I have come across five versions of the origin of the Mahavidyas as a group. In one of these versions, the Mahavidyas are different forms of the goddess Sati; in a second version they are forms of the goddess Parvati; in a third they arise from the goddess Kali, herself one of the Mahavidyas; in a fourth they are forms of the goddess Durga; and in a fifth they are said to arise from the goddess Sataksi, who is also identified with Sakambhari and Durga.
1. THE MAHĀVIDYĀS AS FORMS OF SATĪ
Of the five versions of the Mahavidyas’ origin, I have found only two that are firmly attested in literary sources. We shall look first at the most detailed version. In the *Mahabhagavata-purana *and the *Brhad**dhanna-purana, *which are both late *sakta **upa **puranas, *probably written in eastern India after the fourteenth century Ce., the origin of the ten Mahavidyas is recounted as part of the story of Daksa’s sacrifice. This tale is ancient in the Hindu tradition and well known all over India. It is also an important *sakta *myth, being the prelude to the story of the origin of the *sakta **pithas, *which are sacred centers of goddess worship throughout India.26 In early versions of the story, the Mahavidyas do not appear; they enter it for the first time in these two relatively *late **puranas. *By including their origin in this myth, of course, the authors of these texts have lent the Mahavidyas considerable prestige, as the myth is well known and central to *sakta *mythology.
The account of the origin of the Mahavidyas in the *Brhaddharma- *and *Mahabhagavata-puranas *is as follows.27 Once upon a time, Daksa decided to undertake a great sacrifice. He invited all the inhabitants of heaven, all the gods and goddesses, except his daughter, Sati, and his son-in-law, Siva. Daksa was not fond of Siva, as he disapproved of Siva’s odd habits and antisocial nature. Siva, the archetypal yogi, was fond of inhabiting lonely places and cremation grounds and surrounding himself with ghosts and goblins. When he was not going about completely naked, he wore animal hides. I Ic often smeared his body with ashes and spent time in isolated meditation. To Daksa, he did not seem a fitting husband for his daughter, and so Daksa deliberately did not invite him or Sati to his sacrifice. Siva himself was indifferent to this snub, but Sati was outraged and determined to attend her father’s sacrifice in order to disrupt it and berate her father. Siva, however, forbade her to go.
Now the story departs from earlier versions by introducing in an account of the origin of the Mahavidyas. Forbidden by Siva to attend the sacrifice, Sati becomes enraged and accuses him of neglecting her. In her anger her eyes become red and bright and her limbs tremble. Seeing her fury, Siva closes his eyes. When he opens them, a fearsome female stands before him. As he looks at her, she becomes very old, her graceful appearance disappearing. She develops four arms, her complexion becomes fiery and her hair disheveled, her lips are smeared with sweat, and her tongue lolls out and begins to wave from side to side. She is naked except for a garland of severed heads; she wears the half moon as a crown. Standing before Siva, she blazes like a million rising suns and fills the world with earth-shattering laughter.
Siva is afraid and tries to flee. He runs around in all directions, but then the terrible goddess gives a dreadful laugh, and Siva is too petrified to move. To make sure that he does not flee from her terrible form, Sati fills the directions around him with ten different forms (the Mahavidyas). In the *Mababhdgavata-purana, *when Siva asks who these goddesses are, Sati answers that they are her “friends.“28 Wherever Siva goes or looks, he sees a dreadful figure, and his fear increases. Unable to flee, he stands still and closes his eyes. When he opens them, he sees before him a smiling woman whose face is as pleasing as a lotus blossom. She is black, her breasts are large, and she is naked. Her hair is disheveled, and she glows with the brilliance of a million suns. Siva asks: “Where is my beloved Sati?” She replies: “Do you not see Sati standing before you?”
