Shaiva khmer sanderson

Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient per 562 The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I) Alexis Sanderson Citer ce document / Cite this document : Sanderson Alexis. The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I). In: Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient. Tome 90-91, 2003. pp. 349-462; doi: https://doi.org/10.3406/befeo.2003.3617 https://www.persee.fr/doc/befeo_0336-1519_2003_num_90_1_3617

Fichier pdf généré le 08/11/2019

BY: =creative commons

Résumé

Alexis Sanderson

La religion çivaïte chez les Khmers (1re partie)

Des trois religions d’origine indienne - çivaïsme, vishnouisme pancarātrika et bouddhisme mahāyāna - qui ont prospéré au sein des élites dirigeantes et sacerdotales des Khmers jusqu’au XIVe siècle, le çivaïsme fut prédominant. En attestent la «< çivaïsation » du territoire opérée par la création d’un grand nombre de Śiva locaux portant les noms de prototypes indiens - un phénomène que l’on n’observe pas dans les deux autres traditions-, le rôle du Śiva Bhadresvara de Vat Phu comme divinité nationale et protecteur du monarque, les marques de l’institutionnalisation du çivaïsme comme religion d’État ainsi que les traces des incursions çivaïtes dans le vishnouisme et le bouddhisme khmers.

Le çivaïsme indien n’était ni statique, ni homogène, et le çivaïsme khmer reflète au moins partiellement cette diversité et cette évolution. Des inscriptions du VIIe siècle attestent la présence de çivaïtes pāçupata de l’Atimārga, et nous constatons, quand les témoignages épigraphiques réapparaissent, du IXe au XIVe siècle, qu’ils ont cédé la place à des çivaïtes du Mantramārga suivant les systèmes rituels Saiddhantika et Varna. Les témoignages de la présence chez les Khmers de toutes ces traditions, ainsi que de celle du Śivadharma des laïcs, seront examinés dans la seconde partie de cette étude. Mais les différences entre l’Atimārga et le Mantramārga portent sur des détails techniques de la pratique des initiés officiant dans les nombreux sites çivaïtes des Khmers. Elles n’ont laissé aucune trace dans les aspects publics de la religion que donne à voir la gamme iconographique des formes de Śiva et des divinités secondaires dans les temples çivaïtes. Ce programme iconographique, qui concerne les laïcs plutôt que la communauté des initiés, n’avait de place ni dans l’Atimārga ni dans le Mantramārga. Il a sa propre histoire, qu’aucun des deux systèmes ne chercha à modifier. La richesse des témoignages iconographiques et épigraphiques khmers est, en ce domaine comme en d’autres, très instructive non seulement pour qui étudie les cultures d’origine indienne hors de l’Inde, mais aussi pour qui cherche à élucider l’histoire des religions en Inde même.

Alexis Sanderson

Abstract

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

Of Saivism, Puficarātrika Vaisnavism and Mahāyāna Buddhism, the three Indie religions that flourished among the ruling and priestly elites of the Khmers up to the 14th century, Śaivism was predominant. We see this in the saivization of the land through the creation of a large number of local Śiva bearing the names of Indian prototypes-a phenomenon not seen in the other two traditions, in the role of the Śiva Bhadrešvara of Vat Phu as a national deity and protector of the monarch, in evidence of the institutionalization of Śaivism as the religion of the state, and in traces of Śaiva inroads into Khmer Vaisnavism and Buddhism. Indian Śaivism was not static or homogeneous and Khmer Śaivism reflects some at least of this diversity and development over time. We see Pasupata Śaivas of the Atimārga in the inscriptions of the seventh century and when the epigraphic record returns from the late ninth to the fourteenth we find that they have given way to Saivas of the Mantramārga practising the Saiddhāntika and Varna ritual systems. The evidence among the Khmers for all of these traditions, and also for that of the lay Śivadharma, will be considered in the sequel of this study. But the differences between the Atimārga and the Mantramārga bear on technicalities within the practice of the initiates who officiated at the Khmers’ many Śaiva sites. It had no perceptible effect on the public aspects of the religion as embodied in the iconographie range of Śiva forms and ancillary deities in Śiva’s temples. That iconographie program, which concerns the laity rather than fellow-initiates, has no place in either the Atimàxga or the Mantramârga. It has its own history, which neither system did much to modify. The richness of the Khmer iconic and epigraphical evidence is in this as in other respects highly instructive not only for the student of the nature of Indie culture beyond India but also for those seeking to clarify the history of religion in India itself. BY: creative commons Persée BY: S creative commons

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers Part I

Alexis SANDERSON *

The primary religion of the Khmers is now Theravada Buddhism, as it is throughout mainland Southeast Asia with the exception of sinicized Vietnam; but the rise of that religion occurred only with the decline and fragmentation of the Khmer kingdom of Angkor and the concomitant growth of the power and influence of the Tai, who had adopted the Theravada from the Mon of Dvaravatī and lower Burma. Our records of the Khmer principalities of the fifth to eighth centuries and of the unified kingdom of Angkor that emerged thereafter and endured into the fourteenth, show that religion throughout that time comprised three other faiths of Indian origin: Śaivism, the Pāñcarātrika Vaisnavism of the Bhāgavatas, and Mahāyāna Buddhism in the developed form that includes the system of ritual and meditation known as the Mantranaya, Mantrayāna or Vajrayāna. The three coexisted harmoniously for the most part but with Saivism predominant. This was so throughout ancient Kambujadeśa, the area of Khmer settlement that extended southeast through modern Kampuchea from the Angkor region north of the Great Lake into the delta of the Mekong river in southern Vietnam, and to the north, through north-eastern Thailand and the Champasak province of southern Laos. 2 * Spalding Professor of Eastern Religions and Ethics, All Souls College, University of Oxford.

1. The remains of nearly two hundred Khmer temples of the Angkorean period survive in modern Thailand in the provinces of Chanthaburi, Sa Kaeo, Prachin Buri, Nakhon Ratchasima, Buri Ram, Surin, Si Sa Ket, Ubon Ratchathani, Yasothon, Roi Et, Maha Sarakham, Khon Kaen, Chaiyaphum, and Sakon Nakhon, with the greatest concentrations in Nakhon Ratchasima, Buri Ram and Surin.
2. I have chosen to use the term Kambujadeśa to avoid confusion with the modern state of Kampuchea or Cambodia. Kambujadeśa or Kambuja is the name given to their territory by the Khmers in their Sanskrit and Old Khmer inscriptions of the Angkorean period: K. 14, v. 3; K. 235, Khmer, C 1. 72; K. 258 C, v. 2; K. 278, v. 2; K. 282 D, v. 23; K. 549, 1. 12-13; K. 956, 1. 16. They also show the form Kambudeśa (kamvudeśa) and synonyms: K. 300, v. 9; K. 400 B, v. 2; K. 923, v. 14; K. 806, v. 270a (kambuviśvambharā). These names were understood through a tradition that the Khmer kings are the descendants of a mythical progenitor Svayambhuva Kambu (K. 286, v. 11 sqq.), i.e. as ’the land of the sons of Kambu’ or ’the land of Kambu’. In Middle Khmer we find kambūj, kambūjdes, kāmbūjdes (K. 465 of A.D. 1583 [NIC I: 22]), in Modern Khmer kambuja/Kampuchea/, and in Old Javanese kamboja (Deśawarṇana 15.1). The earliest occurrence of the word of which I am aware is in A.D. 817. It occurs in Campā, the rival kingdom to the east of Kambujadeśa, in a Sanskrit inscription of king Harivarman I at the Po-Nagar temple (C. 2 = M. 26): ākambujārdham ajitabhujaujasā ‘one the might of whose arm was unconquered right up to the middle of Kambuja[deśa]’. Perhaps there was no sense of any such comprehensive entity in the pre-Angkorean period. Running through the kingdoms of mainland Southeast Asia, the Da Tang Xiyu ji of Xuanzang (= Taishō 2087), completed during that period, in A.D. 646, calls the kingdom between Dvaravati (dolobodi) to the West and Mahācampā (mohojenbo) to the East not Kambujadeśa or similar, as we might expect, but Īsānapura (yishangnabulo) (BEAL 1884, 2:200). This is the name of the capital (= Sambor Prei Kuk) of the BULLETIN DE L’ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE D’Extrême-ORIENT, 90-91 (2003-2004), p. 349-462. 350 Alexis SANDERSON

The same configuration of religions held sway elsewhere in Southeast Asia. We find it to the east of the Khmers in Champa (campā), the confederated principalities of the Chams that occupied the coastal region and highlands of Cochin-China from the fifth century until the seventeenth. 3 It was much diminished by progressive Islamicization after the retreat of the capital to the Phan-rang (Panduranga) area in the South in the wake of the capture and destruction of Vijaya (Binh-Dinh) by the Vietnamese in 1471.4 But the king remained a follower of the old tradition until at least 16075 and elements of it survived into modern times among the ‘Brahmanist’ Chams. There are signs of its presence in the Minangkabau region of Sumatra in the fourteenth century, and in the kingdom of dominant principality of the period, named after its founder Iśānavarman I (r. 616/7, 627-c. 635). The Chinese referred to the early southern coastal kingdom as Funan. Thereafter, from the seventh century onwards they referred to the land of the Khmers (gemie) as Zhenla (*Ts ‘ien-lâp). The origin of neither term is known. I have seen no reference to the region or its people in any pre-modern Indian source.

I write here by invitation, and do so aware that my competence is limited. As a Sanskritist working on the history of Saivism I have come eventually to look beyond the Indian subcontinent to other regions in which this religion took hold, and this has led me to the inscriptions of the Khmers. But I have relied entirely on published transcriptions. I have not worked directly from the inscriptions themselves or from rubbings, squeezes, or photographs. Furthermore, I have very unequal competence in the two languages of the inscriptions, Sanskrit and Old Khmer, my knowledge of the latter being a superficial acquaintance that relies heavily on the translations of George CŒDÈS, Claude JACQUES and Saveros Pou, and on the Dictionnaire vieux khmer-français-anglais of the last. I offer my own translations throughout, but where I have ventured to disagree with these scholars, I have not done so out of a superior sensitivity to the nuances of Old Khmer, but rather because I have felt that the subject and context demand an alternative within what I have thought with less than authoritative judgement to be the range of possible meanings. I am greatly indebted to my colleague Professor Gerdi Gerschheimer of Paris for encouraging me to undertake this work in spite of these deficiencies, for helping me to do so by providing a number of copies and photocopies of important epigraphical sources and studies and for saving me from many errors through his meticulous reading of my manuscript. I am grateful also to Dr. Arlo Griffiths of the University of Groningen for reading my manuscript and detecting a good number of misprints and other errors.

3. These principalities were centred in the string of coastal plains facing the South China Sea located, from north to south, in (1) the Binh-Tri-Thien area, (2) Quang-Nam and Quang-Ngai provinces (My-Son; capital Indrapura [Tra-kieu]); (3) Binh-Dinh province (capital Vijaya [Do-Ban or Cha-Ban], (4) Khanh-Hoa province (Kauthāra; capital Kauthāra [Po Nagar, Nha-Trang]), and (5) Phan Rang and Phan Ri provinces (Pāṇḍuranga; capital Pāṇḍurangapura). In the Sanskrit inscriptions of this region and that of the Khmers the land of the Chams and the various peoples of the highlands is called Campă or Campādeśa. In the inscriptions of the Khmers the Chams themselves are known as the Campas: K. 273, v. 67 (Skt.); K. 1036 (NIC II-III, 149-155) (Khmer).

4. See PO DHARMA 2001 (14-27) for an excellent up-to-date summary of knowledge of the history of Champa up to its demise in the first half of the nineteenth century.

5. See the report of Cornelis MATELIEF in 1608 cited by REID (1993, 187). The mass of the Chams were Muslim by the 1670s, including the king (MANGUIN 1979, 269-71).

6. See AYMONIER 1891, CABATON 1901, Mus 1933.

7. Chinese, epigraphical and material evidence indicates that the powerful thalassocracy of Śrīvijaya ruling from Palembang from the seventh century to the thirteenth was Mahāyāna-Buddhist. It was followed by the kingdom of Malayu, first centred in Jambi and then, by the beginning of the fourteenth century, on the west coast. Malayu, unlike Śrīvijaya, was in close contact with Java, which achieved ascendancy of this region from the late thirteenth century. This led to the introduction of Majapahit’s Śaiva-Buddhist religious culture. In 1284 the king of Malayu received a composite statue consisting of copies of deity-statues from the Buddhist temple Candi Jago in East Java sent to him by king Krtanagara of Majapahit, an event recorded on the back of the statue in an Old Malay inscription (DE CASPARIS and MABBETT 1992, 321). King Adityavarman of Malayu (r. c. 1347-79), who had spent his early years in Majapahit, is described in his Surasao inscription as a follower of the esoteric Buddhist

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

8

351

Kutai in the central region of the east coast of Kalimantan (Borneo). It prevailed in East Java from the eighth century until the Muslim forces of Demak crushed Majapahit in about 1527, eliminating the last remaining major Saiva-Buddhist court of the region, and in West Java until those of Banten conquered the Sundanese court of Pajajaran in 1579.9 It clung on into the eighteenth century in the kingdom of Blambangan on Java’s Eastern Salient, and perhaps even within the Islamic kingdom of Mataram in the Central Javanese heartland. 10 It is still intact among the Balinese of the neighbouring islands of Bali and Lombok; and some of its Śaiva practices and liturgies survive in Java itself, among the priesthood of a cluster of isolated communities in the Tengger highlands to the east of Malang, 11 a survival that suggests that when Islam began to make its inroads Śaivism was not merely the religion of the courts but had put down deep roots in rural society, at least in some parts of Java. 12

11

cult of Hevajra (Satyawati SULEIMAN 1977 cited in DE CASPARIS and MABBETT 1992, 321). But there is also an impressive fourteenth-century statue, 4,41 m in height, of a two-armed Bhairava standing on a corpse, said to have been found at Sungei Langsat (SCHNITGER 1937, plates 13-16; CŒDÈS 1968, 243, claiming that it is an image representing Adityavarman), and there is a set of fourteenth-century sculptures from Palembang in which Śiva is flanked by Brahma and Viṣņu reproduced in SOEBADIO 1992, 120-121.

8. Śaivite and Buddhist statues have been found in a cave at Gunung Kambeng; see FONTEIN 1990, 25, citing BOSCH 1925. The stone statue of Śiva, which conforms to the Javanese iconographical type (samapada, holding a trident, a rosary, a fly-whisk, and showing the gesture of boons) has been reproduced in SOEBADIO 1992. Kutai is the site of the earliest Sanskrit inscriptions of maritime Southeast Asia, those of Mulavarman in the late fourth or early fifth century associated with a shrine of a [Śiva] Vaprakeśvara (CŒDÈS 1968, 52). Its rulers probably maintained their Śaiva-Buddhist religious culture until they were converted to Islam in 1568.

9. REID 1993, 2:212-213.

10. See RICKLEFS 1993, 366-367, n. 74 and REID 1993, 2:149, 173-186 on the slow progress of Islam in Java, especially among the Javanist (kejawen) ruling elites, and the superficiality of its adoption by the lower orders of society. The Kartasura Babad ing Sangkala (Chronicle of the Chronograms) composed before about 1670 (Ricklefs 1993, 2) first mentions Muslims only in 1577-78, recording their defeat of Saiva-Buddhist Kadiri; and we have a Dutch report of 1598 that Javanese Muslims were found only on the north coast and that the people of the interior were all heathen (REID 1993, 2:173-174). Blambangan was under the control of the Saiva-Buddhist kingdoms of Bali, first Buleleng and then, from 1711, Mengwi (RICKLEFS 1993, 161). As evidence of Saiva-Buddhist survivals in Mataram RICKLEFS (1993, 366-367) notes that the Dutch East India Company reported superstitious heathen (supertitieuse heydenen) in Mataram in 1743. For the survival of some isolated Śaiva-Buddhist religious communities see also PIGEAUD 1967, 54.

11. On the religion of the Tengger communities see HEFNER 1985. He reports (1985, 8) that at the time of his research there were some twenty-eight priests in a like number of village units comprising some 40,000 people living at altitudes between 1400 and 2000 metres, somewhat shielded from Islamicization by the fact that the massive expansion of the population of Java during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (from around 5 million in 1800 to around 100 million at present) and the consequent migration into less populous areas largely passed them by, since these villages are above the altitude at which sugar and coffee can be cultivated (HEFNER 1985, 31-33). Tengger communities in the lower villages and in the nearby towns (Malang, Pasuruan, Probolinggo and Lumajang) have been converted to Islam (ibid.).

12. HEFNER 1985, 9.

352

Alexis SANDERSON

The Sources

Our evidence for these three religions in Kambujadeśa up to the fall of Angkor, as for all other aspects of its history, consists primarily of inscriptions. More than a thousand have been discovered and published, engraved on stone stelae, image-pedestals, and the jambs of temples, written in Sanskrit verse, in Khmer prose, or commonly in both. The great majority belongs to the period from the last quarter of the ninth century, some seventy-five years after the beginning of the Angkorean kingdom, down to its end. For the first part of the Angkorean period we depend mostly on dubious information in later inscriptions, and before that only the seventh century is well represented, by some two hundred contemporary records.

In all periods these epigraphs record the establishing or restoration of temple-deities, temples, hermitages and other pious foundations by royalty, high dignitaries and local leaders, their endowments consisting of land, slaves (khñum, Skt. dasaḥ) to work that land and to serve as cooks, musicians and the like, livestock, ritual implements and other valuables, or the settlement of title disputes concerning these, and the allocation of revenues (kalpana) for purposes such as the funding of specific recurrent ceremonies and the subsistence of religious officiants and other staff. They commonly introduce these practicalities with eulogies of the monarch and his ancestors, and also of the donor himself if other than the king, eulogies which sometimes contain information on matters of interest to the historian of religion, such as accounts of other pious works of the donor, the history of priestly lineages and their relations with their patrons through appointment to religious, administrative and other offices, rituals performed or sponsored, and in rare instances, the names of the textual authorities followed in these performances.

In addition we have the evidence of a great wealth of material culture in the form of the remains of religious edifices, images of their deities, ritual objects, and bas-reliefs showing scenes from the Indian epics and the life of the population. The sheer number of the Khmer’s temples, the vast scale of the greatest of them, and the inscriptions that detail their endowments, reveal that the creation and support of such foundations was central to the economic, cultural and political life of the whole society. They channelled and promoted agricultural production, engaging a very substantial proportion of the region’s human and material resources, they integrated the realm, and they legitimated the tenure of land and power. 13

No non-epigraphical texts remain from the pre-Angkorean and Angkorean periods, other than a few short Chinese reports redacted in later compendia and a Chinese memoir of 1296-97 written by Zhou Daguan, who spent eleven months in Angkor with an embassy sent by Temür Öljeitü, the second Mongol emperor of China. None of these throws much light on the Khmers’ religions. For the literature that sustained and expressed them, in the form of sacred texts, commentaries, handbooks of ritual, and temple archives, was transmitted in palm-leaf manuscripts, which cannot survive long in the hot and humid climate of Southeast Asia. 14 Once the information they contain had lost its relevance with the decline of Angkor and the rise of Theravāda Buddhism there would have been no reason to preserve it by making new copies.

13. HALL 1985, 136-138, 160-161.

14. The region of Angkor has a monsoon climate. It rains on average on more than half the days of the five months from May to October, with annual rainful in recent years averaging 1,410 mm. Temperatures climb above 35°C in April and May and fall to a little over 30°C at the end of the year. Relative humidity fluctuates between 60 percent and 80 percent (ACKER 1998, 7; NESBITT 1997, 32). Documents on palm-leaf are unlikely to survive long in such conditions.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

353

Though all local manuscripts of pre-Theravādin times have perished, manuscripts of some of the Sanskrit texts that the Khmers’ inscriptions identify as guiding their ceremonies in the Angkorean period do survive in the Indian subcontinent. In the case of Śaivism these works were primary authorities in India only in the early period during which the form of the religion they teach was introduced among the Khmers. Not long after that they were followed in the subcontinent by a second wave of texts propagating a simplified system of Śaiva observance that rendered them largely irrelevant. This early obsolescence would no doubt have led to their complete disappearance, were it not that the Kathmandu valley has a temperate climate that has enabled a few manuscripts to survive there from the ninth and tenth centuries, when these changes had not yet occurred or, at least, had not yet affected this rather isolated region. By studying these and related sources we have a means of adding to our knowledge of Khmer religion.

Scripture and Paddhati

However, common sense and the character of the Indian Saiva literature must alert us to the naïvety of assuming that these works can reveal more than the general parameters within which some elements of local practice would have operated. They are texts of scripture (agamaḥ, tantram, samhita) and as such were designed to be accepted as authorities by the widest possible constituency. To that end they tend to prescribe only the bare framework of practice, thereby allowing for the great variety on the level of detail and ancillary elaboration that can be observed in the practical manuals (Paddhatis) that guided the procedures followed by religious officiants in specific regions and lineages.

The Khmers too had their manuals setting out the procedures to be followed in the worship of their deities. A Khmer inscription of A.D. 1306 from Banteay Srei (Iśvarapura) refers to such a text:

qnak varnna khnar grāǹ nā vraḥ kamraten añ pre pamre ta vraḥ kamraten an ru devatāksetra sap anle nusāra śloka prasasta vrah pānjīy ksetropacāra

khnar gran corr.: khnar grań POU • nusāra corr.: nu sāra POU

K. 569 (ed. Pou 2001, 166–171), II. 17–19

The personnel of the corporation of Khnar Gran at [the temple] of the goddess are commanded to serve the goddess as [is done] in all [other] deity-sites, following (nusāra) the verses of the ordinances (śloka prasasta) of the Sacred Manual (vraḥ pānjīy) on the Procedure for Worship at Sacred Sites (kṣetropacāra). 15

15. Pou translates the last phrase as follows: “suivant en cela les stances du saint registre relatif au domaine”. For Khmer Skt. upacāraḥ in the meaning ‘[ritual] service’ see K. 254, v. 8: devadvijopa- cārārtham ’to serve the gods and brahmins’; K. 258 C, v. 10: agryopacārair ‘with fine offerings’.

The Sanskrit term pañjī, pañjikā from which the Khmer form pāñjiy is derived is used in Indian sources to denote both written records or registers, such as those that priests keep of their clients, and guides to ritual (Paddhati). An example of the latter is the Pañjika of Brahmasambhu, a Paddhati on the Śaiva rituals composed in A.D. 938. Thus in the Naimittikakarmānusandhāna, f. 54r3: prakāśito yam arthātmā pañjikopāyato mayā. ‘I have clarified this topic by means of the Pañjikā’; f. 31r3-4: prapañcaḥ sakalo py asya nityakarmasamuccaye / nirddiṣṭaḥ pañjikāyāñ ca teneha na pratanyate ‘I have taught the full elaboration of this in the Nityakarmasamuccaya and the Pañjikā". Similarly in Jayadrathayāmala, Şatka 1, f. 197v8-9: kriyā vā desikendreṇa vyakhyeyā pañjikāgata ‘or else the Guru should explain the ritual [as set out] in the Pañjika’. I am very grateful to Mr. Guy Leavitt of the University of Chicago, who went to the trouble of obtaining a microfilm of the Naimittikakarmānusandhāna manuscript for me in Calcutta.

354

Alexis SANDERSON

and an inscription of the reign of Udayadityavarman II (1050-1066) reveals in a eulogy of his predecessor, the devout Saiva king Suryavarman I (r. c. 1002-1050), that the latter had composed one or more such works:

śivapūjāviseṣo pi śāstroktaś śrutamātrakaḥ

dhiyā viracito yasya śivānśasyākhilocitaḥ

K. 661, v. 61

And being a born devotee of Śiva (śivāmśasya) he was able by virtue of his intelligence to compose a fully appropriate [manual for] an excellent ritual of Śiva worship taught in [Saiva] scripture as soon as he had heard it [expounded in that source]. 16

16. CŒDÈS misunderstood the verse as follows (IC 1:213; my trans. and parentheses): “The least particulars of the worship of Śiva (śivapūjāvišeṣo pi), prescribed by the treatises (sāstroktaḥ) or only transmitted orally, were entirely understood (akhilocitaḥ) only when they had been redacted (viracito) by the wisdom (dhiya) of this (king) (yasya) who was a portion of Siva (śivāmśasya)”. His rendering of śivapūjāviśeso ‘pi is contradicted by the singular number. There is nothing in the verse that justifies his “or”. The compound śrutamātrakaḥ (= śrutamātrah with the stem-extending suffix -ka- for the sake of the metre) has been wrentched from its common idiomatic sense, that is to say “merely heard” in the meaning “as soon as heard”. For the use of Bahuvrīhis in -mātra- after a past participle passive in this sense see, e.g., RENOU 1984, 117. The Sastra(s) of śāstrokṭaḥ are more naturally understood as the Sivaśāstra(s), i.e. the Saival scriptures. This is the normal sense in Śaiva works, where it is not, as in Buddhist usage, used to refer to works of scholarship as opposed to scripture. “Entirely understood” cannot be the meaning of akhilocitaḥ, which must mean either “entirely appropriate” or, less probably, “appropriate to all”.

