vigour̥

[[253]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

strate in ways that rendered it accessible and acceptable to a far wider con stituency and therefore all the more appealing to rulers in their role as the guardians of the brahmanical social order̥

S´ AIVISM AND MONARCHY

Saivism’s engagement with the first and most crucial of these elements isāpparent in the fact that from the seventh century onwards inscriptions and pre scriptive religious texts reveal that Śaiva brahmin Gurus were holding the posi- ´ tion of royal preceptor (rājaguruḥ) in numerous new kingdoms both on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia and in this capacity empowering and legiti mating the monarch’s rule by granting him Śaiva initiation ( ´śivamaṇ ḍ aladīkṣā). It might be thought that this would have been an unappealing step for any but the most reclusive and ineffectual of kings, since after initiation Śaivas were ´ obliged to adhere to a complex and time-consuming program of daily and oc casional ritualṣHowever, early in the development of the Mantramarga, the ¯ Śaivas, no doubt in order to extend their recruitment and hence their influence,ādmitted a category of initiates who in consideration of the fact that they were in capable of taking on these onerous duties were exonerated from doing so.591 The king was considered to qualify for this less arduous route to liberation by reason of his royal obligationṣHe was therefore required to adhere only to the obli gations of an uninitiated devotee of Siva taught in the texts of theśivadharma ´ corpus, which in his case were principally to support the religion and its institu tions and to sponsor and appear in conspicuous ceremonies in the civic domaiṇ

Moreover, according to prescriptive sources the king’s initiation was to be followed by a Śaiva modification of the brahmanical royal consecration ceremony ´ (rājyābhiṣekaḥ), bestowed both on the king and his chief consort, and also given to the heir apparent at the time that he was consecrated to succeed to his father’s

591 The distinction between these two categories of initiate, those who receive initi ation with post-initiatory duties (sabījā dīkṣā ‘initiation with seed’ ) and those who receive it without (nirbījā dīkṣā ‘initiation without seed’), is not present in the earliest Saiddhantika scriptures, namely the corpus of ¯ Niśvāsa texts found in the Niśvāsatattvasaṁ hitā codex, the earliest of which, the Mūlasūtra, was probably composed at some time between 450 and 550, for which dating see the conclusions of a recent workshop on this text summarized in the newsletter of the Nepal-German Manuscript Cataloguing Project (GOODALL and ISAACSON 2007). On the relatively archaic character of the Niśvāsa corpus see SANDERSON 2001, pp. 22–31 (archaic features listed in fn. 32, pp. 29–31), and SANDERSON 2006. The category of exon erated initiates appears later in the Kiraṇ a, the Pārameśvara, and the Svaccha nda, and, following the latter, in the PaddhatiṣThe textual evidence is given in SANDERSON forthcoming a.

[[254]]

throne (yuvarājābhiṣekaḥ).592

This new ceremony was added to the purely Śaiva consecrations recognized ´ by the core tradition, through which a Śaiva Guru empowered an initiate to take ´ office as a Sadhaka ( ¯ sādhakābhiṣekaḥ), a specialist in Mantra-rituals for super natural effects (siddhiḥ), and that through which a retiring Guru (ācāryaḥ) con secrated his chosen successor (ācāryābhiṣekaḥ), passing on to him his dutieṣIn this way the monarch was incorporated as a third kind of Śaiva initiate, who ´

differed from the Sadhaka and the Guru not in the character of the initiation ¯ itself but in the consecration ceremony that followed it: while they were to be consecrated for purely Śaiva functions, the king was to be consecrated to take ´ up office as the “head of [the brahmanical social order of] the caste-classes and religious disciplines” (varṇāśramaguruḥ),593 the role already assigned to him by brahmanical prescriptioṇ594

As the function of the Śaiva consecration is modified in this case, so its form, ´ though in general Śaiva, incorporates distinctive non- ´ Śaiva elements appropri-āte to its mundane and brahmanical aspects, such as the inclusion of the royal

592 The textual and epigraphical evidence for the practice of royal initiation, and the textual evidence for the king’s exoneration from Śaiva duties, and this ancillary ´ Śaiva modification of the brahmanical royal consecration ceremony are presented inśANDERSON forthcoming a. On the brahmanical consecrations of the king, queen, and heir apparent see SANDERSON 2005a, p. 382 and notes 115–117.

593 Naimittikakarmānusaṁ dhāna f. 74v1: [4.118] varṇānāmāśramāṇāṁca gu rubhāvāya bhūpateḥ| yo ’bhiṣekavidhiḥso ’pi procyate dīkṣitātmanaḥ‘I shall also teach the rite of consecration as the means by which a king, provided that he has received [Śaiva] initiation, becomes the patron of the caste-classes and brahmanical ´ disciplines’.

594 Manusmr̥ti 7.35cd: varṇānāmāśramāṇāṁca rājā sr̥ṣt.o ’bhirakṣitā ‘The king has been created as the guardian of the castes and disciplines’; Br̥haspatismr̥ti 1.9ab: tasmād varṇāśramāṇāṁtu netāsau nirmitaḥ purā ‘he was created of old as the leader of the castes and disciplines’; Viṣṇ usmr̥ti 3.1–3: atha rājadharmāḥ. prajāparipālanam | varṇāśramāṇāṁsve sve dharme vyavasthāpanam ‘Next the du ties of the king: protection of his subjects [and] ensuring that the castes and [follow ers of the] disciplines keep to their respective duties’; Viṣṇ udharmottara 2.65.55: varṇāśramavyavasthā tu tathā kāryā viśeṣataḥ| svadharmapracyutān rājā sva dharme viniyojayet ‘And his special duty is to establish the castes and disciplineṣThe king must force those who have fallen away from their duties [as members and followers of these] to practice them’. The characterization of the king in accordance with these injunctions as the Guru of the castes and disciplines (varṇāśramaguruḥ) is a commonplace in our perioḍ See, for example, Sātvatasaṁ hitā 24.16–17 (> ¯Iśvarasaṁ hitā 17.14–15); Somadeva, Kathāsaritsāgara 12.6.85; Candraprabhasuri, ¯ Prabhāvakacarita v. 284ab; Kṣemendra, Avadānakalpalatā 2.60c and 27.22b. See also the cognate expressions sarvāśramaguruḥ andāśramiṇāṁ guruḥin Ne tratantra 19.87 and 20.55b, varṇāśramadharmamaryādācāryaḥ and akhilāśrama guruḥin Agamad ¯. ambara, Act 2, prose after 20 and Act 3, v. 4, and varṇ aguruḥin Rājataraṅgiṇī 3.85ab.

[[255]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

banners, weapons, and armour in the objects of worship,595 the seating of the king on a platform covered with the skins of a fighting bull and a cat,596 the

595 Naimittikakarmānusaṁ dhāna, f. 75r4–v1 (4.129c–132): ghat.eṣv abhyarcya lokeśān sāstrān indrapura<ḥ >sarān k 130 śivam agni ñ ca hetīś ca ketuṁ(conj. : ketuś Coḍ) ceśādivediṣu [Marginal glosses: khaḍ gādi on hetīś and dhvajacihnaṁ on ketuś] | saṁ nidhīkr̥tya saṁtarpya pūjayec cakravartinaḥk 131 udagvediśira<ḥ >stheṣu kalaśeṣ¯uktalakṣmasu | anantādiśikhaṇ ḍ yantān (corr̥ : antā Coḍ) digvidikṣu yathākramam k 132 tasyās tadvad adha<ḥ >stheṣu rudramātr̥ gaṇārthadān | grahāsurapalāśākhyān (conj. :ākhya Coḍ) bhoginām adhipān api ‘He should wor ship Indra and the other Lokapalas together with their weapons in the vases, and ¯ then Siva, Agni, the [royal] weapons, and the [royal] banner on the altars begin- ´ ning [with that] in the northeast. He should then summon, gratify, and worship the [eight] Universal Monarchs [, i.e. the Vidyesvaras], beginning with Anantaānd ending with Sikhan ´. ḍin, in the vases whose required characteristics have been stated above, set on the northern altar, and likewise, below that [altar], the Rudras, the Matr ¯ .s, Kubera, the Grahas, the Asuras, the flesh-eating [Raks ¯ .asas], and the Naga lords’; f. 76r2–4 (4.141–142): ¯ śivāgnihetiketūnāṁ kāritābhyām athārcanam | pa ñcagavyaṁcaruṁtābhyāṁ dattvā ca dvijaśodhanam k svāpayitvā tu tau tatra sarakṣau vedikādvaye | pr̥tha prākśirasau mahyāṁsaṁ yatau kṣaumaśayyayoḥ ‘He should make both [the king and queen] offer worship to Siva, the Fire, the ´ [royal] weapons, and the [royal] banner, and then give them the five products of the cow, rice porridge [prepared on the sacred fire], and a tooth-cleaning twig. He should then have them sleep on the ground with their heads to the east on beds of linen on the surface of the two altars, having provided them with protection (sarakṣau). They should observe chastity [throughout the night].’ For the protection mentioned here see the rites such those of protecting the beds by reciting of the Weapon-Mantra over them and surrounding them with Weapon-empowered lines of mustard-seeds, sesame-seeds, and ash set out in Uttarakāmika 23.54–59 (elaborating the related expression sarakṣān svāpayen niśi) and Mr̥ gendra, Kriyāpāda 7.98c–103, both cited in BRUNNER 1977, pp. 216–221. As for the requirement that the king and queen should sleep with their heads to the east, this too expresses the relatively mun dane nature of this consecratioṇ For at this point in Śaiva initiation ritual can- ´ didates are to sleep with their heads to the east if they seek benefits other than liberation; see Mr̥ gendra , Kriyāpāda 7.99ab: bubhokṣoḥśayanaṁ kuryād guruḥ prācīnamastakaṁ

596 Naimittikakarmānusaṁ dhāna f. 76v4–5 (4.150–152b): hetīn astreṇ a ketūṁś ca varmaṇā kaṅkat.āny api [Marginal gloss on kaṅkat.āni: saṁ nahyāni] | sugandhapuṣpadhūpādyair naivedyāntaiḥ prapūjya ca k anantādīṁś ca *vidyeśān udagvedyāṁ(conj. : ved+ + + + + vedyāś Coḍ) ca pūrvavat | rudrādīṁś ca ghat.eṣv iṣt.vā vedyorūrdhvam athāstaret k br̥hadukṣṇ o ’tiśūrasya vr̥ṣadaṁśasya car[maṇī] ‘After worshipping with offerings beginning with fragrant flowers and incense and ending with cooked food the weapons and the banners with the Weapon-Mantra and the cuirasses with the Armour-Mantra, he should worship Ananta and the other *Vidyesvaras on the northern altar (conj.) as before and after worship- ´ ping the Rudras[, the Matr ¯ .s, Kubera, the Grahas, the Asuras, the flesh-eating (Raks ¯ .asas),] and [the Naga lords] he should spread on the two altars the skins of ā fighting bull and a cat’. Cf. Varahamihira ¯ Br̥hatsaṁ hitā 47.75–76, on the royal puṣyasnānam: gatvā dvitīyavedīṁsamupaviśec carmaṇāṁ upari rājā | deyāni caiva carmāṇ y upary upary evam etāni k vr̥ṣasya vr̥ṣadaṁśasya ruroś ca pr̥ṣatasya ca | teṣām upari siṁ hasya vyāghrasya ca tataḥ param; and Viṣṇ udharmottara 2.21.35 on the brahmanical royal consecration (rājyābhiṣekaḥ): vr̥ṣasya (corr̥ : vr̥ kasya Eḍ)

[[256]]

recitation of the Mantra text of sixteen verses prescribed for the brahmanical prototype when the water of consecration is poured over the king’s head,597 and, after the ceremony is complete, the king’s return to his palace in full military pa rade, mounted on an elephant or white horse, preceded by the royal banners, and showered with parched rice by the women standing on the roofs of the mansions along his route.598

Just as this brahmanical rite is subsumed within the Śaiva process of initia- ´ tion and consecration, so its outcome, the king’s entitlement to rule as guardian of the brahmanical social order now entails the additional requirement or, one might say, compensation to the Śaivas for this descent into the mundane, that ´ he should ensure that the authority of brahmanical prescription be subsumed within, and subordinate to, that of the Śaiva scriptures, an injunction supported ´ by the promise that by enforcing this hierarchical relationship he will secure the stability of his rule and kingdom, implying that by neglecting to do so he will bring about their collapse.599

vr̥ṣadaṁśasya dvīpinaś ca bhr̥ gūttama | teṣām upari siṁ hasya vyāghrasya ca tataḥ paraṁ

597 Naimittikakarmānusaṁ dhāna ff. 78r1–79r1 (interrupted by the loss of a folio), beginning (4.168–169): loke vede prasiddhā<ṁ >ś ca viprān etarhi pāt.hayet | abhiṣekāśiṣaḥ(corr̥ : abhiṣekāsikhaḥ Coḍ) ślokān r̥ṣiproktā<ṁ >ś ca tad yathā k surās tvām abhiṣi ñcantu ye ca siddhā<ḥ > purātanāḥ| brahmā viṣṇ uś ca śambhuś ca śakrādyāś ca marudgaṇāḥk . . . . These verses are prescribed for this purpose by Varahamihira in the first half of the sixth century in ¯ Br̥hatsaṁ hitā 47.55–70.

598 Naimittikakarmānusaṁ dhāna f. 84r2–5:ārūḍ ho bhadramātaṅgam athavā vājinaṁsitam kātapatreṇ a śubhreṇ a hemadaṇ ḍena *cāruṇā (conj. : cā + + Coḍ) | *nigr̥hītātapaḥ(conj. : + + hītātapaḥ Coḍ) śvetair vījyamānaś ca *cāmaraiḥ(eṁ : cāparaiḥ Coḍ) k cāturaṅgabalopetaḥ purataḥ ketumālayā k astavighno ’nukūlena dhūtayā + + *vāyunā (diagṇ conj. : + + + Coḍ) | saudhāgravedikāsthābhiḥ kulapatnībhirādarāt k prayuktaṁlājavarṣaṁca manyamāno *bahupriyam (conj. : vahapriyam Coḍ) | praviśet svapuraṁ *pauraiḥ (conj. : pau + Coḍ) + + + + vikāsibhiḥ.

599 Mohacūḍ ottara f. 21v–22r (4.276–281): śrutismr̥tipurāṇāniāgamā dharmadeśakāḥ | etair yo vartate rājā sa rājyaṁ bhu ñjate ciram k 277 purāṇ aṁ bādhyate vedairāgamaiś ca taduktayaḥ| sāmānyaṁca viśeṣaṁca śaivaṁ vaiśeṣikaṁ vacaḥk 278 bādhyabādhakabhāvena no vikalpyaṁ vicakṣaṇ aiḥ| yad yathāvasthitaṁ vastu sarvaj ñas tat tadāvadet k 279āgamānāṁ bahutve tu yatra vākyadvayaṁ bhavet | kiṁ pramāṇ aṁtadā grāhyaṁ pramāṇ aṁśāṅkaraṁ vacaḥk 280 *granthād granthāntaraṁt.īkā (?) sāpekṣanirapekṣayoḥ| samādhānaṁtayoḥ kāryam arthāpattyādisādhanaiḥk 281 evaṁj ñātvā surādhyakṣa nirvr̥tiṁ paramāṁ vraja | evaṁ dharmānvite rāj ñi svarāṣt.re sarvadā śivam ‘[The sources] that teach religious duty are the Vedas, the Dharmas´astras, the Pur ān¯ . as, and the AgamaṣThe Pur ān¯ . as are outweighed by the Vedas and the teachings of the latter by the AgamaṣThe ¯ common and the special, the latter being the teachings of Siva, are related so that ´ the second outweighs the first. The learned should have no doubt about thiṣ[For it is] all-knowing [Siva that] has taught everything as it truly iṣWhen, there be- ´ ing a plurality of scriptural authorities, there are two [contradictory] text-passages

[[257]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

The Śaivas also adapted the theory of their ritual practice to enable them to ´ claim that those rulers who underwent their ceremonies would be empowered in their efforts to maintain their supremacy and extend it through conquest. The ceremony of initiation had been conceived as the means of obtaining liberation and was always presented in these terms in theoretical textṣBut a fifteenth century Kashmirian scholar can proclaim in a eulogy of his patriline that by receiving initiation from one of his ancestors kings had expelled their enemies and long enjoyed distinguished reignṣ600 Similarly, an inscription of the twelfth or thirteenth century from Hariyan¯ . a tells us that the effect of the initiation of King Surap āla was to give him power beyond that of all his rivalṣ¯601 It adds that if his Guru Murtigan ¯ . a initiated a brahmin, a king, or his minister he thereby made them [respectively] the repository of knowledge, the master of all the earth, and the foremost of meṇ602 In the Malkapuram inscription of ¯ A.D. 1261 we are told that the effect of the initiation given by Visveśvaraśiva to the Kākat ¯īya prince Rudradeva was to make the might of his [right] arm, that is to say his valour in battle, shine more brilliantly.603 The same notion is apparent in the great Mebon inscription of A.D. 953 of the Khmer monarch Rajendravarmaṇ ¯

[one non-Śaiva and the other ´ Śaiva] and the question of which is valid arises one ´ must privilege the teaching of Siva. The two should be reconciled, as respectively ´ dependent and independent [in their validity], by means of implication and other exegetical tools, *[on the evidence of] the texts [themselves in which those state ments occur], related texts, and commentary (?). Having understood this, Indra, achieve the highest blisṣProvided that the king adheres to religion in this manner, his kingdom will always prosper’.