Siva then asks who the other goddesses are who surround him and is told their names: Kali, Tārā, Kamala, Bhuvanesvarl, Chinnamasta, Sodasl, Sundari, Bagalamukhl, Dhumavatl, and Matarigi. In relation to Siva, who is facing south, Kali is in front of him (to the south), Tārā above him, Chinnamasta to his right (west), Bhuvaneśvarī to his left (east), Bagala behind him (north), Dhumavatl to the southeast, Tripura-sundari to the southwest, Matarigi to the northwest, and Sodasl to the northeast.29 At one point, the *Mahabhagavata-purmia *(77.4-11) locates the Mahavidyas relative to the goddess Kamakhya, who is identified with Kali. Kamakhya (or Kali) is in the center, seated on a corpse that is lying on a lotus that is resting on a lion. The text identifies the corpse as Siva, the lotus as Brahma, and the lion as Visnu, so the goddess is supported by the three great male deities of the Hindu pantheon. The Mahavidyas are arrayed around the central figure, who faces south.30 None of these enumerations of the Mahavidyas elaborates their individual appearances or characteristics. The *Brhaddharma-purana *does say that Tārā represents time and that Chinnamasta is emaciated and dreadful,31 but for the most part the two texts content themselves with making general comments about the group as a whole.
In both accounts, Satl, in her terrible, black form, which is sometimes said to be Kall, tells Siva that these ten goddesses are her different forms. “All these figures are my excellent forms, and I abide in manifold forms.“32 In the *Brhaddharma-purana *the Mahavidyas as a group are said to cause trouble and conflict among people, but also to give spiritual liberation *(moksa).33 *They are also said to bestow the powers *oimdrana *(the ability to cause a person’s death simply by willing it), *uccatana *(the ability to make one’s enemy sick by willing it), *stambhana *(the ability to immobilize a person), the power to control another’s speech, the power of remaining young oneself while causing another to grow old, and the power to attract another to oneself.34 The *Brhaddharma-purana *also says that when Brahma creates the world and Visnu maintains it, they use the powers of the Mahavidyas “like two arms.“35 These references suggest that the Mahavidyas are associated with magical powers, which may be acquired by worshiping them.
After the Mahavidyas have surrounded Siva and he has been told who they are, he acquiesces to Sati’s wish and says that she may attend her father’s sacrifice. In the *Mahabhdgavata-purdna, *Tārā merges with Kali at this point, and the other forms disappear.36 Satl, in the form of Kali, then goes off to Daksa’s sacrifice and kills herself by throwing herself on the sacrificial fire. In the *Brhaddharma-purana *account, Sati leaves the Mahavidyas behind with Siva, instructing them to look after him in her absence. She explains that she has created these forms to attend Siva when she is away.37 Then Satl, taking on a form that wears a tiger skin and has disheveled hair, a fearsome face, and fiery red eyes, heads off to Daksa’s sacrifice, flying through the sky. The rest of the story conforms to the account in the *Mahdbhdgavata-purdna. *
In the version of the origin of the Mahavidyas that is given in the *Brhad**dharma- *and *Mahabhagavata-puranas, *there are several important points to be noted.
First, the myths make clear that Satl, or the goddess in the form of Satl, is a superior power to Siva. He forbids her to attend her father’s sacrifice, but she forces him to let her go by overwhelming him with her numerous and terrible forms. Both accounts of the story stress the fact that Siva is afraid of the goddess in her terrible forms and tries to flee. The fact that the goddess is able to physically restrain Siva dramatically makes the point that she is superior in power. The theme of the superiority of the goddess over male deities is common in *sakta *texts, so the story is stressing a central *sakta *theological principle.
Second, the *Brhaddharma- *and *Mahahhagavata-purana *account of the origin of the Mahavidyas stresses their terrifying aspects. Although other texts describe some of the Mahavidyas as pleasant, beautiful, and mild of manner, here they are, as a group, awful and frightening. The one goddess the story does describe in detail, the initial form taken by Satl, is particularly fearsome, and Siva reacts to it by closing his eyes or trying to run away. This account stresses the dramatic effects the Mahavidyas have on Siva. He is frightened and repelled by them. They are terrible, not pleasing, in form.
Third, this version of the Mahavidyas’ origin emphasizes that the ten goddesses are manifestations of Satl, or of the Great Goddess, who has taken the form of Sati. When Siva asks who the Mahavidyas are, Satl tells him they are her forms or her friends. The myth makes clear that the Mahavidyas are extensions of Sati’s power. They embody her will and wrath and succeed in bending Siva to her wishes.