As for śivāmśasya, which CŒDÈS understood as a Tatpurusa compound meaning “a portion of Śiva”, it is rather to be understood as a Bahuvrīhi meaning “whose amśaḥ is towards Śiva”. In Śaiva terminology a compound formed of the name of a deity followed by the word -amśaḥ means a devotee of that deity, more precisely a person with a natural inclination (amsah) towards that deity rather than another. This can be seen in a passage of the Kirana in which it teaches three versions of the postmortuary Śräddha ritual, calling them the Śivaśrāddha, the Rudraśraddha and the mundane (laukikam) Śrāddha. The first is for the benefit of Saiva initiates (dikṣitāḥ), the second for that of rudrāmśāḥ, and the third for that of brahmins who are neither (f. 95r2-4 [61.6-10b]): īsas sadāśivaḥ śānto desikatritayam bhavet / sādhaka*dvitayam (em. : trtayaś Cod.) cānyad rudrānantam iti sthitam/ trptaiḥ tair nikhilan trptam sivāntam abhavat khaga dikṣitānām sivaśrāddham rudrāmśānān tadātmakam / tatra caṇḍamahākālau dvau gaṇau dvitaye sthitau rudraḥ skando ganeso ’nyas (em. : gaṇeśānyat Cod.) tritaye samsthitas tv ime tapasvibhiḥ dvijais cātra rudraśrāddham prakalpayet / kurvvanti ye narā bhaktyā rudralokam vrajanti te laukikam brahmaviṣṇvīśasūryāntakavikalpitam (em. sūryāntikavikalpitam Cod.) and (f. 96r5-v1 [61.34-36]): śrāddham evamvidham saivam sivasayojyadam param / rudraśrāddham svanāmānkam praṇavādi namontikam / rudrasāyojyadañ caiva devatānām svasamjñaya / krte smin laukike śraddhe *narakam na sa (conj. navamāsyam sa Cod.) paśyati viprāṇām vihitam śrāddham vedoktam smrtikalpitam/ brahmalokam avapnoti tatkartā dvijasattamaḥ. That rudramśaḥ means ‘devotee of Rudra/Siva’ (rudrabhaktaḥ, śivabhaktaḥ) here is evident from its occurrence elsewhere in the same passage. Three balls of rice (pinḍāḥ) are to be put out in a line in the course of the Śraddha. If the wife of the person commissioning the ceremony (the kartā) desires a son she should eat the one in the middle. She will then, we are told, give birth to one who will grow up to be a rudrāmśaḥ (f. 96r4 [61.31]): putrārtham vanitā śuddhā madhyamam pindam apnuyāt / tada tasya naro dhīro rudrāmśaḥ strīyuto bhavet. That this was understood to mean “devotee of Rudra/Śiva” is apparent from the parallels of this passage seen in the Bṛhatkalottara (f. 196v1: v. 57c) and the Kriyāsamgrahapaddhati of Vāladhārin (f. 111v2–3). For there the son is described respectively as sānkaraḥ ‘a devotee of Sankara’ (janayec chānkaram putram) and sivabhaktaḥ ‘a devotee of Śiva’ (jāyate dhanavān putraḥ śivabhaktaḥ suśīlavān). Furthermore, the triad initiate (dīkṣitaḥ), rudrāmśaḥ and ordinary brahmin identified as the beneficiaries of the three kinds of Śraddha is parallelled in this same passage by the triad initiate, rudrabhaktaḥ and ordinary brahmin, where these are those who may, in order of

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

and:

śivārccanāgnihotrāditapasyāsādhanāni yaḥ

mantratantrāṇi samsodhya vidhaye rañjayad dhiyā K. 661, v. 74

355

Intelligently redacting the Mantras and rites that accomplish the worship of Śiva, the fire-sacrifice, other [rituals], and ascetic practice, he clarified them for ritual application.

yuktam ukto maheśo yas tapasyāsādhanam vidhim

sādhūkrtya kṛtodyogair yogibhir yyad akārayat

K. 661, v. 76

He was aptly called the Great Lord (/Śiva) since he removed errors from the procedure for the practice of asceticism and then saw to it that it was followed by determined meditators.

Similarly, early in the reign of Jayavarman II (r. 802-c. 835), in connection with the foundation of the united Khmer kingdom of Angkor and the inauguration of the royal cult of the Devaraja (Kamraten Jagat ta Rāja), a brahmin called Hiraṇyadāma is said to have extracted the essence of the four primary sources of the Vāma division of the Saiva scriptural canon (vāmasrotaḥ), works concerned with the special rites and observances of Tumburu and his sisters:

jayavarmmamahībhrto mahendrā- vanibhṛnmurddhakṛtāspadasya śāstā kavir āryyavarāngavanditānghriś sivakaivalya iti pratītir āsīt

hiraṇyadāmadvijapungavo gryadhir ivāvjayoniḥ karuṇārdra āgataḥ ananyalavdham khalu siddhim ādarāt prakāśayām āsa mahībhṛtam prati sa bhūdhareṇānumato grajanmā sasādhanām siddhim adikṣad asmai hotre hitaikantamanaḥprasattim samvibhrate dhāmavivṛnhaṇāya śāstram siraśchedavināśikhakhyam sammohanāmāpi nayottarākhyam tat tumvuror vaktracatuṣkam asya siddhyeva vipras samadarśayat saḥ

diminishing preference, be invited to receive the offerings in the Śivaśraddha (f. 95r6 [61.11cd]): sādhakaputrakābhāvād rudrabhaktā *dvijāthavā (Aisa for dvijā athavā) ‘In the absence of Sadhakas or Putrakas [the recipients] may be [lay] devotees of Rudra or [ordinary] brahmins’. Finally, see Niśvāsaguhya, f. 42v1-2 (1.8 ff.), defining the brahmamśaḥ, the visnvamśaḥ, and the rudrāmśaḥ. The section on the last is mostly lost through damage to the codex but the other two are defined in a manner that supports my interpretation. The first is said to be one who is ever eager to study the Vedas, who accepts the Upanisadic doctrine of the Self, and who aims to reach the paradise of Brahma (brahmalokam sadākānkṣan), while the second is said to be ever eager to meditate on Viṣṇu (viṣṇudhyānarataḥ sadā) and to aspire to enter his paradise (viṣṇusāyojyakānkṣinah). Of the first line of the two-line definition of the rudramśaḥ we have only the last four syllables, in which he too is said to be ever devoted (rataḥ sadā), presumably to the meditation or worship of Rudra (rudradhyānarataḥ sadā / rudrapūjārataḥ sadā or similar). The first half will probably have referred to his desire to reach the paradise of Rudra, perhaps rudralokam sadākānkṣan.356

dvijas samuddhrtya sa śāstrasāram rahasyakausalyadhiyā sayatnaḥ siddhir vvahantīḥ kila devarājā-

bhikhyām vidadhre bhuvanarddhivṛddhyai

K. 235, vv. 25-29

Alexis SANDERSON

King Jayavarman, who had made his residence on the summit of Mount Mahendra [Phnom Kulen], had as his teacher a poet called Sivakaivalya, whose feet had been honoured by [contact with] the heads of [prostrating] Āryas. 17 Hiranyadāma, an excellent brahmin, like Brahmā himself in his great wisdom, being moved by compassion came and with due respect revealed to the king a Siddhi which no other had attained. To increase [the king’s] splendour this brahmin, with the king’s permission, taught the Siddhi and the means of achieving it (sasādhanām) to that offerer of the [king’s] sacrifices, [knowing that he was one] whose tranquil mind was devoted entirely to [his monarch’s] welfare. The Brahman revealed to him as though by means of [this] Siddhi the four faces of Tumburu that are the scriptures Siraścheda, Vināsikha, Sammoha and Nayottara, and in order to increase the prosperity of the realm he carefully extracted the essence of [those] texts through his mastery of the esoteric [teachings] and [with it] established the Siddhis that bear the name Devarāja. 18

This ’essence’ (sāraḥ) that Hiranyadāma extracted is evidently a manual for practical application, a Paddhati or Pañjikā, since we are told that after extracting it he proceeded to install the powers known as the Devarāja. The point must be that he redacted a Paddhati for this purpose on the basis of those scriptures.

It might be objected that if the ’essence’ were a manual of ritual procedure then learned Indian tradition dictates that it should be claimed that it is based not on four texts but on one, a Paddhati, literally ‘a pathway’, being a practical manual that guides the performer of a ritual by co-ordinating the Mantras and actions taught explicitly or implicitly in the various parts of a single scripture, setting them out explicitly in the order of their performance and utterance, supplementing them from related scriptures only where the silence of the primary source requires it. 19 However, the account of the events

17. The meaning of the term ārya- is uncertain. It could mean a person of North India, an inhabitant of Āryadeśa, a sense that is found in Old Javanese inscriptions; see ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v. ārya, karnataka, kělin, and dravida, and the inscription of Kaladi, 7b1-2 (BARRETT JONES 1984, 186), where they are distinguished from the people of Kalinga, Śrīlankā, Karṇāṭas, Dravidas etc. However, it may have been used here, as also in Old Javanese, to refer to powerful persons of noble birth; see ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v. arya and ROBSON 1995, 139 ad Desawarnana 81.3-4.

18. Tumburu is indeed four-faced; see, e.g., Viņāśikha 96b-97b: tumburum karnikopari / padmāsa- nopavistam tu varadānodyatakaram II caturvaktram aṣṭabhujam. The four texts are these four faces in the sense that they are thought to have been uttered by them, by analogy with the well-known tradition that Sadasiva’s five faces are the sources of the five streams of the Saiva revelation: the Siddhanta from the upper, the Vāma from the left-facing, the Dakṣina from the right-facing, the Garuda from the front- facing, and the Bhautika from the rear-facing.

19. Sardhatrisatikālottaravṛtti p. 45, 11. 6-7: paddhatiḥ pratiśāstram vikṣiptasya śrutasya *tatsāmarthyākṣiptasya (em.: tatsämarthyāt kṣiptasya BHATT) ca mantratantrānuṣṭhānāya *samkṣepāt (em. samkṣepa BHATT) *kramenābhidhānam (em.: krameṇābhidhānād BHATT) yajurvedadau yajña- sūtrādivat ‘For any scripture a Paddhati is a text which enables the performance of the rituals [of that scripture] along with the Mantras [that accompany them] by succinctly arranging in the order [of performance] (i) the [instructions] explicitly stated [in that scripture but] dispersed in various places

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

357

connected with the installation of the Devaraja in the Khmer portion of the same inscription, removes this anomaly:

man vrāhmaṇa jmaḥ hiraṇyadāma prājña siddhividyā mok amvi janapada. pi vraḥ pāda parameśvara añjen thve vidhi leha len kam pi kamvujadeśa neḥ ayatta ta javā ley. len ac ti kamrateń phdai karom mvāy guḥ ta jā cakravartti. vrāhmaṇa noḥ thve vidhi toy vraḥ vināśikha pratiṣṭhā kamraten jagat ta rāja vrāhmaṇa noḥ paryyan vraḥ vināśikha. nayottara. sammoha. śiraścheda. syan man svat ta mukha cun pi sarsir pi paryann steǹ añ śivakaivalya nu gi.

K. 235, Khmer, C 11. 71-75

Then a brahmin called Hiranyadāma, who was learned in the Mantras that bestow Siddhi, came from Janapada. The Venerable Parameśvara [the late Jayavarman II] requested him to perform a ritual in order that this land of Kambuja (Kambujadeśa) should not continue to be a dependency of Java and so that only one king should be universal ruler [in this region]. That brahmin performed the ritual [for those ends] following the venerable Vināśikha and established the Kamraten Jagat ta Rāja (= Devarāja). The brahmin [then] taught the Vināśikha, the Nayottara, the Sammoha and the Siraścheda. He recited them from beginning to end so that they could be written down, and taught them to Sten añ Śivakaivalya.

It is clear from this that the ’essence’ of those four Vāma scriptures was not a hybrid but a Paddhati based on one of them. This text, called the Vināsikha here, is evidently the Vīnāsikha/Viņāśikhatantra that survives in a single Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript. It is widely attested in Indian sources as one of the principal Vāma scriptures 20 and presents itself in its opening verses as the culmination or essence of the Vāma revelation already given in the other three texts. 21

It does not teach a ritual specifically for the purposes of independence and political unity indicated in the inscription, but then nor does any Saiva text known to me. One would expect that Hiranyadama simply wrote these aims into the prose formula of intention (samkalpaḥ) that any text of worship must contain when enacted for the benefit of the worshipper or his client, 22 perhaps choosing the ninth day of the lunar fortnight

[throughout its length], and (ii) whatever [else] those explicit statements imply. An example is the Yajñasutra in the case of the [Kathaka] Yajurveda’.

20. The error in the Khmer report of the title is certainly that of the composer of the inscription rather than the engraver or editors, since it also appears in the Sanskrit, where the metre requires the short syllable provided by the erroneous vi-. It should be remembered that the inscription was composed in A.D. 1053, some two hundred and fifty years after the installation it reports. It is only too likely that by then the Paddhati based on the Vināsikha was all that had survived of the Vāma literature and that the original title had become distorted.

21. Vīnāsikha 4-10. Note that in v. 12 it refers to its configuration of mantras/deities (Yaga) as the essence of the Tantras, by which it means those of the Vama division: yagam adau pravakṣyāmi tantrasāram sudurlabham / *yenaiva (em. tenaiva Cod. and GOUDRIAAN) varada devyo nityam devi bhavanti hi ‘I shall first teach you the Yaga, the essence of the Tantras, so hard to find, by means of which, O goddess, the [four] goddesses will constantly grant one’s desires’.

22. The formula is to express the intention in an adverbial compound ending in -artham ‘for the purpose of. For example, in the Svacchandabhairavakramamahāsarvaśāntividhānam, f. 3v9, we see amukaśāntyartham balim gṛhna ‘Accept the bali for the averting [of ills] from N’ and in the Rudraśānti section of the same manuscript we see in f. 19r6: dvīpamārīmahotpātaśāntyartham mṛtyunjayāya sarvapūjitāya namaḥ ‘Obeisance to Mṛtyunjaya worshipped by all for the averting of the great disaster of disease throughout the land’; and in f. 19r9-v1: mahāmṛtyunjaya mahajanakṣayapraśāntyartham desotpāṭamahāmārībhayaśāntyartham balim grhna ‘Great Mṛtyunjaya accept the bali for the averting of

358

Alexis SANDERSON

(navami) for the ceremony on the authority of the Vīņāśikha, which rules that a king who seeks victory over his enemies should have the worship of the deities of this text performed on that day.

23

The Vīņāsikha also lacks instructions on the procedures for the installation of images (pratistha). But that too would not prevent the Viņāsikha from being taken as the basis of a Paddhati composed for that purpose, since to select a scripture for a Paddhati is only to select its system of Mantras, its configuration of deities (vägaḥ) and other basic constants. With these in place it is a simple matter to add any rituals such as those of installation that it happens not to cover but that are essential components of any Saiva system. We see exactly this in the surviving mainstream Paddhatis of the Indian Saiddhāntika Śaivas, nearly all of which are Paddhatis of the Kālottara in its two-hundred verse redaction, a text which says nothing of installation. 24

We cannot assume, then, that references in Khmer inscriptions to rituals as following certain scriptural sources enable us to access the nature of those rituals in any detail where those sources happen to have survived. The Paddhatis that guide and reflect actual practice though claiming to be based on such texts draw only their framework from them. They are obliged to fill this in and extend its application by drawing extensively on other sources if they are to contain comprehensive prescriptions capable of governing the whole range of rituals that the faithful require.

Nor should we assume that the inevitable supplementation would have been limited to closely related sources. Saiva theoreticians require this and argue against eclectic syncretism. But their argument is a conservative attack on an established practice. Thus the Kashmirian Bhatta Rāmakantha (fl. c. 950-1000) 25 decries a tradition of incorporating the procedures of the Svacchanda into worship based on the Matanga on the grounds that the two texts belong to separate streams of the Saiva revelation, the former being a text of the Daksina or Bhairava division and the latter one of the Saiddhantika division:

yena tv atra etacchāstrakramam vihāya svatantrapaddhatikrama ullikhitaḥ sa svacchandam upekṣaṇīya eva. yato yatretikartavyatā na śrūyate tatrākānkṣābalāt samhitāntaratas tadapekṣā yukta na sarvatra anavasthiteḥ. ity uktam: kriyādi- bhedabhedena tantrabhedo yataḥ smṛtaḥ. tasmāt tatra yathaivoktam kartavyam nānyatantrataḥ iti. tatrāpi svasrotasa evaikasrotopadeśarūpatvena samnikarṣāt na

destruction from the whole community, for the averting of national disaster, of the peril of fatal epidemic disease’. Similarly, in the text of the Saiva postfunerary Gopradānavidhi of Kashmir the worshipper is made to say that he is about to worship the gods listed in the formula ātmanaḥ punyavṛddhyartham vānmanaḥkāyopārjitapāpanivāraṇārtham pituḥ rudrasya paralokapunyavṛddhyartham sivapadavī- prāptyartham (f. 7v) ‘for the increase of my own merit, for the removal of the sins that I have acquired through word, mind and body, for the increase of merit of the Rudra who is [my deceased] father in the next world and for [his] reaching the path of Śiva’.

23. Vīnāsikha 17: samgrāme vijayārthī vā pararāṣtra*vimardane (conj. vimardanam Ed.) / navamyām *pārthivo (em. : pārthivam Ed.) yāgam kurvīta bhaginipriyam ‘Alternatively if a king desires victory in battle, [or] intends an assault on the kingdom of an enemy, he should perform the ceremony of worship dear to the Sisters on the ninth day [of the month]’.

24. All the major early Saiddhantika Paddhatis that have survived are based on the Dvisatika-Kalottara: the Paddhati of Brahmasambhu (Brahmasambhupaddhati) (938 A.D.), the Siddhantasärapaddhati of Bhojarāja (r. 1018 to 1060), the Kriyākāṇḍakramāvalī of Somaśambhu (Somasambhupaddhati) (1095/6), the Kriyākramadyotikā of Aghoraśiva (1157/8) and the Jñānaratnāvalī of Jñānaśiva (second half of the twelfth century). Only one Saiddhantika Paddhati survives that is based on another scripture. That is Aghorasiva’s Mrgendrapaddhati, which, as its name reveals, is a Paddhati of the Mrgendratantra. But his purpose in this work is evidently not to promote an alternative model for the Saiddhantika ceremonies.

25. For my grounds for this dating see GOODALL 1998, xiii-xviii.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

359

srotontarataḥ ata eva viprakarṣād viruddhānuṣṭhānaprasangāc cety uktam asmābhir anyatra: na ca śāstrāntare kartum yuktam śāstrāntaraśrutam.

1-2 sa svacchandam em. : svacchandam BHATT

Matangavṛtti ad KP 5.11

One may freely disregard the [teacher] who has introduced the procedure of the Paddhati of the Svacchandatantra at this point. This is because it is proper to supplement a scripture by drawing on another only where a procedure is not explicitly stated [but evidently required]. In such cases one may draw on another scripture, because one is forced to do so by the incompleteness [of the base-text]. But one may not do so in all cases, because that would remove all consistency. This is why we have the text ‘Tantras are distinguished from each other through their differences in the domains of ritual (kriyā) [, meditation practice (yogaḥ)] and [observance (caryā)]. So one must follow the instructions of that [scripture which one has adopted] and not those of any other system.’ Moreover, even then (tatrapi) [, when one is obliged to supplement its information from another source, one should do so] from [a scripture of] one’s own division of the Saiva canon, that being the closest since it has the nature of instruction within one and the same stream of revelation. One may not do so from any other division [such as that of the Svacchandatantra], because it is too remote from that and because this would lead to the undesirable consequence of the presence of practice of a contrary nature [within Saiddhāntika Śaivism]. That is why I have taught: ‘It is not proper in [the practice of] one scripture to do what has been taught in another.’ 26 But the Paddhati Siddhāntasāra composed by Mahārājādhirāja Bhojadeva, probably the Paramāra king of that name who ruled from Dhārā in modern Gujarat from A.D. 1018 to 1060, shows that the influence of the Svacchanda was too great to be withstood. For though his Paddhati is based on the two-hundred-verse redaction of the Kalottara, a Saiddhantika scripture, it has drawn extensively on the three and a half thousand verse Dakṣina Svacchanda, though without acknowledging the fact, especially in its treatment of the rituals of initiation. Indeed large parts of his Paddhati are little more than a prose redaction of passages of that scripture. 27 The influential Saiddhantika Paddhati of

26. See also Aghoraśiva, Mrgendrapaddhati, p. 1, and Vaktraśambhu, Mrgendrapaddhativyākhyā ad loc. 27. Compare, for example, Svacchanda, f. 25r4-v4 (3.163-174) with Siddhantasärapaddhati f. 20v3-21r2. After each verse section of the first I have placed the corresponding prose section of the second in square brackets. The prose passages form a continuous text. 163 pāśakarmam ato vakṣye kanyākartitasūtrakam / triguṇam triguṇīkṛtvā pāśabandhanasūtrakam / 164 śivāmbhasāstra samproksya kavacenāvagunthanam / pūjayitvā tu vidhinā gandhapuṣpādidhūpakaiḥ [→ tad anu kanyānirmitam sūtram triguṇam triguṇīkṛtyāstraprokṣitam kavacāvagunthitam sampūjya] / 165 grhya prasārayet sūtram murdhnadyangusthayavadhi / śisyasya stabdhadehasya nāḍībhūtam vicintayet [→ śisyasyordhvakāyasya sikhāyām baddhvā pādāngusthāgrāt tam avalambya suṣumnānāḍīrūpam vicintya] / 166 suṣumnā madhyamā nāḍī sarvanāḍīsamanvitā / omkārādisvarūpeṇa namaskārāvasānikam [→ OM SUŞUMNAYAI NAMAḤ] 167 śisyadehe sthitā nāḍī samgrhya viniveśayet / gandhapuṣpādibhiḥ pujya kavacenāva- gunthayet [→ity anena siṣyadehat suṣumnām samgrhya sutre sam(29v)yojya sampujya kavacenāva- gunthya] 168 samnidhāne trir ahutyas svanāmapadajātinā| śivāmbhāstrena samproksya siṣyasya hṛdaye punaḥ / 169 puspena tāḍaye ‘strena hrdi cit samhṛtā bhavet [→ sannidhānāhutitrayam dadyāt. tataḥ śisyahrtpradese samyojya puṣpāstrena hrdi samtāḍya] humkāroccārayogena recakena vised dhṛdi/ 170 nāḍīrandhreņa gatvā tu [→ recakaprayogena humkāram samuccaran nāḍīmārgeṇa hrdi tasya sampraviśya] caitanyam bhāvayec chisoḥ kadambagolakākāram sphurattārakasaprabham / 171 hṛtstham chidyastrakhaḍgena humphaṭkārāstrajātinā/ dhāmenānkuśabhūtena karṣayed yāva chaktitaḥ [→ śiśoś caitanyam sphurattarakākāram hṛdy astrena samcchidya mulamantrena samākṛṣya] / 172 dvādaśānte ca samgrhya sampuțitvā hṛdā tu tam/ samhāramudraya yojya sūtre nāḍiprakalpite [→ dvādaśānte hrdayasamputitam ketvā QM Hảm ham hãm sombēramudrave screachursūtre samuriv Vilur

360

Alexis SANDERSON

Somasambhu completed in central India in A.D. 1095/6 perpetuates this tacit fusion since it is in large part a verse redaction of Bhojadeva’s prose; 28 and it is taken forward into the Saiddhantika Paddhatis of the Tamils Jñānaśiva and Aghoraśiva, the first composed in Benares and the second in the far South in the second half of the twelfth century, both authors who would have been abashed had they realized that their ‘pure’ Saiddhantika tradition had been hybridized in this way.

Our understanding of Indic ceremonial traditions has tended to be dominated by the model of the archaic Vedic (Śrauta) sacrifice, which has come down through the centuries in a remarkably stable and uncontaminated form. The Saivas too wished their traditions to be seen in this light and at every stage have denied, or would have denied, that they were innovating, insisting that they were faithfully preserving the tradition of a specific ancient scripture, supplementing its instructions from ancillary sources only where absolutely necessary and with the understanding that they were doing so in accordance with an intention implicitly conveyed by that scripture, thus avoiding all syncretism. We have now seen that this model fails to stand up to analysis even in the domain of the private worship required of individual initiates for their own benefit, where we might expect that reasons for innovation would have been less compelling since such worship was comparatively free of market forces. But in the domain of worship performed by professional priests for others, such as we encounter in the Khmers’ inscriptions, the pressures to depart from the

173 vyāpakam bhāvayitvā tu kavacenāvagunthayet / trir ahutim bhairaveṇaiva samnidhānārthahetave [→ vyāpakam sambhāvya kavacenāvagunthya samnidhānārtham mūlamantreṇāhutitrayam juhuyāt] / 174 dvitīyasūtradeham tu pāśā yatra sthitās tv ime / badhyāś chedyās tathā dāhyāḥ sūtrasthā na tu vigrahe [→ tāḍanādīni ca pāśānām sūtre kuryāt, na śarīra iti].

28. Compare, for example, the section of the Siddhāntasārapaddhati cited above with Somasambhu- paddhati 3:169–183 (vv. 5-13). See also Siddhāntasārapaddhati ff. 23r-v (B) with the corresponding continuous passages of Somasambhupaddhati 3:3-13 (vv. 1–13) in square brackets: atha dīkṣāsvarūpa- nirūpaṇam [→ 1 athāto bhogamokṣārtham dīkṣārūpanirūpaṇam yathāgamam yathabodham samkṣepād abhidhiyate]. tatra bandhahetumalakarmamāyādipāśaviśleṣo jñānam cānugṛhyasya yayā kriyayā janyate sā dīkṣā [→2 malamāyādipāśānām viśleṣaḥ kriyate yayā jñānam ca janyate śisye sa dikṣety abhidhiyate]. tatrānugrāhyas trividhaḥ vijñānākalaḥ pralayākalaḥ sakalaś ceti [→ 3 vijñānākalanāmaiko dvitiyaḥ pralayakalaḥ tṛtīyaḥ sakalaḥ śāstre ’nugrāhyas trividho mataḥ]. tatra malamātrayukto vijñānākalaḥ, malakarmayuktaḥ pralayākalaḥ, kalādipṛthivyantatattvayuktaḥ sakalaḥ [→4 tatrādyo malamātreṇa yukto nyo malakarmabhiḥ kalādibhūmiparyantatattvais tu sakalo yutaḥ]. dikṣāpi dvividhā niradhikaraṇā sādhikaraṇā ca [→ 5 nirādhārā ca sādhārā dīkṣā tu dvividhā matā]. tatrācārya- nirapekṣeṇa bhagavatā svaśaktyānugraharūpayā tīvrataraśaktinipātena yā kriyate să niradhikaraṇā, vijñānākalapralayākalānāṁ [→6 ācāryanirapekṣeņa kriyate sambhunaiva yā tīvraśaktinipātena nirādhāreti sā smṛtā]. yā tv ācāryamurtisthena bhagavata mandamandataratīvratīvrataracatūrūpa- śaktinipātena ya kriyate sā sādhikaraṇā, sakalātmanām [→7 ācāryamurtim asthāya manda- tīvrādibhedayā / śaktyā yām kurute sambhuḥ sa sadhikaranocyate]. să punaḥ sabījā nirbījā sādhikārā niradhikārā ceti [8 iyam caturvidhā proktā sabījā bījavarjitā sādhikārā niradhikārā yathāvad abhidhiyate]. tatra samayasamayācāravatī sabījā, sā ca viduṣām kriyāsamarthānām eva bhavati [→ 9ab samayācārasamyuktā sabījā jāyate nṛṇām]. samayasamayācārapāśaśuddhipūrvikā samayasamayā- cārādirahitā nirbījā. să ca bālabāliśavṛddhavyādhitātmanām strīṇām bhogabhujām ca [→ 9cd nirbījā tv asamarthānām samayācāravarjitā]. ācāryasādhakayor nityanaimittikakāmyakarmasv adhikaraṇāt sādhikārā [→ 10 nitye naimittike kamye yasya syad adhikāritā sādhikārā bhaved dīkṣā sādhakācāryayor ataḥ]. samayiputrakayor nirbījadīkṣitānām ca nityakarmamātrādhikāritvān niradhi- kāraiva [→ 11 nirbījādīkṣitānām tu tathā samayiputrayoh / nityamātrādhikāritvād dīkṣā niradhikārikā]. sā punar ubhayarūpāpi dvividhā kriyāvatī jñānavatī ca. tatra rajahkundamanḍalapūrvikā kriyāvatī. tad vinā kevalamanovyāpārajanitā jñānavatī [→ 12 dvividheyam dvirūpāpi pratyekam upajāyate/ ekā kriyāvatī tatra kundamandalapūrvikā / 13ab manovyāpāramātreṇa yā sā jñānavatī matā]. itthambhūtā dikṣā labdhādhikāreṇācāryena kriyate [→ 13cd ittham labdhādhikāreņa dīkṣācāryeņa sadhyate].