600 Rajānaka ¯ Sitikan ´.t.ha, Rājānakavaṁśapraśaṁsā, v. 5ab: tasmād yodhagurur babhūva bhagavān saṁ prāpya dīkṣāṁ yataḥ| prājyaṁrājyam apāstavairinikarāś cakruś ciraṁ bhūbhujaḥ‘His son was the Venerable Yodha. When kings received initiation from him they drove off all their enemies and had long and outstanding reigns’. For the probable identity of these kings see SANDERSON 2007a, p. 397.

601 EI I, pp. 61-66, ll. 12–13.: tadbhaktimān mūrtigaṇ o guṇīndro (corr̥ : guṇiṁ dro Ep.) babhūva bhūpālahr̥dabjasūryaḥ| saddīkṣayā yasya sa sūrapāladevo babhūvāpratimaprabhāvaḥ‘Then there was his devotee Murtigan ¯ . a, foremost of the virtuous, the sun that opened the lotus that is the heart of the king, by whose excel lent initiation Surap āladeva became [a king] whose might was unequalled’. ¯

602 Ibiḍ ll. 13–14 (continuous with the passage cited in the preceding note): . . . vi praṁ bhūmipatiṁtadīyam athavāmātyaṁsa yaṁ dīkṣayet | taṁtaṁ bodhanidhiṁ samastapr̥thivīnāthaṁ pradhānaṁ nr̥ṇāṁsthāṇ uṁ patriṇ amātanot tarum iva

śrīyāj ñavalkyo muniḥ‘Any brahmin, king, or minister that he initiated he made the repository of [all] knowledge, lord of the whole earth, and the foremost of men, just as the sage Yaj¯ navalkya caused a tree, a [mere] plant, to burst into leaf’. When ˜ the dissolute king Supriya contemptuously refused the sacred water and grain that Yaj¯ navalkya had brought to the palace to restore his health, Y ˜ aj¯ navalkya sprinkled ˜ them on to a rotten tree and departeḍ Seeing that the dead tree immediately burst into leaf the king tried without success to have him returṇ

603 PANTULU 1930, v. 22: śrīviśveśvaradeśikendraśivahastodbhāsidorvikramaṣ[[258]]

In a passage describing his marching forth to war it speaks of the ceremony of [Śaiva] Man ´. ḍ ala initiation as intensifying his brilliance, a statement that in the context must be taken to refer to his power to conquer his enemieṣ604

Nor was it only the theory that was adjusted to suit their patronṣAccording to the Br̥hatkālottara the Śaiva Guru was to close the initiation ceremony by ´ giving abhiṣekaḥto the horses, elephants, chariots, and soldiers of the army by sprinkling them with the water from the vase of the Weapon-Mantra (astra

kalaśaḥ), one of the two main vases prepared in the course of the ceremony, “in order to remove all obstacles and to ensure victory in battle”.605 The Śaivas also ´

created a double of their ritual of post-initiatory consecration (abhiṣekaḥ) to be performed for the king before he entered the fray.606 A much elaborated form of this ‘consecration for victory’ (jayābhiṣekaḥ), involving S´ akta ¯ Śaiva rather than ´ Śaiva Mantra-deities and one thousand vases, is taught in the 248 verses of the ´

27th chapter of the Uttarabhāga of the Liṅgapurāṇ a.

They also offered a wealth of apotropaic, invigorative, and hostile Mantra rites that could be performed on demand for the benefit of the realm, to promote the success of royal patrons, and to frustrate their enemieṣThe evidence for such

604 The Mebon inscription (in FINOT 1925 [=K. 582], pp. 309–352), vv. 39–40: itas ta to vidyud ivādyutac chrīs tāvan nr̥ pānāṁ pracalā prakr̥tyā | ramyā śarat prādur abhūn na yāvad yadīyayātrāsamayo nirabhrā k 40 tīvrāstranīrājanarājitaśrīr dī pto mahāmaṇ ḍ aladīkṣayā yaḥ| vidyāṅgamantraiś ca kr̥tātmaguptiḥ asā[dhaya]t siddhim udārabhūtim ‘The fortune of kings, [though] unstable by nature, did not flicker here and there like lightning until the charming, cloudless autumn appeared, the season of his marching fortḥ His splendour enhanced by the lustration of his mighty weapons, he himself [made more] brilliant by initiation before the Great Maṇ ḍ ala [of Siva], his person protected by the Vidyā¯nga Mantras, he accomplished ˙ the Siddhi of total succesṣ’

605 Br̥hatkālottara A, f. 45v2–3 (22.24c–25b): hastyaśvaratha*yodhānāṁ(eṁ : yo dhyānā Coḍ) secanam astravāriṇā | kartavyaṁ vighnaśamanaṁsaṁ grāme jaya kāraṇ am ‘He should [then] consecrate the elephants, horses, and soldiers with wa ter from the Weapon[-vase] to remove obstacles and [so] bring about [the king’s] victory [in war]’.

606 Kiraṇ a f. 52v (27.23c–25b): prokto ’yam abhiṣeka<ḥ > syā vijayārthaṁ nr̥ pasya ca | 27.24 saubhāgyajananaṁ mukhyaṁ grahapīḍānivartakam | sarva sampat*pradaṁśrīdaṁ(corr̥ : pradā śrīdā Coḍ) yaśokīrtivivardhanam k 27.25 śāntipuṣt.ikaraḥ proktaḥseko ’yaṁ vighnanāśakaḥ‘This consecration that I have taught may also be performed to ensure a king’s victory. It is the principal means of bringing about good fortune. It removes oppression by possessing spir itṣIt bestows all success and wealtḥ It augments [the king’s] fame and rep utatioṇ I have also taught it as the means of warding off ills, restoring vital ity, and eliminating obstacles’; Cf. Siddhāntasārapaddhati: evam anenaiva vi dhinā rājyakāmasya bhraṣt.arājyasya putrakāmāyāḥsaubhāgyakāmāyā abhiṣekaṁ kuryāt ‘Following this same procedure he may perform the consecration for one who desires sovereignty, for one who has lost his kingdom, and for a woman who desires a son or good fortune’.

[[259]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

rituals in the scriptural literature of the Śaivas, especially in itsś´ akta ¯ Śaiva ´ texts, is pervasive.607 There is also historical evidence of specific performanceṣFor example, an inscription of the fifth year of the reign of the Cola Rajādhir āja ¯ II (r̥ 1163–1179 or 1166–1182) from the Tiruval¯īsvara temple atārpp ākkam ¯ near Ka¯nc˜īpuram608 tells us that when an army from Sri Lanka had invaded

the Pan¯ . ḍ ya country, plundered the treasury of the temple of Rame ¯ svaram, and ´ interrupted the cult of Siva there, the emperor, fearing that the war might spread ´

approached a certain Jn˜ ana ¯ sivadeva of Gaud ´ . a, who can be seen from his name to have been a Saiddhantika ¯ Śaiva Guru, to free the country from this menace ´ by ritual meanṣThe Guru, we are told, then worshipped Siva for this purpose ´ for twenty-eight days continuously, and it was reported subsequently that these ‘attackers of Siva’ ( ´śivadrohī) had indeed been defeateḍ The Badaun inscription ¯ of Lakhaṇ apala praises the R ājaguru M ¯ urtigan ¯ . a for his expertise in “the great rites of subjection and attraction” (l. 13: vaśyākr̥ṣt.imahāvidhānanipuṇ aḥ); and Hrasvanatha, a Kashmirian Guru of the K āl¯īkula who also held office as the minister of peace and war under Yasaskara (r̥ 939–948), performed a ritual to ´ kill his king and other rituals to cause dissension and immobilize, presumably directed against an invading army.609

Just as the Guru imbued the king through the ceremonies of initiation and consecration with the numinous power of Sivahood in the exercise of hisśovereignty, so the Śaiva rites by which the Guru assumed his office ensured ´ that he, as Siva’s agent among men, was imbued with the numen of royalty. As ´ in the brahmanical consecration of a king, in which the royal astrologer was to provide him with the royal elephant, horse, throne, parasol, fly-whisk, sword, bow, and jewels,610 so at the time of a Guru’s consecration he received from his predecessor the non-martial symbols of sovereignty (rājāṅgāni, rājacihnāni), such as the turban, crown, parasol, sandals, fly-whisk, elephant, horse, and palanquiṇ611 To these we may add the throne supported by sculpted lions

607 For some examples see SANDERSON 2007a, p. 281, fn. 166.

608 ARE 20 of 1899, SII 4:456; ARE 1899, §§23–38 (partial translation in §34). 609 See SANDERSON 2007a, pp. 280–291; 2007b, pp. 295–296.

610 Viṣṇ udharmottara 2.4.18c–20b: tato ’bhiṣekasaṁ bhārāṁs tasya kuryāt sa daivavit | ku ñjaraṁturagaṁ kuryāt tasya rāj ñaḥ parīkṣitau | bhadrāsanaṁca chattraṁca vālavyajanam eva ca | khaḍ garatnaṁtathā cāpaṁratnāni vividhāni ca.

611 Bhojadeva, Siddhāntasārapaddhati f. 41v (< Svacchandatantra 4.470): uṣṇīṣa makut.acchatrapādukācāmarahastyaśvaśibikādirājāṅgāni . . . dattvā. Svacchan datantra 4.70b has a throne or seat (chatraṁ pādukamāsanam) where Bho jadeva has a fly-whisk, but his account agrees with that of the Svacchandatantra as transmitted in Nepalese and Grantha manuscriptṣThus NAK MS 1-224, f. 48r3: uṣṇīṣamakut.ādyāṁś ca cchatrapādukacāmaraḥ| hastyaśvaśibikādyāṁś ca rājāṅgāni aśeṣataḥ; and IFI T. 1032, p. 96: uṣṇīṣamakut.ādyāṁś ca chatracāmarapādukāḥ| hastyaśvaśibikādyāṁś ca rājāṅgāni aśeṣataḥ. In

[[260]]

(siṁ hāsanam) so intimately associated with kingship in the Indian traditioṇ612 For a manual for royal initiation, the Amr̥teśadīkṣāvidhi, instructs the king to reward his Guru with gifts that should include golden jewellery set with rubies and pearls, a pair of jewelled sandals, a parasol, two white chowries, an elephant, and also a golden lion-throne;613 and the Malkapuram inscription ¯ of A.D. 1261 describes Visveśvaraśivācārya sitting on such a throne by virtue ¯ of his office as the Śaiva Guru of the Kākat ¯īya king Gaṇ apati of Warangal (r̥ 1199–1261),614 decked out in royal splendour, “with his mass of tawny locks adorned with a diadem trembling [as he speaks], with the full-blown lotus of his face radiating blessings, with his pearl ear-rings striking the tops of his shoulders [as he moves his head from side to side], entrancing with his strings of pearls”.615

Furthermore, according to the prescriptions of the Śaiva scriptures the ´ residence to be built for the Guru by his royal disciple was in many respects similar in its layout to the royal palace. It included, for example, an arsenal for the storage of weapons of war̥616 That Gurus should have needed the

Liṅgapurāṇ a, Uttarabhāga, 27.259–261 the attributes of kings (nr̥ pacihnāni) are “the conch, the fly-whisk, the drum etc., a moon-white parasol, a palanquin, and the war-banner” (śaṅkhacāmarabheryādyaṁchattraṁcandrasamaprabham | śibikāṁ vaijayantīṁca sādhayen nr̥ pateḥśubhām | rājyābhiṣekayuktāya kṣatriyāyeśvarāya vā | nr̥ pacihnāni nānyeṣāṁ kṣatriyāṇāṁ vidhīyate).

612 For an image of such a throne see, e.g., the eighth-century metal Tarā from Sirpur ¯ (Sr´īpura) in HUNTINGTON 1985, plate 30. The notion that the throne is the very embodiment of sovereignty and imparts its power to the enthroned is already found in the Vedic literature, in the Satapathabrāhman ´. a (12.8.3.4) (GONDA 1966: 45–46):āsandyām abhiṣi ñcati |āsandī sad vai sāṁrājyaṁsāmrājyenaivainaṁsāmrājyaṁ gamayati ‘He consecrates him by affusion on the throne. The throne is indeed true sovereignty. Through [this] sovereignty he causes him to achieve sovereignty’.

613 Amr̥teśadīkṣāvidhi f. 16v2–3: 37 paścād gurur dakṣanīyaḥsvarṇ abhāraiḥ *su vistaraiḥ(eṁ : suviṣt.araiḥ Coḍ) | māṇikyamuktākhacitair alaṅkāraiś ca adbhutaiḥ| 38 navaratnamayair dāntais tathā vai ratnapāduke | haimaṁ siṁ hāsanaṁchattraṁ dattvā vai cāmare śubhe | 39 maṇimuktāśvanāgendra-uṣt.ra meṣagavādibhiḥ| kṣetragrāmādiviṣayair maṇ ḍ alaiś ca śubhair varaiḥ‘After that the Guru should be rewarded with extremely large quantities of gold, with mar vellous jewellery set with rubies and pearls, made of the nine jewels, and of ivory, and, having given him a pair of jewelled sandals, a golden lion-throne, two white chowries, with jewels, pearls, horse, elephants, camels, rams, cows and the like, fields, villages and the like, districts, and fine provinceṣ’

614 PANTULU 1930, v. 38d: tasmin gaṇ apatyadhīśagurutāsiṁ hāsanādhyāsini śrīviśve- śvaradeśike ‘While the Guru Visveśvara[śiva], occupies the lion-throne of his officeās Guru of King Gaṇ apati’. Note also the reading chatrapādukamāsanam ‘parasol, sandals, and throne’ in the Kashmirian text of Svacchandatantra 4.470.

615 PANTULU 1930, v. 39: tvaṅgatpiṅgajat.ākirīt.am udayasmerāravindānanaṁ muktā kuṇ ḍ alatāḍitāṁsaśikharaṁ hārair manohāriṇ am | vidyāmaṇ ḍ apavartinaṁ gaṇ a patikṣmāpāladīkṣāguruṁśrīviśveśvaraśambhumīkṣitavatāṁte cakṣuṣī cakṣuṣī. 616 Mayasaṁ graha 5.182ab: dhanuḥ khaḍ gaśarādīni vidadhyāt tu gr̥hakṣate;

[[261]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

means of warfare may surprise. But a fragmentary inscription of the late tenth century from Kadwahā in the Guna District of Madhya Pradesh relates that ¯ when hostile forces had invaded the region and the king had been slain, the Śaiva ascetic Dharmaśiva, abbot of the Aran ´ .ipadra monastery, went into battle and routed the enemy through his skill as an archer, at the cost of his own life.617 Nor is this an isolated instance. From the Jubbulpore stone inscription of Vimalasiva, Rājaguru of the Kalacuri kings Jayasim ¯ . ha (r̥ c. 1163–1188) and Vijayasiṁ ha (r̥ c. 1188–1210), we learn that the activities of his predecessor Kīrtisiva, Rājaguru of Narasim ¯ . ha (r̥ 1153–1163), extended beyond the spiritual to those of a military commander who expanded his monarch’s realm and added to his own through the appropriation of temples in the territories gaineḍ618

Piṅgalāmata f. 71r1–2 (10.28c–31): gr̥hakṣate gr̥haṁcaiva śastrasaṁsthāpanāya tu | khaḍ gabāṇ adhanuś caiva kut.hāro mudgaras tathā | cchurikā kuntadaṁtaś ca citradaṇ ḍ as tathaiva ca | lakut.aṁśakti pāśaś ca kaṇ ayaḥśūlapatrakaḥ| cakrāsi gadavajraś ca aṅkuśaś ca kupat.t.iśaḥ| evamādyāni cāstrāṇi pharāṇi vividhāni ca | sthāpitavyāni deveśe gr̥he gr̥hakṣatasya tu. The term gr̥hakṣataḥ here denotes [the deity of] a segment immediately to the east of its centre of the southern edge of the square plaṇ In the last verse I take phara- to be a variant of sphara- ‘shield’ from Iranian (Old Persian spara-barai ‘shield-bearer’; Persian ispar ‘shield’).