Fourth, the appearance of the Mahavidyas takes place in the context of husband-wife and father-daughter tensions. Daksa insults his daughter by not inviting her to his home for the sacrifice, and Siva offends her by not allowing her to go to her paternal home. The Mahavidyas are, at least to some extent, the embodiments of an offended wife and daughter. They are the embodiments of female fury precipitated by male neglect and abuse.
The cult of the goddess Nanda-devi of Garwahl in Himachal Pradhesh illustrates the potential danger posed by unfairly restricting a woman’s freedom to return to her native village (the domain of her father), whether the impediments are caused by the father or the husband. Although local Garwahli literature stresses that a woman is totally transformed when she marries, becoming part of her husband’s lineage, Garwahli women insist that females remain strongly identified with, influenced by, and related to their home families and villages, their *maits. *Both men and women share the belief that a woman has the ability to effectively curse her husband or her father if she is impeded from maintaining contact with her home village. The bride who has gone away, the “outmarried village daughter” *(dhiydni), *should continue to be respected by her home village and must be invited back for all its important festivals and events. A village that neglects to do this risks her destructive curse, which could be ruinous. In the cult of the goddess Nanda-devl, a yearly pilgrimage wends its way through many local villages where she is worshiped, and this represents her return to her native village. If this pilgrimage is not undertaken, the goddess will be offended and assume that she is no longer loved and respected. Such implied neglect or indifference would court her wrath.38
A similar situation exists in the story of Sati. Her *wait *is not fulfilling its duty to her, because her father has not invited her home for his elaborate sacrifice. Furthermore, her husband, in forbidding her to return to her home village, is showing her serious disrespect. Both Siva and Daksa become the targets of her anger. In the logic of the Nanda-devi cult, Satl returns to her home village enraged at her father’s lack of respect for her and immolates herself in her father’s sacrificial fire. He and his home are cursed and eventually destroyed by Siva and his hosts when Siva hears of Sati’s death.
A fifth important point about this version of the origin of the Mahavidyas is that these goddesses are associated with magical powers and have little or no connection with upholding the order of dharma.39 They do not resemble the *avataras *of Visnu in either nature or function. They do not appear in order to defeat demons who threaten the stability of the world but in order to frighten Siva into allowing Satl to attend her father’s sacrifice. Their primary role in the story is to overpower an opponent, in this case, Siva. The *Brhaddharma-purana *says that the Mahavidyas have been created to produce conflict and trouble among people40 and that they confer the power to kill at will, to immobilize one’s enemies, and so on. Indeed, the effect they have on Siva underlines this aspect of their nature. Siva is alternately frightened into fleeing and frozen with fear. Although other myths concerning individual Mahavidyas suggest their world-supporting function, and in several instances the Mahavidyas are compared to the Vaisnava *avataras, *this version of their origin only hints at world-supporting characteristics. Although some of the individual Mahavidyas are more strongly associated with magical powers than others, as we will see below, this version of the group’s origin says that the group as a whole grants these powers.
2. THE MAHĀVIDYĀS AS FORMS OF PĀRVATĪ
The second version of the origin of the Mahavidyas was told to me by the *?nahant *(chief priest) of the Kashi Vishvanath temple in Varanasi, Sri Rama Shankar Tripathi, who in turn was told the story by a *tdntrika *friend of his. The *tdntrika *said the story was to be found in “all the Tantra *sdstras,” *but as yet I have not been able to find it in any written source. According to this version, Siva is living with his second wife, Parvati (whom he married after Sati killed herself), in her father’s house in the mountains. One day, Siva decides to leave. Parvatl asks him to stay, but he refuses. When he attempts to leave, she prevents him from doing so by blocking the ten doors of the house with her ten forms, the Mahavidyas. The esoteric meaning of the myth, according to the *tdntrika, *is based on an allegory. The house represents the human body, and the blocking of the ten doors means the blocking, or controlling, of the ten bodily apertures: two eyes, ears, and nostrils, plus the mouth, anus, penis or vagina, and *brahmarandhra *(an aperture at the top of the head). In this allegorical interpretation, Siva’s desire to leave Parvati’s house presumably signifies the individual’s desire to indulge the senses willfully, to act without yogic discipline and control.