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

361

purists’ model would surely have been much greater. We should consider it very probable that the Paddhatis that guided their ceremonies among the Khmers were freely modified over time to appeal to or satisfy the expectations of new clients, such as immigrant brahmins patronized by the court or an incoming dynasty with its own traditions of worship for the protection of the king and the state.

Anyone who doubts this need only examine the relationship between scripture and Paddhati throughout the Indic world. I shall consider three examples, from Kashmir, Nepal and Bali. These are cultural zones which received their Śaivism independently. Features that they share are therefore very unlikely not to have been found in their common source and, moreover, in other zones that received the religion, such as Kambujadeśa. Readers whose interest is purely Khmerological may wish to skip the rest of this subsection, moving directly to the next section (p. 377).

Kashmir

The Paddhatis used by the Saiva officiants of Kashmir until recent times, notably the Kalādīkṣāpaddhati and the Agnikāryapaddhati, are based on the scriptures Svacchandatantra and Netratantra. Study of those scriptures and their learned commentaries written by the Kashmirian Kṣemarāja (fl. c. 1000-1050 A.D.) leads one to assume that their ritual systems, being distinct in their Mantras, deities and other defining particulars, would be kept distinct. But we find that they are fused in these manuals within single ceremonies, and that this hybrid is further elaborated through the insertion of the worship of numerous subsidiary deities drawn from various sources, some of them local goddesses such as Sārikā, Rājñī and Jvālāmukhi, and others drawn from mainstream traditions, such as Mālinī, Kubjikā, Tripurasundarī, and, from the Kalpas of the Jayadrathayāmala: Nityākālī, Pāpāntakāriṇī, Bhāgyādhirohiṇī, Bhuvanamālinī (Dīkṣādevi), Mantraḍāmarikā, Mantramātṛkā, Vāgīśvarī, Vāgbhaveśvarī, Vidyāvidyeśvarī, Saptakoṭīśvarī and Siddhalakṣmi. 29

Further, there are distinct redactions of these texts which differ from each other in the presence or absence of the worship of certain deities or in following different sources for their worship. Thus the version of the Agnikāryapaddhati in a Paris manuscript adds the East-Indian Śākta deities Tārā, Bhuvaneśvari, Bhadrakāli, Dakṣiņā Kālī, Bagalamukhi and Vajrayogini to the goddesses who receive oblations in the Saiva fire-sacrifice,

30 deities that are no part of early Kashmirian tradition and are lacking both in a Göttingen manuscript’s version of this Paddhati and in the corresponding section of the fire-worship that ends the ceremony of Saiva initiation in the Kashmirian Kalādīkṣāpaddhati.

29. See SANDERSON 2002, 2 and 22-23 (endnote 19) for a full list of the goddesses who receive offerings in the fire-sacrifice that is a regular constituent of the Paddhatis of the Kashmirian Saiva. officiant (goryun). The seats (Pithas) of the local Kashmirian goddesses listed are as follows: (1) Śārikā: in Śrīnagar on the NW side of the hill Haraparbuth (Skt. Šārikāparvata, also called Pradyumnaśikhara); (2) Rajni (/Khirbhavānī): at Tulamul (Skt. Tūlamulya); and (3) Jvālā/Jvālāmukhi: on a spur at Uyen (Skt. Ovanā) / Khruv (Skt. Khaḍūvī). They and Bālā, whose seat is under a Deodar tree at Balahōm (Skt. Bālāśrama) to the NE of Pampar (Padmapura), are the family goddesses (kuladevi) of the Kashmirian brahmins (Devīrahasya, introd., p. 2). For the presence of these goddesses at these sites see STEIN 1961, 2:459 (Bālā), note on 1.22 (Jvālāmukhi), note on 4.638, and 2:446-447 (Śārikā), and 488 (Rājñī). For their fairs (utsavaḥ) see KOUL 1991, 85-97. The antiquity of these local goddesses is uncertain. Sārikā at least was already venerated in the eleventh century since she is mentioned in the Kashmirian Kathāsaritsāgara of Somadeva (reign of Kalasa, 1063 and 1081/2); see 73.107-118. Paddhatis for the worship of these four goddesses have been published as supplements (parisiṣṭāni) to the Devīrahasya.

30. These goddesses are covered in ff. 80r5-84v8 of the Paris manuscript.

31. Kalādīkṣāpaddhati, A, ff. 220r1-227r12.

362

Alexis SANDERSON

Dakṣiņā Kālī, who is the foremost of these East-Indian goddesses, has also been added in the Paris version, together with Bhadrakālī, among the deities summoned to protect the Yaga; 32 and the same two have been included among the goddesses in one version of the Paddhati of the Annapūrapūjā of the Saiva Śraddha ceremony (śivaśrāddham). 33 Similarly, in the Kalādīkṣāpaddhati, first composed in A.D. 1335/6 by one Manoda but expanded and modified until at least the end of the seventeenth century, we find two redactions that differ in their sub-Paddhatis, one incorporating East-Indian tradition, the other not, for the preliminary worship of Gaṇeśa and the goddess Pustakavāgīśvarī.

34

35

I propose that these intrusive East-Indian elements were the result of the incorporation into Kashmirian brahmin society of the family stocks (krām) that share the name Kaul. They claim to be Kashmirians who moved from the Kashmir valley to Darbhanga in the eastern state of Bihar (Mithila) in order to escape Islamic persecution during the reign of Sikandar (1389-1413) and then returned when conditions had improved during the reign of Zain-ul-abidin (1419, 1420-70). But there are compelling reasons to conclude that they

32. F. 27r-v. Dakṣiņā Kāli (/Dakṣiņakālī) is the principal Kāli venerated in Bengal (BANERJI 1992, 180). Her dark lolling-tongued form, four-armed, her left hands brandishing a sword and holding a severed head, and her right hands showing the gestures of protection and the bestowing of boons, standing on the prostrate body of Siva and surrounded by jackals, is held by tradition to have been revealed to the famous Bengali Śākta Kṛṣṇānanda Agamavāgīśa Bhaṭṭācārya of Navadvipa (BANERJI 1992, 91), author of the Tantrasāra, composed c. 1580 (ibid.). She appears in such East-Indian Sākta scriptures as the Kulacuḍāmaṇitantra (4.39-47); Toḍalatantra (1.3-4, 18), Phetkarinītantra, Patala 10, Guptasadhanatantra, Pațala 6, Niruttaratantra cited in Karpūrādistotraṭīkā p. 2, 3-11, Viśvasäratantra cited ibid., p. 4, 13-16; and Mahākālasaṇhitā, (Kāmakalākhanda) 241.4.

33. Annapūrapūjā f. 15r4-v3 (Dakṣiņakālī), 15v3-16v3 (Bhadrakālī). The published version of this Paddhati has only Bhadrakali (CHANDRA 1984, 212a-218b, sivaśrāddhe ’nnapūripūjā). The visualization-text (dhyānam) of Dakṣinakali in the manuscript (f. 15r5-12) is closely related to that of the East-Indian Phetkarinītantra, 10.4c-12.

34. The date of the work’s original composition and its subsequent expansion are recorded at its end (MS B, f. 111v8-10): ayam svahṛdayodbhavagiriśaśaktipātakramāc caturvidhaguṇānvitaḥ pravara- dikṣyasisyocitaḥ manodaguruṇombhitaḥ khaśaśisamjñake vatsare prabhāv udayane maner nijasutasya karmoccayaḥ / iti mahāmāheśvaramanodadattaviracito ‘yam dikṣāvidhiḥ śivasvāmivistārito bhadradāyī samapto ‘bhavat ‘This compendium of rites, which is endowed with the four good qualities and is suitable for the best of disciples worthy of initiation, has been composed for his son Mani by the Guru Manoda during the reign of Udayana, in the year 10, inspired by the descent of Śiva’s power that has arisen in his heart. Here ends this beneficent Ceremony of Initiation, composed by Mahāmāheśvara Manodadatta and expanded by Śivasvamin.’ Udayanadeva ruled Kashmir from 11 Pausa Laukika [43]99 (A.D. 1320) to 13 badi Phālguna (Śivarātri) Laukika [44]14 (a.d. 1339). In support of these dates see PARMU 1969, 84, n. 44. The year 10, then, can only be 4410 of the Laukika (Saptarși) era, since that was A.D. 1335/6. In the other era used by Kashmirian brahmins, that of the beginning of the Kaliyuga, the year 10 fell too early, [44]10 being A.D. 1308/9. We have no information that enables us to date the expander Śivasvamin or to determine whether he is one of the Śivasvāmins known from other sources or another. The latest addition to the text that I can recognize is in MS A. This gives the Bhairavastotra of Rājāna[ka] Sankarakantha (f. 200r5) and the Sambhukṛpāmanoharastotra of his son Rājānaka Ratnakantha (f. 201v13-15) among hymns to be chanted after the consecration ceremony (abhisekaḥ) that follows the dikṣā. Ratnakantha’s Stutikusumāñjalilaghupañcikā is dated Vikrama 1738, = A.D. 1681/2 (p. 256).

=

35. Redaction 1 = MS A, ff. 2r6-5r12; Redaction 2 MS B, ff. 1v3-2v3 and MS C, ff. 1v4-2v16. For its worship of Gaṇeśa B follows East-Indian tradition (= Agamarahasya, Uttarardha 855-860) and for the worship of Pustakavāgīśvarī it combines that tradition (= ibid. 865-867b) with a Kashmirian tradition incorporating Jayadrathayamala, Satka 4, pustakādhikārapaṭalah, ff. 209r4, 209r5-7 (= vv. 21c-22b, 24-26).

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

363

were Maithila brahmin immigrants from that region and that they conceived this story of return to support their assimilation.

An anonymous Kashmirian Sanskrit tract of the Islamic period reports that the brahmins of Kashmir, who have often claimed to be all Sārasvatas, are actually Sārasvatas, Maithilas, Kanyakubjas, Drāviḍas, Gaudas, Autkalas and Gurjaras. Now it says that those Kashmirians who are Maithilas are distinguished from all others by the fact that their Gotra division is the Dattatreya. 36 Since this is the Gotra of the Kauls and of the Kauls alone, at least in Kashmir, 37 we are being told that the Kauls are Maithilas and therefore that they are of East-Indian origin, since the term could never be applied to brahmins who had merely spent some years in Mithila, the region from which the Maithilas derive their name.

This conclusion is confirmed from within the Kaul community itself. For we have verses in two nineteenth-century Kashmirian manuscripts of collectanea of devotional works and liturgical texts of their tradition, in which an anonymous Kaul reveals not only that he belongs to the Dattatreya lineage but also that he is a Maithila and a Yajurvedin of the Madhyandinaśākhā and the Katyāyanaśrautasūtra-the Maithila brahmins of Bihar are indeed either Madhyandina Yajurvedins or Kauthumaśākhīya Chandogas 38—and that his original home (pūrvabhūmiḥ) was in the land of Janaka, where Sītā was born, on the banks of the Kolā river, that is to say, in northern Bihar at or near Sītāmarhi, about fifteen miles south of the modern Nepalese border. 39 The Kauls’ presence there may explain the names of two villages in the vicinity: Madhkaul and Dhankaul. 40

36. Brāhmaṇādijātīyakavarṇana p. 1[11], II. 13–16: sārasvatā bharadvājā dattatreyāś ca maithilāḥ / *gārgyavātsyāḥ (em.: gargyavātsya Cod.) kānyakubjā drāviḍā angiraḥkuśāḥ / mulatuṣṭā vasisthāś ca mudgalā maudgalās tatha *gauḍajās te (conj.: gauḍajā ete Cod.) samākhyātā gautamā aupamanyavāḥ mudgalidrāviḍās caiva *kişkindhādeśa (corr.: kiṣkindā Cod.) āgatāḥ| kasyapā *gurjarāḥ (corr.: gūrjarāḥ Cod.) khyātāḥ parāśarās tathaiva ca ‘The Bharadvājas are Sarasvatas, the Dattatreyas are Maithilas, the Gargyas and Vātsyas are Kanyakubjas, the Angirases and Kusas are Dravidas, the Mūtatustas, Vasisthas, Mudgalas and Maudgalas are said to be Gaudas. The Gautamas, Aupamanyavas and Mudgalidrāviḍas are Autkalas; and the Kasyapas and Parāśaras are said to be Gurjaras.’ For the view that all the brahmins of Kashmir (Kashmiri Pandits) are Sarasvatas see MADAN 1989, 13; cf. BÜHLER 1877, 19. For the claim that the Kauls merely returned from Mithila see KoUL 1991, 49.

37. For the Gotras of the Kashmirians and the fact that the Kaul stocks (Krāms) (Bamzai, Chowdhri, Daftari, Jalali Kothdar, Miskin, Muhtasib, Pahalwan, Rafiz, Sahib, Salman, Sultan, Zamindar etc.), and they alone, are of the Dattatreya Gotra, see the Census of Kashmir of 1891, para. 191 and KOUL 1991, 99.

38. MISHRA 1984.

39. “Anandanatha”, f. 277r4-278r1 (A), Ms. Stein Or. g. 1 of the Bodleian Library, Oxford (B) (I am very grateful to my former pupil Dr. Jürgen HANNEDER of the University of Halle for bringing the second witness to my attention): 1 dattatreya*kulotpannaḥ (A: kuletpannaḥ B) yajurvedy asmi maithilaḥ tatra mādhyandinī sākhā sūtram kātyāyanam smrtam/ 2 atrir gavistharakhyāś ca rcanānāsasamjñakaḥ/ *dāmodaro (em.: dāmodhare AB) vamsadevaḥ sthitiḥ *kolāpagatate (em. : kaulapagātate A: kaulapage tate B) / 3 jātā sā yatra sītā, sarati navajalā vāgvatī yatra *pūjyā (A: pūjya B) yasyāḥ sannidhyakartrī suranagaranadi, bhairavo yatra lingam/ mīmāmsānyāyavedādhyana- patutaraiḥ panditair mandita ya *bhūdevo (em.: bhodevo AB) yatra bhupo janakavasumatī sāsti naḥ pūrvabhumiḥ ‘I am a Maithila Yajurvedin of the Dattatreya clan. My branch of the [Yajurveda] is the Madhyandina and my Sūtra is that of Kātyāyana. Born in the Gotra of Atri I have three Pravaras: Atreya, Gāvisthara and Ṛcanānāsa. My lineage god is Damodara [Kṛṣṇa] and my [ancestral] home is on the banks of the Kola river. My former country is the land of Janaka ruled by a brahmin king, adorned by scholars adept in the study of Mīmāmsā, Nyāya and the Vedas, where Sītā was born, where the venerable river Vāgvati flows with its fresh waters, where the Suranagara river grants its presence, the site of the Bhairava Linga.’

The traditional birthplace of Sītā is in Tirhut, in modern Sitamarhi (26°35 N, 85°29 E) in the administrative division of that name (formerly the Sitamarhi subdivision of the Muzaffarpur district). Sītā

364

Alexis SANDERSON

Once established in Kashmir, perhaps in the wake of the incorporation of the country into the Mughal empire by the emperor Akbar in 1586,41 they adopted the local goddesses as their lineage deities, the doctrines of Kashmirian Śaiva non-dualism, and the Kashmiri

is believed to have sprung to life here from an earthen pot into which King Janaka had driven his ploughshare (O’MALLEY 1907, 156-158). That our anonymous author means this place and not some other possible claimant is confirmed by his mentioning the Vagvati and the Kolā. The former is the Bāgmati river, which rises in Nepal near Kathmandu and descends south through northern Bihar, passing about 12 miles to the west of Sitamarhi, or about 5 miles, if it is the old course of the river that is intended. The river Kolā (kolāpaga) flows south from the Bagmati at a point about 4 miles south of Dheng, passes about 8 miles to the west of Sitamarhi and ends in the Bagmati about 16 miles SSW of Sītāmarhi and about 4 miles SW of Belsand. From the thirteenth century onwards Mithila was indeed famous for its great experts on Mīmāmsā, Nyaya and Vaidika observance; and from the fourteenth it was indeed ruled by brahmins, having been made over as a fief to Kāmeśvara Thakkura, the head of the Śrotriyas of Mithila, by Tughlak Shah after his defeat of Harisimha, the last of the kings of the Karṇāta (Simrãongarh) dynasty (c. 1097-1323), and the destruction of Simraon, his capital. The Sugaon or Thakur dynasty founded by this brahmin ruled over Tirhut up to the early sixteenth century, until Tirhut was conquered by Nasrat Shah of Bengal (r. 1518-32) and put under the governorship of his son-in-law Ala-ud-din, to pass shortly afterwards with the fall of the independent kingdom of Bengal into the Mughal empire.

For the three Pravaras of the Atri Gotra (its Gāvisthara division) mentioned in the verses see BROUGH 1953, 34; and for the Dattatreya subdivision of this Gotra see ibid., 139.

40. Survey of India, Sheet No. 72F. Madhkaul lies between the Kola and the Bagmati, about two miles W of Belsand. Dhankaul lies between the same rivers on the west bank of the old course of the Bagmati about two miles W of Parsauni, which lies about 5 miles N of Belsand. The two place-names are perhaps named after Kauls who received these villages as fiefs (jagir): Mādh (= Mādhava) Kaul and Dhan (= Dhaneśa?) Kaul. The origin of the name Kaul is not clear. It is unlikely, I believe, to be a reference to their religion: as Śāktas they are indeed Kaulas. For that is not an identity that would be so publicly advertized. Perhaps it is rather from the Kola river, by which they had settled.

41. The Kauls’ claim that they entered Kashmir from Mithila during the reign of Zain-ul-abidin (1419, 1420-70) is supported by Munshi Muhammad-ud-din Fauq (A.D. 1877-1945), who states in his Shabab-i-Kashmir that a Mādho (Mādhava) Kaul, a Ganesh Kaul and a Gopal Kaul were in charge of the land settlement and grand irrigation schemes that marked this reign (KILAM [1955], 9). Such projects were indeed put into effect by Zain-ul-abidin (PARMU 1969, 148-154). But the contemporary histories (Rājatarangiṇī) written by Jonarāja and Śrīvara, covering the periods 1149-1459 and 1459-1486 respectively, make no mention of them nor, more tellingly, of any other Kaul. Kauls are also absent both from the history of the years 1486-1537 provided by Suka (Rajatarangini) and from the anonymous supplement which takes the chronicle of the kings of Kashmir up to 1597. In fact, the earliest sure evidence known to me of Kauls in Kashmir dates from the first half of the seventeenth century. Sahib Kaul tells us in his Devīnāmavilāsa (17.18) that he completed that work in Vikrama 1723 at the age of 24, which places his birth in 1636 A.D.; and the author of the Dabistan-ul-Mazahab refers to Kauls whom he had met in Kashmir (trans. SHEA and TROYER 1937, 229): Sudarshan Kal (= Sudarśan Kaul); Kopāl Kul (= Gopal Kaul). From the text it appears that he was in Kashmir at dates from 1627, when he was a boy, to 1639 or 1640 A.D. Fauq reports a Pandit Sada Kaul favoured by the emperors Jahangir (r. 1605- 28) and Shah Jehan (r. 1628-1658) (KILAM [1955], 101). Perhaps the Kauls came in not during the reign of Zain-ul-abidin but in or after 1586, when Kashmir was annexed by Akbar, attached to the province of Kabul, and placed under the administration of imperial officers (SMITH 1917, 240), this piece of family history having been pushed back to the time during which they claimed to have returned from Bihar. Perhaps the source of Fauq’s report that Kauls were engaged in land settlement and irrigation schemes has also been dated to fit this claim. As a newly acquired territory of the Mughal empire Kashmir was immediately subjected to the rigorous system of land and revenue assessment introduced under Akbar. Five imperial officials were sent for this purpose. We know their names from the Akbarnāma of Abu-l Fazl (PARMU 1969, 289-290), and they are not Kauls. But perhaps Kauls were brought in among their staff. They have certainly been prominent among the Karkun sub-division of the brahmins of Kashmir, those who learned Persian and served in the administration of the Muslim rulers of the country.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

365

language, all of which can be seen in the works of Sahib Kaul, composed in Kashmir in the seventeenth century. 42 But they also maintained their East-Indian Śākta traditions, as is shown by the same author’s Paddhatis. I am aware of manuscripts of three works of this kind: his Syāmāpaddhati for the worship of Dakṣiņā Kālī, his Śrīvidyāpūjāpaddhati for the worship of Tripurasundari, and his Hṛllekhāpaddhati for the worship of Bhuvaneśvarī. They show no connection with the Śākta Śaivism long-established in Kashmir. They do not inherit its ritual forms, draw on its sources, or share its theology. They also contain elements entirely foreign to it, such as the consumption of the intoxicating drink known as samvit/samvidā or vijaya that is prepared from the powdered green Cannabis indica plant.

43

42. Among these works by Sahib Kaul (b. 1636) is a hymn to the local goddess Śārikā as the goddess of his patriline; Śārikāstava v. 17, f. 532r: stotram mantroddhary adaḥ śārikāyāḥ sahibkaulo vamsadevyāś cakāra ‘Sahib Kaul is the author of this hymn to [his] lineage goddess Śārikā, a hymn which contains the [means of] the extracting of her Mantra [element by element from the initial syllable of each verse]’. He also wrote numerous works in which he expresses his devotion to the goddess in the language of Kashmirian Śaiva non-dualism, such as Saccidānandakandali, Sahajarcanaṣaṣṭikā, Svātmabodha, Citsphārasarādvaya, Śivaśaktivilāsa, and Devīnāmavilāsa, a tour de force of devotional poetry in the most refined and complex style based on the Bhavānīsahasranāmastotra. In the Kashmiri language we have his Janmacarita (BL, MS. Stein Or. f. 3 (v); SOAS MS no. 44390, ff. 69-140).

43. Syāmāpaddhati f. 16v-17v: tatra padmāsanenopaviśya kāmeśvaram samvidam vā svīkuryāt. tad yatha OM SAMVIDE BRAHMASAMBHŪTE BRAHMAPUTRI SADĀNAGHE BRAHMAṆĀNĀM CA TRPTYARTHAM PAVITRA BHAVA [etc.] SVĀHĀ iti mantreṇa juhuyāt. tata ānandamayo bhūtvā raktavasanādyalamkrtaḥ sivo ‘ham iti bhavayan ‘Then he should seat himself in the lotus posture and take *wine (kāmeśvaram [?]) or samvidā. He should pour an oblation of it [into his mouth] with the following Mantra: OM Samvidā, born of Brahma, daughter of Brahmā, become pure for the delight of brahmins [etc.] SVAHĀ. Then when he has become full of bliss [from it], he should adorn himself with a red garment etc. and contemplating that he is Śiva …’. See also Hrllekhāpaddhati, ff. 21[119]r8-22[121]v5: …ity anena mukhe samvidam tattvamudraya juhuyāt. iti samvidvidhiḥ. tata ānandamayo bhūtvā…; and the published sources Jvālāmukhīpūjāpaddhati p. 361,12-18 and Bālāpūjāpaddhati pp. 488, 1. 30-489, 1. 13. That the drink is prepared from cannabis is stated in Sarvollāsa 30.21b, in a passage extracted from the Bhāvacuḍāmaņi: bhangarūpā; and in a version of the Mantra to be recited when taking it, in which the substance is explicitly addressed by its mundane name bhanga: OM BHANGE BHANGE MAHĀBHANGE…. It is mixed with milk, water, Madhvika juice, molasses and other ingredients (Anandapaṭala in Sarvollāsa 30.47-54). It is to be drunk before the pūjā proper after the worship of the deities around the door to the shrine. The long Mantra for the taking of this drink is exactly as in East-Indian sources, except that where the Kashmirian Paddhatis have brāhmaṇānām they have bhairavāṇām; see, e.g., Sarvollāsa p. 117; cf. Samayācāratantra f. 30v (bhairavanandatattvārtham). In other Sākta Śaiva systems, such as those inherited by the Kashmirians, the only intoxicant consumed in ritual is alcoholic liquor. In the relatively late tradition seen in East-Indian Sākta texts the cannabis-drink has been added; and the Mantra given for its empowerment (abhimantraṇam) is a variant of that already current for alcoholic drinks; see Śyāmāpaddhati, ff. 17r6-7: OM AMṚTE AMṚTODBHAVE AMṚTAVARṢIŅI AMṚTAM ĀKARṢAYA 2 SIDDHIM DEHI …SVAHĀ and cf. Kulārṇavatantra 6.55, which gives …AMRTE AMṚTODBHAVE AMṚTESVARI AMRTAVARŞINI AMṚTAM SRĀVAYA SVAHA for wine. The quantity of cannabis to be consumed is not nominal. The Anandapaṭala cited in Sarvollāsa 30.61 requires the worshipper to use from one to three tolakas in weight, no less, no more. As can be seen from the citation above from the Syāmāpaddhati of Sahib Kaul, the worshipper could use either substance. But the East-Indian tradition is in no doubt that cannabis is superior. This is stated in a verse-line frequently encountered in its texts: samvidāsavayor madhye samvid eva garīyasī ‘Of cannabis and wine it is cannabis that is greater’; see, e.g., Sarvollāsa 30.26cd and 60ab (Mātrkābhedatantra and Anandapaṭala) and Samayācāratantra f. 30r9 (samvidānandayor madhye samvid eva gariyasi). The Kashmirian Bhaṭṭārakasvāmin, author of the Spandapradipikā, an unpublished commentary on the Spandakarika of the ninth-century Kashmirian non-dualist Śaiva Kallata, speaks for the old tradition against this new Śaktism, dismissing its claim that cannabis enhances spiritual awareness. In f. 3v11-13 we read: tasmat sarvatra vyāpteḥ spanda eva366

Alexis SANDERSON

It is this Maithila tradition that is the probable source of the East-Indian elements that have intruded into some redactions of the Kashmirians’ Śaiva Paddhatis. I have mentioned only the addition of East-Indian goddesses; but there are other features that support this conclusion. The Paris Agnikāryapaddhati includes a sub-Paddhati for an animal sacrifice to the Goddess which is a variant of those seen in Sahib Kaul’s manuals; 44 and there are visualization-texts (dhyānam) recited in the worship of the same redaction that are identical with those used in these Paddhatis. That for Gaṇeśa, for example, is found in the Śyāmāpaddhati, and it is also found in the principal Bengali Śākta treatise of the sixteenth century, the Tantrasara of Kṛṣṇānanda Bhaṭṭācārya. 45

The Newars

Syncretistic elaboration also characterizes the anonymous manuals for the worship of the royal temple deities written and followed by the Newar Saiva priests of the Kath- mandu valley. We see this in the many surviving Nepalese manuscripts of Paddhatis that give the recitation-texts in Sanskrit and the ritual instructions in Newari for ceremonies of installation (pratiṣṭhā) by named royal patrons, or set out the same for the thā pūjā, puchā, and dhavamcha, the periodic rituals that must be performed by these priests in the palace temples. In these the principal deities are Kubjikā with her consort Navātmanātha,

46

kāraṇam maheśvaro nāma, yac cātikruddho prahrsto vā kim karomīti vāmṛśan / dhāvan vā yat padam gacchet tatra spandaḥ pratisthitaḥ ityādinā śrīspandavyaktir atraiva darśitā tat prāmādikam. vijayāpānaratānām bodhanimajjanād iyam ittham uktiḥ ‘So the dynamism [of consciousness] alone is the cause, namely Śiva, because it pervades all [states]. As for the view that the manifesting of this sacred dynamism can occur only in the states mentioned in such verses as “The dynamism is present in the state one enters when one is in great anger or delight, wondering desperately what to do or running” [Spandakārikā 1.22], that is erroneous. This is what those who are given to drinking vijayā say, because [by consuming it] they diminish their awareness’. For the contrary belief, that cannabis promotes understanding, see passages such as Sarvollāsa 30.32-33, 55. It is probable that the use of cannabis for spiritual intoxication was adopted following the example of Muslim ascetics in India such as those of the Madariyya order, founded by Badi’ ad-din Shah Madārī, an immigrant who settled in Jaunpur, where he died c. 1440 (TRIMINGHAM 1973, 97), an order notorious for its use of hashish.