617 EI 37:20, ll. 10–16. The inscription is fragmentary, but this much of its meaning is clear: while the ascetic Dharmasiva was in the monastery at Aran ´ .ipada (elsewhere called Araṇipadra) performing austerities (tenāraṇipadaṁ nāma kr̥taṁ padam ani nditaṁ. . . dattvāraṇipade . . .tasya dharmaśiva ity abhavaj jitātmā śiṣyaḥ. . .tasyā- śrame vardhayatas tapāṁsi [ll. 10–12]) a ruler called Gobhat.a came there with a force of elephants (tatrājagāmonmadasindhurāṇāṁ balena bhūpaḥ kila gobhat.ā khyaḥ[l. 12]). Someone, perhaps the local ruler, was killed by this king ([nr̥]peṇ a parāgatāsuḥsahasā papāta [ll. 12–13]); and he, evidently Dharmasiva, wept with ´ compassion for a while when he heard the news (tasyāvagamya sa kathāṁ karuṇā vimuktabāṣpaḥ kṣaṇ aṁ[l. 13]), then, flying into a rage (tad anu kopavipāt.a[lākṣaḥ] [l. 13]), went into battle, a veritable Siva on earth, armed with a bow *that had come ´ [down to him] from Prabhava[ ¯ siva?] (?) (ātha prabhāvāgatakārmukeṇ a bāṇ aiś ca dīptaḥsa dharāvr̥ṣāṅkaḥ[l. 14]), and, like Siva in his Tripurāntaka embodiment, ¯ routed the whole army of the enemy before ascending to the incomparable world [above] in a shower of flowers scattered by Indra’s celestial nymphs (ātta[sva]līlas tripurāntakasya . . . sakalam api sa jitvā śātravaṁśarvakalpaḥ| surapatiramaṇī nāṁ puṣpavr̥ṣt.yāvakīrṇ aḥ puram anupam[aṁ] . . . [l. 15]). The poet refers here to the reward conventionally attributed to a warrior who dies bravely when fighting to protect his country; see, e.g., Mahābhārata 8, supplementary passage 14, ll. 31–34; 13, supplementary passage 15, ll.1358–1361.

618 EI 25:33 (A.D. 1174), vv. 23–24: na syandanaṁ vasumatī na ca candrasūryau cakre na sārathir abhūt sa ca viśyayoniḥ| neṣur hariḥ parapurāṇi tathāpi bhasma cakre yataḥsa iti kīrtiśivaḥsphut.aṁsaḥk yaśobhir induviśadais tathaivārivikarṣitaiḥ| apūpurat sa sarvāśā vivekakusumair iva ‘He was manifestly [worthy of the name] Kīrtisiva [Temple/Fame-śiva]. For he [was aśiva in as much as he] reduced the ´ cities of his enemies to ashes [just as Siva did to the cities of the three demons] even ´ though his war chariot [unlike Siva’s] was not the earth, the sun and moon were ´ not its two wheels, its driver was not Brahma, and his arrow was not Vis ¯ .ṇ u; and he filled all the directions with the moon-white temples that he had wrested from his

[[262]]

Kings rewarded their Gurus with the donation or construction of monas teries (mat.haḥ) and with grants of revenue from designated lands with which they themselves constructed and endowed such institutionṣThus in the first half of the ninth century the Rajaguru Purandara founded two monasteries ¯ in Gwalior, one at Mattamayura and a second at Aran ¯ .ipadra, using the funds he had received from king Avantivarman as the dakṣiṇā for performing the king’s Śaiva initiation, for which purpose he had been persuaded to move to ´

Mattamayura, probably from M ālava. The wealth received is described in ¯ the inscription that records these events as “[the revenue of] the most valu able portion of his kingdom”.619 Similarly, when the Kalacuri Yuvarajadeva ¯

foes, just as he did with the [white] blossoms of his Vivekas’. My translation finds a reference to [lost] works by Kīrtisiva entitled ´ Viveka, presumably commentaries on Śaiva textṣIt is possible that the poet refers not to works but to K ´īrtisiva’sśpiritual insights (vivekāḥ).

619 Ranod inscription, EI 1:41, vv. 10–15: tasmāt purandaragurur guruvad garimṇ aḥ praj ñātirekajanitasya babhūva bhūmiḥ| yasyādhunāpi vibudhair itikr̥tyaśaṁsi vyāhanyate na vacanaṁ nayamārgavidbhiḥk 11 vandyaḥ ko ’pi cakāsty acintya mahimā tulyaṁ munir bhāsvatā rājann uttamaśabdapūrvaśikharābhyarṇ am prakīrṇ adyutiḥ| dīkṣārthīti vaco niśamya sukr̥tī cāroktam urvīpatir yasyehāna yanāya yatnam akaroc chrīmān avantiḥ purā k 12 gatvā tapasyantam upendrapūrve pure tadā śrīmadavantivarmā | bhr̥śaṁsamārādhya tamātmabhūmiṁ kathaṁcidānīya cakāra pūtām k 13 athopasadyāpya ca samyag aiśīṁ dīkṣāṁsa dakṣo guruda kṣiṇārtham | nivedya yasmai nijarājyasāraṁsvajanmasāphalyam avāpa bhūpaḥk 14 sa kārayāmāsa samr̥ddhibhājaṁ munir mat.haṁsanmuniratnabhūmim | prasi ddhamāvāridhi merukalpaṁśrīmatpure mattamayūranāmni k 15 punar dvitīyaṁ svayam advitīyo guṇ air munīndro ’raṇipadrasaṁj ñam | tapovanaṁśreṣt.hamat.haṁ vidhāya preṣt.haḥ pratiṣt.hāṁ paramāṁ nināya ‘Then came the Guru Purandara, who as befitted a Guru had the gravity that comes from the highest wisdom, whose teachings concerning the duties [of Śaiva initiates] have still not been surpassed ´ 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 Uttamasikhara shining in unimaginable glory, shed- ´ ding his radiance like the suṇ Avantivarman then went to [Purandara], who was practising austerities in Upendrapura, and having striven to win his favour suc ceeded in bringing him back to sanctify his kingdoṁ Then, having served him with devotion he duly received Śaiva initiation [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 Mattamayura 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 oceanṣThis foremost of sages, himself unmatched in his virtues, built and richly endowed a second and most splendid monastery, [this] hermitage of Araṇipadra’. I say that Purandara probably came from Malava because we are told here that before he was ¯ brought to Mattamayura he was in Upendrapura and a grant of 1110 issued by ¯ the Paramara king Naravarman ( ¯ EI 20:11) refers to the gifting of land in a village in the district of Upendrapura (l. 5: upendrapuramaṇ ḍ ale), which must have been within his kingdom, that is to say, in Malava. It is probable that this town and ¯

[[263]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

I alias Keyuravars ¯ .a (r̥ c. 915–945) induced Purandara’s spiritual descendant Prabhava ¯ siva (/Sadbhāva ¯ siva) to move to his kingdom in Chattisgarh, he ´ founded for him at huge expense the great monastery at Golagī,620 granting him by royal charter numerous villages and a whole well-populated town, which, since it is not named, was probably Golagī itself,621 or, according to the account

district bore the name of Upendra, the first of the Paramara kings according to the ¯ genealogy given by the poet Padmagupta in 11.76 of his Navasāhasāṅkacarita. 620 In all secondary sources, including SANDERSON 2007a (p. 274), the name of this monastery (mat.haḥ) appears as Golakī-. That spelling is well attested, but only in manuscripts and inscriptions from the Dravidian South, where the scribes, speak ing languages in which voiced and unvoiced consonants are not distinguished, are liable to substitute k for g. We also find kolakī there. I now correct to Golagī- be cause this is what I find in the earliest testimony, which comes from regions whose vernacular languages do distinguish these consonants, namely Nepalese palm-leaf manuscripts of the Kriyākāṇ ḍ akramāvalī and the Ban¯ . garh Prasasti of the time ´ of Nayapala (r̥ ¯ c. 1027–1043) (SIRCAR 1983b, v. 6: golagyās sa mahāmat.haḥ). The name appears as Golaggī in the Chandrehe inscription (caraṇ apūtagolaggikaḥ). I identify Golagī with modern Gurgi (244◦ 310 N, 81◦ 270 E), about 12 miles due east of Rewa Town, in the north of the Kalacuri kingdoṁ This is the site of once vast Śaiva ´ ruins (CUNNINGHAM 1885, pp. 149–154; MEYER et al. 1908-1931, vol. 21, pp. 282– 283; BANERJI 1931, pp. 41–45). A full account of my reasons for proposing this location and for rejecting as groundless the widespread view that the monastery was in the south of the kingdom at Bher̥agh āt¯ . on the Narmada river, close to the ¯ Kalacuri capital Tripurī, must be set out elsewhere.

621 Chandrehe inscription, CII 4i:44, v. 5: tato madhumatīpateḥ kr̥tamahātapaḥ- saṁcayaḥ prabhāvaśiva ity abhūt sakalaśaivacūḍāmaṇiḥ| anekanr̥ pavanditaḥsa yuvarājadevena yas tapodhanapatiḥ kr̥taś caraṇ apūta*golaggikaḥ(my reading : golagnikaḥ MIRASHI, BANERJI [EI 21:23]) ‘Then after the abbot of Madhumatī came that crest-jewel of all the Śaivas called Prabhāva ¯ siva, who had accumulated ´ vast power through his asceticism and was revered by many kingṣHe purified Golaggī [=Golagī] with his feet after being appointed by Yuvarajadeva as overlord ¯ of the ascetics [of the monastery at that place]’; and the Gurgi inscription, EI 22:21, vv. 6–7: tasyākhilakṣitipatipraṇ atottamāṅgacūḍāmaṇidyuticayārcitapāda pīt.haḥ| śiṣyo babhūva bhuvanatrayakīrtanīyaḥśrīmatprabhāvaśivanāmamunir manīṣī kānīya yaṁsahajavāsanayā nayaj ñaḥśrīmugdhatuṅgatanayo yuvarāja devaḥ| sattvopakārabhavaduttamakīrtihetor agrāhayan mat.ham anantadhana pratiṣt.ham ‘His disciple was the glorious and learned ascetic Prabhava ¯ siva, wor- ´ thy of celebration throughout the three worlds, the pedestal beneath whose feet was honoured by the dense rays of the crest-jewels on the heads of all the kings who prostrated themselves before hiṁ Yuvarajadeva, the son of Mugdhatu ¯ nga, skilled ˙ in policy, brought [him to his kingdom prompted] by an inborn predisposition and had him accept a monastery that he established [for him] with infinite wealth’. The damaged vv. 35–40 at the end of this inscription list the places that the king made over to Prabhava ¯ siva: ´ [sthānaṁ] . - . . . - . ya kīrtanī[yaṁ] puṇ yānvitāya mu naye svayam arcitāya | - - nam ullikhita[śāsana - . - - keyū]avarṣanr̥ patiḥ[svayamājahāra] k 36 pakk + + . - - [taṁ?] tathā sārasaḍ ollakam | vakkaḍ ollakarajyauddhe ko + +[nā]sapuṇ ḍikā k 37 + + + + . - - + + + puraṁ khat.ollikā | . nakalābhīrapallī + + + + sarasvatī k 38 [eteṣāṁ] dvādaśaka ñ ca kavacakṣetram eva ca | sāmantapāt.akaś caiva vat.a + + . - . + k 39 + + + yā[tallapat.ī] śāsanaṁ[sa]tram ity api | sa + + bhad dhaci[ ¨u]rā [kusu?]mvā ca ku[kku]ḍiyā k 40 rajogrāmānvitā[n etān śā]sanatvena dat- [[264]]

of the Malkapuram inscription, gave him a vast reward which that ascetic, āfter he had himself founded the monastery, transferred to it as its endow ment.622 In the next generation the Kalacuri Lakṣmaṇ araja II (r̥ ¯ c. 945–970) brought in Hr̥dayasiva and gave him the monasteries attached to the temples of ´ Vaidyanatha and Nohale ¯ svara, the second of which Hr ´ .dayasiva passed on to his ´ disciple Aghorasiva; ´623 and the Ban¯ . garh Prasasti reports, as we have seen, that ´

tavā[n] | + + + + . [siddhā]ntapāragāya garīyase k puraṁ paurajanākīrṇ aṁ + + + + samastakam | bhaktyā samarpayāmāsa śāsanatve[na bhū]patiḥ.

622 PANTULU 1930, vv. 25c–26: tasmai niḥspr̥hacetase galacurikṣmāpālacūḍāmaṇir grāmāṇāṁ yuvarājadevanr̥ patir bhikṣam¯.trilakṣım¯. dadau k 26 kr̥tvā sa śaivamunir adbhutaśīlamūrtiḥśrīgolakīmat.ham udāram udāttacittaḥ| [ta]syākarasya nr̥ padeśikamauktikānāṁ vr̥ttiṁcakāra sakalām api tāṁtrilakṣīm ‘To that [ascetic] whose mind was free of all craving the king Yuvarajadeva, that ¯ crest-jewel among the Kalacuri monarchs, gave a 300,000 endowment of villageṣThat Śaiva ascetic, the noble-minded embodiment of extraordinary good conduct, ´ built the great Golakī [Golagī] monastery [there] and then made over the whole of that 300,000 living to that [monastery, which, ocean-like, has become] the source of [many] pearls in the form of Rajagurus’. M ¯ IRASHI (CII 4i, p. clviii) interprets the words grāmāṇāṁ bhikṣāṁtrilakṣīṁ‘a 300,000 endowment of villages’ to mean that 300,000 villages were given to Prabhava ¯ siva and points out that if the ´ report is correct it indicates that “the king assigned to him one third of the total revenue of his home province of D. ahala, which, according to tradition, comprised ¯ nine lakhs of villages”. This would indeed be a vast endowment, so vast indeed that I find it hard to accept his interpretatioṇ The Gurgi inscription mentions only about twenty villages and a town and the Malkapuram inscription need ¯ mean only that the endowment [consisting of the revenue capacity of these places] was valued at 300,000 of some unspecified monetary unit. This alternative was already considered by PANTULU, the first editor of the Malkapuram inscriptioṇ ¯ For though he proposed the interpretation later adopted by MIRASHI, he saw the difficulty it entails (1930, p. 52): “The founder of the monastery was one Sadbhava ¯ Sambhu who obtained a gift of three lacks [śic] of villages (or was it a villages [sic] fetching an income of Nishkas (coins)?) from the Kalachuri king Yuvarajadeva and ¯ gave away those villages to the Mat.ha as an endowment”. In favour of this more realistic reading is a parallel expression seen in an inscription of the sixth century from a site near Mrohaung in Arakaṇ There we learn of the gift to a Buddhist monastery of a trisāhasriko grāmaḥ(EI 37:13, l. 13: deṅguttanāmā ttrisāhasriko grāmo nisr̥ṣt.o), which can only mean ‘a village which has [a revenue yield of] 3000’. As the editor, D.C. SIRCAR points out (p. 63), this refers “apparently to the revenue income in the standard coin”.