This version bears similarities to the first version of the Mahavidyas’ origin. As in the first one, the Mahavidyas appear in order to restrain Siva, to bend him to the goddess’s will. He wants to leave his father-in-law’s house, but she wants him to remain. The Mahavidyas force the issue in Parvati’s favor. It is also clear in this version that the Mahavidyas are all forms of one goddess, in this case, Parvatl. They represent various aspects of the goddess. As in the first version also, the appearance of the Mahavidyas is the result of marital tension. In this case, however, the goddess’s father seems to play little or no role. This version of the story also emphasizes the superiority of the goddess over Siva. The fact that Siva and Parvatl are living at her father’s house in itself makes this point, as it is traditional in many parts of India for the wife to leave her father’s home upon marriage and become a member of her husband’s lineage and live in his home among his relatives. That Siva dwells in Parvati’s house implies her priority in their relationship. Her priority is also demonstrated in her ability, through the Mahavidyas, to thwart Siva’s will and assert her own.
This story lends itself to an allegorical interpretation of the Mahavidyas as aspects or powers of the human organism, states of consciousness perhaps, rather than as world-supporting or cosmic powers. The teller’s emphasis on their role in yogic concentration, or perhaps *sadhand *(religious endeavor) generally, suggests that the Mahavidyas are associated with facets, aspects, dimensions, or characteristics of the human organism, which in Tantra is understood to be the universe in microcosm. In fact, this interpretation of the Mahavidyas is supported by some tantric texts. The *Saktisamgama-tantra, *for example, says that the Mahavidyas are connected with the five senses (sound, touch, color or sight, flavor, and smell) and the five elements (ether, air, fire, water, and earth).41 Although the *Saktisamgama-tantra *does not specify which Mahavidya is connected with each sense or element, it is clear that they are associated with the fundamental makeup of humans.
The association of the Mahavidyas with *siddhis *(magical powers) is also implied in this second version of their creation. Such powers are acquired by means *oisadhand, *which almost always includes yogic practices aimed at controlling or enhancing the senses. We shall treat the idea of the Mahavidyas as *siddhis *in more detail below.
3. THE MAHĀVIDYĀS AS FORMS OF KĀLĪ
The third version of the origin of the Mahavidyas is found in a contemporary Hindi book about the worship of Tara.42 According to this version, Siva is living with the goddess Kali in the Satya Yuga, the first and most perfect of the four periods of a world cycle. Eventually he grows restless and decides he is tired of living with Kali. He gets up, and when she asks him where he is going, he answers: “Wherever I wish!” She does not reply, and he begins to wander off. However, in whichever direction Siva goes, a form of Kali appears, one of the Mahavidyas: first Kali herself, then Tara, Sodasl, Bhuvanesvari, Bagalamukhi, Bhairavl, Kamala, Dhumavatl, Matarigl, and Chinnamasta. Seeing these goddesses, Siva loses his yearning to leave Kali and wander about, having gained the knowledge *(vidyd) *that she pervades the entire cosmos and that wherever one goes she is there in one of her forms.
This version of the myth is obviously related to the first two in several respects. The Mahavidyas arise as manifestations of a particular goddess, who is said to be Siva’s spouse. As in the other two versions, the goddess (Kall, in this case) creates the Mahavidyas to prevent Siva from leaving or fleeing. This version also gives no indication that the Mahavidyas play a role similar to the Vaisnava *avataras. *Unlike the first two versions, however, there is less emphasis on marital tension, although the implication is that Siva is going against Kali’s wish by trying to leave her and wander about. This version also does not indicate that the Mahavidyas are terrible or frightening (they are not even described) or that Siva is afraid of them. The story does not even say that the Mahavidyas prevent Siva from leaving. It simply says that Kali fills the whole cosmos with her forms.