44. Agnikāryapaddhati A, ff. 41v-44v. Cf. Śrīvidyānityapūjāpaddhati, ff. 122v-124r; Śyāmā- paddhati, ff. 37r8-38r5; Hrllekhāpaddhati, ff. 70v4-74v8.

=

=

45. Agnikäryapaddhati A, f. 45r8; = Syāmāpaddhati, f. 6v4-6; Kṛṣṇānanda, Tantrasāra f. 97r2-5. The Tantrasara of Kṛṣṇānanda was certainly studied in some circles in Kashmir, since several Kashmirian manuscripts of it have survived, such as BHU Mss. c. 1028 and c. 3657; Research Department, Srinagar, MSS 1479 and 1637. A number of the visualization verses of the Paris Agnikāryapaddhati (A) are found in the published Uddhārakośa associated with the Devīrahasya. That of Tārā (f. 80r5-v4)= 7.11-12; that of Bhuvaneśvari (f. 80v5-81r3) 7.14-15; that of Vajrayogini (f. 84v3) = 7.49; that of Kulavagīśvari (f. 65r) = 7. 62; that of Mṛtyunjaya (f. 47r) = 7. 71-72. The Devīrahasya is East-Indian in character but it has assimilated the local Kashmirian goddesses. In 2.2-6b it lists the Mantras of Śārikā, Mahārājñī, Jvālāmukhi, Śārada and Bheḍā. The locations of the first three have been stated above. Śārada, a goddess of transregional fame, was worshipped to the north of the valley at Shardi by the Kishenganga river (STEIN 1961, 2:279-289). Bheḍā/Bhīḍā was worshipped on a mountain in the Sukru Pargana. See the Kasmiratirthasamgraha of Sahib Rām, f. 21r1-2: śukraroṣarāṣtre parvatamastake bhīḍādevī. Cf. STEIN 1961, 2:472-3.

46. The Newari term thāpūjā/ṭhāpūjā denotes a special ceremony of worship (pūjā) that is to be performed on one or more calendrically fixed days of every year in accordance with the requirements of an endowment for this purpose. See, e.g., G. VAJRACARYA 1976 no. 79 (a copper-plate inscription of 1799/1800 A.D. concerning a land-grant to the Taleju temple in Hanuman Dhokā), 11. 4-6: prativarșa- bhadrakṛṣṇāṣṭamyām mārgakṛṣṇāṣṭamyām phālgunakṛṣṇāṣṭamyām ca dānapatrasya yathālipi sāmagribhiḥ thāpūjām kārayitum kantipuramahānagarabhubhāgāntargatasattrimsottarapamcāśat 536

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

367

Siddhilakṣmi, 47 Guhyakālī, and Tripurasundari. Each of these four is an independent pan- Indian Saiva deity with her own ritual system; 48 and for each there survive Paddhatis for personal worship. But here their cults are combined to form a larger structure. This in turn subsumes certain other deities of special significance to the palace, such as the Durgās Tumbeśvari, Ugracaṇḍā and Māneśvarī, and, in certain contexts, the aniconic goddess Duyinimaju/Dumāju. It is also the basis of Paddhatis for the worship of yet other deities.

49

I propose that this came about in response to the accumulation of the goddesses of successive dynasties, that when a new dynasty came to power the palace priests integrated its goddess with those already in worship in the royal temples, creating a composite Paddhati for this purpose.

The evidence for this falls far short of enabling a chronology but it does support the hypothesis of the historical process. The worship of the four goddesses is divided in the Paddhatis into two segments called the paścimadegulipūjā and the uttaradegulipūjā. The meaning of these Newari terms is ‘worship of the western tutelary deities’ and ‘worship of the northern tutelary deities’. Now Kubjikā is worshipped in the first and Siddhilakṣmi, Guhyakāli and Tripurasundari in the second. The sense of the reference to the cardinal points is that in the classification of Śākta systems that was current among the Newars and elsewhere in the subcontinent Kubjikā is the goddess of the Western Transmission (paścimāmnāyaḥ, paścimānvayaḥ), while Siddhilakṣmī and Guhyakāli are the goddesses of the Northern Transmission (uttarāmnāyaḥ, uttarānvayaḥ). When the worship of Tripurasundari is classified within this schema it is generally in late texts of its own tradition that seek to present it as the culmination of all the others and so classify it as the Transmission of the Zenith (urdhvāmnāyaḥ), though an earlier tradition seen in the Cinciṇīmatasārasamuccaya, a secondary, syncretistic scripture of the

of the Western Transmission, had classified the cult of the Nityās, a system that prefigures the classical, as that of the Southern Transmission. 50 Here it is tagged on, as it were, without a separate

mūriparimitakṣetram sakusodakam samkalpya samarpitam asti ‘Land within the capital Kantipura [= Kathmandu] measuring 536 Mūris has been given with the formula of intent and with kuśa grass and water to enable a thāpūjā to be performed with all necessary materials, as specified in the document that records the donation, every year on the 8th days of the dark fortnights of the months Bhadrapada, Māgha and Phalguna’; and no. 80, concerning the same temple, recording a land-grant to fund two annual ṭhāpūjā, on the 8th of the bright fortnight of Bhadrapada and the 5th of the same of Aśvina. This provides textual confirmation of the account of this kind of pūjā given by VERGATI (1995, 115-116) on the basis of anthropological enquiry in Bhaktapur as periodic acts of pūjā established by the Malla kings with donations of land to pay for them.

The pucha (Skt. pavitrārohaṇam) is the annual expiatory offering of threads to the deities, and the dhavamchā (Skt. damanārohaṇam) is the annual expiatory offering of the parts of the fragrant-leafed Artemisia Indica plant (damanaḥ, damanakah), though it appears from our lexicographers of Classical and Modern Newari that the plant offered by the Newars is camomile; see TAMOT 2000, s.v. dhavamchā, dhavanasvāna and MANANDHAR 1986, s.v. dhavaḥ, dhavaḥsvāā.

47. Siddhilakṣmi is identical in Mantra and iconography with the Siddhalakṣmi of the Kashmirian tradition.

48. See SANDERSON 1988: 682-690 (1990 repr.: 150-158).

49. See, e.g., Talejusake thāpūjā yāya vidhiḥ; Tulajādīpadānapūjāvidhi (Talejusake matāpūjāvidhi); Uttarāmnāyapavitrārohaṇavidhi, Pratyangirapaddhati; Tumbesvarīpūjāpaddhati; Navarātrapūjā; Tulajāthāpūjāvidhi (in text: śrī 2 jayabhūpatīndramalladevanatayā thāpūjā); Tulajācūlikāsthāpanavidhi, Revantamahābhairavapūjāvidhi. The last three of these are the texts of installation ceremonies in which the client/sponsor (vajamānaḥ) is King Jayabhupatindramalla (r. 1696–1722) of the kingdom of Bhaktapur.

50. Cinciṇīmatasārasamuccaya, ff. 17v9-20r8. The goddess here is called Kāmeśvarī and Tripurā and she has a retinue consisting of eleven [Nitya] goddesses (Hṛllekha, Kledinī, Nandā, Kṣobhiṇī, Madanāturā, Nirañjanā, Rāgavati, Madanavatī, Khakalā, Drāviņi and Vegavati) and Kāmadeva. The same

368

Alexis SANDERSON

identity, as an annex of the ‘worship of the northern tutelary deity’ (uttaradegulipūjā), so as not to disrupt the balance of the established structure of the complementary co-existence of the western and northern traditions. 51

The proposal that these western and northern goddesses are worshipped side by side because those of one dynasty have been added to those of another is encouraged by remarks in the Parātantra, a short scripture of 582 verses which gives every appearance of being a product of the Kathmandu valley. There are many manuscripts of it in that region and no evidence that it was known outside it. Furthermore, the system of goddess worship that it teaches is seen only in the Paddhatis of the Newars.

It is primarily concerned with the deities of the Northern Transmission, their Mantras and worship, but it embeds this matter in a treatment of a larger artificial schema of six Transmissions, those of the four cardinal points, the zenith and the nadir. The deities assigned to the east and south are Pūrṇeśvarī and Niśeśvarī, goddesses that have no place in the Saiva tradition outside this context, appearing to my knowledge only here and in the Newars’ Paddhatis. 52 It may well be that they were created artificially to fill these two positions in the schema and it is perhaps an indication of this that their cults are said by the Parātantra to be current in the concentric continents (dvīpaḥ) beyond the oceans that surround the known world, Pūrṇeśvarī in Plakṣadvipa and Kuśadvipa, and Niśeśvarī in Śākadvīpa and Puskaradvīpa. 53 No such imagined geography is invoked in the treatments of the other goddesses of the transmissions, who are all deities of mainstream traditions that were well-established in Nepal and beyond.

To the zenith (ūrdhvāmnāyaḥ) is assigned Tripurasundarī, and to the nadir (adha- āmnāyaḥ) the Buddhist Tantric goddess Vajrayogini, a deity that was of major importance in the Saiva-Buddhist culture of the Kathmandu valley, as the antiquity and popularity of her temple at Sankhu attest. 54 The text is explicit about her Buddhist identity and this is what justifies her position at the nadir. She is included because she was a major goddess

system of deities is that of the scripture Nityakaula; see f. 2r7-2v1. The Cincinīmatasārasamuccaya refers to the systems assigned to the cardinal points as amnāyaḥ, as in other sources; but it also calls them houses (gharam) and gharāmnāyaḥ. Thus, f. 15r7: punar anyam pravakṣyāmi …caturṇām ghara-m- āmnāyām avatāram prthak prthak ‘I shall teach you another matter…the descent among men of the four Gharāmnāyas, each separately.’ ghara-m-āmnāyām is for correct Sanskrit gharāmnāyānām.

51. Talejusake thāpūjā yāya vidhiḥ, f. 4v3: tato uttara siddhilakṣmīguhyakālītripurasundarīpūjanam. 52. Parātantra 1.55ab: pūrṇeśvarī mahogrā sā *pūrvāmnāyā (Cod. [f. 5r5-6]: pūrvāmnāya Ed.) prakīrtitā; 2.1a, 1d, 2d: dakṣiņāmnāya vakṣyāmi … *niśeśī (corr.: niśyeśī Cod. and Ed.) ca *nirargalā (conj. nirangalā Cod. and Ed.) …niśeśī raktacarcikā. In the Paddhatis see, e.g., Tulajadipadāna- pūjāvidhi f. 185r: ekā mūrtir anekadhā trijagatī pūrṇeśvarī vāsave/ bhūteśī gaganopamā bhagavatī niseśvarī daksine.

52. Parātantra 1.71cd (on Pūrṇeśvasrī): plakṣadvīpe kuśadvīpe bahudhā ca tadanvagāḥ ‘She has many followers in Plakṣadvipa and Kuśadvīpa’; 2.25bc (on Niśeśvarī): sarvasādhakasiddhidā / śākapuṣkaradvīpesu ‘bestowing Siddhi on all her Sadhakas in Śakadvipa and Puṣkaradvipa’. I take the reading tadanvagāḥ to be meant as equivalent to tadanugaḥ, a barbarism that could easily be removed by emending to tadanvayaḥ. However, cf. 1.61ab: iṣṭatvena ca sampūjyā sarve tasyānugāḥ smṛtāḥ.

53. On her cult in Nepal and its role in linking exoteric deities both Buddhist (Prajñāpāramitā) and Śaiva (Durga) with the deities of esoteric Buddhism see ZANEN 1986 and GELLNER 1992, 256. The local Nepālamāhātmya gives the Saiva angle on the ambiguity of Vajrayogini by making her a form of Parvati, having Parvati favour the Buddha by appearing to him in that form (1.59): tapasyām kurvatas tasya buddhasya girijā tadā / tuṣṭā babhūva prakaṭā nāmnā sā vajrayogini ‘When the Buddha was engaged in asceticism Pārvati was delighted and appeared to him under the name Vajrayogini’. The Parātantra calls her Śābarī Prajñāpāramitā (6.1b: *śābarī [em. : sāvarī Cod. f. 15v6: savali Ed.] jinamātṛkā), which may mean ’the Prajñāpāramitā of [the Siddha] Sabara[pāda]’, since Sabara was associated with the Sadhana of this goddess; see ENGLISH 2002, 8, 360, 367-368.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

369

among the Newars both Buddhist and Śaiva, but in the point of view of the latter her Buddhist background means that she can be acknowledged only in an inferior position, as able to bestow quick rewards in this life but not liberation. 55 The deities assigned to the west are Kubjikā and Navātmanātha and to the north Siddhilakṣmi and Guhyakāli, the first under her name Pratyangira. 56 This is exactly as in the Paddhatis’ arrangement of the complementary tutelaries, and while the assigning of Kubjikā and her consort to the west is not distinctively Newar, that of the combination of Siddhilakṣmi and Guhyakālī is. Moreover, the iconography of the deities of both transmissions given in the Paratantra agrees with that seen both in the Newars’ Paddhatis and in their religious art. 57

The Paratantra, then, is almost certainly a product of the Newar community of the Kathmandu valley. It is therefore of great significance to the analysis of the Newars’ bicentric Paddhatis that it associates the Western and Northern Transmissions that constitute those two centres with distinct royal lineages and that it does so in their case alone. It tells us that Kubjikā is the lineage goddess (kuladevi) of the kings that are descended from the Moon (Somavamśin) and that Siddhilakṣmi (Pratyangira) is the tutelary goddess (iṣṭadevi) of those who are descended from the Sun (Suryavamsin). 58

55. Paratantra 6.1d-2a: kalau sighraphalaprada bauddhamarge ‘bestowing quick results in the Buddhist religion during the Kaliyuga’; 6.6c-7b: saugatānugamā sākṣāt kalau śīghraphalaprada / ihaiva phalada nityam (corr.: nitya Ed.) nāpavargaphalapradă ‘Followed by the devotees of the Buddha, quickly bestowing manifest results in the Kaliyuga, always bestowing results in this life but not granting the reward of liberation’.

56. In the sequence of Patalas 1 to 6, in which one Patala is devoted to each of the six goddesses of the transmissions, the goddess of the northern, the subject of Patala 4, is Guhyakālī. But in the long seventh Patala, in which this transmission is singled out for further treatment, this identity expands to the pair Siddhilakṣmi (Pratyangira) and Guhyakāli.

57. One of the rooms in the Art Museum in Bhaktapur contains scroll paintings on cloth (Skt. paṭaḥ [→ Tib. than ka], Newari paubāhāā) of all these deities. On the left wall is a painting of a form of the white dancing Navātmanātha embracing the red Kubjikā and another which shows the three goddesses of the uttaradegulipūjā in a row: the red four-armed, one-faced Tripurasundari seated in the lotus-posture on a prostrate Sadasiva, the black nine-faced, fifty-four-armed Guhyakālī dancing on a prostrate Bhairava, and the ten-armed, five-faced white Siddhilakṣmi seated on Rudra. On the far wall as one enters is a large and very finely executed painting of the white Siddhilakṣmi in her cosmic form (viśvarūpā), with eighteen fully depicted arms in the foreground and countless others in circuits behind and thirteen faces in the lowest of eight diminishing tiers. I claim no skill in such matters, but in style all three paintings appear to me to belong to a time before the eighteenth century. Elsewhere in the museum is a painting of Guhyakali with the goddess Siddhilakṣmi in the upper left corner and Tripurasundari in the upper right. None of these images is correctly identified in the legends attached to their frames, a fact that underlines the esoteric nature of such knowledge: the educated public of Bhaktapur is generally unable to identify such deities.

58. Parātantra 3.23d-25b: kubjikā cakranāyikā angiraḥsādhitā vidyā dakṣāya pratipădită / nahuṣāya tato *datta (corr.: dattva Ed. and Cod.) tatas candranvayaya ca parthivānām ca saumyānām kuladevīti kīrtitā …Kubjikā, Leader of the Wheel. [Her] Mantra, which had been mastered by Angiras, was taught [by him] to Dakṣa. It was then given to Nahuṣa and thence to the [kings of the] lineage of the moon. It is declared to be the family goddess of the lunar kings’; 7.58c-61b (Cod. f. 22v5-23rl): *pratyangira (Cod. tyangirā Ed.) mahākālī mokṣasaubhāgyadāyinī / 59 nānayā sadṛśī vidya vidyate bhuvanodare / rājyadā dhanadā mokṣadātrī kaivalyadāyinī / 60 *tenāstrena (Cod. : tenāstave Ed.) ca rāmena rāvano vinipätitaḥ / tadaprabhṛti să devī *suryavamsanrpesvaraiḥ (em.: suryavamsā nṛpeśvarāḥ Cod.) 61 istatvena ca sampūjyā *sarve (corr.: sarvva Cod.) *tasyānugāḥ smṛtāḥ (conj.: tasyānugāśritā) ‘The Great Kāli Pratyangira bestows the bliss of liberation. There is no Vidya in the worlds equal to this. She bestows sovereignty, wealth, liberation and transcendence. It was with this as his weapon that Rāma slew Rāvana. From that time forward she has been worshipped by the kings of the solar dynasty[, who

370

Alexis SANDERSON

Two dynasties claiming descent from the Sun ruled in the Kathmandu valley. The first is that of the Licchavis, known to us from dated inscriptions from A.D. 456/7 (Mānadeva) to 733 (Jayadeva). The second is that of the Mallas, who ruled from 1200 until they were conquered in the second half of the seventeenth century by Pṛthivinārāyaṇ Śāh, the first king of the non-Newar dynasty that has occupied the throne of Nepal down to the present. 59 The solar kings in the mind of the redactor of the Paratantra were no doubt these Mallas, since the text contains several indications that it is unlikely to have been written before the fifteenth century. 60 That Siddhilakṣmī was their tutelary goddess is supported by other evidence. King Jitāmitramalla (r. 1673-1696) of Bhaktapur composed an esoteric hymn to her, the Siddhilakṣmīmantrayantroddhārādistotra, 61 in which he presents the goddess in terms that accord well with this hypothesis. When he explains how to form her Mantra for the purpose of repeated recitation (japah) he identifies the reciter as the king, 62 a restriction I have seen in no other Paddhati. He also intends his hymn to be used by his descendants. For he tells us that by reciting it kings will achieve success (Siddhi), bringing about contentment among their ministers and destroying the lineages of

are Rama’s descendants,] as their personal goddess. It is tradition that all of them are her devotees’. The last two lines (60c-61b), containing her association with the solar kings, are lacking in the edition.

59. The Licchavis’ claim to be kings of the lineage of the sun is made in Jayadeva’s Pasupati inscription of Samvat 157 (A.D. 733), vv. 3-14 (Dh. VAJRACARYA 1973, 548-550): 3 suryad brahma- pautrān manur atha bhagavāñ janma lebhe tato bhūd ikṣvākuś cakravarti nṛpatir api tataḥ śrīvikukṣir babhūva …5cd śrīmattungarathas tato dasarathaḥ putrais ca pautrais samam rājño ṣṭāv aparān vihāya parataḥ śrīmān abhul licchaviḥ …7cd sardham bhūpatibhis tribhiḥ kṣitibhṛtām tyaktvāntare vinśatim khyātaḥ śrījayadevanāmanṛpatiḥ prādurbabhūvāparaḥ …. It is made for the Mallas in the epithets that precede their names in all their inscriptions and in many manuscript colophons that mention a Malla as the reigning king.

60. It names the East-Indian Mahavidyā goddesses Dakṣiṇakālī, Ugratārā, Chinnamastā, Bagalamukhi and Nīlasarasvati in its coverage of the Southern Transmission (1.18d-20a). It also speaks of the cult of Tripurasundarī as having two forms, one following the counter-brahmanical practice (vāmācāraḥ) and the other the brahmanical (dakṣinācāraḥ), and identifies the latter as that of the Sannyasins (bhikṣūnām) (5.43ab: vāmadakṣiṇayāgena sundari dvividhā matā and 5.44cd: dakṣiṇācārayāgena bhikṣūṇām paramā smṛtā). This expurgated form of the worship of Tripurasundarī is the hallmark of the tradition of the Sannyasin Sankarācāryas. The earliest evidence that the Sannyasins of that tradition were receiving patronage in the Kathmandu valley is in the reign of Ratnamalla (c. 1484- 1530); see MICHAELS 1994, 116 ff. See also the copper-plate inscription of 1635/6 from the Jagannatha temple in the Hanuman Dhoka palace square in Kathmandu (G. VAJRACARYA 1976, no. 10), which names a number of Dasanāmasannyāsins of this order.

61. Comprising 42 verses in the Vasantatilaka and Sragdharā metres it gives the visualization, the Mantra (the navākṣarī vidyā: OM HRIM HÜM HAM PHREM KṢOM KROM NAMAH), the design of the Yantra, and the deities and their positions within it. It may have been transmitted independently. The colophon (f. 44r6-7): iti śrīmanmahārājādhirājataraṇikulakīrtigangābhagīrathāyamānanṛpativṛndavanditacaraṇa-

kamalaśrīśrīsumatijayajitāmitramalladevaviracitam śrīsiddhilakṣmīmantrayantroddhārādistotram samā- ptam [This] Hymn in which inter alia the Mantra and Yantra of Siddhilakṣmi have been brought forth, which has been composed by Mahārājādhirāja Śrī 2 Sumatijayajitāmitramalladeva, who is a Bhagiratha to the Ganges that is the fame of the Solar Dynasty, whose lotus-feet have been venerated by a multitude of kings, has come to its end’.

62. F. 43r1: mantrasya murdhni ruciram pranavam nidhaya cainam japen nṛpavaro namasă hi yuktam lakṣmīḥ sthira bhavati tasya gṛheṣu nityam vāgdevatā vasati tadvadanaravinde ‘Having placed a glowing OM at the head of the Mantra the foremost among kings should repeatedly recite it with NAMAḤ [at its end]. Prosperity will endure in his palaces and the goddess of [eloquent and learned] speech will be constantly present in the lotus of his mouth’.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

371

their enemies. 63 It was probably intended to be incorporated into the Paddhati of Siddhilakṣmi’s worship, and it is indeed in this context that it has been transmitted.

Confirmation of her role as the personal deity of the Malla kings appears in the Paddhati for Navaratrapūjā in the autumnal royal festival of Dasain. For there Siddhilakṣmi is identified unambiguously as Rājamantrabhaṭṭārikā-Siddhilakṣmi ‘Siddhilakṣmi, the Goddess of the King’s Mantra’. 64

The importance of this goddess to the kings of Nepal is underlined by evidence of her having been linked with Pasupatinatha, the premier Śiva of Nepal, venerated far beyond its borders and acknowledged as their patron by the kings of the realm from the time of Amsuvarman in the sixth century down to the present. 65 For she is or has become the esoteric identity of Vatsalādevī, a goddess on the bank of the Bagmati river below the entrance to the temple of Pasupatinatha. The benedictory verse of a stele inscription of 1412/3 in the courtyard of that temple describes her as his consort, 66 and this relationship is also enacted in her annual festival. 67 The Nepalese chronicles (Vamśāvalī) of the post- Malla period record a tradition that the eighth-century Licchavi king Śivadeva acknowledged this goddess as the principal deity of the realm, establishing an annual human sacrifice and a public car-procession in her honour, adding that when five generations later the king attempted to suppress these sacrifices he was prevented from doing so by divine intervention. 68

That Siddhilaksṣmi is or became the liturgical identity of this goddess is certain. Her processional image has not been observed in detail, but it has been seen to conform to the

63. F. 44r2: ādau gurum kalaya rāvam amum nṛpānām siddhipradam vividhamantrisukhākaram ca; f. 44r4-5: stotram caitan nṛpānām ripukulaśamanam.