623 Bilhari inscription, ¯ EI 1:31, vv. 56–58: 56 kiṁstūyate ’sau munipuṅgavo ’thavā śrīcedicandro nr̥ patiḥ kr̥tādaraḥ| sadvr̥ttadūtaprahitair upāyanaiḥ pradarśya bhaktiṁ vidhinānināya yam k 57 śrīmallakṣmaṇ arājo ’pi tasmai sutapase svayam | mat.haṁśrīvaidyanāthasya bhaktiyuktaḥsamārpayat k 58 svīkr̥tyāpi munir bhūyo mat.haṁśrīnauhaleśvaram | aghoraśivaśiṣyasya sādhuvr̥ttasya dattavān ‘Or rather why should I praise that foremost among ascetics? [It suffices to report that] king Lakṣmaṇ araja, the moon of the Cedi dynasty, brought him [to his kingdom] after ¯ earnestly showing his devotion to him through presents sent by virtuous envoys, and then out of his devotion freely bestowed on that [saint] of great austerity the monastery of Vaidyanatha. The ascetic also accepted the monastery of Nohale ¯ svaraānd then gave it to his virtuous disciple Aghorasiva’. ´

[[265]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

the Pala emperor Mah ¯īpala I (r̥ ¯ c. 977–1027) bestowed a lofty gilded monastery on the Guru Indrasiva atśivavāt¯ .ī near Kot.ivarṣa.624

Moreover, we have several records of Gurus using their resources in dependently to establish further monasterieṣThus Prabhava ¯ siva’s disciple ´ Pras´anta ¯ siva built a monastery at Chandrehe for ascetics devoted to med- ´ itation625 and a hermitage on the banks of the Ganges at Benareṣ626 His disciple, the Rajaguru Prabodha ¯ siva, also built a monastery at Chandrehe; ´627

624 Ban¯ . garh inscription, SIRCAR 1983b, v. 9: śrīmān indraśivaḥsphut.aṁ hari haraprāyāṁśivendrākr̥tim bibhrad vaṁśavibhūṣaṇ aṁsamabhavac chiṣyo ’sya puṇ yātmanaḥ| yasmai kā ñcanapu ñjama ñjuracitaprāsādamerusphuratkailāsābha mat.haṁ dadāv iha mahīpālo nr̥ pas tattvavit ‘The disciple of that [Guru] devoted to piety was the illustrious Indrasiva, an ornament of his lineage, who did indeed haveān appearance [matching his name, in that it was one] that embodied both Siva and ´ Indra [=Upendra, i.e. Viṣṇ u] as though it were an image of Harihara [in which Siva is both himself and Vis ´.ṇ u in a single body]. To him king Mahīpala, [once he ¯ had become through initiation] a knower of [ultimate] reality, gave in this place a monastery that resembled Mt. Kailasa, radiant with its Meru-like towers beauti- ¯ fully wrought with much gold’.

625 Chandrehe inscription, CII 4i:44, vv. 6a, 7: praśāntaśivacandramās tad anu tasya śiṣyo ’bhavat . . . 7 sa śoṇ anadasaṁ game bhramaraśailamūle ’tulaṁ priyālavana saṁ kule phalamr̥ṇālakandāśanaḥ| cakāra viditaṁjanair munisakhaḥ praśāntā- śramaṁsvapādapadapaṅktibhiḥ pavitabhūtalo yaḥ kr̥tī ‘The successor of [Prabha-¯ vasiva] was his disciple, the moon-like Praś´anta ¯ siva. . . . Eating [nothing but] fruits, ´ lotus stems, and bulbs, that wise friend of ascetics built the famous hermitage with his name [the Pras´antāśrama] at the foot, thick with a forest of Priyāla trees, of the ¯ Bhramara hill, at the confluence of the river Son, purifying the earth with the lines of his foot-prints’; and the Gurgi inscription, EI 22:21, vv. 8 and 13: tasyāmalena tapasā ca vivardhamānavidyābalena ca samastajagatpratītaḥ| śiṣyaḥ prakāma kamanīyaguṇ aikadhāma śrīmatpraśāntaśivanāmamunir babhūva k . . . 13 dāhottī rṇ asuvarṇ adānaśamitadravyārthisārthaspr̥haḥsiddhasthānam acīkarat tad apa raṁ yaḥśoṇ atīropari | yasmin yogajuṣaḥ praviśya niyamadhvastāntarāyādhayaḥ śāntāḥsiddhasamādhayo ’cchamatayo gacchanti mukteḥ padam ‘The disciple of this [Prabhava ¯ siva] was the ascetic Praś´anta ¯ siva, who was known to all for his ´ unblemished austerity and the power of his ever growing knowledge, the unique abode of the most desirable of qualitieṣ. . . [13:] He, who quenched the desire of a multitude of people in need of funds with fire-refined gold, built another [monastery as] a seat of Siddhas on the bank of the river Son, where masters of Yoga enter, abol ish the torment of [all] hindrances through their ascetic restraint, and, when they are at peace, having achieved perfect concentration, reach with pure awareness the goal of liberation’.

626 Gurgi inscription, EI 22:21, v. 14: tīrthasnānaniṣevanodyatadhiyām atyan taviśrāntaye yas tat kāritavān muniḥsurasarittīre tapaḥsthānakam | yat saṁsevya maheśvarārcanaratā vārāṇ asīvāsino manyante bhavasāgaraṁ gurum api kṣīṇ aṁ yathā [goṣpa]dam ‘That ascetic had a hermitage built on the bank of the Ganges for the complete repose of those whose minds were devoted to the practice of bathing at its TīrthaṣBy resorting to it those living in Benares who are devoted to the worship of Siva consider the ocean of transmigratory existence, vast though it is, to ´ have dwindled into a mere puddle’.

627 Chandrehe inscription, CII 4i:44, v. 16ab: gurukr̥tasurāgārādārād amuṁ mat.ham [[266]]

Patanga ˙ siva, a spiritual descendant of Purandara through another line, ´ built a monastery in Gwalior at a site now unknown;628 and the Rajaguru ¯ Visveśvaraśiva, after receiving a village in Andhra from the Kākat ¯īya Queen Rudradevī, built a monastery there and renamed the village Visveśvaragolak ´ī after both himself and the original home of his preceptorial lineage in Chat tisgarh, dictating that only a Guru of this lineage, one consecrated by another Guru of the same (golakīvaṁśyakr̥tābhiṣekaḥ), should be allowed to preside over his foundatioṇ629 According to the same source he also established monasteries in Kal¯īsvarapura, Mandrak ´ ut¯ .anagara (v. 82), and ¯Isvarapura (v. 85), no doubt ´ under the same conditionṣ

In this way there developed a far-reaching network of interconnected seats of Saiddhantika ¯ Śaiva learning. Figures at the summit of this clerical hierarchy ´ thus came to exercize a transregional authority whose geographical extent could be greater than that of any contemporary king. Visveśvaraśiva while holding of- ´

fice as the Rajaguru of the K ākat ¯īya Gaṇ apati is said also to have been the Guru of the Kalacuri king, the Cola king, and the king of Malava; ¯630 and praise of Śaiva ´

unnataṁsvakam iva yaśaḥśubhrābhrābhaṁ viśālam acīkarat ‘Near the temple built by his teacher he built this broad and lofty monastery that resembles a white cloud, as though it were his own fame’.

628 Gwalior Museum inscription, MIRASHI 1962, v. 40: mat.haṁ devakulaṁ kūpās taḍāgānāṁca pa ñcakam | prā[kā]ro vāt.ikā . . . ‘A monastery, a temple, wells, five reservoirs, a circumvallation, *an orchard (?) . . . .

629 Malkapuram inscription, P ¯ ANTULU 1930, vv. 42–45 and v. 70: 69c–72: devasya sattrasya mat.hasya tasya grāmasya sarvasya ca so ’dhikārī k 70 yo gol.akīvaṁśyakr̥tābhiṣekaḥśāntaḥśuciḥśaivarahasyavedī | śaivāgamānām api pāragamī saṁtānapālaḥsamaloṣt.ahemā k 71 sarvāṇi bhūtāny anukam pamānaḥsamastavidyāsu kr̥tāvagāhaḥ| mahīsuraḥśīlavatāṁ purogo bhavettarāṁ naiṣt.hikadeśikendraḥ| 72 viśveśvaraśivācāryo dhīmān rājaguruḥsvayam evamāj ñāpayad dhīraḥśaivācāryaśatair vr̥taḥ‘Surrounded by hundreds of Saivācāryas ¯ the learned and noble Visveśvaśivācārya personally ordered that the superinten- ¯ dent of the [temple of the] god [Visveśvara], the refectory, the monastery, and the ´ whole settlement [that he had established] could only be an ascetic Guru whose consecration [to office] had been performed by [a Guru] of the lineage of Golagī, a brahmin outstanding among the virtuous, tranquil, honest, one who understands the esoteric doctrines taught by Siva, who has mastered the ´ Śaiva scriptures, a ´ guardian of his initiatory line, for whom a clod of earth and gold are of equal value, compassionate to all living beings, and deeply versed in all branches of learning’.

630 Malkapuram inscription, P ¯ ANTULU 1930, v. 38: śrīcoleśvaramālavakṣitipatī rājanyacūḍāmaṇī yacchiṣyau kim ataḥ paraṁ gaṇ apatikṣoṇīpatir yatsutaḥ| na syāt kasya mude sa deśikavaraḥśaivāgamāmbhonidhiḥśrīviśveśvaradeśikaḥ kalacurikṣmāpāladīkṣāguruḥ‘The Cola king and the king of Malava, the crest- ¯ jewels among rulers, were his discipleṣKing Gaṇ apati too was his [spiritual] soṇ Whom does this excellent Guru not delight? The Guru Visveśvara, this ocean of ´ [knowledge of] the Śaiva scriptures, was the Guru that [also] initiated the Kalacuri ´ king’.

[[267]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

Gurus as venerated by a plurality of kings is common, even a commonplace.631 The wealth accumulated by these Gurus enabled them behave like royal patrons themselves, not only founding new monasteries but also bestowing land grants on brahmins, rewarding poets, founding temples and new settlements, and providing the means of irrigatioṇ The Badaun inscription reports that ¯ the Rajaguru M ¯ urtigan ¯ . a “honoured brahmins in abundance with many gifts of land that he had received due to the devotion of his royal disciple”;632 the Malkapuram inscription says concerning the R ājaguru Vi ¯ sveśvaraśiva, a na- ´ tive of Gauḍ a in eastern India: “Who can count the Gauḍ a [brahmins] whose wishes he has granted, the ascetics who have received rich endowments [from him], the leading poets who have been delighted [with the rewards he has be stowed]?”;633 and the Ban¯ . garh Prasasti relates that Sarvaśiva, the Rājaguru of ¯ the Pala Nayap āla, gave [to brahmins] all the Great Gifts ( ¯ mahādānāni) of the Puran¯ .ic tradition, including the tulāpuruṣadānam in which the donor gives away his weight in gold, an activity that increasingly became emblematic of exemplary kings during the second half of the first milleniuṁ634 His brother Murti ¯ siva, to ´

631 See, for example, in the colophonic verses of the Prāyaścittasamuccaya of Hr̥dayasiva, concerning his Guru ´¯Isvaraśiva (see SāNDERSON 2001, p. 3):āsīt tatsaṁtatau muniḥśrī-īśvaraśiva iti | jagatīpatibhir nr̥ paiḥ pūjitapādapaṅkajaḥ; Chandrehe inscription (CII 4i:44), v. 4b, concerning Purandara: yatra puranda raḥ kr̥tatapā jaj ñe gurur bhūbhujām; v. 5c, concerning Prabhava ¯ siva:ānekanr̥ pa vanditaḥ; Bilhari inscription ( ¯ CII 4i:45), v. 50b, concerning Dharmasiva: ´ bhūpā lamaulimaṇikāntibhir arcitāṅghriḥ; v. 51bcd, concerning Sada¯siva: ´ nr̥ paiḥ| yat pādadvayaṁ vandyam arcitaṁśekharāṁśubhiḥ; v. 54cd, concerning Hr̥dayasiva: ´ nr̥ pamukut.aniviṣt.air yasya māṇikyacakrair akr̥ta caraṇ amūlaṁ kāntam ekāntava ndyam; Gurgi inscription (CII 4i:46), v. 6, concerning Prabhava ¯ siva: ´ tasyākhilakṣiti patipraṇ atottamāṅgacūḍāmaṇidyuticayārcitapādapīt.haḥ| śiṣyo babhūva bhuvana trayakīrtanīyaḥśrīmatprabhāvaśivanāmamunir manīṣī; and v. 17cd, concerning ¯Is´ana ¯ siva: ´ śrīśānaśambhur akhilāvanipālamaulimālāmaṇidyutipiśaṅgitapādapa dmaḥ.

632 Badaun inscription, ¯ EI 1:10, l. 15: svaśiṣyavarabhūpālabhaktilabdhena bhūriṇā | bhūmidānena yo viprān pūjayāmāsa bhūriṇā.

633 PANTULU 1930, v. 39ab: gauḍāḥ pūrṇ amanorathāḥ kati kati prāptaśriyas tāpasāḥ saṁtuṣt.āḥ kavipuṁ gavāḥ kati kati pradhvastapāśā nr̥ pāḥ.

634 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 11. The inscription lists pr̥thivīdānam, merudānam, viśvacakra dānam, [sapta]sāgaradānam, brahmāṇ ḍ adānam, kalpavr̥ kṣadānam, [hiraṇ ya]kā madhenudānam, bhavanadānam, grāmadānam, godānam, parvatānāṁ dānam (the ten parvatadānāni of the Matsyapurāṇ a, with Meru in the centre), sakalpa drumabhadraghat.adānam, hiraṇ yāśva[ratha]dānam, hiraṇ yahasti[ratha]dānam, hiraṇ yagarbhadānam, aśvadānam, tulāpuruṣadānam, and śrīnandīśvaradānaṁ For an exhaustive presentation of the prescriptions of the Puran¯ .ic and other sources on the “Great Gifts” see especially the fifth Adhyāya of the Dānakhaṇ ḍ a of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi of Hemadri, written while he was a minister of Mah ādeva, ¯ the Yadava king of Devagiri (r̥ ¯ c. 1260–1270). The śrīnandīśvaradānam mentioned in this inscription is, I presume, the gift of a golden image of Nandikesvara that is ´ to accompany the gift of a thousand cows (Caturvargacintāmaṇi, vol. 1, p. 253). On

[[268]]

whom he handed over his office as Rajaguru is likewise praised in that inscrip- ¯ tion for his abundant donations to brahminṣ635 Sarvasiva’s disciple R ´ upa ¯ siva isālso praised there for his generosity to supplicants,636 as is ¯Is´ana ¯ siva, the disciple ´ of Pras´anta ¯ siva, in the Gurgi inscriptioṇ ´637 The predecessors of the Rajaguru Vi- ¯ malasiva receive similar praise for their pious largesse in that Guru’s Jubbulpore ´ inscription, and Vimalasiva himself is commended there for the support he gave ´ to the brahmanical order by bestowing gifts on brahmins, and adorning the land with gardens, water-tanks, charitable feeding-houses (sattrāṇi), temples, and houses for brahminṣ638 In the Ban¯ . garh Prasasti Vidyā¯siva and Dharmaśiva are ´

the drift away during our period from the sponsoring of Vedic (Srauta) sacrifices to ´ the bestowing of the Great Gifts such as the tulāpuruṣadānam see DIRKS 1976. 635 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 15cd: bhrātā mūrtiśivaḥsa mānyamahimo dānāmbusekair jagat pūtaṁ yaḥ kr̥tavān . . . ‘His brother Murti ¯ siva, of venerable glory, washed the world ´ clean with the water he poured when making donations’. The poet refers to the rite of pouring water on to the hand of the brahmin recipient, or, in his absence, on to the ground, that must accompany any formal act of donation (Caturvargacintāmaṇi, vol. 1, p. 92); and by saying that he cleansed the world with these libations he sug gests that his donations to brahmins were frequent, widespread, and very numer ouṣ

636 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 28: śiṣyaḥsarvaśivasya dīptatapasaḥsarvārthicintāmaṇir . . . | śrīmān rūpaśivo babhūva ‘The disciple who succeeded Sarvasiva, [that Guru] of ´ blazing ascetic power, was the illustrious Rupa ¯ siva, who was a wishing-granting ´ jewel for all supplicants’.