The central point of this version of the origin of the Mahāvidyās, a point implicit in the other versions, is that it is impossible to go where the goddess is not. To depart (or flee) from her is impossible, as she pervades the entire cosmos in one form or another. She is everywhere; indeed, she is identical with the cosmos itself. The story as told here also places a premium on the iMahavidyas as revealing knowledge *(vidya), *in this case, knowledge that Kali pervades all of reality. In this sense, the story interprets the Mahāvidyās, not as *avatara-type *figures who maintain the cosmos, nor as manifestations of magical powers or states of consciousness, but as sources of wisdom. The point of this version of the story is Siva’s enlightenment, which the Mahāvidyās bring about.
4. THE MAHĀVIDYĀS AS FORMS OF DURGĀ
Contemporary oral tradition, supported by certain iconographic evidence, supplies yet a fourth version of the origin of the Mahāvidyās. According to this version, the Mahāvidyās appear when the great battle queen Durga confronts the demons Sumbha and Nisumbha. The myth of Durga’s defeat of these demons constitutes the third episode of the *Devi-mahatmya *and is also told in several *other **pnwnas.43 *Although none of the texts that describe this battle mentions the Mahāvidyās, several people have told me that they fight in it as a group. Moreover, individual Mahāvidyās are sometimes associated with the myth, and there is, as we shall see, considerable iconographic evidence to support this version of the mahāvidyās’ origin. A contemporary Hindi book on Tantra also alludes to this version of the origin of the Mahāvidyās: the author states that, in the beginning, the male gods were threatened by demons and appealed to the Mahadevl, who defeated the demons by taking on different forms, including the nine Durgas44 and the ten Mahavidyas.45 The *Devi-mahatmya *is the most famous and revered of all Hindu *s’akta *texts. It was probably written around the sixth century C.e. and today occupies a central position in *s’dkta *circles. Several commentaries have been written on it, and several subsidiary texts have arisen as addenda to it.46 It is not surprising, therefore, that people associate the Mahāvidyās with this famous text. The nature of the text also invites such association, particularly the third episode featuring the defeat of Sumbha and Nisumbha. The theology of the *Devi-mahatmya *is summed up in that episode. Durga is said to underlie or pervade the cosmos; to create, maintain, and periodically destroy it according to the rhythmic sequences of Hindu cosmology (12.33-35); andto assume different forms from time to time when cosmic balance is threatened by enemies of the gods (1 1.3 8-51). The theology of the text is succinct: “Though she is eternal, the goddess becomes manifest over and over again to protect the world” (12.32). This is very similar to the Vaisnava *avatdra *theology.47 When associated with this type of theology, the mahāvidyās’ function becomes primarily that of upholding and protecting cosmic order. We have already seen that other texts compare the Mahāvidyās to the *avatdras, *so it is not surprising that some Hindus think they appear in the *Devi-mdhdtmya, *even though they do not.
Another feature of the third episode of the *Devi-mdhdtmya *makes it understandable that the Mahāvidyās would be thought to arise there. In the course of the battle, Durga produces several goddesses to help her. She brings forth Kali while confronting the demons Canda and Munda (7.3-22) and calls upon her again for help in defeating Raktablja (8.4961). During the battle a group of seven goddesses, collectively known as the Matrkas, is created from certain male gods to help defeat the demons. They are Brahmani, created from Brahma; Mahesvari, created from Siva; Kaumari, created from Kartikeya; Vaisnavl, created from Visnu; Varahl, created from the boar *avatdra *of Visnu; Narasirhhi, created from the manlion *avatara *of Visnu; and Aindri, created from the god Indra (8.12-20). Later in the battle, when Durga confronts the demon Sumbha himself, he challenges her to single combat, and she agrees, saying that her battle companions are only her different forms (10.2-5). She then absorbs the Matrkas and Kali into herself. The *Devi-mdhdtmya *describes the nature of the Matrkas