64. The context is the rites of the eighth day (Mahāṣṭami). After setting up and worshipping first the royal sword (khadgasthapanam) and then two vessels for the kalaśapūjā of Amṛteśabhairava and the kumbhapūjā of Vāruṇī, the priest is to do the worship of the paścimadeguli followed by that of the uttaradeguli. The Paddhati for the latter begins (Navaratrapūjā, f. 5r6): śrī 3 rājamantra- bhaṭṭārikāśrīsiddhilakṣmīdevārcanam kārayet. siddhilakṣmīdeguli yāya ‘He should [now] perform the worship of Siddhilakṣmi, the most sacred Goddess of the King’s Mantra. He should do [the rite of] the tutelary Siddhilakṣmi’; it ends (f. 5v5): thvate siddhilakṣmīdeguli samāpta ‘This [rite of] the tutelary Siddhilakṣmi has been completed’. It is followed by those of Guhyakāli (with the Mantras taught in the Parātantra) and Tripurasundari, with the addition of a pūjā to the goddess Kaumārī, associated with the worship of nine female children (kumārī) and two young boys that will take place the next morning (Mahānavami). For a detailed account of the worship of these children (as personifications of Ugracaṇḍā, her eight subordinate goddesses, Gaṇeśa and Bhairava) performed by the king, or rather the brahmin priest who nowadays must take his place, the other priests of the Taleju temple, and the descendants of the Malla kings see LEVY 1990, 540 ff. This addition of the pūjā of the goddess Kaumārī is an example of how while personal Śaiva worship is relatively free of syncretistic pressures, the liturgies of such royal priests must be adaptable in order to accomplish their engagement with the civic religion and its calendrical variety.

65. As soon as Amsuvarman began to publish edicts in his own name, after doing so in the name of his father-in-law Śivadeva, he assumed the epithet bhagavatpasupatibhaṭṭārakapādānugṛhītaḥ or bhagavatpasupatibhaṭṭārakapādānudhyātaḥ ‘favoured by the feet of the Revered Lord Pasupati’. The earliest of these edicts (Dh. VAJRACARYA 1973, no. 71) is dated in Samvat 29 of his era (= A.D. 595).

66. Inscription of Jyotirmalla, v. 1 (TANDAN 1999, 122): śrīśrīnepālakhande sakalamalahare *vyāpinam (conj.: vyāpitam Ed.) puṇyabhūmau *sambhum (em.: sambhu Ed.) śrīvatsaleśam parama- pasupatim pañcavaktram *surūpam (conj.: svarūpam Ed.) …naumi ‘I praise the beautiful five-faced Sambhu, supreme Pasupati, the lord of holy Vatsalā, who pervades the sacred land of Nepal that removes all impurity…”.

67. MICHAELS 1984.

68. LÉVI 1905-8, 2:124-125; WRIGHT 1877, 126.

372

Alexis SANDERSON

iconography of Siddhilakṣmi in being five-faced and ten-armed. This identification has been confirmed by the priests of her temple 69 and is placed beyond reasonable doubt by a visualization-text given for her worship in the Newari Paddhati literature. 70 That she should have two names, one esoteric and the other exoteric, is in no way surprising for a goddess such as this whose cult extends into the domain of the civic religion. The same is the case in Patan (Lalitapattana), which has the temple of a Siddhilakṣmī known as Pūrṇacandi" who is worshipped there as their tutelary deity by a section of the Limbus and Rais calling themselves Kirantis, the name which the chronicles gave to the earliest rulers of the Kathmandu valley. 72

The kings of the lunar dynasty said by the Paratantra to have had Kubjikā as their lineage goddess (kuladevi) cannot be identified. But they were no doubt understood by the composer or redactor of this scripture to be the immediate predecessors of the Mallas ruling during the tenth to twelfth centuries, an earlier date being less likely in the light of what we know of the time during which the cult of Kubjika was constituted and disseminated. Epigraphical evidence for Nepal during those centuries is extremely sparse and the accounts of the late local chronicles are unreliable. But although those sources are of limited value as sober history they at least reveal a model of dynastic alternation that is relevant to the present issue. For in their account a dynasty of five lunar kings was followed by the solar Licchavis; those were followed by a series of lunar kings that they call the Thakurīs; and these gave way in their turn to the solar Mallas. 73 Nepalese manuscripts of texts pertaining to the worship of Kubjikā, unlike those pertaining to the cults of Siddhilakṣmi or Guhyakāli, do survive from the period before the Mallas. We have a Laghvikāmnāya manuscript of 1037/8 and at least four manuscripts of the Kubjikāmata extending from some time during the reign of the Pāla king Rāmapāla (c. 1072-1126) to 1179.7

69. MICHAELS 1984, 112-114 and 1994, 98.

70. Gajaśāntimahābalividhi, f. 58r: suryakoṭinibhā devī *rudrārūḍhā (corr.: rudrārūḍhām Cod.) vaśamkari (conj.: kasamkarau) / dasahastā maheśānī pañcavaktră (corr.: hasta maheśāni pañcavaktra Cod.) kiritini khadgatrisulavarada vajrakadyakhaṭvāngapa abhayakalada + ṣām† *trinetreyam virajate (conj.: trinetrayamtirăcată Cod.). This passage is too corrupt to yield all ten of the hand-attributes. But the sword, trident, two gestures, vajra, skull-cup, and Khaṭvānga are all held or shown by Siddhilakṣmī. If the crux in the penultimate Pāda conceals a vase (kalaśa-) or goad (ańkuśa), both are among her hand-attributes.

71. An inscription of 1636 A.D. refers to the goddess under both names: mai jagadambā siddhilakṣmi pūrṇacandi (GAIL 1988, 2:48). Another, in the wall of the temple, begins with a Sanskrit hymn to Siddhilakṣmi (*Siddhilakṣmistava) and refers to the temple as that of the donors’ tutelary goddess (sveṣṭadevi) Pūrṇacanḍī (11. 13-14: śrīmatsveṣṭasuresvarīti vidita yā pūrṇacandi pară…tatprāsādasya parā tu kṛtā jirnnoddhṛtir mudā).

72. VERGATI 1995, 154.

73. See LÉVI 1905, 2:83; REGMI 1965–66, 1:106.

74. These manuscripts are described in GOUDRIAAN and SCHOTERMAN 1988, 4-5, 6-7, 9-10 and 14. The dates given here for Ramapala’s reign are those cogently argued by D.C. SIRCAR (1976). For the alternatives that have been proposed, from 1057 for its commencement to 1132 for its end, see HUNTINGTON 1984, 29-37, where these are conveniently tabulated.

Who, then, is the mysterious goddess Taleju who has repeatedly been identified in the ethnographic literature and in the inscriptions as the tutelary deity (sveṣṭadevata) of the Malla kings-see, e.g., G. VAJRACARYA 1976, no. 28 recording a tulādānam by Cakravartindramalla in 1664 A.D. ‘for the pleasure of his iṣṭadevata, the Mother Taleju’: śrīśrīśrīsveṣṭadevatā-tarejumāju-prītina-and whose image, Mantra, and other esoteric aspects were concealed, we are told (e.g. LEVY 1990, 239-240), from all but the royal priests, the king and his male relatives? The Paddhatis for the worship of Taleju, in which one would expect to find a simple answer to this question, are puzzling at first sight, because they

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

Bali

373

Nor was eclectic syncretism limited to the Paddhatis of the subcontinent. It is also apparent in those of the Saiva brahmin priests (pědanda śiwa) of Bali and Lombok, inheritors of the traditions of pre-Islamic East Java. The Śaivism of those texts is a form of the Saiddhantika division of the Saiva Mantramarga, 75 but it contains elements of other traditions. Thus in the Adityahṛdayastava the deity, Śiva as the Sun (śivadityaḥ), is equated with Tumburu, the presiding deity of the Vamasrotas of the Saiva Mantramarga, accompanied “by Jaya and the others”, that is to say, by his four sisters Jayā, Vijayā, Jayanti/Ajitā and Aparajitā. 76 Similarly, Khadgarāvaṇa appears in the Balinese Saiva

do not mention her outside their titles, consisting of the worship of the sequence of the deities of the paścimadegulipūjā and the uttaradegulipūjā. I propose, therefore, that there is no Taleju over and above these deities and that she is either Kubjikā or Siddhilakṣmi, or both. If she is one of them to the exclusion of the other then Kubjikā is the most likely candidate. She and Navātmanātha stand at the head of the liturgies. Moreover, there is a shrine of Wanelāykū Taleju in the Tachapal ward of Bhaktapur (SLUSSER 1982, 320a) which is surely the Paścimamūlasthānabhaṭṭārikā (’the western goddess of the primary/ original site’) of Vanerājakule mentioned among the deities of this ward in the liturgy of the Pratyangirapaddhati, f. 29r-v: gaṇeśa tavacapāla. mantra pūrvavat. balim. vanerājakule. mantra. AIM 5 HSKSMLVRYÜM SHKṢMLVRYUM SRIPAŚCIMAMŪLASTHANABHAṬṬĀRIKĀ*YAI (corr.: ya Cod.) pādukām. 3. balim. bhīma tavacapal ….. For Newari lāykū (←Skt. rājakulam) means ‘royal palace’; there is no other goddess included for worship in that ward; and the names Paścimamūlasthānabhaṭṭāraka and Paścimamūlasthānabhaṭṭārikā are those under which Navātmanātha and Kubjikā/Samaya are addressed in the Mantras of the paścimadeguli; see, e.g, Pratyangirāpaddhati, f. 13r. The term mūlasthānam in these Mantras is used elsewhere in Saiva texts to mean the site of the primary or original installation of the deity of a temple. This fits the theory that Kubjikā is the earliest of the two principal royal goddesses and/or the main deity of the Taleju temples. For the latter sense one may compare such terms as mūlācārya for the chief priest of the temple.

On the other hand we have seen that Siddhilakṣmi is known as the Goddess of the King’s Mantra and this strongly suggests that the name Taleju was also applied to her, because the secret Tantric knowledge of the king is identified as that of Taleju in the narrative literature. Furthermore, the Parātantra speaks of the 290-syllable Vidya of Pratyangirā (Siddhilakṣmi) as having come down through a line of transmission in an account (7.48-59) that strongly resembles the legend of the transmission of Taleju’s Yantra written by a brahmin of Bhaktapur who works as a public storyteller summarized by LEVY (1990: 234-241). As with the Yantra of Taleju, the Pratyangira is acquired by Rāvaṇa, the demon king of Lanka (7.50). Later it is given to Rāma on the banks of the Sarayu river so that he can use it to defeat Rāvana (7.53c-54 reading daśonā triśatākṣarī with the manuscript in 54d) but the Mantra so far revealed is defective, having 300 syllables in its perfect state. In the modern storyteller’s narrative Rāma acquires Taleju’s Yantra by defeating Rāvana and takes it to Ayodhya. The goddess instructs him in a dream to throw it into the river Sarayu, which flows past Ayodhya, because its worship would be defective after his death. Here the narratives part company, the Newari legend introducing the solar king Nānyadeva, who is said to have rescued it from the river, and his descendant Harisimhadeva who is said to have brought it to Bhaktapur, whose Taleju temple is believed to be the first in the valley. But this ‘history’ from the time of Nanyadeva and Harisimhadeva, both Maithila kings known from inscriptions, could not have been included in the Paratantra, because its presence would have contradicted its claim to scriptural status by showing that its composer postdated figures of relatively recent times. Further, the same text distinguishes, as we have seen, between Kubjikā as a lineage goddess (kuladevī) and Siddhilakṣmi as a tutelary or chosen goddess (istadevī); and Taleju is referred to in the inscriptions as the iṣṭadevi of the Malla kings. It is probable, then, that the name Taleju was applied to both goddesses and either, according to context. But further research into the Paddhatis may shed clearer light on this issue.

75. Old Javanese siddhānta, śaiwasiddhānta, śiwapakṣa, śaiwapakṣa, śiwaśāsana. See ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v.

76. HOOYKAAS 1966, 118: KṢAN KṢIN KṢEN KṢUN jayādibhir anugatatanum tumburutryakṣarāngam. This would make better sense if we read tumburum tryakṣarāngam: ‘Tumburu, embodied in the tri-

374

Alexis SANDERSON

ritual for the preparation of consecrated water. " This is a Rudra of the Śaiva Bhūtatantras of the exorcistic Paścimasrotas division of the Mantramārga. 78

We also find an element of the more ancient Saivism of the Pasupata Atimārga in the pañcakuśika or pañca ṛṣi, the five sages Kuśika/Mahākuśika, Gārga/Garga, Metri/Maitri, Kurusya, and Pātañjala/Pṛtañjala/Pratañjala, who were venerated by the ascetics of the Javanese Rși sect, distinguished in Old Javanese sources from both the Saivas and the Buddhists. These are put into correspondence with the constituents of the human body in a Balinese priest’s detailed comment on the Saiva Paddhati presented by Hooykaas. 79 That they are the hallmark of the Rși denomination is clear from the Old Javanese Kunjarakarṇa, since that teaches that the pañcakuśika are to the Ṛsi sect what the five Tathāgatas are to the Mahāyāna Buddhists and the five deities to the Saivas 80 setting out the correspondences between sets of five in the three denominations (tripakṣa) as follows: (1) Mahākuśika/Kusika = Akṣobhya Rudra; (2) Gārga/Garga = Ratnasambhava =

=

Brahmā; (3) Maitri/Metri = Amitabha =

Amitabha = Maheśvara; (4) Kurusya Viṣṇu; and (5) Pātañjala/Pratañjala = Vairocana = Śiva. 81

=

Amoghasiddhi

The first four are known from Indian sources as the disciples of Śiva in his Lakulīśa incarnation, and are remembered as the originators of the four teaching lineages (Gotras)

syllable, his form accompanied by Jaya and the others [in the syllables] KṢAN KṢIN KŞEN and KṢUN’. In Javanese usage the “trisyllable” (tryakṣaram) is the syllable OM (pranavaḥ), seen as comprising A, U and MA; see in the Sanskrit and Old Javanese Jñanasiddhanta 26.11cd: a-u-ma tryakṣaram samkhyam tryakṣaram pranavam smṛtam; also 8.9b: omkāram tryakṣaram tyajet; 16.6ab; 18.8cd; 26.10d. See also ibid., p. 74 in the chapter san hyan praṇavajñāna kamokṣan ‘Liberation through the knowledge of the holy Pranava’: nāma san hyan omkāra praṇava viśva ghoṣa ekākṣara tumburu tryakṣarānga ‘The names of the holy sound OM are Praṇava, Viśva, Ghoșa, the Monosyllable, Tumburu embodied as the Trisyllable’. Not understanding the reference to these deities HOOYKAAS (1966, 119) took KṢAN KṢIN KṢEŃ KṢUŃ jayādibhir anugatatanum to mean “[whose body is followed by [the syllables] kṣam kṣim kṣem kṣum and [the exclamation] Victory and so forth”, missing the reference to the goddesses, and tumburutryakṣarāngam to mean “whose body consists of the three syllables tum-bu-ru”. For these deities, whose worship was also current among the Khmers, since it was the basis of the state-cult of the Kamraten Jagat ta Raja/Rajya (Devarāja) founded c. 800, see, e.g., Viņāśikha 94-118; Devyāmata, f. 40r1-2: *tumburuḥ (corr.: .um.uru Cod.) sa sadaśivaḥ/ divyavastraparīdhāno nānābharaṇabhuṣitaḥ / jaya ca vijaya caiva jayanti cāparājitā dūtibhiḥ kimkaraiḥ sārddham samvṛtas *tumburuh (corr.: tumburum Cod.) sthitaḥ / divyarupāḥ (corr.: divyarupā Cod.) sulavanya bhuktimuktiphalapradāḥ / saumyarupo *mahādevaḥ (em.: mahāde Cod.) krīḍate sa jayādibhiḥ; f. 40r3-3: *jayadyaḥ (corr.: jayādyā Cod.) kimkarā dūtyās tumburuś ca mahādyutiḥ/ vāmasrotākhyataś caiva vāmavaktrād *viniḥsṛtāḥ (corr.: vinisṛtā Cod.); Netratantra, Pațala 11. For the evidence of this cult in Java see GOUDRIAAN 1973.

77. See HooYKAAS 1974, 54.

78. His Mantra and rites (mantravidhānam) are taught in the Khadgarāvaṇakalpa of the scripture Kriyākālagunottara, ff. 42v4-47v1. In the non-scriptural literature of the Paddhatis of Kerala we find Khadgarāvaṇa and his Mantra in the 13th chapter (grahadhvamsapatalah) of the Tantrasarasamgraha, alias Viṣanārāyaṇīya, of Nārāyaṇa of Sivapuram (15th century) and in the Īsānasivagurudevapaddhati (the Siddhantasära of Iśānaśivagurudeva), Mantrapāda, Pūrvārddha, Paṭala 41.

79. HOOYKAAS 1966, 135 (pañca-ṛṣi: Kusika, Garga, Metri, Kurusya, Pṛtañjala).

80. Kunjarakarna 23, 1/2 (cited in SOEBADIO 1971, 55, n. 182): sogata pañcabuddha ṛṣi pañca kuśika wiku śaiwa pañcaka ’the five Tathāgatas of the Buddhists, the pañcakusika of the Rṣis, and the pentad of the Saivas’; Kuñjarakarna 23, 1/3-4/3. Cf. Tantu Panggelaran 76.3 cited in ZOETMULDER 1982 s.v. pañcakuśika (Kuśika, Garga, Metri, Kurusya, Pratañjala); Nawaruci 64.5 cited ibid. (pañcarṣi: Kusika, Garga, Metri, Kurusya, Prětañjala).

81. Kunjarakarna cited in SOEBADIO 1971, 55-56, notes 182 and 186.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

375

of the Pañcarthika Pāśupatas 82 and commonly seated around him in sculptural representations. 83 The fifth in the Javanese pentad might be thought to be Patanjali, the founder of the Yoga system, though Pātañjala, if that is the original form, would rather denote a follower or descendant of that sage. But it seems hardly convincing as a name, which is what we require in this context; and we can have little faith in it when we see that the variant Pṛtañjala or Pratañjala is widely attested. 84 It is more probable that Pātañjala is an attempt to substitute sense for a corrupt reading Pṛtañjala than that the latter is a corruption of the former. Perhaps what is concealed here is an ancient corruption of a name of Agastya. For the sage Agastya was widely worshipped in Java 85 and he is famous in brahmanical mythology for having drunk all the waters of the ocean. Possibly, then, the original name was *Pītañjala ‘He who drank the waters’. 86

It might be urged against this hypothesis that the correspondences in the Kunjarakarṇa show that this figure, whoever he was, was seen by the author of that text as the highest of the five, since he is equated there with Vairocana, the highest of the five Tathāgatas, and with Śiva, the highest of the five deities of the Saivas, and that therefore we should expect rather a name for Lakulīśa himself, since no-one else could reasonably be seen as their senior. But there is the alternative that the poet’s correspondences are superficial and that Agastya or some other sage concealed behind the transmitted name has merely been added at the end of the established Pasupata list to enhance his status in a Pasupata environment. That this is so is strongly suggested by the position of the name and by the fact that the four that precede it are ordered with the seniormost in first position, since Kusika was venerated by the Pasupatas as the first of Lakulisa’s disciples. 87

But whatever the origin of the fifth name the tradition is old. For the five sages are found in this form among the powers invoked as divine witnesses in the imprecation formulas of Old Javanese charters from 860 onwards. 88 They also appear in the cosmogony of the purwabhumi prayer in the Saiva liturgy of the priests of the Tengger in

82. In the original Skandapurāṇa, ed. Bhaṭṭarāī, 167.127-143 these four are Kausika, Gārgya, Mitra and Kaurusya. In Lingapurāṇa 1.131 they are Kuśika, Garga, Mitra and Kaurusya. In the Cintra Prasasti of A.D. 1287 from Somnāthpattan/Prabhāsa (EI 1:32, v. 16-17b) they are Kuśika, Gārgya, Maitreya and Kauruṣa.

83. For illustrations of Lakulīša surrounded by his four disciples see, e.g., MEISTER 1984, plates 83- 84, 88-92, 108-110, 117, 124-125, 127, 129–130.

84. See, here, notes 79-80 and 89; also the text of the Balinese pemangku temple-priest’s prayer in STUART-FOX 2002, 170: kurusya maka-pulacek, pratanjala maka-padma, sang hyang kaki maka-puspa.

85. DE CASPARIS and MABBETT 1992, 312-313, following POERBATJARAKA 1926.

86. This tentative hypothesis supposes an irregular compound without reduction of the first member to its stem form (an aluk samāsaḥ) (= pītam jalam yena sa *pītañjalaḥ). For the myth of his drinking up the waters see, e.g., verses in the Kumbhakoṇam edition after Mahābhārata 12.202.11: agastyo ‘sau mahātejāḥ pātu taj jalam añjasā tatheti coktvā te devā munim ucur mudānvitāḥ/ trāyasva lokān viprarṣe jalam etat kṣayam naya / tatheti coktva bhagavān kālānalasamadyutiḥ/dhyāyañ jaladanivaham sa kṣaṇena papau jalam" “Let that radiant [sage] Agastya quickly drink that water”. Having agreed those gods were delighted and said to the sage: “Save the people, O brahmin sage; get rid of this water”. The Venerable [Agastya], who was as radiant as the fire of the aeon, agreed, and meditating on the mass of the water-devouring [*Vāḍava fire?] drank the water in an instant.’ This hypothesis would be less tentative if this epithet were found in place of the name Agastya in some Sanskrit source. I do not know of an instance. However, we do see the nearly synonymous Pītābdhi ‘He who drank the ocean’.

87. Pañcarthabhāṣya pp. 3-4.

88. ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v. pañcakuśika; see, e.g., the Poh Dulur copperplate inscription of A.D. 890 (BARRETT JONES 1984, 197-198), side B, 1. 4: kusika gargga metri *nurusya (sic Ed.) patanjala. They are also mentioned as witnesses in the Old Javanese Rāmāyaṇa of the eleventh century (24.155).376

Alexis SANDERSON

89

=

Skt.

East Java. There it is said that there first arose the goddess Umā (Umo Betari, Umābhaṭṭārikā) and then these five ‘gods’ (dewoto, Skt. devatā).

Now in this prayer the officiant is identified as a resi pujangga, which if we may judge by the use of this Old Javanese term (rși bhujangga) in Balinese religion, denotes members of a class of non-brahmin, commoner priests with lower status and function than the brahmin priests of Śiva (pědanda śiwa) but serving 93 per cent of the population. In Bali the rṣi bhujangga are members of the title-group sengguhu, which the brahmins rank as elevated Śūdra. 90 The element resi/rşi and the special position assigned to the five sages in this pūrwabhūmi text, which has its close parallel in the liturgies of the Balinese rěsi bujangga, 91 suggests that these priests too have their origin in the Rși sect. Its establishments appear from Old Javanese sources to have been located in isolated areas, of which the Tengger highlands above the court centres of Singhasari and Kadiri, are an outstanding example; and it appears that their beliefs and practice became closely entwined with popular religion, 92 as is the case with the rěsi bujangga of the Tengger and Balinese.

Considering the centrality of the founders of the Pañcarthika Pasupata lineages in their cosmogony text and the role of these sages in the imprecations of Old Javanese charters from the earliest period onwards, I offer the hypothesis that these non-brahmin priests inherit what remains of the earliest Śaivism in Java, that this derives from the Atimārgic (Pasupata) phase of the religion, that the Mantramārgic Siddhanta was introduced into Java at a later date, as it was, as we shall see, in Kambujadeśa, and that once this new tradition had been adopted by the courts and their brahmin officiants, the older system subsisted in a subordinate position among non-brahmin officiants, who survived in two roles. In the first, perhaps restricted to the courts and the core areas around them, they would have co-operated with brahmin priests as assistants and in that context been restricted to such functions as the invocation of lesser powers, as is the case among the Balinese rěsi bujangga in the nyepi, the annual day of silence, in which the brahmin pědanda śiwa make offerings to the high gods while at their side the rěsi bujangga make offerings to the demons, so protecting the island from their assaults during the coming year. 93 In the second they served in their own right as the priests of the majority of the population, as in Bali, or in remote rural areas such as the Tengger highlands as the only priests, where their survival reveals that though Śaivism may have flourished among the social elites in and around the court centres it had also established itself among the rural population, where it survived, as we can see in the purwabhumi liturgy with a core element of an older Pasupata or Pasupata-influenced tradition, one that was influential enough in Java to survive also in the exegesis of the high-status liturgy of the pĕdanda śiwa, albeit in an abstract schema in which it no longer has the exalted position originally assigned to it.

94

89. HEFNER 1985, 178, text and tr.: sira muah mijil kang ponco dewoto kongsi gargo mentri kuruso kang kalilan wong pritonjolo ‘Together they emerged the five gods / Kongsi, Gargo, Mentri, Kuruso, along with the Pritonjolo person(s)’. The pañcakuśika are called gods, as here, in the Old Javanese Parthayajña (40.10) (ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v. pañcakuśika).

90. HOOYKAAS 1974, 243; HOBART et al. 2001, 80-81 and 233, n. 30.

91. HEFNER 1985, 271-272.

92. SANTIKO 1995, 65.

93. HOOYKAAS 1974, 53; HEFNER 1985, 271.

94. ZOETMULDER reports that in Old Javanese (1982, s.v.) the Sanskrit term bhujanga is used for a brahmin or other person of clerical rank and notes that in the older texts “it often appears to be a younger brahman (student or disciple)”. Perhaps, then, it refers in the case of the term rşi bhujangga to the subordinate status of these priests. For the distinction between Atimārgic and Mantramārgic forms of Saivism see SANDERSON 1988.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

377

Thus while the liturgy of the Balinese is predominantly Saiddhāntika Śaiva it shows elements of the non-Saiddhāntika Mantramārgic traditions of the Vāmasrotas and Paścimasrotas and also of the archaic Atimārga. But the religious culture of the Javanese court of Majapahit, whose traditions the Balinese have inherited, was a Saiva-Buddhist coalition; and so we find that Buddhism too has been drawn into the redaction of the liturgy. For the last two of the eight goddesses of the eight fingers in the preliminary ritual of the cleansing of the hands (karaśuddhi) are Prajñādevī and Parimitādevī.95 These are surely created out of the Buddhists’ goddess Prajñāpārimitā as Prajñāpāramitā is known in later Old Javanese sources. 96 The other six are personifications of the four unlimited virtues or Brahmavihāras of Buddhism (upekṣā, karuṇā, muditā, maitrī) but with Sāntā taking the place of the fourth, together with the two brahmanical goddesses Lakṣmi and Sarasvati.

We see, then, that Saiva priests paid scant attention to the rule that a Paddhati must adhere closely to a single scriptural source. Pure Paddhatis of this kind were believed to exist for the personal worship of initiates, but when we look closely even they show admixture from disparate ritual systems. In the case of worship conducted by professional priests—and it is this class of ritualist that figures in the Khmer inscriptions we find that the needs and expectations of their clients have lead to thoroughly syncretistic developments in three independent cultural contexts. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to assume that Kambujadeśa was exceptional in this regard.