637 EI 22:21, v. 18ab: . . . [sarvārthi]nāṁ yena śrīr gamitopabhogapadavīṁ daurgatyaduḥ khacchidā ‘He caused [his] wealth to be enjoyed by all suppli cants, thus ending the torment of their poverty’. 638 EI 25:33. The inscription precedes its account of the life of Vimalasiva with some in- ´ formation about the predecessors in his Guru lineage. Unfortunately the section on his predecessors is lacunose because of damage to the stone, with the loss or partial loss of some of these Gurus’ nameṣThe inscription yields the following succes sion: . . . N > Vimalasiva ´ > Astrasiva—in ll. 5–6 I read . . . (l. 6) ´ vāstraśivābhidhānaḥ where the editor, MIRASHI, reads . . . (l. 6) vāstuśivābhidhānaḥ: Astrasiva is aśaiddhantika initiation name but *V āstu ¯ siva is not— ´ > N? (if Astrasiva’s succes-śor was covered in the lost v. 11) > N-siva (the first part of the name has been ´ lost: . . . śivaḥśiṣyaḥin l. 6) . . . N > Puruṣasiva, Guru of Yaśah ´ . karṇ a (r̥ 1073–1123) > Saktiśiva, Guru of Yaśah ´ . karṇ a’s successor Gayakarṇ a (r̥ 1123–1153) Kīrtisiva, ´ Guru of Gayakarṇ a’s successor Narasiṁ ha (r̥ A.D. 1153–1163) > Vimalasiva, Guru ´ of Narasiṁ ha’s successors Jayasiṁ ha (r̥ 1153–1188) and, on the evidence of EI 40:46, Vijayasiṁ ha (r̥ 1188–1210). Of N-siva we are told (v. 11): + ´ śivaḥśiṣyaḥ puruṣārthāya saṁ padam | guṇānāṁca dhanānāṁca paropakr̥taye param ‘[His] disciple N-siva [employed] his abundant virtues only for the accomplishment of ´ the goal of human existence and his abundant wealth only for the welfare of others’; and of his now nameless successor we learn . . . (v. 15) prītiḥ pātre ratis tīrthe sthitiḥ pathi mate satām | bhaktis bhave ’bhavat tasya samasya ‘That as cetic’s only delight was in [giving to] worthy recipients, his only attachment was to holy sites, his only adherence was to the path approved by the good, and his only devotion was to Siva’. Of Vimalaśiva we learn in v. 34cd: ´ [yacchā]yāṁ vibudhagaṇ o ’dhigamya dhatte vaidhuryaṁ na khalu [mahotsa]vodayeṣu ‘Enter-

[[269]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

praised for building temples,639 and the Rajaguru M ¯ urti ¯ siva for building many ´640 and excavating numerous reservoirṣ641 In the Gurgi inscription Pras´anta ¯ siva isśaid to have added a lofty temple of Siva at Golag ´ī to the north of one that had been established there by king Yuvarajadeva; ¯642 and in the Chandrehe inscrip tion his successor Prabodhasiva is said to have provided that place not only withā monastery but also with a water reservoir and a well.643 The Gwalior Mu

ing the shade [provided by the parasol] of this [patron] a multitude of brahmins was freed from the distress [of penury] on the splendid occasions of major festi vals’; in v. 38: yasyārthidvijarājadarśanavaśād dānāmbu[bhir vardhate] śraddhā [rātridivaṁ] vareṇ a vidhinā dharmasya *tantrīr (?) iva | yo darśeṣv api sādaraṁ dvijapatīn akṣīṇ aśobhābharān dakṣo yojayate suvarṇ avikasatsadrohiṇīnāṁśataiḥ ‘At the sight of great brahmin supplicants his faith grows day and night along with the [frequency with which he does] the pouring of the water of donation, in accor dance with the best procedure, like a * . . . (?) of religious duty. And on the days of the new moon [this] learned [Guru] bestows with devotion on the leading brah mins, their rich adornments never diminished, hundreds of fine ruddy cows shining with gold [adorning their horns]’; v. 41bc: [dattaṁ] na yan nāsti tat | pātraṁtan na yad arcitaṁ‘there is no gift that he did not give, no worthy recipient whom he did not honour’; and v. 43: udyānasarasī[sattra]prāsādadvijaveśmabhiḥ| bhūmiḥ parib havaty asya na kair bhūṣābharair divam ‘With what rich adornments [created by him], with gardens, reservoirs, charitable feeding-houses, temples, and houses for brahmins, did [this] land not surpass heaven?’

639 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 8ab: śiṣyo dharmaśivas taponidhir abhūt tasya vyadhād yo ’dbhutaṁ prāsādam bhagavattrilocanaguror vārāṇ asībhūṣaṇ am ‘His disciple, the ascetic Dharmasiva, built a marvellous temple of the blessed three-eyed teacher ´ [of the world] that beautified Benares’; SIRCAR 1983b, v. 7cd: śrīvidyāśiva ity asīmacaritas satkīrtiśākhāśataprāgbhārasthagitāmbaro munir abhūt tasmād yathārthānvayaḥ‘After him came Vidya¯siva, an ascetic of boundless virtuous con- ´ duct, in whom the lineage fulfilled its purpose, who concealed the sky with the mass of the countless branches of his fine temples’; vv. 16–19.

640 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 19: mahīyasīyaṁ na tathā mahī yathā tapasvinas tasya mahān ihāśayaḥ| tathā hi bhūmiḥ kila kīrtibhir bhr̥tā gato na tasyāśaya eṣa vismayaḥ ‘This land though vast was not large enough for the ambition of this ascetic. The wonder is that it did not cease even when the earth was filled to capacity by his temples’.

641 SIRCAR 1983b, v. 17ab: . . . nirmitāś citraṁ dikṣu vidikṣu yena pr̥thivīhāra*śriyo (conj. śriyā Ep.) dīrghikāḥ‘Wondrously he created reservoirs in all directions as a beautiful garland to adorn the land’.

642 Gurgi inscription, EI 22:21, v. 11: yena śrīyuvarājakāritalasatkailāsaśr̥ṅgopama prāsādottarataḥsumeruśikharaspardhi prasiddha[m bhu]vi | sadma sthāpitamīśvarasya *sakalatrailokyavismāpakaṁ(trailokya corr̥ MIRASHI :trailākya Ep.) yat svargaṁ vrajatas tadīyayaśasaḥsopānamārgāyate ‘To the north of the temple built by Yuvaraja that resembled the shining peak of Mt. Meru he built his famous ¯ temple of Siva. That [too] rivals the peak of Meru, causing wonder throughout the ´ three worlds, a flight of steps, as it were, for his fame as it ascends to heaven’. The repetition of the comparison with Mt. Kailasa seems lame, but its probable point is ¯ that the Guru’s temple was no less impressive than the king’ṣ

643 Chandrehe inscription, CII 4i:44, v. 16cd: anugiram atho sindhuprakhyaṁtaḍāgam acīkhanat pracurasalilaṁ kūpaṁcātra prabodhaśivaḥśamī ‘Then here [after building the monastery] the ascetic Prabodhasiva excavated an ocean-like reservoir ´

[[270]]

seum inscription records that Patanga ˙ siva built a great temple ofśiva ´ 644 and excavated four huge reservoirṣ645 The Jubbulpore inscription records that the Rajaguru Vimala ¯ siva built a temple ofśiva K ´īrtīsvara in honour of his preceptorānd predecessor, the Rajaguru K ¯īrtisiva. ´646 A Kannaḍ a inscription recording the death in 931 of the Śaiva Guru Tribhuvanakartaradevaālias Kaliyugarudra tells us that during the forty years of his rule as the pontiff of Avani in Nol ¯.ambavad¯ .i he built fifty temples and two large water reservoirs;647 and the Malkapuram in- ¯ scription records that the Rajaguru Vi ¯ sveśvara founded temples to houseśivas ´ bearing his own name in Visveśvaragolak ´ī, Mandrakut¯ .anagara, Candravallina gara, Visveśvaranagara, Komm ´ urgr āma, and Uttarasoma ¯ silā, and also that he ¯ founded a town with his own name (Visveśvarapura) atānanda. ¯ 648

The exalted status and king-like behaviour of these Gurus is reflected in the fact that we have inscriptions in which they have been given royal, even impe rial titleṣThis is so with Vamadeva, also called V āma ¯ sambhu, the Rājaguru of ā Kalacuri of Tripurī who was probably Ga¯ngeyadeva (r̥ ˙ c. 1015–1041), on whom that king is said to have transferred his status as the monarch (nijarājalakṣmī) as payment for his service as his Guru (gurudakṣiṇā) when he set out on a cam

near the [Bhramara] hill and a well with abundant water’.

644 MIRASHI 1962, v. 29: tenedaṁ haramandiraṁsuśikharaṁ yat sarvataḥsundaraṁ bhaktyā kāritam indudhāmadhavalaṁ kailāsāśailopamam |ākalpaṁsthiram astu tad bhuvi satāmānandadaṁ darśanād asyaivāmalamāgamat pariṇ atiṁ prāsādamūrtyā yaśaḥ‘Out of devotion he had this temple of Siva built with its ´ fine towers, altogether beautiful, white as the light of the moon, resembling Mt. Kailasa. May it endure on earth to the end of the aeon, delighting the virtuous ¯ when they see it. His spotless fame has been transformed to take material form as [this] temple’.

645 MIRASHI 1962, vv. (30–)38: sutat.aṁcatuṣt.ayam idaṁruciraṁcirabhūṣaṇ aṁ mahīvadhvāḥ| vikat.atarataḍāgānām acīkarac chrīpataṅgeśaḥ‘Patanga ˙ siva made ´ these four lovely and immense reservoirs with beautiful banks as an enduring or nament for the woman that is the earth’.

646 EI 25:33, vv. 45–46: [a]cīkarac candramauler mandiramādarāt | guror kīrtiśivasyaitat kīrtaye sukr̥tāya ca k devāya kīrtīśvarasaṁj ñitāya prādād amuṣmai jayasiṁ hadevaḥ| bibhrad bhave bhaktibharaṁ gurau ca grāmān raveḥ parvaṇi n + dāyān ‘He built out of reverence this temple of Siva for the fame and religious ´ merit of the Guru Kīrtisiva. The god [installed in it] was named K ´īrtisvara; and ´ King Jayasiṁ ha, having great devotion both to Siva and [his] Guru, gave it [three] ´ villages as * . . . (?) gifts on the sacred day of the sun[’s eclipse]’.

647 EC 10, Mb:65: svasti śrīmad-āvanyada sthānamaṁ nālvattu-varṣamanāl.d ayva ttu-d¯egulaṁ māḍi piriyav-eraḍ u-kereya kat.t.i śaka-varṣam eṇt.u-nūr-embatta-mūrādand utkrānti geydu śrītribhuvanakarttara-devaṁ kali-yuga-rudrāṅka rudra-lo ka-prāptanādaṁ‘Hail! After governing the sacred domain of Avani for forty years ānd building fifty temples and two large reservoirs, in the Saka year 853 [the soul ´ of] Tribhuvanakartaradeva alias Kaliyugarudra has ascended [from his body] and reached the world of Rudra’.

648 PANTULU 1930, vv. 82–84, 88.

[[271]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

paign of world conquest. Beginning with the inscriptions of his son and succes sor Karṇ a (r̥ c. 1041–1071) the Kalacuri rulers of this kingdom are described as meditating on the feet of this Vamadeva, to whose name are prefixed the impe- ¯ rial epithets paramabhat.t.ārakamahārājādhirājaparameśvaraparamamāheśva raśrī-. A variant of these titles, samadhigatapa ñcamahāśabdaparamabhat.t.ā rakamahārājādhirājaparameśvara-, is found in Nol.ambavad¯ .i records attached to the names of two other Saiddhantika Gurus, namely Brahma ¯ siva in an in-ścription of c. 870 and Varuṇ asiva in one of 936. Similarly, but more modestly,ān inscription of 1331 on a step-well in the vicinity of the Acalesvara temple ´ on Mt. Abu tells us that it was constructed during the victorious reign of the great ascetic rājaśrī-Sarvesvara during the victorious reign of the ruler ´ rājaśrī Tejaḥ siṁ ha of Candravat ¯ī.649

649 For these imperial and royal titles attached to the names of Śaiva Gurus see D.C.śIRCAR in EI 30:10, pp. 46–51. There he refutes the claims expressed by V.V. MI RASHI in EI 27:29. These are (1) that Vamadeva is a king V āmar ājadeva [seen by ¯ him alone] in the Saugor inscription of Sa´ nkaragan ˙ . a, which has been assigned on palaeographic grounds to the eight century, (2) that this king should be assigned to the second half of the seventh century, and (3) that the references in inscrip tions of the later Kalacuris to these king’s devotion to [the memory] of Vamadeva, ¯ should be referred to this much earlier monarch as the founder of their dynasty. SIRCAR removes Vamadeva from the Saugor inscription, reading ¯ -vāvarāja- rather than -vāmarāja- and citing other examples of vāva- or bāva- in inscriptions, and then cites these examples of imperial or royal epithets bestowed on Śaiva Gurus to ´ counter MIRASHI’s argument that their being prefixed to the name of Vamadeva ¯ proves that he was a king not a Guru. I side with SIRCAR. His view has the great strength that it accords (1) with the testimony of the Malkapuram inscription ¯ of 1261/2, which, referring to Vama ¯ sambhu as the third Guru in succession afterśadbhava ¯ sambhu, the first pontiff of the Mat ´ .ha at Golagī, reports that the Kalacuri kings were being praised (praśaṁsyante) [in their Prasastis] up to the present as ´ worshippers of his feet (PANTULU 1930, v. 28: atha nr̥ paśekharamālālālitapādo ’tra vāmaśambhur abhūt | adyāpi kalacurīśā yaccaraṇārādhakāḥ praśaṁsyante)— in the inscriptions of the Kalacuris of Tripurī from Karṇ a onwards they are said to be -vāmadevapādānudhyāta-—, (2) with the fact that there is no reference to a king Vamadeva in any of the inscriptions of those kings, and (3) with the fact ¯ that the source which reports the Kalacuri king’s bestowing his rājalakṣmī on Vamadeva refers to the latter as an ascetic ( ¯ sāhasikas tapasvine vāmadevanāmne nijarājalakṣmīṁ gurudakṣiṇāyai dattvā sarvāṁ bhūmiṁjetuṁ prasthitavān). SIR CAR convincingly identifies the Kalacuri king here called Sahasika as G ā¯ngeyadeva ˙ on the grounds that the latter was both an illustrious conqueror and known as Sahas ā¯nka ‘he who has the cognomen S ˙ ahasa’. This source, cited by S ¯ IRCAR (EI 30:10, p. 50), is a paraphrase in Jonaraja’s commentary on the ¯ Pr̥thivīrājavijaya of Jayanaka of a verse of that work now lost in a lacuna. ¯

The inscription referring to Brahmasiva is ´ EC 10, Sr´īnivasapura taluk, ¯ no. 27 (p. 346). SIRCAR (EI 30:10, p. 49) wrongly gives the name as Bhramarasiva and the page reference as 376. The relevant part ´ of the inscription is: svasti samadhigatapa ñcamahāśabda pallavānvaya śrīpr̥thivīvallava pallavānvayakulatilakam śrīmat-nol.ambādhirājar pr̥thivīrājya

[[272]]

Clearly the Śaiva Rājaguru had become a far grander figure than the king’s ¯ brahmanical chaplain, the Rajapurohita, who was tied to the service of a single ¯ king and was unambiguously his subordinate. Yet, it appears that the Śaivas did ´ not rest with this but also sought to encroach on the territory of that lesser office. For the Netratantra shows the existence of a further class of Śaiva officiants who ´ were to function in almost all the areas traditionally reserved for that officiant: the performance of the king’s recurrent duties to worship the various deities on the days assigned to them, to celebrate the major annual royal festivals of the Indrotsava and Mahanavam ¯ī, to protect the royal family through rites to ward off ills, to restore them to health after illness, to ward off or counter the assaults of dangerous supernaturals, to empower through lustration (nīrājanam) the king’s elephants, horses and weapons of war, and to protect the king with apotropaic rites before he eats, sleeps, and engages in his regular practice of martial skillṣ650

We see here one of several instances in which the Śaivas used their author- ´ ity to colonize downwards, producing modifications of their ritual procedures for this purpose. These adapations inevitably entailed loss of status for those that implemented them, but we should understand that this did not affect those at the summit of the clerical hierarchy, the king-like Rajagurus, but only the hum- ¯ bler clones that extended their authority into domains that those Gurus would not deign to enter̥

geye svasti samadhigatapa ñcamahāśabda paramabhat.t.ā[ra]ka mahārājādhirāja parameśvaraātaniya mata . . pana . . . . . . . . . . . . . nvita śivaśāstratapovanānurāga śrīpādhivāl.agrāmavirnirggata bha gavatpādaikaśaraṇ a śrīmat-brahmaśivācāryyaṇ The inscription referring to Varuṇ asiva (Varun ´ . asivabhat ´ .ara) is ¯ SII 9, 1:24 (ARE 759 of 1916) from Gu nimorabagalu in the Anantapur District. It speaks of him as the pon tiff of the Noṇ ambesvarara temple, as the ruler of Pal ´ .ivalub āl¯.u, and as the Mahasāmant ādhipati, that is to say, as a feudatory of the highest rank, of king ¯ Bīraṇ olamba Aṇ ṇ ayyadeva of the Nol.amba-Pallava dynasty (= Aṇ ṇiga, r̥ c. 932– 940). The Noṇ ambesvarara is probably the imposing temple at Hemāvat ¯ī now known as Doḍ ḍ esvara (C ´ OHEN 1989, p. 50, and p. 63, note 36). He is also men tioned in an inscription on the Maṇ ḍ apa of the Doḍ ḍ esvara temple, which gives ´ the information that he was the disciple of Rudrasivācārya. On Varun ¯ . asiva see ´ COHEN 1998, pp. 24, 35, and 41–42, who plausibly concludes that he was Aṇ ṇiga’s Rajaguru. The initiation-names Brahma ¯ siva, Varun ´ . asiva, and Rudraśiva reveal ´ that these Gurus were SaiddhantikaṣThe relevant portion of the inscription from ¯ Mt. Abu has been published by SIRCAR within this discussion (EI 30:10, p. 48).