as wild and fierce. They are furious warriors and near the end of the battle dance wildly, intoxicated on the blood of their slain victims (8.62).48 The third episode, then, includes the creation of a group of goddesses who bear certain resemblances to the Mahāvidyās, giving rise to the tradition that the Mahāvidyās themselves appear in the *Devi**mdhdtmya. *It is also the case that other texts compare individual Mahavidyas to the Matrkas or give them Matrkas’ names as epithets. The Mahavidya Tripura-bhairavl, for example, in her *sahasrandma stotra *(thousand-name hymn) in the *Sdkta-pramoda, *has the following epithets: Brahmani, Mahesvari, Kaumari, Vaisnavl, Varahi, Camunda, and Indrani.49 They are the same as the names of the Matrkas in the *Devimdhdtmya, *except that the *Sdkta-pramoda *substitutes Camunda for Narasirhhi. The Mahavidya Bhuvaneśvarī has among her many epithets Vaisnavl, Brahmani, Narasirhhl, Mahesvari, and Varahl.50
There is also iconographic support for this fourth version of the origin of the Mahāvidyās. Contemporary religious art typically shows the Mahāvidyās surrounding a central goddess, none other than Durga (in her form of Mahisamardini, slayer of the demon Mahisa) and the central figure of the *Devi-mahdtmya. *While contemporary art also depicts the Mahāvidyās surrounding Siva and Sati as the central figures, the configuration with Durga in the center is just as common, if not more common, at least in the areas with which I am most familiar, Varanasi and Calcutta. The depiction of the Mahāvidyās on the *cdl **citras *of the Durga images set up for Durga Puja also reinforces the tradition that the Mahāvidyās arise to help Durga defeat demons and restore the stability of the cosmos. At the Durga Saptasati temple in Nagawa, just outside Varanasi (a temple dedicated to the *Devi-mdbatmya, *popularly known as the *Saptasati), *paintings of the Mahāvidyās on a wall of the inner shrine also dramatically associate the Mahāvidyās with Durga, and specifically with Durga as she appears in the *Devi-mahatmya. *From these examples it is easy to conclude that the Mahāvidyās are forms of Durga, and as Durga is primarily a battle queen, it is also logical to assume that the Mahāvidyās play the role of supporting Durga in her attempts to protect the cosmic order.51
This version, then, differs markedly from the first three in its view of the role and nature of the Mahāvidyās. This version does not mention marital tension, the goddesses do not appear in order to frighten or control Siva, they are not associated with magical powers, and they are in a battlefield rather than a domestic setting. Their association with the *avatdras *of Visnu is heightened and stressed.
Stories associated with individual Mahāvidyās also tend to suggest this fourth version of their origin. An image maker in Varanasi, for example, told me that Dhumavati was created by Durga in her battle with Sumbha and Nisumbha and that she helped defeat these demons by employing acrid smoke, “like tear gas,” against them. Dhumavati, “she who abides in smoke,” is here interpreted as having a special weapon with which she defeats demons for the welfare of the world. Similarly, I have been told that Bagalāmukhī has often appeared in battles, where she has deluded the enemy (often the Pakistanis) into making critical blunders. Swami Sadhananda Shastri, a tantric practitioner from Varanasi, whom I mentioned earlier as comparing the Mahāvidyās to the *avataras, *noted a worldmaintaining function for each of the Mahavidyas.52
Several people have also told me that famous gods and heroes of Hindu mythology employed the Mahāvidyās, or the powers gained through worshiping them, in their conquest of demons. Siva killed Taraka, Krsna defeated Karhsa, Rama killed Ravana, and Indra killed Vrtra with the help of the Mahāvidyās. Likewise, Hanuman, with the aid of the Mahāvidyās, defeated the female demon who tried to stop him from jumping to Lanka. That is, by propitiating the goddesses he was able to acquire the magical power of becoming very small and thus was able to enter the mouth of the female demon and destroy her from inside.53 Indeed, at the Sankat Mochan temple in Varanasi, a famous Hanuman temple, the Mahāvidyās are depicted around the ceiling of the porch in front of the shrine containing the main Hanuman image.