Indigenous Religion

A further limitation is imposed by the character of our evidence. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which would claim half the population of Southeast Asia during the age of commercial expansion in the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries, the religions of India that flourished in the region before this period demanded no radical rejection of existing cults. As the new religions were assimilated by the Khmers they were no doubt added to traditions of the kind we see today in the propitiation and mediation of the local Khmer spirits known as the neak ta, accommodating them through subordination in a manner similar to that seen with the nat and phi cults of Theravādin Burma and Thailand. 97 But the sources at our disposal do not allow us to see this substrate, reflecting as they do only the Indic high culture patronized by the ruling elite.

There are a few deities mentioned that may be pre-Indic. We have, for example, deities identified only by the pre-Angkorean title Kpoñ Kamratān Añ ‘My Venerable Lord/Lady’ and no name; 98 and there are a few more that are identified only by association, such as vraḥ kammratān añ tnal ’the god of the road’ (K. 910), vraḥ kammratān añ kammratān tem krom (K. 137, K. 600) ’the god of the Krom tree’, vrah kamratāñ thaiy luc ’the god of the west’ (K. 22), and vraḥ kammratāñ ai travan ver ’the god of the double pond’ (K. 22). Another, kpoň kammratān añ bha nāriyya (K. 107), has a non-Sanskrit name, and yet another, kpoñ kammratān añ śrī Senāmukhavijayā (K. 904 of

99

95. See HOOYKAAS 1966, 50.

96. See, e.g., Deśawarṇana 67.2, 69.1, 74.1 and Zoetmulder 1982, s.v. prajñāpāramitā.

97. On the neak ta see MABBETT and CHANDLER 1996, 107–124.

98. K. 600 of 612 A.D. from Angkor Borei; K. 790 (undated, seventh century); K. 910 of 651; Ka. 10 (NIC II-III, 186) (late pre-Angkorean).

99. CŒDÈS (K. 600, IC 2:23, n. 8) rejects the possibility that pre-Angkorean Khmer krom = mod. Khmer krom ‘below’, on the gounds that the latter was karom in Angkorean Khmer. He therefore proposes that it is is probably the name of a kind of tree.

378

Alexis SANDERSON

713), has a name that is Sanskrit but unparallelled, so that one might suspect this of being the Sanskritization of an originally Khmer designation.

Such names have been thought to be firm evidence of pre-Indic cults. 100 But there are reasons to be cautious, over and above the obvious consideration that the argument rests on negative evidence, namely that certain deities are not identified in a way that enables us to say that they are certainly Indic. For another nameless Kpoñ Kammratāṁ Añ appears in the Khmer portion of K. 79 of 644; but in the Sanskrit portion she is identified as ’the goddess Caturbhujā (the four-armed)’, which is very probably a reference to an Indic image. The probability that this is a Khmer deity is further diminished by the context in which she is mentioned. The inscription, which records its installation, states that it was commissioned by a Saiva ascetic (yami), that is to say by one of those least likely to be involved in the cult of a pre-Indic deity. Furthermore we are told that he was motivated to undertake this meritorious action by his devotion to Śiva and that the procedures adopted were those appropriate to the Goddess. All this suggests that the image was that of Śiva’s consort. 101

Caution is also prompted by the case of the kammraten jagat pin thmo ’the god of the stone pond’ of K. 653 of 956, who is surely identical with the deity who appears synonymously in Sanskrit as Aśmasaronatha and Śilāsaronatha in K. 56, an undated inscription of the reign of Rajendravarman (944–c. 968). This and the cases cited above have been considered “perfect examples of Sanskrit names devised as translations of Khmer cult terminology’; 102 but the evidence is far from compelling. While recording the many pious acts of a Vaisnava dignitary related to the chief queen of Rajendravarman, the inscription tells us that he reinstalled the Visnu in the temple of the Lord of the Stone Pond (Aśmasaronātha):

yaḥ kulapāvaniḥ

catasraś śrīpater arccā janmabhūmāv atiṣthipat vaiṣṇavīm pratimām aśmasaronathasya sadmani bhūyo bhūrivibhām bhīmapure kātyāyanītanum K. 56 B, v. 17b-18

…who installed four images of Visnu in the place of his birth to purify his family, reinstalled the image of Viṣṇu in the temple of the Lord of the Stone Pond brightly shining, and installed an image of Durgā in Bhimapura,

…

If the Lord of the Stone Pond were a pre-Indic deity this would mean that a Viṣṇu was present as a subsidiary in his temple, a striking result, since the character of the inscriptions and the material evidence would lead us to expect that if a pre-Indic deity persisted it would have been an ancillary rather than the principal deity of a temple. But I see nothing that compels this interpretation against the alternative that the Lord of the Stone Pond was actually a Viṣṇu and that it was his own image that was being reinstalled. The use of names in -natha for Visņus is seen elsewhere in the corpus; 103 and later in the

100. VICKERY 1998, 140-149.

101. K. 79, v. 2a …2d-3: mukhartuvānai gaṇite śākāpde …pratisthitam devicaturbhujākhyam | bhaktyā bhagavatas *sambhor (corr.: sambhur Ep.) pitāmātror vvimuktaye deviyathārtthacaritais sthāpitam yaminā bhuvi ‘In Śaka 565 …an image has been installed called Goddess Caturbhujā. An ascetic has installed it in the world following the ceremonies appropriate to [the installation of] the Devi, out of his devotion to Lord Siva [and] for the salvation of his parents.’

102. VICKERY 1998, 142. He gives the Old Khmer form of the name as kamsten jagat pin thmo. This is how it appears in K. 56.

103. K. 35 of the reign of Jayavarman IV (928-c. 940), K. 99 of A.D. 922/3, and K. 270 of A.D. 921.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

379

same inscription we learn that this Vaisnava dignitary built a brick temple for a Devāriñjayaviṣṇu to the north of the temple of the Visnu of the Stone Pond (Śilāsaroviṣṇu):

yo kārṣīd iṣṭakāharmmyan devāriñjayaśārngiṇaḥ

dhāmnaś śilāsaroviṣṇor uttarāśākṛtasthiteḥ

K. 56 D, v. 33

Who built a temple of bricks for the Devāriñjayaviṣṇu installed to the north of the temple of Silasaroviṣṇu, ..

…

It is highly probable, then, that the Lord of the Stone Pond and the Viṣṇu of the Stone Pond are one and the same. To defend the hypothesis that the Lord is a distinct, pre-Indic deity we have to accept three entities in place of one with metrically variant names: a pre- Indic Lord of the Stone Pond with his own temple, a Viṣṇu within that temple, and a separate temple of a Visnu of the Stone Pond; and we would have to be constrained to do so by firmer evidence than the claim that the Khmer version of the name in K. 653 looks like pre-Indic cult terminology. The fact is that we have no clear evidence of such terminology but only the probability that when the Khmers started to give Indic deities Khmer titles they would have drawn on pre-Indic conventions.

Even if the inscriptions do refer to non-Indic deities, they tell us nothing about them other than their names. Nor is it certain that this lack of information prevents us from seeing the religious life of the rural masses alone, those on whose observances it is likely that the imported Indian religions had the least impact. For we cannot be sure that the old practices did not continue even among the Indianized elite, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Conversely we cannot know how far the Indic religions had penetrated beyond the culture of the court, though the evidence of Java and that of the very large numbers of Khmers involved in various capacities in the support of these traditions strongly suggest that they must have put down roots in the minds and practices of the wider population.

It is even more unlikely that the reticence of our sources concerning the pre-Indic traditions merely deprives us of knowledge of those traditions themselves. It is almost certain that it also diminishes and distorts our understanding of the imported religions. For if our sources allowed us to see Khmer religion and society in the round we would no doubt recognize that Indian forms clothed Khmer beliefs and practices or embedded them as subsidiaries, as we see wherever Indian religions have been assimilated, both in India itself and beyond it from Burma to Bali, and from Tibet to Japan.

104

It is in any case implausible that even purely Indian rituals would not have taken on a Khmer character when performed by Khmers for Khmers, just as their images of Indian deities have a distinctive style and aesthetic quality while remaining within the parameters of an imported iconography.

104. VICKERY argues (1998, 142) that the popularity of Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardini in 7th-century Khmer art should not be seen simply as a borrowing of a cult popular in southern India but “must be explained, if possible, in terms of a local socio-religious setting.” Rightly insisting that comparative Southeast-Asian ethnography may be more important than Indian prototypes, he adds in a footnote that buffalo sacrifices presided over by female shamans are still known in northern Thailand, citing a report in the Bangkok Post of 2 July, 1986, thereby suggesting that the cult of Durga Slayer of the Buffalo Titan (Mahiṣāsuramardini) was an Indic veneer over an indigenous tradition. Perhaps it was. But he cites no evidence that the Khmers sacrificed buffaloes to Durgā, and, more crucially, no evidence that they did so in a manner that was Khmer rather than Indian.

380

Alexis SANDERSON

Khmer Subsidiary Brahmanism

105

Also present among the Khmers was the Brahmanism of Śruti and Smrti. Brahmin dignitaries who officiated for the Khmer monarchs are commended for their knowledge of the Vedas, their ancillaries (vedāngāḥ), the Upanisads, the Epics and the Purāṇas; and Rajendravarman (r. 944-c. 968) is credited with repeatedly causing the gods to drink Soma, which is a claim that he had Soma sacrifices performed. If this is not empty praise, it entails the existence of a community of orthodox brahmins versed in the Vedas and Śrauta ritual, since no Soma sacrifice can be performed with less than sixteen such persons as officiants (rtvik). 106 This king is also said to have studied the exegesis (mīmāmsā) of the Vedas from a brahmin Someśvarabhaṭṭa and then to have taught it to

105. K. 5 (5th century), v. 9: brahmin officiants learned in the Vedas, Vedāngas and Upavedas (Ayurveda etc.); K. 180 of a.d. 948: king Rājendravarman’s ācārya Rudrācārya, pupil of Sivasoma, the Guru of king Indravarman, describes himself as learned in the Vedas (hotrā vedavidā); K. 263 C, v. 22: Jayavarman V is said to have been praised by brahmins who knew the essence of the Upanisads, adhered to the path of Smrti, and were learned in the Vedas and their ancillaries (viprair …vvedantajñānasārais smrtipathaniratair …abhinuto vedavedāngavidbhiḥ); K. 300, v. 22 (14th century; concerning Siddharṣi, Guru of the Rajaguru Vidyeśa): cakāra deśan nāmnemam madhyadeśañ jan(ākulam) / *vedavedāngavid vipras (em. vedavedängav(i)dv(i)pra(m) BERGAIGNE) s(tr)iya(m) prāpya pr(i)yān t(u) saḥ ‘That brahmin, learned in the Vedas and their ancillaries married his dear wife and then founded this populous place called Madhyadeśa’; K. 725 (Jayavarman I), v. 5: atrāsīd vrāhmaṇo vidvān vedavedā[nga]paragaḥ dharmmasvāmīti v[i]khyātas ‘Here there was a learned brahmin called Dharmasvāmin, who had mastered the Vedas and their ancillaries’; K. 809, between A.D. 878 and 888, v. 40ab (re Rudra, teacher of Sivasoma): vedavid ’learned in the Vedas’; K. 692, v. 47 (A.D. 1189/90 or 1195/6) concerning Bhupendrapandita I (Mūrdhaśiva): siddhantatarkkamunisammataśavdaśāstravedarthapañcajaladhin pivati sma ‘[who] had drunk the five oceans that are the Saiva scriptures, Nyaya, the grammar approved by the [three] sages [Pāṇini, Katyāyana and Patañjali], the Vedas and Artha[śāstra]; K. 809, v. 42, concerning Śivasoma, honoured by Indravarman: purāṇabhāratāṣeṣaśaivavyākaraṇādiṣu śāstreṣu kuśalo yo bhūt tatkāraka iva svayam ‘who was as adept in the Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata, the Śaiva scriptures, grammar and other śāstras as if he had composed them himself; K. 1002 (JACQUES 1968), v. 53, concerning Nilakantha, father of Śankarapandita (priest of Harşavarman III): saive vyākaraṇe kāvye purāne bhārate ‘khile adhity adhyāpayām āsa yo gurūņām anugrahāt ‘who studied the Saiva scriptures, grammar, Kāvya, Purāṇa and the Mahābhārata, and, through the favour bestowed by his teachers, taught them’; K. 359 (pre-Angkorean), v. 3-4: a brahmin donated copies of the Mahabharata, the Rāmāyaṇa and a Purana to the temple of Tribhuvanesvara that he had founded, and made a provision that they should be recited continuously every day (v. 4: rāmāyanapurāṇābhyām aseṣam

aseṣam bhāratan dadat/ akṛtānvaham acchedyām sa ca tadvācanāsthitim); Suryavarman I’s attachment to the stories of the Puranas and the two epics (K. 218, v. 11: purāṇarāmāyanabhāratādikatha-; K. 661, v. 56b: bhāratädikathārataḥ); K. 661, v. 94: sārāṇi bhāratādīnām *śrutvoktāni (conj. śrotoktāni Coedès) mudam yayau (concerning Jayendrapandita). The Mahabharata is cited (vyāsagītam) in K. 279 C1, v. 2. The verse quoted is 12.65.28 of the Pune critical edition.

106. K. 958, v. 6 (A.D. 947/8): yo *dhanamvunidhir (conj.: dhanāmvunidhim conj. CŒDÈS: dhānāmvunidhim Ep.) vipran divya yasomṛtam / surān somam samam yajne asakṛt krty apipyata **wise and an ocean of riches (?), who in his sacrifices repeatedly caused both the brahmins [whom he engaged as officiants] to drink the nectar of celestial …fame and the gods to drink Soma’. K. 692, v 55 (A.D. 1189/90 or 1195/6) says that Bhupendrapandita gave his deceased parents all the merit he had accumulated from life to life through such actions as repeated recitation of Mantras, Homa, and the Soma sacrifice (dideśa …japahomasomayāgādikarmmaphalam acaritan ca pitroh). But this does not mean necessarily that he was claiming to have performed Soma sacrifices in his current existence. For the sixteen officiants necessary for a Soma sacrifice (Agnistoma) see, e.g., Apastambasrautasutra 10.1.19.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

381

others; 107 and Yasovarman I (r. 889-910) and Jayavarman II (r. 802-c. 835), the inaugurator of the unified kingdom of Angkor, are both praised for their commitment to those sacred texts. 108 Persons are commended for their knowledge of and adherence to the Dharmaśāstra and kings for promoting this adherence. 109 We hear of its presence in the curriculum of royal education, 110 of certain dignitaries who were official reciters or readers of the Dharmasastra (svat vraḥ dharmmaśāstra), of judicial decisions being reached following its authority, 112 and of king Rajendravarman’s being versed in its legal system.

113

In the domain of ritual, we hear of the brahmanical rites of passage (samskārāḥ) being performed by one royal brahmin for another, 14 and of the principal ceremonies that Indian brahmanical authorities required to be performed for the monarch by his personal

107. K. 806, v. 239: śrīsomeśvarabhaṭṭād yo mīmāmsām śrutavān dvijāt / vudhān vyākhyātavedārthām vrahmaṇyān adhyajīgamat ‘Having studied from the brahmin Someśvarabhaṭṭa the Mīmāmsă in which the meaning of the Vedas has been explained he taught it to pious scholars’.

108. K. 323, v. 34ab: homayogādinirato vedasaktaḥ ‘devoted to Homa, Yoga and the rest, attached to the Vedas’ (Yasovarman I); K. 534 (reign of Yasovarman I), v. 22: [veda]priyam mahībhṛtam ’the king, devoted to the Vedas’ (Jayavarman II).

109. K. 53, v. 6: tasya tau mantriņāv āstām sanmatau krtavedinau dharmmasastrarthaśāstrajñau dharmmārthāv iva rūpinau; ‘Those two ministers of that [king Bhavavarman], valued by the virtuous and appreciative of his favour, were so expert in the Dharmasastra and the Arthaśästra respectively that it was as if they were themselves the very embodiments of Dharma and Artha’; K. 263 C v. 22: viprair …smrtipathaniratair ‘by brahmins …who delighted in the path of Smrti’; K. 111, v. 13: vyavahāre satām mārgge manvādīnām mate same | kāladhvāntaniruddhe yo *madhyāhnārkka (corr.: madyāhnārkka CŒDÈS) ivābhavat ‘In law he [Jayavarman V] illuminated the unequalled path of the virtuous taught by Manu and the other [sages], a path that had been obscured by the darkness of time, as the midday sun [/illuminates an uneven road obscured by the darkness of night]’; K. 208, v. 11: manumärggānugāminaḥ ‘following the path of Manu’; K. 235, v. 20cd: apālayiṣyat …mānavān mānavanītisāraiḥ’ he would have protected men with the essences of the Way of Manu’; K. 528, v. 174ab, concerning Rajendravarman: subhamyuna yūnā manuvartmānuvarttinā ‘a handsome youth following the path of Manu’; K. 834, v. 51, concerning Sūryavarman I: kāntārāgāśrayo bhūtibhūşito visayārijit / manumānggāsrito gādi yo mahāyatir ity api ‘Although he was the object (-āśrayo) of his lover’s (kāntā-) desire (-rāga-), adorned (-bhūṣito) with wealth (bhūti-), a conqueror (-jit) of the enemies (-ari-) of the realm (viṣaya-), and a follower (-äśrito) of the path of Manu (manumārga-), he was also (api) called (agādi) a Great Ascetic (mahāyatir) [/(since) adopting (- āśrito) the [Śaiva] Mantramārga (manumārga-) he had resorted to (-āśrayo) the wilderness (kāntāra-) and mountains (-aga-), adorned (-bhūṣito) with ashes (bhūti-), and had conquered (-jit) the enemies (-ari-) that are the objects of the senses (viṣaya-)].’

110. K. 235, D, 11. 65-66: vraḥ pāda kamraten añ ryyān vidyā phon damnepra siddhānta vyākaraṇa dharmmaśāstra śāstra phon tadai ti ‘Our Revered Lord [king Udayadityavarman II] studied the sciences [with his Guru Jayendrapandita]: the Saiva scriptures, grammar, Dharmasastra, and other Sastras’.

111. K. 374 of 1042 A.D.; K. 814 of 979/80-1004/5 A.D., 5, 11. 52-54: mratāñ śrī pṛthivīndropakalpa svat vrah dharmmaśāstra mratāñ śrī rājopakalpa svat vrah dharmmaśāstra.

112. K. 569 of A.D. 1306 (ed. Pou 2001, 166–171), II. 14-17 and 11. 24-26. In the latter, the closing words of the inscription, the ruling king Śrīndravarman and his chief queen Śrīndrabhūpeśvaracūḍā are described as ‘protecting their subjects and the pious endowments of others in accordance with the sacred Dharmaśāstra’: prajāpālana parapuṇyānupālana nu vraḥ dharmmaśāstra.

113. K. 806, v. 143 refers to Rajendravarman as expert in the eighteen topics of legal business (vyavahāraḥ) (aṣṭādaśapadajñena). For these eighteen, which begin with non-payment of debts see Manusmrti 8.3-7 (7cd: padany aṣṭādaśaitāni vyavahārasthitāv iha); Nāradasmṛti 1.16-19 (19d: ity astādaśapadaḥ smṛtaḥ). CŒDÈS misunderstood aṣṭādaśapadajñena here to mean ‘qui connaissait le vers de dix-huit pieds’.

114. K. 1002 (JACQUES 1968), v. 52: garbhādhānādividhina samskṛtaḥ krtyavedina / bhagavad- vyāsapādena guruṇā tena yaḥ krti ’that learned man who was purified by that dutiful Guru Bhagavadvyāsapāda with the rites beginning with conception’.

382

Alexis SANDERSON

officiants. We are told of the consecration of the king that inaugurates his reign (rājyābhiṣekaḥ), 115 the consecration of the chief queen (mahiṣī, agradevi), 116 and that of the crown prince (yuvarajah), 117 and of the pusyābhisekah, by which a king is to be reconsecrated to his office annually by the royal chaplain and the royal astrologer. In a clear allusion to this brahmanical ceremony Rajendravarman is described as being “consecrated every Pusya by a stream of nectar poured from one hundred golden vases”. 118 Our Indian sources reveal that the stream of nectar to which the inscription refers was melted butter. The king is to be covered with a blanket and then this butter is to be poured over him from eight, twenty-eight or one hundred and eight vases. The blanket (ghrtakambalam) is then removed and he is bathed with the waters of the ‘Pusya bath’ (pusyasnānāmbubhih). 119

Then there are the recurrent royal fire-sacrifices of one hundred thousand oblations (Lakṣahoma) and ten million oblations (Kotihoma):

120

115. K. 14, v. 5 (= K. 310, v. 6); K. 136 B, v. 28; K. 194, Khmer, A 1. 14 (rājābhiṣeka); K. 254, v. 9; K. 273, v. 29; K. 377, v. 1; K. 661, v. 16; K. 806, v. 18 and 136; K. 989 A, v. 14. For this brahmanical ceremony see Raghuvamsa 17.8-20; Visnudharmottara, Khanda 2, chapters 21-23 (→ Agnipurāṇa, chapters 218-219).

116. K. 485, v. 95c (the consecration of Indradevi as the chief queen of Jayavarman VII after the death of her younger sister Jayarājadevī): tatpūrvajā nṛpatinā vihitābhiṣekā. The consecration of the chief queen is required by Visnudharmottara 2.7.7c-8b, to be received by her either together with the king at the time of his initial consecration, performed by the royal chaplain and astrologer or, if later, by the king himself, as in the case of Indradevi: evamgunaganopetā narendreṇa sahānagha / abhiṣecyā bhaved rajye rajyasthena nrpeņa vā.

117. K. 569 (NIC II-III, 166-171) of 1306 from Banteay Srei (Iśvarapura) records that Śrīndravarman (r. c. 1295-1307) was consecrated as Yuvaraja during the reign of Jayavarman VIII (1243-c. 1295). For this consecration in Indian sources see, e.g., a verse on occasions for the release of prisoners quoted without attribution by Vallabhadeva ad Raghuvamsa 17.19-20: yuvarājābhiṣeke vā pararāṣṭrābhimardane/ putrajanmani vā mokṣo bandhanasya vidhiyate ‘The release of prisoners is ordained when the crown prince is consecrated, when one invades another country, or when a son is born’; Bhaṭṭikāvya 12.501a: kṛtābhiṣeko yuvarājarājye; Avadānaśataka p. 209: rājānam vijñāpayām āsa anujānīhi mām tāta bhagavacchāsane pravrajiṣyāmīti. rājovāca na śakyam etan mayā kartum yasmāt te yuvarājābhiṣeko na cirena bhaviṣyatīti, and Naimittikakarmānusandhäna f. 84r5: anenaiva vidhänena yuvarājābhiṣecanam.

118. K. 806, v. 66: āmṛtyā dhārayā …kalaśaśatāt kāladhautāt patantyā pusye pusye bhiṣikto. For evidence of this regular consecration (puṣyābhiṣekaḥ, puṣyasnānam) among the Khmers see also K. 686, v. 19 (reign of Rajendravarman, 943/4–968).

119. For the procedure of this ceremony see Varāhamihira, Bṛhatsamhitā 47 (puṣyasnānādhyāyaḥ) following the elder Garga; Viṣṇudharmottara 2.152.2 and Nilamata 810 (monthly); Adipurāṇa 11. 2744- 2745; Atharvavedaparisista 5; Satkarmaratnāvalī, part 2, p. 518: ayam cabhiṣekaḥ prativarṣam mahānavamyām kartavyaḥ. pusyābhiṣeko mahānavamyām indrotsavo janmadine prativarṣam ity ātharvaṇasūtrāt. iti pusyābhiṣekah ‘And this abhiseka should be done every year on Mahānavami, because of the Atharvaṇasūtra’s statement: “The Puṣyabhiṣeka every year on Mahānavami and the Indra festival on [the king’s] birthday.” Thus the Pusyābhiṣeka’. The “hundred” vases of the inscription were probably to be understood as ‘shorthand’ for the one hundred and eight of Garga’s rule. That ‘shorthand’ is not uncommon in Sanskrit Saiva sources.

120. See Atharvavedaparisista (on the rituals to be performed for the king by his Atharvavedic priest [rajapurohitaḥ]) 30a (laghulakṣahomaḥ), 30b (bṛhallakṣahomaḥ), and 31 (kotihomah); Viṣṇudharmottara 2.152.6: samvatsarāt koṭihomam kuryāc ca ghṛtakambalam ‘after a year he should do the Kotihoma and the Ghṛtakambala [= Puṣyabhiṣeka]’; 2.153.10: asminn eva tatha kale kotihomam samacaret/ kārtikyām tatsamaptis tu yatha bhavati bhargava ‘O Bhargava, he should do the Kotihoma at this very time in such a way that it ends on the full-moon day of Kartika’; Ādipurāṇa II. 2801-2803 (= Brahmapurāṇa as quoted in the Rajadharmakāṇḍa of the Krtyakalpataru of Lakṣmidhara, p. 109): dvau lakṣahomau kurvīta tathā samvatsaram prati / ekam tu [ko]tihomam tu yatnāt sarvabhayapradam / atharvavedavidhinā *sammantrya

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

383

bhagavat pada kamraten an gi ti añjeñ thve vraḥ kotihoma vraḥ lakṣahoma vraḥ + + + homa vraḥ pitryajña vraḥ ++yajña sap samvatsara gi

K. 383, Khmer, 11. 33-35

Our Majesty [Suryavarman I] invited [Our Lord the Venerable Guru Śrī Divākarapaṇḍita] to perform the annual Kotihoma, Lakṣahoma, …homa, Pitṛyajña, and…yajña. 121

Some idea of these fire-sacrifices may be formed from the many records in inscriptions and manuscripts of their performance for the Malla kings of the Kathmandu valley. A Newari document listing various rituals and the dates of their performance records two Kotihomas for king Bhūpālendramalla of the independent kingdom of Kathmandu in 1693/4 and 1703/4 and tells us that the first lasted from the 6th of the dark half of Pausa to the 7th of the light half of Phālguna and the other from the 10th of the light half of Magha to the 10th of the dark half of Phalguna, which is to say for forty-six and forty-five days respectively. 122 This means that the Homas must have proceeded at a rate of over 200,000 oblations (ahutih) a day with numerous priests working simultaneously, each at his own fire. According to another Nepalese source, the Lakṣakotihomaprayoga, one should engage 4, 8 or 10 priests (rtvik) for a Lakṣahoma and 16, 20, 24, 64 or 100 for a Kotihoma. This makes the frequent references in the Khmer Sanskrit inscriptions to their kings blocking out the light of the sun with the smoke of their countless sacrifices seem less like poetic exaggeration.