650 The purpose, date, and provenance of the Netratantra are the subject of SANDER SON 2005b.

[[273]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

S´ AIVISM AND THE ROYAL TEMPLE

The second element of the early medieval process to which I have drawn attention is the proliferation of land-owning templeṣAll but the most ephemeral sovereigns during this period, both in the subcontinent and in Southeast Asia, gave material form to the legitimacy and solidity of their power by building grand temples in which images of their chosen God were installed, animated, named after themselves (svanāmnā), and endowed with land and officiants to support their cult. As we have seen, the great majority of these temples enshrined Siva ´ [in the form of a Linga]. ˙

The Śaivas of the Mantramārga provided specialized officiants and rituals ¯ to establish these Sivas, developing in course of time a secondary body of scrip- ´ tural authorities, the Pratiṣt.hatantras, devoted exclusively to this domain, set- ¯ ting out the rituals of installation (pratiṣt.hā) and defining the norms for the form of the Linga, the iconography of ancillary images, and the architectural design ˙ of the various temple typeṣ651 Moroever, they asserted the principle that the Śaiva Sthāpaka, the specialist who performs these rituals, is competent not only ¯ in the Śaiva domain but also on all the levels that the ´ Śaivas ranked below it. ´ Thus they claimed that he is empowered to officiate in the construction and con secration of non-Śaiva deities such as Vis ´.ṇ u following the Pancar ˜ atra. ¯652 This

651 None of the early works of this class have been publisheḍ Those known to learned authors before the end of the eleventh century and surviving in manuscripts are the Mayasaṁ graha, not to be confused with the published Maya mata, a later south-Indian work, the Piṅgalāmata, the Mohacūḍ ottara, and the Devyāmata, which declares itself the pratiṣt.hātantram of the Niśvāsa. Four other works of this type, not known to have survived, are cited by the Kashmirian Vidyakan ¯ .t.ha around the beginning of the eleventh century in his commentary on the Mayasaṁ graha: the Pratiṣt.hāpārameśvara, the Nandikeśvaramata, the Paitāmaha, and the Pratiṣt.hāsamuccaya, the last of which was probably a Paddhati rather than a scripture. On all these texts see SANDERSON 2005a, pp. 440–442.

652 See, e.g., Br̥hatkālottara, B f. 108v4: bauddhavaiṣṇ avapa ñcārthe saurakālamukhā diṣu | saivah ´.sarvadhik ār¯ ı sy ān¯ na śaive ’mī kathaṁcana ‘The Śaiva [Guru] ´ has competence that extends into all [religious systems], the Buddhist, Vaiṣṇ ava, Panc˜ artha[-Pāśupata], Saura, Kālamukha, and others; but [Gurus of] those have ābsolutely no competence to act in the Śaiva [system]’; ´ Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga 1.121c–126, on the authority of the Sivabrāhman ¯ . as, the married Śaiva brahmins ´ who alone were competent to officiate for others: saivah ´.sarvadhik ār¯ ı sy āt¯ sva kīye ca paratra ca k 122 śaivāḥsarveṣu kurvanti ye gr̥hasthā dvijottamāḥ| yāmale mātr̥tantre ca kāpāle pa¯ncar ˜ atrake ¯ k 123 bauddhe cārhamate caiva lākule vai dike ’pi ca | anyeṣv api ca mārgeṣu tattacchāstraiḥsvaśāstrataḥk 124 śaivāḥ ku rvanti dīkṣādyaṁtalliṅgasthāpanādikam | mukhyatvād iha śaivasya mukhamāhā tmyato ’pi ca k 125 adhikaro ’sty sarvatra ¯ nānyeṣāṁśivadarśane | tasmāt parā rthamātmārthaṁsthāpanaṁ yajanaṁtathā k 126 śivavipreṇ a kartavyam anyeṣāṁ svārtham eva hi | parārtham api kuryāc cel *lobhena (eṁ : lopena Eḍ) nr̥ pates tathā | tadrāṣt.rasya ca nāśaḥsyād acireṇ a na saṁśayaḥ‘The Śaiva is competent in ´

[[274]]

universalization of their authority, which is backed by learned theory of the re lation of the Śaiva with the other bodies of scriptural injunction, seems not have ´ been merely theoretical. For the Śaiva Paddhati literature contains instructions ´ for the consecration of Viṣṇ us, as we have seen in the case of the Paddhati of Somasambhu, ´653 and Vaiṣṇ ava sources protest at this encroachment, insisting that images of Viṣṇ u installed by Śaivas should be reconsecrateḍ ´ 654

all [systems], both his own and otherṣMarried Śaivas, the foremost of brahmins, ´ can officiate in all [the systems, namely] the Yamala and M ātr ¯ .tantra, the Kapālika, ¯ the Pa¯ncar ˜ atra, the Buddhist, the Jaina, the L ākula, the Vaidika, and yet others, ¯ using the scriptures of these systems in accordance with their owṇ [Such] Śaiva[ ´ brahmin]s perform initiations and the like, the installation of images, and so forth [in these other systems], because the teaching of Siva is superior [to all others] and ´ because the mouth [of Puruṣa] has been glorified [in the Puruṣasūkta as the part of his body from which the brahmins, as the highest caste-class, were created]. [The Sivabrāhman ¯ . a] is competent to act in all [systems], but not others in the teaching of Siva. Therefore theśivabrāhman ¯ . a [alone] may worship and install [images] both for others and himself. Others may act only for themselveṣIf out of greed [anyone other than a Sivabrāhman ¯ . a] performs rituals for the benefit of others[, thus usurp ing the exclusive right of the Sivabrāhman ¯ . as], then without doubt both the king and his kingdom will swiftly be destroyed’.

653 See Somaśambhupaddhati vol. 4, pp. 294–311 (viṣṇ usthāpanavidhiḥ). 654 In his Pa ñcarātrarakṣā (pp. 26–27) Vedantade ¯ sika, the influentialśr´īvaiṣṇ ava of the fourteenth century (EI 13, p. 222), quotes a passage from the Śaiva ´ Kāraṇ atantra that is more or less identical with 1.121c–124 of the passage of the Kāmika, Pūrvabhāga cited above, and after asserting that it is inadmissi ble as evidence because all Śaiva Tantras are condemned by Vedic authorities ´ quotes a passage from the south-Indian Pa¯ncar ˜ atrika ¯ Pādmasaṁ hitā (Caryāpāda 19.128b–130) to the effect that if a Viṣṇ u has been installed with the system of the Śaivas it must be re-installed following the system of the Pa ´ ncar ˜ atra and pu- ¯ rified by bathing with a thousand vaseṣSee also Viṣvaksenasaṁ hitā 39.283– 285: sthāpite raudramārgeṇ a pūjyamāne dine dine | hitvā raudravidhānaṁtu sarveṣāṁ hitakāmyayā k grāmavr̥ddhikaraṁ puṇ yaṁrājabhūsuravardhanam | tasmāt sarvaprayatnena hitvā raudraṁtu tatkṣaṇāt k sthāpayet sāttvatenātha vid hinā pūjayed dharim | tasmāt sarvaprayatnena na kuryāt tantrasaṁ karam ‘If [a Viṣṇ u] has been installed following the Śaiva procedure and is in daily worship [fol- ´ lowing the same] then, desiring the welfare of all, one should abandon the Śaiva ´ procedure and [adopt] the holy [Vaiṣṇ ava procedure] that will cause the village, the king, and the brahmins to prosper̥ Therefore one should abandon the Śaiva rites ´ immediately and scrupulously re-install the Viṣṇ u with the Pa¯ncar ˜ atrika ritual and ānd worship it [with the same thereafter]. So one must take great care to avoid [this] contamination of the [Śaiva and Vais ´.ṇ ava] systems of worship’; 39.305–306: jātisaṁ karaṇenaiva jagac caṇ ḍālatāṁ vrajet | tantrasaṁ karaṇenaiva rājarāṣt.raṁ vinaśyati k rāṣt.raṁśarīraṁrāj ñas tu rājā jīvaḥsa ucyate | rāṣt.rakṣaye kṣayo rāj ñaḥ tasmād rakṣyaṁ dvayaṁ budhaiḥ‘People become untouchables through the con tamination of casteṣThrough the contamination of the systems of worship the king and kingdom are destroyeḍ [The scriptures] teach that the kingdom is the body and the king its soul. [So] when the kingdom is destroyed, so is the king. The wise, therefore, should guard both [by preventing the encroachment of the Śaivas into the ´ Pa¯ncar ˜ atrika domain]’. ¯ Śaiva ritual is called ´ raudra- in the first of these passages

[[275]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

The involvement of the Śaivas of the Mantramārga in the temple cult ¯ covered in early Śaiva scriptural sources and all the early Paddhatis up to at ´ least the twelfth century does not extend beyond the performing of the rituals necessary to initiate the cult by consecrating the images and the temples that house theṁ The texts are silent on the nature of the worship that would be performed before those images once the Śaiva Guru had completed his task. It ´ would appear, therefore, that the temple worship was in the hands of officiants of a different kinḍ However, the texts lagged behind reality in this regarḍ For at some point, well before the Śaiva literature was prepared to register this fact, ´ there were Śaivas of the Mantramārga working as the priests that performed ¯ the regular rituals in the Śaiva templeṣThe new practice is first attested in ´ the Far South in the late seventh century. We learn from a grant of the Pallava Paramesvaravarman I (r̥ ´ c. 655–960) that a certain Anantasivācārya, whose ¯ name makes it very probable that he was an initiated Saiddhantika officiant, ¯655 was appointed as the priest with hereditary rights to perform the ritual of worship (devakarma) in the temple of Siva Vidyāvin ¯ītapallavaparamesvara ´ established with his name by the Pallava king Paramesvaravarman Iālias Vidyavin ¯īta.656

The persistent disjunction during this period between what was prescribed for Śaivas and what was being done by some of them is due, I propose, to the ´ fact that functioning as a priest in a temple, and therefore living off the endow ment of the deity in return for one’s work, carried a loss of status with which the older tradition was unwilling to be associateḍ According to brahmanical sources any brahmin who persists in such work for three years is considered to

in keeping with the mildly disparaging south-Indian Vaiṣṇ ava practice of referring to Siva as Rudra. Cf. the expression ´ rudrakālyupajīvakaḥcited here, p. 278 and the rule of the Sān ´. ḍilyasmr̥ti quoted by Vedantade ¯ sika in his ´ Pa ñcarātrarakṣā (p. 62) that Vaiṣṇ avas should keep far away from temples of Buddha, Rudra, and the like (buddharudrādivasatiṁśmaśānaṁśavam eva ca | at.aviṁrājadhānīṁca dūrataḥ parivarjayet).

655 Saiddhantika ¯ Śaiva initiated brahmins have initiation-names ( ´ dīkṣānāma) that end in -siva (with -śambhu or, less commonly, - ´īsvara/- ´īsa or -śa´ nkara as synonyms) ˙ as the second of their two components, and those of these who have been conse crated to officiate by receiving theācāryābhiṣekaḥ are referred to as N-sivācārya, a ¯ practice that has continued into modern timeṣOther Anantasivācāryas are the āuthor of the Siddhāntasārāvalīvyākhyā, one of the Sivācāryas, probably 95 in āll, among 108 12th-century labelled images at Darā¯suram in Tamilnād¯ .u (SRINI VASAN 1987, vol. 1:17, no. 60), and one mentioned in an inscription of 1571 at the Vat.aran ¯ . yesvara temple at Tiruvāla ¯ ng˙ ad¯ .u (ARE 497 of 1906 [Appendix B: stone in scriptions copied in 1905]) as a disciple of Ponnambala Dharmasivācārya and Guru ¯ of Immaḍi Dharmasivācārya. ¯

656 The Kuram plates of Parame ¯ svaravarman I (r̥ ´ c. 655–90): MAHALINGAM 1998:46, ll. 55–57 (Sanskrit) and ll. 84–88 (Tamil).

[[276]]

have lost his brahmin status and is then known as a Devalaka.657 He is de scribed as an upabrāhmaṇ aḥ‘a sub-brahmin’ or, even more disparagingly, as a brāhmaṇ acaṇ ḍālaḥ‘a brahmin untouchable’;658 and this loss of status is con firmed in modern times in the way that the Smartha brahmins, the dominant ¯ community in Tamilad¯ .u have viewed the Adi ¯ saiva community that provides the ´ priests who after undergoing Saiddhantika ¯ Śaiva initiation ( ´ dīkṣā) and consecra tion as Acāryas ( ¯ācāryābhiṣekaḥ) perform the worship in the Siva temples of the ´ regioṇ They were forbidden to live in brahmin streets and the Smarthas would ¯ not intermarry or interdine with theṁ659 The Adi ¯ saivas, as one might expect, re-śisted this condemnation, arguing in their scriptural productions and in learned exegesis that it applies only to brahmins other than members of their endoga mous community, more precisely that the three-year rule applies to Śaiva initi-ātes other than themselveṣStrengthening the brahmanical position they held that Siva has ruled that ordinary, uninitiated brahmins who work as temple- ´ priests will forfeit their status after only six monthṣ660 As modern practice

657 Yamuna, ¯ Agamaprāmān ¯. ya, pp. 15–16: tathā ca devalaḥ“devakośopajīvī yaḥsa de valaka ucyate” iti | tathā “vr̥ttyarthaṁ pūjayed devaṁtrīṇi varṣāṇi yo dvijaḥ| sa vai devalako nāma sarvakarmasu garhitaḥ” iti ‘And Devala [teaches]: “One who lives off the wealth of a god is called a Devalaka”, and: “Any brahmin who does the wor ship of a god for his living for three years is called a Devalaka, and is condemned in all rites”’. By ‘condemned in all rites’ the text means that such a brahmin must not be chosen as an officiant in any brahmanical ritual or invited as a participant in a Sr´ addha. ¯

658 Atri cited in Agamaprāmān ¯. ya, p. 16: tathā ca viśadataram amīṣām evopabrāhmaṇ yaṁ varṇ ayaty atriḥ: “āhvāyakā devalakah¯.kalpadevalakā gaṇ abhogadevalakā bhāgavatavr̥ttir iti caturthaḥ. eta upabrahman ¯. ah¯.” iti ‘And Atri makes it absolutely clear that it is those that are sub-brahmins, when he says: “Couriers, Devalakas, Kalpadevalakas, Gaṇ abhogadevalakas, and fourth, he who lives by being a Bhagavata: these are sub-brahmins”’; and ¯ Mahābhārata 12.77.8:āhvāyakā devalaka¯ nakṣatragrāmayājakāḥete brahman ¯. acaṇ ḍ alā¯ mahāpathikapa ñcamāḥ‘All the following are brahmin untouchables: couriers, temple-priests, those who perform worship to the asterisms, those who perform worship on behalf of a whole village, and, fifth, those who undertake long journeys’.

659 See THURSTON 1909, p. 51, and FULLER 1984, pp. 49–71. The Dikshitars, the priests of Siva at Cidambaram, rank above theādi ¯ saivas, probably because theyāre the trustees of their temple; but they are still considered inferior to non-priestly brahmins; see FULLER 1984, p. 192, ṇ 3.