When we look at the individual Mahāvidyās in detail, as we shall do below, it also becomes apparent that they are often associated with Durga the demon slayer and the *Devi-mdhdtmya *myths. To take just one example at this point, Bhuvanesvari in her *sahasrandma stotra *in the *Rudraydmala *has among her names several that directly identify her with Durga, the forms Durga takes in the *Devi-mdhdtmya, *and the actions she performs there. She is called She Who Destroys Madhu and Kaitabha, She Who Slays Mahisasura, and She Who Slays Sumbha and Nisumbha. These three names, that is, identify her with all three episodes of the *Devimdhdtmya *as the slayer of the principal demons.54 She is also called Sivadutl, Camunda, and She Who Destroys Raktabija, all of which are epithets of Durga or one of Durga’s forms in the *Devi-mahdtmya. *She is also called by the name Durga itself.55
5. THE MAHĀVIDYĀS AS FORMS OF ŚATĀKSĪ
The fifth version of the origin of the Mahāvidyās is told in the *Devi-bhdgavata-purdna. *As in the fourth version, they arise to defend the world against demons. Once upon a time the demon Durgama gained control over the universe and forced the gods into subservience. The gods appealed to the Mahadevi for help. She appeared in a form having innumerable eyes, all of which shed tears on seeing the pitiable plight of the gods, human beings, and the earth as a result of demonic oppression. She was duly named Sataksi (she who has one hundred eyes). She then distributed fruits and vegetables from her own body to feed the starving beings of the earth, which was suffering from drought. For this reason she was named Sakambhari (she who bears vegetables). A fierce battle then began between the goddess and the demon and his armies. The goddess created several groups of goddess allies to help her in this fight, and among them were the Mahāvidyās. The text says that these goddesses are her principal *saktis *and have emerged directly from her body. It names them in the following order: Kalika, Tarinl, Tripura, Bhairavi, Kamala, Bagala, Matarigl, Tripura-sundari, Kamaksa, Tulaja-devi, Jambhini, Mohini, and Chinnamasta.56 The *Devi-bhdgavata-purdna *does not mention the Mahāvidyās again. At the end of the battle the goddess is named Durga because she killed the demon Durgama.
There are two important points to note about this version of the origin of the Mahāvidyās. First, they are created to defeat demons and defend the cosmic order, as in version 4. In this sense they function like the *avatdras *of Visnu. They are forms of the Mahadevi created for a specific purpose. Second, they are mentioned along with other groups of goddesses: the Guhya-kalis, who are said to number ten thousand, and two other groups, numbering thirty-two and sixty-four. The group of sixtyfour may allude to the sixty-four *yogims. *According to the text, the goddess (called Mahadevi, Mahesvari, Sataksl, Sakambhari, and Durga, among other names) has many forms and multiplies herself as needs arise. In the *Devi-bhagavata-purdna *this is a very common theme. Throughout this treatise on goddess mythology and philosophy, a central theme is the overarching reality of the Mahadevi, the highest principle in the universe, indeed, the universe itself. According to this text, she manifests herself in many female forms, and all goddesses are manifestations of her.57
CONCLUSIONS
Having reviewed these five versions of the origin of the Mahāvidyās, we can now draw some general conclusions about what they tell us about these goddesses.
*The **Mahavidyas **are **related **to **Siva. *The goddesses from whom the Mahāvidyās are created are usually associated with Siva as his spouse. The first three versions feature Satl, Parvati, and Kali as his wife or consort. Several of the individual Mahāvidyās, as we shall see below, also have strong associations with Siva, reinforcing this point.
*Siva **is **subordinate **to **the **goddesses. *In versions 1-3, the Mahāvidyās limit, frighten, or control Siva. Indeed, this is the reason they were created in these three versions. The Mahāvidyās demonstrate the superior might of the goddess in question, her ability to overpower Siva. Versions 1-3, that is, emphasize the superiority of the goddess to Siva. A common theme in *sakta *theology, and in many tantric texts as well, is that Siva is ultimately dependent upon *sakti. *This theme is succinctly and vividly expressed in the well-known saying, “Siva is a mere *s’ava *(corpse) without sakti.” This theme of Siva’s dependence upon *sakti *is perhaps expressed most clearly in version 2, which features Kali as the source of the Mahāvidyās. In this version, Siva wishes for independence. He wants to leave Kali but cannot, because she pervades the cosmos in her various forms. There is nowhere that she is not. It is impossible to exist apart from her. This theme is also implicit in versions 1 and 3.