123

Of the two annual Yajña ceremonies mentioned after the great Homas in the passage just cited, that whose name survives intact, the Pitryajña, is the annual Śrāddha ceremony,

(em. sammantryam Ed.) ca [pu]rohitaiḥ ‘After consulting his domestic priests he should take care to do two Lakṣahomas and one Kotihoma that bestows freedom from all dangers every year following the procedures of the Atharvaveda’; Nilamata 813: samvatsarasyatha karyau lakṣahomau (conj.: karyo lakṣahomo Ed.) mahīkṣitā / koṭihomas tathā kārya eka eva dvijottama tayor vidhānam vijñeyam kalpeṣv atharvaneṣu ca ‘The king, O best of brahmins, should do two Lakṣahomas and one Kotihoma in the course of the year. Know that their procedure is [that taught] in the Kalpas of the Atharvaveda’.

121. Other references to the Kotihoma and Lakṣahoma: K. 95, v. 28; K. 136 B, v. 6; K. 300, v. 20; K. 418 B; K. 528, v. 92; K. 692, v. 54; K. 806, v. 236, concerning Rajendravarman: lakṣaso lakṣahomāgnau hutam yasyāpi hotrbhih; K. 872, v. 13.

122. See the thyā saphū (‘folded manuscript’) ‘A’ transcribed in REGMI 1965–66, 3:37 and 44. 123. K. 95, v. 22 (Yasovarman I); K. 136 B, v. 4 (Sūryavarman I); K. 235, v. 18 (Udayādityavarman II); K. 263 C, v. 20 (Jayavarman V); K. 279 B1, v. 4 (Yaśovarman I); K. 286, v. 21 (Jayavarman II); K. 323, v. 40 (Yasovarman I); K. 432, v. 5 (Yasovarman I); K. 528, v. 92 (Rajendravarman): lakṣādhvarotthaiḥ sthagayadbhir āśā dhūmair niruddhārkakarākarair yaḥ / divam ca śātakratavīm ca kīrtim malīmasatvam yugapan nināya ‘who simultaneously obscured the sky and the reputation of Indra with the clouds of smoke from his Lakṣahomas that filling the directions blocked out all the rays of the sun’; K. 528, v. 125 (Rajendravarman); K. 528, v. 154 (Rajendravarman); K. 677, v. 16 (Jayavarman IV); K. 806, v. 200 (Rajendravarman); K. 832, v. 5 (Yaśovarman I); K. 872, v. 13 (Rajendravarman): yadyajñānala*dhum(corr.: dhum Ed.)aughā lakṣahomādisambhavāḥ/ meghāyante pade viṣnos satatan kāmavarṣinaḥ ’the masses of smoke in the domain of Viṣņu produced by his offering fires in the Lakṣa- and other Homas are like clouds constantly raining down the fulfilment of his desires’. The ‘domain of Visnu’ here is the sky. Cf. K. 235, v. 18.

Nepalese materials show that Śaiva and Śākta forms of these homas were developed, the brahmanical rituals being performed with non-Vedic mantras. One may ask, therefore, whether this may not also have been so among the Khmers. I think it was not. K. 806, v. 104, while not referring specifically to these two Homas speaks of the Homas of Rajendravarman as accomplished with the Mantras of the Vedas: dhumo…yajñeṣu yasya…jagāma…divam saha vedamantraiḥ ‘in his sacrifices the smoke rose to heaven along with [the sound of] the Mantras of the Veda’.

384

Alexis SANDERSON

in which offerings were presented through brahmins to the ancestors (pitṛ-), namely the three male ascendants of the patriline together with their spouses.

As for the other annual Yajña, whose name has been lost through damage, I propose that it was the Brahmayajña ’the offering to Brahmā’. It has long been assumed that this Yajña, which is mentioned several times in the inscriptions, 124 is that which is taught under this name as one of the five basic daily obligations (pañca yajñāḥ) of the twice-born in mainstream brahmanical texts: that is to say the figurative sacrifice (vajñaḥ) that is the daily recitation of a portion of the Vedas and other religious texts, otherwise called svādhyāyaḥ. This practice was certainly followed by Khmer brahmins. For example, we are told in an inscription of the reign of Suryavarman I (1002–1050), that the ceremonial capital (puram) was loud with the sound of brahmins engaged in this daily chanting; and one of the contexts in which the Brahmayajña is mentioned in the Khmer inscriptions does associate it with sacred knowledge, since we find it there as an event that marks the beginning or end of the period of study with a Guru. But I propose that it is a proper sacrificial ceremony that is intended, a yajñaḥ in the literal sense.

125

This conclusion is suggested by its occurrence in another context, in which it is paired with the matryajña ’the sacrifice to the Mothers’ as a preliminary rite performed on the site on which a Linga is about to be installed:

vraḥ kamsten añ śrī lakṣmīpativarmma thve vrahmayajña mātṛyajña ta gi bhūmi noḥ nu pan-lyan suvarnnalinga ta vraḥ suren pi vraḥ kamsten añ kanlaḥ vnam mok samayajña sanme ni pi jamnum mahāpanditta phon ta damnepra vraḥ kamraten añ śrī vidyādhipanḍita gi ta guru ni ta vrahmayajña vraḥ kamrateň añ bhimapura ta thve mātryajña vraḥ kamraten an vlok ta panlyan suvarṇnalinga.

Ka. 18 (NIC II-III:243, A II. 18-20)

V.Ka.A. Lakṣmīpativarma [caused to be] performed a Brahmayaj ña and a Mātṛyajña on this ground and then the golden Linga to be installed in the temple of Suren. V.Ka.A. Kanlaḥ Vnam came [there]. Men learned in the proper times [for rites] (samayajña) agreed (sanme) to make the offerings together (ni pi jamnum), great scholars beginning with V.K.A. Śrī Vidyadhipandita, the Guru for the Brahmayajña. V.K.A. Bhimapura celebrated the Matryajña. V.K.A. Vlok [was the guru for] the installation of the golden Linga.’ 126

124. K. 216 S, v. 5; K. 235, Khmer, D 1. 66; K. 352 Khmer, N 1. 22; K. 353 S, Khmer, 11. 20-23; K. 444, Khmer, A 11. 5-9; K. 523, Khmer, D, 11. 14-17; K. 702, v. 23; Ka. 18, Khmer, A 1. 3 and 18.

125. K. 1002 (JACQUES 1968), v. 33: [śa]vdaśāstrādiniṣṇātaśavditānām mahat puram yasya svādhyāyaśavdena savdabrahmamayam yathā ‘whose great puram seemed to embody the Veda through the sound of the private daily recitations of scholars well-versed in grammar and the other Śāstras’.

126. Pou takes mok and samayajña sanme ni pi jamnum mahāpanḍitta phon ta damnepra… together and translates as follows (with my interpretation of her parsing in parentheses): ‘vint (mok) se joindre à ses sacrifices (samayajña) où furent assemblés (sanme) de grands savants, en premier … (mahāpanḍitta phon ta damnepra)’. I have rejected this interpretation because her translation of samayajña ’to join in a sacrifice’ creates an implausible hapax and renders sanme ni pi jamnum ‘agreed to make the offerings together’ pleonastic. She avoids that problem by translating only sanme (‘où furent assemblés’). I have preferred to take samayajña as Sanskrit samaya-jña-. This occurs frequently in religious contexts in the meaning ‘one who knows the proper occasion’. See, e.g., Mahābhārata 4.27.6ab: samayam samayajñās te palayantaḥ śucivratāḥ. It also occurs in both Saiva and Bhāgavata texts meaning ‘one who knows the rules of the initiated’, in the special sense of one who has received the first grade of initiation. This is probably not what is intended here, since these officiants would have had to have been fully initiated and consecrated, though one cannot exclude the possibility that the term was also applied to initiates in general.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

385

and it is confirmed, I propose, in a Sanskrit verse cited immediately after the lacunose Old Khmer text that lists these ritual duties. For we learn that the royal preceptor (Vrah Guru) was invited to perform them “every year in accordance with [the following] Śloka [composed] by Our Lord Suryavarmadeva [himself]” (sap samvatsara gi roh vraḥ śloka vraḥ pāda kamraten añ śrīsūryyavarmmadeva):

–d guror hutavahe havir āhutir yat

samyag vidher vividhāvṛṣṭibhavam praśasyam

sasyāya tad vidhividhāv iha kotihome

kotir hutis suvidhivat kurute grasiddhyai

K. 383, v. 2 (A 11. 35-36)

The verse is problematic. It is not just that its first two syllables have been lost. It is also that its meaning is obscured by grammatical incoherence and syntactic ambiguity. It is clear, however, that the verse refers to the benefits of three kinds of fire-sacrifice, which the context requires to be among those listed as the Vrah Guru’s duties. The third is the Kotihoma. The first is conveyed in the relative clause and the second in the correlative clause that follows it, ending sasyāya tad vidhividhau. The crucial word there is vidhividhau. CŒDÈS and DUPONT took it to mean ‘in a ritual (vidhau) [performed] in accordance with injunction (vidhi-)’. But that is implausibly stilted Sanskrit for this sense and the passage so interpreted fails to provide the name of a sacrifice. There is a simple solution, which provides natural Sanskrit and satisfies the requirement of the context. That is to take vidhividhau in the meaning ‘in the ceremony (-vidhau) of Brahmā’, vidhiḥ begin a commonly used name of that deity. 127 The second sacrifice, then, is the Brahmayajña. This supports the restoration vraḥ pitryajña vraḥ brahmayajña in the Khmer prose (K. 383: vraḥ pitryajña vraḥ + + yajña), but it also demonstrates that the Brahmayajña was a literal rather than a figurative sacrifice. For though the Sanskrit is incorrect in composition or transcription, it is clear that the meaning intended is that the same offerings that are made into the fire in the first sacrifice bring about the various timely rains (vividhavṛṣṭibhavam) 128 and so promote the grain harvest (sasyāya) in the second, that is to say, in the Brahmayajña.

There is also Old Javanese evidence for such a Brahmayajña. The Desawarnana, alias Nāgarakṛtāgama, completed in A.D. 1365 by Mpu Prapañca, Superintendent of Buddhist Affairs (dharmādhyakṣa kasogatan) at the court of Hayam Wuruk of Majapahit in East Java, refers to a brahmayajña in contexts that indicate that a ritual of worship rather than text recitation is intended. He tells us that the royal priest Śrījñānawidhi in performing the preliminaries to the postmortuary rites of the chief queen (rajapatni) consecrated the ground for installation and in that context ‘performed a brahmayajña as his offering (pūjā)’; in an account of annual ceremonies for the welfare of the king he tells us that ’the Saivas and Bauddhas performed the homa and brahmayajña as their offering (pūjā)’. 130 One could not refer to the brahmayajñaḥ in the figurative sense of text-recitation as a pūjā.

129 and

127. See, e.g., K. 692, v. 43d: caturānano vidhir, Amarakośa 1.1.17d (among synonyms of brahmā). 128. CŒDÈS and DUPONT give vividhāvṛṣṭibhavam. I have corrected this because the metre requires the third syllable to be short. As for the solecisms in the rest of the verse, I have understood havir āhutir as havir āhutam and kotir hutis as koțir hutā.

128. Desawarnana 67.3: sań śrī jñānawidhi n lumakwani těhěr mabrahmayajña n pamujā.

129. Desawarnana 83.6: homa mwan brahmayajñenulahaken ira san sewa boddha n pamājā. It may be relevant that the centre-point of any ritual ground (yāgabhūmiḥ) is known as the ‘place of Brahmā’ (brahmasthānam); see, e.g., Bhojadeva, Siddhāntasärapaddhati, f. 6r (on entering the shrine for worship): brahmasthāne om vastospataye brahmane nama iti puṣpam dattvā … One of the principal rites in the preparation of a site is the Vastupūjā, the presentation of offerings to the deities of the 64 or 81386

Alexis SANDERSON

No details of the ritual are recorded. But among the supplements (parisistam) of the Atharvaveda, short tracts which set out the ritual duties of the king’s personal priest, there is one (19b) that gives the procedure of a brahmayagaḥ. Since yagaḥ and yajñaḥ are synonymous and since no other applicable brahmayajñaḥ/brahmayagaḥ is taught in the brahmanical literature known to me, it seems at least probable that the Khmer and Javanese ceremonies were derived from it. In this Brahma is worshipped in a Mandala in a pavilion (mandapaḥ) constructed for this purpose, a platform (vediḥ) is made to its south or west, a fire-sacrifice is celebrated and an abhisekaḥ given [to the king on that platform]. This is followed by the feeding of learned brahmins and the needy, the offering of a nocturnal gaṇabalih, worship of the domestic deities, festivities in the palace, the feeding of Yogins and householders in their homes, and the usual markers of royal ceremonies in the civic domain: the temporary banning of the cutting down of trees and the butchering of animals, and the proclamation of a general amnesty throughout the kingdom. Finally the king should venerate his Guru. The benefits are said to be long life and the extension of the king’s realm. 131

Other brahmanical rituals are encountered in the inscriptions. We have seen that a Mātṛyajña is said to have been performed as a preliminary ritual on the site on which a Linga was to be installed. I propose that this was the worship of the Mother-goddesses (mātṛkāpūjā) that is prescribed in Indian brahmanical sources as a preliminary rite in such ceremonies as rites of passage (samskāraḥ) and the consecration of homes or temples (pratisthā), 132

There is also the first of the three annual sacrifices mentioned in the Sanskrit verse attributed to Suryavarman I. Though the Sanskrit is lacunose and somewhat incoherent (– - d guror hutavahe havir ahutir yat) it is very probable that this was a guruhomaḥ, a sacrifice [in honour] of the Guru. Against this conjecture is the absence of any reference to a sacrifice with this name in brahmanical literature. But in its support is the fact that elsewhere in these inscriptions a royal Guru is described as gurukotihomahotā. 133 CŒDÈS took this to mean ‘who performed the Kotihoma for his Guru’. But this is highly implausible, since the Kotihoma is a sacrifice performed for kings. The alternative is to take the compound to mean ‘who performed the Guruhoma and the Kotihoma’. In that case this ceremony too should be among those listed in the Khmer prose as the annual duties of the royal Guru. If so, it can only have been the third Homa of the list. Against this conclusion is the fact that CŒDÈS and DUPONT judge there to be a lacuna of three syllables in the text where its name is given (vraḥ +++ homa) while the restoration vrah guruhoma supplies only two (guru-). However, this objection is not decisive. For guru has the trisyllabic ācārya as a frequently used synonym. I propose, therefore, the restoration vraḥ ācāryahoma.

We also hear of the brahmanical practice of the daily pouring of libations of water to the ancestors (pitṛtarpanam). For in an inscription of 667 A.D. Simhadatta, the devout Śaiva physician of Jayavarman I, is praised as follows:

compartments of the square Mandala of the Site (västumaṇḍalam) drawn upon it. Brahma is worshipped with the presentation of various foods in the central four or nine compartments; see, e.g, Somasambhupaddhati 4:55 and 57, vv. 83ab and 89c-91b.

131. Atharvavedaparisista 19.1.1-19.5.9. I propose the following emendations to the published text: pūrayed varṇakaiḥ for pujayed varnakaiḥ in 19.2.1; and madhyepadmam tu samsthāpya brahmanam for madhye padmam tu samsthāpya brahmāṇam in 19.2.5.

132. On the mātṛkāpūjā in this context see SANDERSON 1990, 62.

133. K. 692 of 1189/90 or 1195/6, v. 54.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

śivayajñena yo devān munīn addhyayanena ca pitṛmś cātarppayat toyais satputrakaranissṛtaiḥ

K. 53, v. 23

387

He satisfied the gods through his worship of Śiva, the sages through his recitation of sacred texts, and the ancestors through libations of water poured from the hands of a virtuous son.

That this refers to the daily libations that brahmanical tradition requires is not stated explicitly; but it is implied by the context, since the other two obligations, those of worship and reciting the scriptures, are daily duties. By speaking of these libations as poured from the hands of his son the author conveys that he has fulfilled his duty to the ascendants of his patriline, not merely by pouring the libations himself, which goes without saying since this is among the daily duties of any brahmin male, but also by fathering a son, since without a son to follow on the offerings to the ancestors would be interrupted. 134

Postfunerary rituals other than the annual Pitryajña are mentioned. We are told of Śrāddhas performed for the benefit of persons who have died leaving no-one to make these offerings to them. An inscription reports that a Saiva hermitage abandoned in A.D. 949/50 had been restored by four men without heirs on the condition that their Śraddhas would be performed by the head (pādamūla) of the hermitage; 135 and the foundation stele of one of the hermitages founded by Yaśovarman I rules that balls of rice (pindam) must be offered [by the officiant] to persons who have died leaving no-one to make their postfunerary offerings (apindah).

ye bhaktyā patita yuddhe ye ca bhaktāḥ parāsavaḥ apiṇḍāḥ kṛpaṇānāthavālavṛddhaś ca ye mṛtāḥ eteṣām eva sarvveṣāñ caturāḍhakatandulaiḥ māsāvasāne sarvvatra pindaiḥ kurvvīta tarppaṇam etasminn āśrame pindan krtvānīya ca sarvvaśaḥ yasodharataṭākānte tasminn eva tu nirvvapet K. 279 CI, vv. 13-15

At the end of every month he should use four āḍhaka measures of rice to satisfy with rice-balls all the following: those who have fallen in battle out of loyalty [to the king], deceased loyal [servants of the crown], and the wretched, the unprotected, children and the elderly, who have died without anyone to offer them the postfunerary rice- balls. He should prepare the rice-balls in this hermitage, and then take them and offer them at the edge of the Yasodhara reservoir.

136

134. The verse invokes the brahmanical doctrine of the three debts from which a twice-born male must free himself before he is entitled to retire from the world. There are two views expressed as to how he is to clear his debt to his ancestors: (1) by making the postfunerary offerings to them, and (2) by fathering offspring. The first is seen in Mahābhārata 12.281.9c-10c: rnavāñ jāyate martyas tasmäd anṛṇatām vrajet | svādhyāyena maharṣibhyo devebhyo yajñakarmaṇā / pitrbhyaḥ śrāddhadānena ‘Mortals are born with debts [to the great sages, the gods and their ancestors]. Therefore they should free themselves of them, through the daily recitation of the sacred texts, the rituals of sacrifice and the giving of postfunerary offerings’. The second is seen in Baudhayanadharmasūtra 2.6.11.33: jāyamāno vai brāhmaṇas tribhir rṇavā jāyate brahmacaryena rṣibhyo yajñena devebhyaḥ prajaya pitṛbhya iti ‘The brahmin is born with three debts: to the sages, to the gods, and to his ancestors [, which he clears] by studying the scriptures, by offering sacrifices, and by fathering offspring’ and in Manusmrti 6.35-37. Our inscription combines these two views.

135. K. 215, 11. 16-17: āyātta ta pādamūla len nirvvāpa neḥ dharmma yen ‘It is the responsibility of the officiant to perform the Śraddha offerings of this foundation’.

136. This is the vast Yasodharataṭāka (approx. 7 km. by 1.8 km [JACQUES 1999, 55]), now known as the Eastern Baray, excavated by Yasovarman I at his newly founded capital Yasodharapura (Angkor).

388

Alexis SANDERSON

In discussing the group of stelae of which this is one Barth states that there is nothing in Indian Smrti texts corresponding to this provision by the king for Śraddha offerings for such persons, holding that the Indian rule is that only a relative of the deceased may perform the rite. 137 But that he was mistaken is clear from Brahmapurāṇa 220.78c-79b:

sarvābhāve striyaḥ kuryuḥ svabhartṛṇām amantrakam

tadabhāve ca nṛpatiḥ kārayet tv akuṭumbinām

If there is no-one else, women should do [the Śraddha] for their husbands if they have no family, [but] without the Mantras; and if there is no wife then the king should have it done for them.

The principal here is that the heir and the person with the duty to make the postfunerary offerings are one and the same. In the absence of all others the king inherits the property of the deceased except, says Manu, in the case of a brahmin, whose property may never be taken by the king but must be given to a brahmin, preferably one learned in the Vedas. That these rules are relevant to the question of who has the responsibility to make the offerings is apparent from the fact that Vijñāneśvara quotes the passage of the Manusmrti that states them (9.188-189) in this context ad Yajnavalkyasmṛti 2.135-136.

Moreover, the case of the heirless individuals who had restored a foundation on the condition that its head should make their Śraddha offerings (K. 215, 11. 16-17) may be understood as an application of the rule that in the absence of a son or close relative the Acarya of the deceased may make the offerings. 138

We hear also of a Homa performed by the royal preceptor Divākarabhaṭṭa for the deceased queen Mahendradevi on the twelfth day after her death, an office for which her husband Rajendravarman rewarded him with the gift of two villages.

894 saka pūrṇṇami phālguna nu vraḥ kamraten añ divākarabhaṭṭa nivedana ta dhūli vraḥ pāda dhuli jen vraḥ kamraten [añ śrī] jayavarmmadeva kāla samrac homa dvādaśarātrī vraḥ pāda [vraḥ ā]jñā kanlon kamraten añ° riy sruk kandin nu sruk supurāya pramān pūrvvadiśa° ta gi dhūlī vraḥ pāda dhūlī jen vraḥ kamraten añ stāc dau śivaloka oy vraḥ karuṇā prasāda ta vraḥ kamraten añ [divāka]rabhatta neḥ sruk ta anle 2 gi pi vraḥ kamraten añ +++++ vraḥ dakṣiņā phley srac dvādaśarātrī K. 668 B, 11. 1-8

In Śaka 894, on the full-moon day of Phalguṇa V.K.A. Divākarabhatta informs D.V.P.D.J.V.K.A. Śrī Jayavarmadeva that on the occasion of his completing the Homa of the twelfth day for V.P.V.A. the deceased queen [Mahendradevi] K.A., Sruk Kandin and Sruk Supuraya in the Pūrvadiśa District were given to V.K.A. Divakarabhatta by the favour of D.V.P.D.J.V.K.A. the king who has gone to Śivaloka [Rajendravarman]. These two Sruks V.K.A. [Divakarabhatta received as (?)] his sacred dakṣiņā as the result of the completion of [the rites of] the twelfth day. This was no doubt a Homa in connection with the offering of the first Ekoddiṣṭa Śraddha after the period of eleven days of postmortuary impurity (āśaucam) had ended, though

139

137. See BARTH in BERGAIGNE 1893, 414.

138. Mitākṣarā p. 223 ad Yajnavalkyasmrti 2.135-136: bandhūnām abhāve ācāryaḥ, tadabhāve sisyah. putrābhāve yaḥ pratyasannaḥ sapindah. tadabhāve ācāryaḥ. ācāryasyābhāve ’ntevāsīty apastambasmaraṇāt ‘In the absence of kin the Acarya. In his absence a pupil [of the Acarya], in accordance with the teaching of Apastamba: “in the absence of a son a close Sapinda relative, in his absence the Acarya, and in the absence of the Acārya a pupil”.

139. After the period of impurity (āśaucakālaḥ) ends the deceased receives his or her first Ekoddiṣṭa Śraddha on the twelfth day after death and others after a month and a month and a half and every month

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

389

in the absence of further information we cannot know whether the ritual was conducted in its purely brahmanical form. Given the prevalence of Saiva initiation it is possible that the queen’s postmortuary rites were performed in the parallel form that the Saivas elaborated for their own initiates. 140

Brahmanism, then, was certainly present among the Khmers, at least within the élite of society. But I see no evidence that it amounted to a fourth religion. The Indian Śaivas claimed to go beyond Brahmanism through practice authorized by their own, higher bodies of scripture; but they underwent Brahmanism’s rites of passage, performed many of its regular ceremonies in addition to their own, and adhered to its regulations concerning such matters as caste-endogamy, inheritance, and the administration of law under royal authority. Only their path to salvation was peculiarly theirs. The Brahmanism that we find among the Khmers was of this subsidiary kind. There is no trace of the exclusive variety that many in India considered to be the sole means of access to salvation, denying the validity of the Śaiva and Vaisnava scriptures.

What is more, the subsidiary Brahmanism of the Khmers was less substantial than that of their Indian co-religionists. Its influence did not penetrate to those levels that provided the primary criteria of brahmanical orthopraxy in India. The Khmers eagerly adopted the etiquette and ceremonial of the Indian courts; they cremated their dead; and they allowed India to influence their personal habits, avoiding the left hand in eating, and cleaning their teeth with toothsticks; 141 but they did not adopt Brahmanism’s dietary preferences and taboos, except in the case of special restrictions adopted by Saiva ascetics. 142 Thus we have two inscriptions in meditation caves that speak of such ascetics living on a diet of milk, a practice attested in Indian Śaiva sources; 143 but reliefs on the wall of the Bayon

after that until a full year has elapsed. Then the deceased (pretaḥ) becomes an ancestor (pitä) through the Sapindikarana ritual and from then on receives annual Parvana Śraddhas, unless the deceased is a woman without a son. In that case she does not join the ancestors through the Sapindikarana and receives an annual Ekoddista rather than Pārvaṇa Śrāddha. See, e.g., Brahmapurāņa 220.64–75.

140. On the Saiva rites for the dead and their relation with their brahmanical prototypes see SANDERSON 1995, 31-36.

141. See MABBETT and CHANDLER 1996, 128, 129 and 133. Information on Khmer funerary practice is meagre. According to a passage in the official history of the Sui Dynasty (Suishu), covering the years 581-617 and compiled during the years 629-636, that is included in Ma Duanlin’s Wenxian tongkao, an encyclopaedic history of institutions published in A.D. 1317, cremation was the norm though there were some who simply exposed their dead (translation in CŒDÈS 1968, 76). In Zhou Daguan’s memoir, based on his visit in A.D. 1296–7 and published at some time before 1312 (PELLIOT 1951, 37-38) it is exposure that is reported as the norm. He notes that cremation was gradually increasing, but mostly among the descendants of Chinese (PELLIOT 1951, 24). The difference between the two reports is probably the result of the different perspectives of the two divisions of Khmer society, that of the common people, who exposed their dead, and that of the élite, who cremated theirs following Indian rites. The Suishu says that the dead were attended either by Buddhist monks and nuns or by Taoist priests. The latter term is probably a reference to Saiva ascetics. Excavations at Nen Chua and Go Thap in the Mekong Delta have uncovered brick-lined chambers containing cremated human remains with gold leaves showing brahmanical symbols and other mortuary offerings. Radiocarbon dates suggest occupation during the periods A.D. 450-650 for the former and A.D. 400-600 for the latter (HIGHAM 2001, 29–31).