660 Vedajn˜ana II, ¯ Atmārthapūjāpaddhati ¯ A, p. 123 and B, p. 99, quoting the Vīratantra and the Saṁtānatantra: vīratantre “bhr̥tyarthaṁsarvadākālamādiśaivaḥśivaṁ yajet | tac ca svadharmānuṣt.hānaṁ na doṣāya prakalpate k adīkṣitaś caturvedī śiva liṅgaṁ na saṁspr̥śet | dīkṣitaś cāpi yo vipro bhr̥tyarthaṁtu na pūjayet kātmārtha pūjāṁ kuryāt *parārthaṁ naiva (A : parārtha ñ caiva B) pūjayet” | saṁtāne “adīkṣito ’pi yo vipraḥṣaṇ māsaṁtu śivaṁspr̥śet | so ’pi devalakaḥ proktaḥsa nārho deva pūjane | dīkṣitaś cāpi yo vipro *bhr̥tyarthaṁ(eṁ : pratyarthaṁ A : bhr̥tyā ñced B) vatsaratrayāt | pūjayed yadi deveśaṁso ’pi devalako bhaved” iti ‘Vīratantra: An Adi ¯ saiva may worshipśiva for a living permanently; and that, since it is his reli- ´

[[277]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

reveals, this counterargument had no effect on the Smartha majority; and, in- ¯ deed, it is obvious that its real purpose was rather to defend their professional rights against encroachment by others, rights that they took care to write into their scriptureṣ661 For, no doubt in consequence of the efflorescence of the Śaiva ´ temple cult under the Col.a emperors, we find a new wave of Śaiva scripturesāppearing in the South, in which the ceremonial life of the temple and the duties and rights of its priests are regulated, and, indeed, form their principal subject matter̥ Citations from the majority of the scriptural texts of this kind do not appear before the works of Vedajn˜anaguru II, composed during the second half ¯

gious duty, cannot be sinful [for him]. An uninitiated [brahmin], [even if he is one] who knows [all] four Vedas, may not [even] touch the Linga of ˙ Siva; and even a ´ brahmin who has been initiated may not worship [it] for a living [unless he is an Adi ¯ saiva]. He should worship [śiva] for his own benefit [as a private individual]. ´ He may not also worship him for the benefit of others [as a priest in the temple]. Saṁtāna: If an uninitiated brahmin has physical contact with a Siva [installed ´ in a fixed Linga in a temple] for six months he is called a Devalaka and is dis- ˙ qualified from offering worship to [any] deity [thereafter]. Even an initiated brah min becomes a Devalaka if he [is not an Adi ¯ saiva but] worshipsśiva for a living, ´ once three years [of his doing so] have passed’; and Kacchapesvaraśivācārya, ¯ Kriyā kramadyotikāvyākhyā, p. 80, ll. 4–7, quoting the Vīratantra: adīkṣitaś caturvedī na spr̥śen nāpi cārcayet | bhr̥tyarthaṁ parameśānaṁ dīkṣāvirahitā janāḥ| *ṣaṇ māsād yānti (eṁ : ṣaṇ māsāvyānti Coḍ) pātityaṁte ca devalakāḥsmr̥tāḥk trīṇi varṣāṇi bhr̥tyarthaṁsthiraliṅge *hi dīkṣitaḥ(eṁ : hy adīkṣitaḥ Coḍ) | pūjayed yadi *vipras (corr̥ : viprās Coḍ) tu sa vai devalako bhaved iti ‘An uninitiated [brahmin], [even if he is one] who knows [all] four Vedas, may not touch and worship Siva for a living. ´ The uninitiated fall from their caste after six months [if they do so]. It is they that are known as DevalakaṣIf an initiated brahmin [who is not an Adi ¯ saiva] performs ´ the worship [of Siva] in a fixed Li ´ nga for a living for three years[, that is to say, as ˙ a priest serving in a temple,] then he [too] will become a Devalaka’. In the older, north-Indian literature the Prāyaścittapat.ala of the Dvādaśasāhasra Svacchanda, quoted by Hr̥dayasiva in his ´ Prāyaścittasamuccaya, f. 92v3–4, defines Devalakas when considering the matter of contamination by them, as those who as priests (bhojakāḥ) live off the Moon-god, Brahma, the Sun-god, Skanda, Vis ¯ .ṇ u, the God dess, or the Mothers: somabrahmaraviskandaviṣṇ udevyaś ca mātaraḥ| upajīvanti ye devi pūjayitvā tu bhojakāḥ| te vai devalakās teṣām prāyaścittaṁ vadāmy ahaṁ The omission of Siva from this list implies that it is only the priests of other gods ´ that fall from caste. Likewise, defending the Pa¯ncar ˜ atrika priests of Vis ¯ .ṇ u’s tem ples against the same consequence, Yamuna argued, citing Vy āsa, that it is only ¯ those who earn their live off Rudra (i.e. Siva) and Kāl¯ī by serving as their priests that become Devalakas (bhaved devalako yo vai rudrakālyupajīvakaḥ): Vaiṣṇ ava temple-priests do not become Devalakas, because they have been consecrated for their work by initiatioṇ See Yamuna, ¯ Agamaprāmān ¯. ya, pp. 15–17 (the accusation), and pp. 156–157 (the rebuttal).

661 See, for example, the Kāmika cited here p. 274, the Vīra and Raurava cited in BRUNNER 1964, p. 468, ṇ 11, and the Yogaja, Cintya, Vīra, Saṁtāna, and other Agamas cited by Vedaj ¯ n˜ anaguru II in his ¯ Atmārthapūjāpaddhati ¯ A, pp. 121–123 and B, pp. 97–99.

[[278]]

of the sixteenth century.662 But some others are already being cited in the thir teenth, and one in the twelftḥ663

Here too, of course, the royal connection is maintained and carefully nur tureḍ Thus the ceremonial repertoire of these temples included special rituals for the king’s protection (rājarakṣā);664 and temple festivals (utsavaḥ) were often timed to coincide with the day of his natal asterism or of that of a member of his family.665 Indeed the texts place a great emphasis on the connection between the temple and the welfare of the ruler and his kingdom, warning repeatedly that while the proper maintenance of the temple and its ceremonies will bene fit both, deviations or neglect will have dire consequences for theṁ This duty to maintain the status quo naturally included that of recognizing the exclusive hereditary rights of the members of this priestly community.666

The Adi ¯ saivas are the only endogamous community of Saiddhāntika ¯ Śaiva ´ temple-priests for which we have evidence and they seem not to have operated beyond south India. But it seems likely that there were parallel developments in other parts of the subcontinent, evidence of which has been lost or not yet come

662 These scriptures that first appear in the works of Vedajn˜ anaguru are the ¯ Aṁśumat, the Ajita, the Kāśmīratantra, the Cintyaviśva/Cintyaviśvasādākhya, the Dīpta, the Devīkālottara, the Bhīma, the Makut.a, the Mukhabimba, the Yogaja, the Raurava, the Vijaya (/Vijayottara), the Vidveṣaṇ a, the Vīra, the Saṁtāna, the Sahasra, the Siddha, the Sūkṣma, and the Skandakālottara. The works of Vedajn˜anaguru in ¯ which they are cited are the Atmārthapūjāpaddhati ¯, Dīkṣādarśa, and Saivāgama- ´ paribhāṣāma ñjarī. For his date see DAGENS 1979, pp. 6–7.

663 The extant Kāmika is perhaps the first work of this kind to be cited in a date able work. Substantial passages found in it are quoted without attribution in the J ñānaratnāvalī of Jn˜ana ¯ siva, a teacher of Trilocanaśiva and therefore a near ´ contemporary of Aghorasiva, who completed his ´ Kriyākramadyotikā in 1157. The next earliest known work in which there are citations from such scriptures is the Sivapūjāstavavyākhyā ´ composed by a nameless author in the thirteenth century, probably in its second half. This date follows from the fact that he identifies himself as the great-great-grandson of the same Trilocanasiva. He cites the ´ Kāraṇ a, the Acintya, the Suprabheda, the south-Indian Pauṣkara, and the Vātulaśuddhākhya. I derive this information concerning the citations in the Sivapūjāstavavyākhyāānd Jn˜ ana ¯ siva’s unattributed citations of the ´ Kāmika from a lecture given by Dr̥ Do minic Goodall in the Early Tantra Workshop held in Kathmandu in September 2008. For the relationships between Aghorasiva, J ´ n˜ana ¯ siva, and Trilocanaśiva see ´ GOODALL 2000 and for confirmation of the date of Aghorasiva’s ´ Kriyākramadyotikā see GOODALL 1998, pp. xiii–xvii, fn. 24. No Sanskrit Saiddhantika works have yet ¯ been identified which can be dated within the period of three centuries between the author of the Sivapūjāstavavyākhyāānd Vedajn˜anaguru II. ¯

664 Chapters devoted to this protective temple ritual for the king are found in such south-Indian Śaiva texts as theśūkṣmāgama (pp. 290–297: rājarakṣāvidhiḥ), and the Dīptāgama (pp. 211–215: rājarakṣāvidhipat.alaḥ).

665 See DAVIS and ORR 2007, p. 91, for epigraphical evidence of such arrangementṣ666 See, for example, the passage of the Kāmika cited above, p. 274.

[[279]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

to light.667

S´ AIVISM AND NEW SETTLEMENTS

The early Śaiva Pratis ´.t.hatantras show that the authority of the ¯ Śaivaśthapaka was to extend to the creation of the palaces of their kingṣAmong the ¯ early Pratiṣt.hatantras the ¯ Mayasaṁ graha, Mohacūḍ ottara, and Piṅgalāmata,

667 Against the view that the Adi ¯ saiva caste is peculiar to Tamil Nadu one might ´ cite the fact that the Adi ¯ saivas are mentioned theśomaśambhupaddhati, a work composed in the eleventh century far to the north (at the end of the Pavitrā rohaṇ avidhi): pa ñcayojanasaṁsthe ’pi pavitraṁ gurusaṁ nidhau | kurvīta vidhi nānena labhate vā ñchitaṁ phalam | sarvaṁ vai tv adi ¯ saivānām¯. dīkṣitānāṁ śivoditam | paropakāraśīlena śrīmatā somaśambhunā | kriyākāṇ ḍ akramāvalyāṁ pavitrakavidhiḥ kr̥taḥ. However, the line is not in the edition based on Kash mirian manuscripts (see Karmakāṇ ḍ akramāvalī vv. 494c–496b: pa ñcayojana saṁsthe ’pi pavitraṁ gurusaṁ nidhau k kurvīta vidhinānena labhate vā ñchitaṁ phalam | adhītaśivaśāstreṇ a kr̥to ’yaṁsomaśambhunā k karmakāṇ ḍ akramāvalyāṁ pavitrakavidhiḥsphut.aḥ) nor in the Nepalese transmission (see Kriyākāṇ ḍ akramā valī f. 22v4–5: pa ñcayojanasaṁstho ’pi pavitraṁ gurusaṁ nidhau | kurvīta vidhinā nena labhate vā ñchitaṁ phalam | paropakāraśīlena śrīmatā somaśambhunā | kriyā kāṇ ḍ akramāvalyāṁ pavitrakavidhiḥ kr̥taḥ). It is found only in BRUNNER’s edition and the Devakot.t.ai edition, which her edition reproduces here. It rests, therefore, exclusively on the evidence of Grantha manuscripts from the soutḥ Evidently, then, one must suspect that the line has been interpolated in Tamil Nadu by a redactor in the Adi ¯ saiva community. Its lack of intelligible connection with what precedes and ´ follows strengthens this suspicioṇ

I have not seen the term Adi ¯ saiva in any inscriptioṇ There the officiants of ´ the Siva temples are always termed ´śivabrāhmaṇ aḥ or śivadvijaḥ. That term first occurs to my knowledge c. A.D. 863 in an inscription of Pallava Nandivar man III, from Tiruvallam in North Arcot (MAHALINGAM 1988:132). Concerning a grant to the temple of Paramesvara at T ´īkkalivallam it specifies that 500 k ād¯ .i of paddy are for the Sivabrāhman ¯ . as who offer worship and services in the sanc tum (ār[ā]di[t]t-upāśarikkum [śiva]brāhmaṇ arkku) (ll. 25–26). Thereafter the term is commonplace. But it is clear that it is the group known as the Adi ¯ saivas that ´ is intended, because in these inscriptions when Sivabrāhman ¯ . as are named their Gotras are sometimes given and these are those of the Adi ¯ saivas as attested both ´ by their prescriptive texts and among their modern descendants, namely Kausika, ´ Ka¯syapa, Bhāradv āja, Gautama, ¯ Atreya, ¯ Agastya, and P ārā¯sara. See, e.g.,śII 3:41 (Ka¯syapa), 55 (Kauśika), 58 (Kauśika), 209 (Kauśika, Kā¯syapa, Kauśika);śII 12:197 (Agastya); ¯ SII 17:152 (Bharadv āja), 157 (Bh āradv āja), 160 and 161 ¯ (Gautama), 162 and 163 (Bharadv āja), 165 (Gautama, Parāśara), 203 (ātreya, ¯ Bharadv āja), and 730 (Kāśyapa); ´ EC 3, Sr:44 (Gautama); EC 10, Kl:106a (Kausika), ´ 106d (Gautama), 107 (Kausika), 187 (Kauśika, Kā¯syapa); ´ EC 10, Bp:29, 32, 35a, and 37a (all Gautama, Bharadv āja). Six of the seven, minus ¯ Agastya, are listed in ¯ the Saṁtāna as cited in the Atmārthapūjāpaddhati ¯ A, p. 125. Five of them, lacking Atreya and Parāśara, are listed inśvāyambhuva, p. 14 (Acāryalaks ¯. aṇ apat.ala 94c– 95b). This evidence accords with contemporary testimony. According to the data collected by FULLER (1984, p. 28) the Adi ¯ saiva priests of the M ´īnaks ¯ .īsundaresvara ´ temple in Madurai belong to the Ka¯syapa, Kauśika, Bhāradv āja, Gautama, and ¯ Atreya Gotraṣ¯

[[280]]

all prescribe the layout of the royal palace in detail, the latter two distinguishing between different classes, the highest being that of a paramount sovereign or Maharājādhir āja; ¯668 and in the first two works the design prescribed in cludes a section of the palace reserved for teachers of the Śaiva Mantramārga ¯ (mantriṇ aḥ, mantramārgopadeśinaḥ).669 But the layout of the palace taught in these Pratiṣt.hatantras is only part of the layout for an urban settlement ¯ to be established by the king around the palace, complete with markets and segregated areas for the dwellings of the various castes and artisans, with instructions for the size and plan of these dwellings determined by caste sta tuṣ670 The founding of such royal towns is not explicitly enjoined in the Śaivas’ ´ ritual manualṣThat is to say that no ritual of nagarapratiṣt.hā was envisageḍ The Sthapaka was engaged, it seems, only for the choice and consecration of the ¯ site (vāstupūjā) and his instructions followed for the layout of the buildings to be constructed upon it. Nonetheless, we see the Śaivas involving themselves in oneāspect of the third of the elements of medieval process that I have listed, namely the creation of new urban settlements from above. The epigraphical record and Kalhaṇ a’s history of Kashmir demonstrate that any king of substance felt it encumbent on him to demonstrate his sovereignty not only by the building of temples but also by the creation of new urban settlements (puram), which, like the deities he established, were generally named after hiṁ671

One of the early Pratiṣt.hatantras, the ¯ Devyāmata, devotes its 66th chapter

668 The layout of the royal palace is prescribed in Mayasaṁ graha ff. 33v–34r (5.188–199), Mohacūḍ ottara ff. 20v–22r (4.245c–281), and Piṅgalāmata ff. 74r–75v (10.126–180).

669 Mayasaṁ graha ff. 33v–34r (5.191–193b): vitathe mantriṇ am¯. dhama ¯ sarvāstrāṇi gr̥hakṣate | antaḥ puraṁ yamapade gandharve gātr̥saṁśrayam k bhr̥ṅge senāpatisthānaṁ mr̥ ganābhyādikaṁ mr̥ ge | paitre śaucagr̥haṁ cātra tāmbūlādivyapāśrayam k avarodhavadhūsthānaṁsugrīve tu tato nyaset; Mohacūḍ ottara 4.257c–258b: vitathe mantriṇ am¯.sthanam ¯. mantramargopade ¯ sin´ am¯ k śastram antaḥ puraṁ gātr̥ kastūrī śaucaveśma ca | tāmbūlasaṁ grahaḥstrīṇāṁ *pālakān (eṁ : pācakān Coḍ) strīniyāmakāṇ

670 Mayasaṁ graha ff. 34v–35r (5.209–216); Mohacūḍ ottara f. 21v1–6 (4.270–275b); Piṅgalāmata ff. 75v–76r (10.181–194).

671 This practice was followed both throughout the subcontinent and in Southeast Asia, as the following examples demonstrate: in Kashmir Pravarasena II’s Pravara pura (Sr´īnagar), Durlabhaka-Pratapāditya II’s Prat āpapura, Jay āp¯īḍ a’s Jayapura, Lalitaditya’s Lalitapura, Avantivarman’s Avantipura, ¯ Sa´ nkaravarman’s ˙ Sa´ nkara- ˙ pura, and Didda’s Didd āpura, in eastern India R āmāvat ¯ī (Ramauti) (of R āmap āla), ¯ Vijayapura of Vijayasena, and Lakṣmaṇ avat ¯ī (Lakhnauti) (of Lakṣmaṇ asena), in the south Gangaikon ˙ . ḍ acolapura, Parakesaripura, Parantakapura, R ājakesari- ¯ pura, Rajar ājapura, R ājādityapura, R ājā¯srayapura, Rājendracolapura, Vikrama- ¯ colapura, Vikramapan¯ . ḍ yapura, Vikramasiṁ hapura, Vīrarajendracolapura, V ¯īra rajendrapura, and, among the Khmers ¯¯Is´anapura, Bhavapura, Ya ¯ sodharapura, ´ Rajendrapura, and Jayendranagar ¯ī.