*The **Mahavidyas **are **fierce **goddesses. *In version 1, the Mahāvidyās as a group are dreadful and frightening. Versions 2, 3, and 4 imply their fierce nature but do not make it explicit. The frightening nature of the Mahavidyas is also attested in most descriptions of individual Mahāvidyās. Kall, Tara, Bagala, Dhumavatl, and Chinnamasta are nearly always frightening, terrible, and fierce. Tripura-sundari (Sodasi), Bhairavl, Matarigl, and Bhuvanesvari are often said to have fearsome characteristics. Only Kamala is consistently presented as benign. In characterizing tantric religion generally as “more rugged than tender,“58 the authors of a recent book on Tantrism might well be describing the Mahāvidyās, who in fact feature prominently in tantric religion.
*The **Mahavidyas **are **associated **with **magical **powers. *Version 1 explicitly, and versions 2 and 3 implicitly, link the Mahāvidyās to magical, meditative, or yogic powers. Many other texts about the Mahāvidyās emphasize this association, particularly in the case of certain individual Mahavidyas, such as Bagalamukhi. These powers are often used to control other people, usually adversaries, and include the power to bring about whatever one wills, to attract other people to oneself, to immobilize someone or make that person mute, to cause someone to flee, to make others grow old prematurely while remaining young oneself, and to kill someone simply by willing it. The fact that in versions 1-3 a goddess is able to control Siva with the Mahāvidyās reinforces the idea that they are associated with magical or meditative powers. We might say that in these three versions, the goddess in question controls Siva with her magical or meditative powers.
*Male-female **tensions **and **female **independence. *In versions 1 and 2, the Mahāvidyās emerge against a background of male-female tensions, and there may be the implication of such tension in version 3 as well. This tension arises when the goddess feels abused, ignored, or insulted by her father or husband. In version 1, Sati becomes furious and transforms herself into such a horrible, frightening being that Siva can barely stand to look at her. The Mahāvidyās are forms of this being, further personifications of Sati’s wrath. Version 1 makes clear, and versions 2 and 3 imply, that the goddess, Siva’s spouse in each case, has a will of her own and is perfectly capable of exercising that will even if it means going against her husband or father. The point cannot be missed in version 1: Sati is not content to remain a passive, obedient, submissive wife if she is sufficiently provoked. She contains aspects and powers that easily overwhelm and frighten her husband.
The fact that the individual Mahāvidyās are not submissive consorts of male deities reinforces the emphasis in versions 1-3 that the goddess is an independent being. Most of the individual Mahāvidyās are not depicted with a male consort, and when they are, as in the case of Kali, Tara, and Tripura-sundari, for example, they dominate him (both Kali and Tara are shown standing on the supine body of Siva, while Tripura-sundari is usually shown sitting on him).
*World **maintenance. *Versions 4 and 5 differ markedly from versions 1-3 in stressing the world-maintaining function of the Mahāvidyās. Versions 4 and 5 cast the Mahāvidyās in the familiar role of forms of the goddess Durga or the Mahadevi, created by her to defeat demons who have usurped the position of the gods. The extent to which individual Mahavidyas are described or featured as world maintainers or demon slayers varies a good deal. Kali is well known as a demon slayer and is often featured in the role. Others, however, such as Dhumavati and Bagala, are only rarely described in this capacity. For the most part, with the exception of Kall, world maintenance is a minor theme in stories of the individual Mahāvidyās.
*Group **versus **individual **character **of **the **Mahavidyas. *Finally, it is important to note that the Mahāvidyās as a group in these five versions of their origin often function or are described quite differently from the individual Mahāvidyās. As was just noted, the world-maintaining aspect of the Mahāvidyās is stressed in versions 4 and 5 but figures only weakly in the worship, mythology, and symbolism of the individual Mahāvidyās. Version 1 implies that all the Mahāvidyās are associated with magical powers and that they all create conflict among people. However, the extent to which the individual Mahāvidyās are characterized this way varies a good deal. Bagalamukhi, for example, is strongly associated with these characteristics, but Kamala hardly at all.