[[281]]

Genesis and Development of Tantrism

to the layout to be followed not only in new towns but also in new villages, with an emphasis on the positioning of the various deities within the plan and the directions in which they should face. The regulations imposed show us Śaiva of- ´ ficiants on a purely civic level. There is nothing specifically Śaiva in the layout. ´ The Devyāmata’s chapter on iconography shows further evidence of the involve ment of the Śaivas in both urban and rural planning. Differentiating various ´ forms of Siva in accordance with mood and number of arms it tells the Sthāpaka ¯ which are appropriate where.672 The same concern can be seen in the Pratiṣt.ha¯ sections of the South-Indian Yamalatantra texts with regard to the positioning ānd iconography of the images of Bhadrakal¯ī whose installation and cult are their concerṇ673

S´ AIVISM AND IRRIGATION

The creation of new settlements and the concomitant extension of agricul ture required the provision of the means of irrigatioṇ Rituals for the conse cration (pratiṣt.hā) of wells (kūpaḥ), step-wells (vāpī), and reservoirs (puṣkariṇī, taḍāgaḥ) were already provided by the brahmanical traditioṇ A Vaidika proce dure of the Gr̥hya type is outlined or touched upon in a number of sources;674 a more elaborate, Pauran¯ .ika form of the ritual, taking five days and requiring twenty-four priests in addition to the Sthapaka, is set out at length in the ¯ Mat syapurāṇ a (58.4–56);675 and the currency of this form is evident from the fact that it became the basis of further elaboratioṇ676 There is no trace of irriga

672 Devyāmata f. 68r4: dvibhujo rājadhānyāṁtu pattane tu caturbhujaḥ| tathā cāṣt.a bhujo bhadre praśastaḥ pattane sthitaḥ. 673 Thus in Brahmayāmala IFP 40.1–4b: ataḥ paraṁ pravakṣyāmi pratimālakṣaṇ aṁ param | navatālapramāṇena pratimāṁ kārayed budhaḥk 2 śilāmayaṁlohamayaṁ mr̥ṇ mayaṁ vāpi kārayet | grāme cāṣt.abhujaṁ vidyān nagare ca caturbhujam k 3 vanāntare dvibhujaṁ vidyāt parvatāgre tu ṣoḍ aśa | samudre dvādaśaṁ kuryāt *jandandya (?) . . . ṣaḍ bhujam k 4 tat.āke daśabhujaṁ kuryāt catuṣpathe caturbhu jam; and Brahmayāmala Triv. 3.3–8: grāme ca nagare caiva pattane rājadhānike | rakṣārthaṁ vāstavasthānaṁ pure vai khet.akādiṣu k 4 sarvasādhāraṇ aṁ vidyād yathāvibhavavistaram | bahiḥ prakārataḥ kuryān mātr̥sthānaṁtu vāstavam k 5 śreṣt.haṁ pūrvottare bhāge śatadaṇ ḍānta’nantare | tadardhe vātha tasyārdhe daśadaṇ ḍāntare ’pi vā k 6 some syād vāstavaṁ brahman māt¯r̥ṇām iha codi tam | pūrve vā paścime vāpi sthānam asya praśasyate k 7 yo me pūrvottare vāpi nagaragrāmaśobhitam | dakṣiṇe ket.akasyoktaṁ anyeṣāṁ prāci paścime k 8āgneyanairr̥taiś caiva tr̥tīyaṁ vāyugocaram | + + [i]tthaṁ praśaṁsanti yāmale śivabhāṣite. On these south-Indian Yamala texts, the cult they teach, and their ¯

non-brahmin priests see SANDERSON 2007b, pp. 277–278 with footnotes 140–143. 674 See EINOO 2002 for the details of these sourceṣ

675 A procedure of the Pauran¯ .ika type is also taught in Aśvalāyanīyagr ¯.hyapariśiṣt.a 4.9 and Hiraṇ yakeśigr̥hyaśeṣasūtra 1.7.1. (EINOO 2002, pp. 713–714).

676 We find procedures based on the prescriptions of the Matsyapurāṇ a in the rit- [[282]]

tion rituals in the early Śaiva scriptures, including the Pratis ´.t.hatantraṣBut in ¯ due course Śaiva officiants, seeking to add this important domain to their ritual ´

repertoire, produced their own versioṇ It first surfaces in our surviving evidence towards the end of the eleventh century, in the Paddhati of Somasambhu, ´677 and from that source entered both later Paddhatis such as the Siddhāntaśekhara and the Atmārthapūjāpaddhati ānd the second wave of Śaiva scriptural literature ´ produced in southern India.678 In spite of the Saivized character of these new ´ rituals the underlying model is still recognizably that of the brahmanical tradi tioṇ The Śaiva elements are little more than a veneer on what it essentially a ´ brahmanical procedure, marked by such distinctive features as the erecting of a Naga pole ( ¯ nāgayaṣt.iḥ) at the centre of the excavation, the casting of metal images of aquatic creatures into the water, the crossing of the excavation by a cow followed by the patron of the rite, the making of offerings to Varuṇ a, and the giving of the cow to the officiant.679 Nor is there any attempt to attribute to

ual literature of the priests of the Kashmirian brahmins; see *Vāpyādiprati ṣt.hā, ff. 893r14–905v16 (Varuṇ apratiṣt.hā); ff. 906r1–907v9 (the Varuṇ apratiṣt.hā of Jīvana); 910r1–v1 (Adityapurān ¯.e Nālakapratiṣt.hā); 929v7–931r8 (Taḍākapratiṣt.hā and Nālakapratiṣt.hā); and 931r9–931v23 (Chandogapratiṣt.hātaḥ Kūpapratiṣt.hā). These treatments do not appear to be distinctively Kashmiriaṇ On the subject of the giving of wells and reservoirs and the Smarta/Paur ān¯ .ika procedures for conse crating them see also Caturvargacintāmaṇi, vol. 1 (Dānakhaṇ ḍ a), pp. 1001–1029.

677 See Somaśambhupaddhati, BRUNNER 1998, pp. 392–403 and pp. 406–411. The first passage sets out the ritual for the consecration of a puṣkariṇī, but adds at its end that it applies also for the consecration of a vāpī or tat.ākaḥ. The second passage gives the ritual for the consecration of a kūpaḥ. A kūpaḥis a simple well, whereas a vāpī is a step-well, a well with a flight of steps leading down to it on one of more sides (kūpo ’dvārako gartaviśeṣaḥ baddhasopānako ’yaṁ vāpīti dvaitanirṇ ayaḥ: Raghunandana cited in KANE 2ii, p. 893). Such step-wells survive from the early medieval period, notably in Gujarat. The most splendid is no doubt the Ran¯ .ī kī Vav at Patan (An ¯ . ahillapattana), the old Caulukya capital. Both a puṣkariṇī and a tat.ākaḥ(/taḍāgaḥ) are water reservoirṣThe difference appears to be one of scale alone, the latter being larger than the former̥ KANE (loc. cit.) reports the view expressed by Raghunandana in his Jalāśayotsargatattva that a puṣkariṇī is from 100 to 200 cubits in length, and a taḍāgaḥis from 200 to 800, and the view of the Vasiṣt.hasaṁ hitā as quoted by Raghunandana that a puṣkariṇī is up to 400 cubits in length and a taḍāgaḥ up to 2000.

678 See Siddhāntaśekhara of Visvanātha (13th century, Benares), pp. 565–568 (11.1– ¯ 28b); Atmārthapūjāpaddhati ¯ of Vedajn˜anaguru II (16th century, Cidambaram), ¯ A, pp. 621–629, citing from the scripture Cintyaviśvasādākhya a passage obvi ously incorporated from the Somaśambhupaddhati (see BRUNNER 1998, p. 392, fn. 1); ‘Kriyākramadyotikā’ MS transcript, pp. 344–346 (Kūpapratiṣt.hā); Vīrāgama, Pat.ala 92. The section of the Somaśambhupaddhati on the consecration of reser voirs is also included in the Kashmirian *Vāpyādipratiṣt.hā (ff. 907v10–908r9).

679 See Somaśambhupaddhati, BRUNNER 1998, pp. 397–403 (vv. 8–19). Śaiva ele- ´ ments: the officiant recites the Pa¯supatāstra Mantra as the patron crosses with ¯ the cow, makes oblations with the Aghora Mantra, instead of making an offering to the Vedic god Varuṇ a may to do so to the Śaiva Vāmadeva, and after preparing a ¯

[[283]]Genesis and Development of Tantrism

the ceremony any specifically Śaiva purpose or meaning. A work of public utility ´ (pūrtam) after all is just that.

That Śaiva officiants were engaged to perform the consecration of irrigation ´ works undertaken by their royal patrons seems very likely. No inscription known to me records any such ritual, but then no inscription to my knowledge conveys information about any religious ceremonies that accompanied the inauguration of reservoirs and other such workṣIt is even more probable that the Śaiva ver-śion of the ritual would have been performed when Śaiva Gurus undertook such ´ constructions in their own right. We have seen above that inscriptions record the creation of reservoirs by Vimalasiva, M ´ urti ¯ siva, Prabodhaśiva, Pata ´ nga ˙ siva, and ´ Tribhuvanakartaradeva.

S´ AIVISM AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION

The fifth and last respect in which Saivism can be seen to have played anāctive role is that of the assimilation of the communities that were caught up in the extension of the reach of the state that characterizes this perioḍ For the Saiddhantikas opened initiation to candidates from all four caste-classes, ¯680 in cluding the S´udras or at least the Sacch ¯ udras or ‘Pure ¯ S´udras’, those, that is, who ¯ had already succumbed to the values of brahmanical society to the extent that they had abjured alcohol,681 a move that both promoted the penetration of these

porridge (caruḥ) with the Mantra of either makes the full oblation with the porridge using the Mantra of Siva. ´

680 Vaktrasambhu, ´ Mr̥ gendrapaddhativyākhyā, p.188: śrīmatpauṣkare ’pi: brāhmaṇāḥ kṣatriyā vaiśyāḥśūdrāś caiva striyas tathā | *jaḍāndhabadhirā (eṁ : jalānāndha ttrako Coḍ) mūkā dīkṣyāḥ *śaktipracoditāḥ(śakti eṁ : śakttha Coḍ) ‘And in the Pauṣkara[pārameśvara]: Brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaisyas,ś´udras, women, imbeciles, ¯ the blind, the deaf, and the dumb: all should be initiated if they have been in spired by [Siva’s] power’; and ´ Raurava quoted by Bhat.t.a Ramakan ¯ .t.ha on Mataṅga pārameśvara, Kriyāpāda 5.93 in support of the view that candidates for initiation should be brought before the Maṇ ḍ ala in the order of their castes: yad uktaṁ śrīmadrauravādau: brāhmaṇān kṣatriyān vaiśyān śūdrāṁś caiva striyas tathā ‘As has been taught in such scriptures as the Raurava: brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaisyas,ś´udras, and women’. ¯

681 Parākhya cited by Trilocanasiva in ´ Prāyaścittasamuccaya, p. 141: yad uktaṁ śrīmatparākhye: kāryā dīkṣāpi sarveṣāṁ tacchaktividhiyoginām (tacchakti corr̥ :tacchaktir Coḍ) | trayāṇām api varṇānāṁ na tu śūdrāntyajātiṣu | amadyapās tu ye śūdrāḥśaivācārakriyādarāḥ(corr̥ :ādirāḥ Coḍ) | śivabhaktāś *ca (corr̥ : cai Coḍ) teṣāṁsā dīkṣā *kāryānyathā na hīti (eṁ : kāryannyathānuhīti Coḍ) ‘As has been taught in the Parākhya: ‘Initiation should be done for all who have received the action of [the descent of] his power, for all three caste-classes but not for [ordi nary] S´udras and the lowest-born [below them]. One may initiate ¯ S´udras, but only ¯ those who do not drink alcoholic liquor, who revere the disciplines and rites taught by Siva, and are devoted tośiva themselves’. ´

[[284]]

values and enabled the integration of the landowning agriculturalists, classed as Sacchudras, that were dominant in the countryside both within and beyond ¯ the core territories of these expanding stateṣIt thus provided a means of artic ulating a social unity that transcended the rigid exclusions of the brahmanical social order̥ Nor did it allow non-brahmins only to be initiateḍ More crucially it sanctioned their appointment as Acāryas, restricting this licence only by re- ¯ quiring that persons could officiate for persons of none but their own or inferior caste-classeṣThus a brahmin could teach, initiate, and perform ceremonies of installation only for brahmins, Kṣatriyas, Vaisyas andś´udras, a Ks ¯ .atriya only for Kṣatriyas, Vaisyas andś´udras, a Vai ¯ sya only for Vaiśyas andś´udras, and a ¯ S´udra only for others of his caste-clasṣ¯682 The key groups here appear to have

been the first and the last. For there is little evidence of the presence of Vaisya ´ traders in Saivism, and though, as we have seen, Ks ´.atriya rulers were commonly Śaiva initiates, their social status and function were obviously incompatible with ´

pontifical office. The core social structure here is one of brahmin Gurus initiat

ing other brahmins, Kṣatriyas rulers, and perhaps on occasion members of lower castes, and of S´udra Gurus initiating both other ¯ S´udras and the powerful in their ¯ communities, who though kṣatriya-like in their local authority683 were nonethe less formally of the same caste-class as their initiatorṣThe S´ astric formulation ¯

682 Kiraṇ a f. [60]v2–3 (38.4–5): caturṇām api varṇānāṁ(eṁ : catuvarṇ ṇāpivarṇ ṇānṁ ṁ Coḍ)ācāryatvam ihoditam | brāhmaṇādicatuṣkasya dvijo ’nugrahakr̥d bhavet | kṣatriyāditrikaṁ yac ca *kṣatriyo *dīkṣito (corr̥ : dīkṣitod Coḍ) guruḥ| vaiśyādidvitayaṁ vaiśyaḥśūdraḥśūdrān tu dīkṣayet. In this [system] the office of Acārya has been taught for all four caste-classeṣA brahmin ¯ may initiate persons of the four beginning with his, an initiated Kṣatriya Guru the three beginning with his, and a Vaisya the two beginning with hiṣAś´udra may ¯ initiate [only] S´udras’. ¯

683 Parākhya quoted in Dīkṣādarśa A, p. 26; B, p. 42: *amadyapāḥ(eṁ : amadyapa A : amādyapa B) kulīnāś (corr̥ : kulīnaś A : kūlina ñ B) ca nityadharmaparāyaṇāḥ (eṁ : parāyaṇ aḥ AB) | *śūdrāḥ(eṁ : śūdra AB) kṣatriyavaj j ñeyāś śeṣā nindyā tato bhr̥śam ‘Those S´udras who do not drink alcohol, who are of good family, and ¯ devoted to the obligatory religious duties should be looked upon as KṣatriyaṣAll the rest are completely to be condemned’. Cf. Pārameśvara f. 3v2–3: *amadyapās (eṁ : amedhyapās Coḍ) tu ye śūdrā<ḥ > śau[cā]cārasamanvitāḥ| rudrabhaktās tu teṣān tu bhojyam annam prakīrtitam ‘One is permitted to accept food from those S´udras who do not drink alcohol, who observe the rules of purity, and are ¯ devotees of Siva’; Trilocanaśiva,śomaśambhupaddhativyākhyā, p. 84: tad uktaṁ brahmaśambhupaddhatau “brahmakṣatriyaviśāṁ bhikṣāṁ *abhiśastādivarjitām (eṁ : abhiśabdādivarjitām Coḍ) | amadyapās tu ye śūdrāḥśaucācārasamanvitāḥ | teṣām eva cared bhikṣā nānyeṣāṁtu kadācana” iti ‘That has been taught in the Paddhati of Brahmasambhu in the following: “One may gather alms only from brah- ´ mins, Kṣatriyas, and Vaisyas, provided it is not from someone who been condemned ´ [for some sin] or [permanently excluded from his caste], and also from such S´udras ās do not drink alcohol and observe the rules of purity. One may never accept alms from others”’.