142. Similarly REID (1988, 34-35) points to the fact that brahmanical dietary rules “had little practical effect in restricting sources of protein” among the Javanese.

143. K. 156 (10th century), v. 10cd, concerning the ascetic Kambu: gurudevāgnisadbhaktir ācāryyaḥ kṣirabhug yami ‘an ascetic [Śaiva] Acārya living on milk, truly devoted to his Guru, his deity, and the sacred fire’; v. 16ab: kṣīrāśī yo *mahātejāḥ (corr.: mahātejā Ep.) pūjyaś śrīkamvubhubhṛtām ‘an illustrious eater of milk, venerated by the kings of Kambu’. K. 431 (9th century), v. 4, tells us of another such Śaiva ascetic inhabiting the cave Indraguhā ‘who adhered to the ascetic observance of Sadāśiva [=

390

Alexis SANDERSON

temple of Jayavarman VII (r. 1181-c. 1210) depict fishing with nets and a kitchen in which two cooks are about to plunge a whole pig into a boiling cauldron; and Chinese sources report that the Khmers’ diet included cakes soaked in meat gravy and that they reared chicken, ducks, sheep and geese. 144 The Manusmrti, the foremost brahmanical authority on such matters, enjoins the avoidance of fish and strictly prohibits the eating of the meat of the domestic pig or hen, saying that any twice-born person who eats these loses his caste. 145

Indeed inscriptions show that pork, goat and fish were eaten by the Khmers even in religious feasts. Thus on the occasion of the erecting of boundary-stones in 1089 an inscription records a donation of food that includes two pigs and four goats; 146 and an inscription of the reign of Suryavarman I (1002-c. 1050) speaks of a feast that required two-thousand bowls, two pigs, eight hundred large fish, and an unstated quantity of beer (surā).

147

This too was a feast in a religious context. The purpose of the inscription is to record a royal decree requiring [the head of] a hermitage and the dignitaries (pradhāna) of two localities to pay with land for the equipment and materials (kriyā) of a vraḥ rudraśānti. The foods and utensils are part of what was received for that purpose. In his edition of this

Susiva], [sustaining himself by] drinking [only] milk’ (kṣiram piban …suśivavratasthaḥ). For this voluntary dietary restriction in Indian Saivism see Niśvāsaguhya f. 82r1: devam pūjyāgnau juhuyād audumbarasamidhānām tryaktānām sahasram trisandhyam kṣīrāśī sapta dināni juhuyāt. cīrṇavidyāvrato bhavati ‘At each of three junctures of the day after he has worshipped Śiva he should make offerings into the fire of a thousand sticks of Uḍumbara wood smeared with the three [sweet substances: milk, butter and sugar]. He should do this fire-sacrifice for seven days living on milk. He will then have completed the observance of his Mantra’; Niśvāsakārikā 60.35 concerning the vāgiśvarīvratam: śālipiṣṭalabhuñjānaḥ kṣīrabhuk sādhakeśvaraḥ / māsam ekam vratam kuryāt sarvakāmaprasiddhaye ‘Eating rice-flour [or] consuming [only] milk the excellent masterer of Mantras should practice the observance for one month in order to achieve his every desire’; Picumata 21.95: cared devyavratam hy etan nirācāro jitendriyaḥ/ atha vā kṣīrabhoji syad ghṛtaprāśanam ārabhet ‘Free of orthopraxy, with his senses under control, he should practice this observance of the Goddess. Either he should live on milk; or he should eat clarified butter’; Gorakṣaśataka 53c-54: katvamlalavaṇatyāgī kṣīrabhojanam ācaret/ brahmacārī mitāhārī tyāgi yogaparāyaṇaḥ/abdad urdhvam bhavet siddho nātra kāryā vicāraṇā ‘Giving up salt and pungent and astringent foods he should live on milk. Celibate, eating little, abandoning all attachments and intent on meditation he will achieve his goal after a year. Of this there should be no doubt’. Similarly K. 91 (no earlier than the reign of Jayavarman VI [1080-1107]) tells us that the Kaviśvarapandita, the Guru and counsellor of Suryavarman I, followed the religious discipline of the Pañcarātra and lived on clarified butter: vraḥ kamraten añ srī kavīśvarapaṇḍita qji mātṛpakṣa [ye]n mān śīla pañcarātra *ghṛtāhāra (corr.: ghṛnāhāra CŒDÈS).

144. See GITEAU 1976, 35b-38a; and ibid. fig. 28 and fig. 92 for the scenes of fishing and of the kitchen with the whole pig. The rearing of chickens on temple land is forbidden in K. 367, I. 10.

145. Manusmrti 5.12ab; 5.14cd; 5.15cd; 5.19: chatrākam viḍvarāham ca laśunam grāmakukkuṭam / palāṇḍum grñjanam caiva matyā jagdhvā pated dvijaḥ a twice-born person who knowingly eats mushrooms, the domestic pig, garlic, the domestic hen, onion or *the red onion (?) will certainly lose his caste’. This is considered equal to the major sin (mahāpātakam) of drinking alcoholic liquor (surāpānam); see Manusmrti 11.56.

146. K. 258 A, 1. 23: kriyā jrvak 2 vave 4 ranko thlvan 5 marica qvar 2 ‘food [that I gave]: 2 pigs, 4 goats, 5 thlvan of husked rice, 2 qvar of pepper’.

147. K. 353 N, 11. 31-33: jrvak 2 (32) ti samlāp pi oy pay ranko thlvan 5 ti tamtām tr arun slik 2 khāl slik 5 ceḥ 5 dlaḥ 6 (33) vāñ dik surā samlo sthāli … ‘2 pigs to be slaughtered for food; 800 big fish; 2000 bowls; five jars; 6 metal cooking-pots; water-jars (?); beer; meat gravy (samlo); sni pots; ‘. Zhou Daguan reports four types of fermented drinks consumed by the Khmers, made from mixing water and an agent of fermentation with (1) honey, (2) certain leaves, (3) rice, and (4) sugar; see PELLIOT 1951, 29.

…

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

391

149

inscription CŒDÈS is not sure whether the words vrah rudraśānti name a dignitary or a temple. 148 But what is referred to here is neither a person nor a temple. It is a Śaiva ceremony. The purpose of a Rudraśānti ritual is to counter ills of all kinds but above all national disasters, epidemics and famines. Its procedure (kalpaḥ) and myth of origin (itihāsaḥ) are the subject of a chapter of the Saiva scripture Brhatkalottara; and an abbreviated redaction of the section on the procedure has been incorporated in the Agnipurāna (Adhyāya 324). The foodstuffs and beer were evidently required for a feast held at the conclusion of a performance of this ritual, probably at some time of widespread distress. Such feeding, of brahmins and others, is, as is well known, a required subsidiary of all major Indic rituals, and in apotropaic rituals of whatever scale. This too, then, would have been a religious rather than a secular feast. 150

Khmer patterns of kinship, inheritance and property-rights also remained largely unaffected. The passing of office from a man to his sister’s son seems to have been the norm among Khmer brahmins, and it remained widespread even in royal lineages, where patrilineal succession did make inroads. 151

Women, moreover, appear as owners and disposers of property in their own right, a role from which Indian brahmanical tradition excluded them. 152 Thus K. 216 S of A.D. 1006/7 reports that Madhyadeśā, a woman in service at the court, donated land and other property to her Guru after a Brahmayajña, and yet other lands to the Siva installed at Śivapada; and the Khmer portion of this inscription lists slaves given by two men to Ten Umā, the granddaughter of Madhyadeśā; K. 165 N of A.D. 953 records that Me Indrānī, Me Devaki and Me Nem, three female members of the family of Tāñ Kamraten Añ Mahendradevi joined with Vāp Pañ, the chief (mūla) of the corps of Bhāgavata servants,

148. IC 5:134, n. 2. Names in -śānti are not uncommon in the inscriptions, e.g. Kumāraśānti (K. 1), Jñānaśānti (K. 21), Bhavaśānti (K. 657), Bhāśānti (K. 561) and Śikhāśānti (K. 382).

149. Bṛhatkālottara, ff. 85v3-90v6: rudraśāntipaṭalaḥ. On the purpose of the ceremony see f. 87r2— v3: rudraśāntim pravaksyāmi śivām sarvārthasādhanīm / mānuṣāṇām hitārthaya samam rudrena bhāṣitām sarvvavighnāḥ praṇaśyanti śrutvainām pāpanāśanīm / duḥsvapnā vyādhayaś caiva grahāś caiva diso daśa / ……rudraśāntim namasyāmi vetālānām vināśanīm / narāṇām upasṛṣṭānām devāyatana- veśmasu / yeṣām na garbhasambhūtiḥ kulahāniś ca jāyate/ yatra jātā vinasyanti bhavanti ca napumsakāḥ / mārī cotpadyate yatra satatam ca gṛhe grahāḥ/ garbhaḥ pataty akāle ca rudram vā yatra jāyate/ durbhikṣenaiva pîdyante rāṣṭrotpātais ca dāruṇaiḥ/ gaṇā yatra virudhyante bhrātaraś capy anekaśaḥ / pitā *mātā (corr.: mātās Cod.) tatha caiva kandalopahate gṛhe paśyanti ca kapim svapne bījam kṣetre na rohati / gavo tha pasavas caiva dāsāḥ karmakarā api/ gṛhe sthita virudhyante tatra śāntim prayojayet / kūpo vā garjjate yatra prsthavamsaś ca bhidyate / taravo nahatāś caiva sravanti rudhiram bahu devatās caiva vrkṣāś ca nṛtyanti ca hasanti cal akāle puspita vrkṣaḥ phalitāś capy anekaśaḥ/ ulkāpātāś ca jāyante bhumikampas ca dāruṇāḥ/ nimittair aśubhair ebhir anyais capi sudāruṇaiḥ/ekāgraḥ (corr.: ekāgram Cod.) prayato bhutvā tatra śāntim prayojayet. However, the Newar Rudraśānti mentions only national calamities, epidemics and famines, f. 19r5: dvīpamārī- mahotpātaśāntyartham; f. 19r9-v1: mahajanakṣayapraśāntyartham desotpāṭamahāmārībhayaśānty- artham; and f. 26v8: iti śrīrudrasānti mahāmāridurbhikṣapraśāntividhim samāptā.

150. See, e.g., Sankhāyanagṛhyasutra 1.2.1: karmapavarge brāhmaṇabhojanam ‘at the close of the ritual the feeding of brahmins [should take place]’. For the case of apotropaic rites (śāntividhiḥ) see the Yajnavalkyasmṛti 1.295–308 (grahaśāntiprakaraṇam). The Newar Rudraśānti Paddhati likewise rules a meal (samayabhojya) as the last act of the proceedings, after the dismissing of the deity from the fire and the presentation of offerings to virgin girls (f. 23v7-8): agnivisarjana yāya. kaumāriyāga. samayabhojya. iti śrīrudraśānti … For the meaning of samayabhojya see MANANDHAR 1986 s.v. samay/samael, TAMOT 2000 S.v. smaya, samaya dyāhā, ISWARANAND 1995, s.v. samae, and LEVY 1990, 326, 642 (samhae).

151. See Adhir CHAKRAVARTI 1982; VICKERY 1998, 258-270.

152. Manusmrti 8.416a: bhāryā putraś ca dāsaś ca traya evādhanaḥ smṛtāḥ ‘Three are held to be without property: a wife, a son [before partition] and a slave’.

392

Alexis SANDERSON

to install a [Viṣṇu] Campeśvara in Dvāravatī and to unite its personnel with that of another deity of this name; and K. 692 of A.D. 1189/90 or 1195/6 tells us that when Suryapaṇḍitasabhāpati (Bhūpendrapaṇḍita II) installed images of both his parents he did so in conjunction with his wife. 153

We also find evidence that women could officiate as priests. We learn that when there was no available male in a lineage of Bhāgavatas designated to supply the presiding officiant of the Visnu temple at Kaden, a woman of the family was to be ordained for that purpose. 154 Nor is it probable that this arrangement was exceptional among the Khmers, for we find it also in the royal Śaiva cult of the Devarāja. In the Sdok Kak Thom inscription of A.D. 1053, to which we owe most of our knowledge of this cult, we are told that after its inauguration by king Jayavarman II around the turn of the eight and ninth centuries he and the brahmin Hiranyadāma agreed that the right to conduct the worship of the god should pass from Śivakaivalya to men or women in his maternal line:

tanmātrvamse yatayas striyo vā

jātā – tra niyuktabhāvāḥ

tadyājakās syur na kathañcid anya iti kṣitīndradvijakalpanāsīt

K. 235, v. 31

The king and the foremost of brahmins provided that ascetics or women born in his [Śivakaivalya’s] maternal lineage, and no others under any circumstances, should be appointed to this…and perform its worship.

CŒDÈS and DUPONT chose to translate this passage in a manner that eliminates reference to the right of women by taking striyo not as a nominative plural (‘ascetics or women born in his maternal lineage’) but as an ablative singular (‘ascetics born from a woman in his maternal lineage’). But this asks us to accept an unnaturally stilted use of Sanskrit in an inscription whose Sanskrit is otherwise of a high standard of correctness

153. K. 692, v. 57: asthāpayad bhagavatīm jananīm satīm śrībhupendrapanditapituḥ padapānsu- lavdhyai / śrīsuryyapanditasabhāpatir ātmarupam bhaktyaitayos sahakalatram atisth[i]pad yah.

154. K. 989 B, 11. 10-11 (of A.D. 1007) referring to an edict of Jayavarman II (r. c. A.D. 770-c. 834) concerning the Vaiṣṇava temple of the God of Kaden (kamraten jagat kaden): vraḥ śāsana pre santāna sten rau ta phjuḥ purohita kamraten jagat kaden ° daha qyat santāna ta puruṣa (11) ley strijana ta qvyaḥ mān ṛtusnāta lah ta vvam rtusnāta ley lah pvās bhagavati pre phjuḥ kamraten jagat kaden ‘A royal edict [of Jayavarman II] ordered that the descendants of Sten Rau should serve as the officiants (purohita) of the God of Kaden, and if there is no male descendant that a woman who is qvyah, who has bathed after menstruation or who has not, should be ordained as a Bhāgavati (a female Bhagavata) and serve the God of Kaden’. CŒDÈS (tr., IC 7, 183) understood ṛtusnāta lah ta vvam ṛtusnāta ley lah to mean ’nubiles ou non nubiles’. VICKERY rightly finds fault with this rendering and proposes instead ‘women who no longer menstruate or who have not begun to menstruate’ (1998, 220, 419-420), taking qvyaḥ to mean ‘finished with’ and apparently having it govern ṛtusnāta. However, that too is unsatisfactory, however well it accords with anthropological expectations about menstruation taboos, since it is implausible that prepubertal girls were ordained as temple priests. The Sanskrit term rtusnāta- adopted by Old Khmer refers to a woman who has bathed at the end of the five days of impurity caused by her menstruation and is thereby considered ready to conceive, it being obligatory for the husband to attempt to proceate a son at this time; see, e.g., Parāśarasmṛti quoted by Kullūka ad Manusmṛti 3.45: ṛtusnātām tu yo bhāryām sannidhau nopagacchati / ghorāyām bhrūṇahatyāyām patate nātra samsayaḥ; Trilocanaśiva, Prāyaścittasamuccaya p. 52: ṛtusnātā yadā patnī tadā pañcadināvadhi / sevya vipreṇa putrārtham anyathā bhrūṇahā bhavet. I tentatively propose, therefore, that ṛtusnāta here is extended to mean ‘of child-bearing age’ and that accordingly vvam rtusnāta means ’no longer of child-bearing age’.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

393

and lucidity; and, more conclusively, it overlooks the crucial word vā (‘or’). Women, then, had the right to serve as priests, if only in the absence of a qualified male. 155

It seems, moreover, that high-born women were not barred by their gender from access to all positions in the administration. We learn that after the death of king Rajendravarman (r. 944–c. 968) Prāṇā, the daughter of his sister, was put in charge of the private secretaries of his successor Jayavarman V (r. c. 968-c. 1000/1).

156

As for caste, adherence to which is so central an element of brahmanical orthopraxy in India, our sources use its language to distinguish between brahmins and the ‘kṣatriya’ rulers they served; but marriage between brahmin men and women of the Khmer royal families was common, as it was in the neighbouring principalities of the Chams, kings of both peoples boasting of brahmin-kṣatriya descent;+++(5)+++ 157 and most of the rest of society is referred to without caste-differentiation as ’the common people’ (sāmānyajanaḥ, sāmānyāḥ):

rājakutyantare rājadvijātinṛpasūnavaḥ

viseyur atra nirddoṣan ta evābharaṇānvitāḥ tadanyas tu sasāmānyajano noddhataveṣaṇaḥ

K. 95 A, v. 39-41b

158

Only the king, brahmins and the prince(s) may enter this royal house of retreat wearing their ornaments without fault. Others than they, and the common people, should not be dressed in finery.

and, in the Lolei inscription of Yasovarman I (r. 889–910) prescribing the punishments that should be meted out to those who infringe the rules of conduct in a hermitage:

78 ye śāsanam idan darppal langhayeyur yyadi dvijāḥ vadhadaṇdādyanarhatvān nirvvāsyās ta ito nganāt

79 rājaputrās tu dapyas te hemavinśatpalair mmitam tadarddhavinayaḥ kāryyo nṛpatijñātimantriṇām

155. CŒDÈS and DUPONT 1943-46, 96: « Que les yatis nés d’une femme de ce matṛvamça et préposés… ici, soient prêtres de ce culte et jamais d’autres ! » Telle fut la règle des brahmanes royaux’. I also reject their translation of kṣitīndradvija- as ‘brahmanes royaux’ (literally ‘king-brahmins’). This too is implausible. The preferable alternative (’the king and the foremost of brahmins’) fits the context perfectly and is supported by the Old Khmer parallel in 11. 76–77 of side 3: vraḥ pāda parameśvara nu vrāhmaṇa hiranyadāma oy vara sāpa pre santāna sten añ sivakaivalya gi ta sin nā kamraten jagat ta rāja vvam āc ti mān qnak ta dai ti ta sin ta nohh ‘V.P. Parameśvara [Jayavarman II] and the brahmin Hiranyadāma made a solemn oath requiring the lineage of Śivakaivalya to officiate before the Kamraten Jagat ta Rāja and forbidding any other persons to do so’. On women with cult responsibilities, sometimes called klon mratan, mentioned in pre-Angkorean inscriptions, see VICKERY 1998, 163.

156. K. 136 A, v. 24: siṣṭānvayācāraguṇā mṛte rājendravarmmaņi sāpy abhyantaralekhinām adhipā jayavarmmaṇaḥ ‘Possessing the religious observances and virtues of her cultured lineage she became the

chief of the private secretaries of Jayavarman after Rajendravarman’s death’.

157. K. 134 of A.D. 781/2, v. 1 re Jayavarman (probably Jayavarman II): śrījayavarmani nṛpatau … brahmakṣatrānsabhave; K. 287 (undated) re Jayavarman VII: dvijarājavamsyaḥ; K. 528 of 952, v. 10, re Sarasvati, wife of the brahmin Viśvarūpa, mother of Mahendradevi, the mother of Rajendravarman: vrahmakṣatraparamparodayakari; C. 73a= M. 7, 1. 3, re Rudravarman I (6th century), son of a brahmin (C. 96 = M. 12, v. 3: dvijātapravarātmajaḥ): brahmakṣatriyakulatilake; C. 25 = M. 23 of 799, v. 2 re Indravarman I: brahmaksatrapradhāno.

158. This terminology is also found in Old Javanese; see ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v. sāmānyajana and catursāmānya (sic). Similar is the distinction in Balinese society between the gentry (triwangsa [trivamsa]) comprising title-groups classified as brahmin, kṣatriya and vaiśya, and commoners comprising title-groups classified as sūdra, the latter comprising about ninety per cent of the population; see HOBART et al. 2001, 75-82; GEERTZ 1980, 26-27 and 148.

394

80 tadarddhakan tu dāpyās te hemadaṇdātapatrinaḥ tasyāpy arddhan tu mukhyānām śreṣṭhinām vinayo mataḥ 81 dāpyās tadarddhavinayam śaivavaiṣṇavakādayaḥ tasyapy arddhan tu vinayas sāmānyeṣu samīritaḥ

82 dhanan datum aśaktās syus sāmānyā yadi mānuṣāḥ prsthe vetrena tan hanyāc chatam ity anusāsanam K. 323, v. 78-82

Alexis SANDERSON

It is ruled that if out of arrogance brahmins should transgress this order they should be expelled from these precincts, since it is not fitting to chastise them with corporal punishments, and the like. Princes should be fined twenty Palas of gold. [Other] relatives of the king, and ministers, should be fined half that. [Other dignitaries] with golden-handled parasols should pay a fine of half that amount. Leading merchants should be fined half as much [2.5]. Saiva and Vaisnava and other [ascetics] should be fined half that. The fine for common people is set at half that. If a common person cannot pay his fine he should receive one hundred blows of the cane upon his back. 159

The superficiality of the concept of caste among the Khmers is also evident in the fact that varṇaḥ, the Indian Sanskrit term for the [four] caste-classes from brahmin to Śūdra, was put to other use in Cambodian Sanskrit and Old Khmer. There it denotes title-groups or corporations associated with various kinds of royal service. A person could be honoured by enrolment into such a Varna, and new Varnas could be created by royal decree. 160

159. See also K. 279 C1, v. 10: sāmānyamānavān sarvvān vālavṛddharujānvitān/ dīnānāthāmś ca yatnena bhared bhaktauṣadhādibhiḥ; K. 904 B, 1. 28: ājñā vraḥ kammratān añ ta vrāhmaṇa tel nirvvāsya sāmānya śarīradanda.

160. See, e.g., K. 157, v. 12: kontyākhyām bhāgineyīm svām nṛpatau tām nivedya yaḥ/ rājñopaskarageheṣu sevivarnne py atisthipat ‘who offered Konti, the daughter of his sister, to the king and had him place her in the Varna of the servants in the houses of the utensils’; K. 205, v. 12: tadguṇacoditamanasā narapatinā sādareņa sa prathite/ varnne hemakaranke sakulapuro lekhito + + ‘persuaded by his virtues the king eagerly enrolled him with [all the members of his] family’s settlement in the celebrated Gold Cup Varna’; K. 228, v. 17: sa că varṇnottamatām prapede (CŒDÈS conjectures cāravarṇnottamatām) ‘he become the leader of the …Varna’; K. 278, v. 8: śrīsūryyavarmmaṇo rājye varṇṇabhāge kṛte pi yah sampadam präpya sadbhaktyā varnṇaśreṣthatvasamsthitaḥ ‘who, when the Varnas were distinguished during the reign of Suryavarman, obtained wealth as the reward of his outstanding loyalty and became the leader of the Varna(s)’; K. 444 (ed. Pou 2001, 130-138), A 11. 11-18: man srā[c] vidhi mān vraḥ śāsana dhūli vraḥ pāda dhūli je[n] vraḥ kamraten añ ta kamraten añ ta vraḥ guru pre res pamnvās āy [ta neh] saptavarnna [nu kule] nai ācāryyapradhāna pra[dvān] mok duk mula khmuk vraḥ kralā arccana 20 mūla karmmāntara [20 o]y cralo phle sruk sre bhūmyākara len [s]iddhi jā varṇṇa neḥ ta vyar ‘When the ritual had been completed there was an order from Our Lord the King to Our Lord the Venerable Guru instructing [him] to choose men in holy orders from the existing seven Varnas and [from] the families of the Principal Acāryas up till now in order to establish 20 Chiefs of Khmuks for the hall of worship and 20 Chiefs of Karmāntaras [and] to give them exclusive title to the revenues of these two Varnas: villages, rice-fields and whatever wealth may be in the ground’; ibid. B, II. 16-18: vraḥ karunā [duk jā] varnṇa [khmuk] vraḥ [kralā arccana] jā varnņa karmmāntara ‘The royal compassion established the Varna of the Khmuks of the hall of worship and that of the Karmantaras’; K. 194, 1. 8: varna karmmāntara (concerning Divākarapaṇḍita, the Guru of Jayavarman VI, Dharaṇīndravarman and Sūryavarman II and a member of this Varna); K. 534, v. 12cd: prāpa pamcām varnṇeṣv adhīśatām ‘he was appointed chief of the Varnas of the guards’; K. 569 (ed. Pou 2001, 166–171), l. 17: qnak varnna khnar gran ’the men of the title group of Khnar Gran’; K. 717, v. 16: rājādhirajo naganetrarandhre devipurasthā janatās tadānīm / cakāra cāmīkarakāravarṇṇe nivedanāt tasya suśilpavuddhin ‘Then as a result of the information received from him the Overlord of Kings enrolled the people then in Devipura [knowing them to be] highly skilled in their art, in the Varna of the goldsmiths, in 927’; K. 989 B, 11. 8-9: ta gi vraḥ rajya parameśvara gi nu res qji yen ta

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

395

The society of the Khmers also included persons called khñum (pre-Angkorean kñum) or dāsa (m.) / dāsī (f.) in the Khmer texts, and dāsaḥ/dāsī in the Sanskrit. 161 The Sanskrit terms mean slave (male/female); and though that term in the sense of an absolutely unfree and property-less person is not applicable to all categories among the Khmers’ khñum, 162 it is certainly applicable in general. For our inscriptions speak of their being bought, stating their purchase prices, 163 of their being donated together with their offspring to persons, or to temples as ‘slaves of a god’ (khñum vraḥ, devadāsa), 164 along with land, livestock and other valuables, exchanged (K. 222), given to an officiant as payment for a sacrifice (dakṣiņā) (K. 89, K. 523 D), and inherited as ‘family slaves’ (khñum santāna) (K. 523 D). We also learn of a runaway slave who had been born in the sacred territory of a temple being recaptured and punished by having his nose and ears cut off (karṇnanāsikaccheda) (K. 231). The same inscription tells us that he and his family were offered to the temple with full rights of ownership (siddhi). A pre-Angkorean inscription records the manumission of a female slave, her sons and grandsons by royal favour. 165

jmah sten rauv ay vrai svay praman satagrāma varṛṇa qninditapura tem kāla jyak vraḥ travān nagara śrīindrapura pi abhiṣeka saptavarṇṇa pi cek dau jā pamcām kanmyan pamre ‘During his reign Parameśvara [Jayavarman II] chose [our] ancestor named Sten Rauv, in Vrai Svay of the Satagrāma district, of the Varṇa of Aninditapura, when the excavation of the Sacred Pond of the capital Indrapura had been begun, in order to consecrate (abhiseka) the seven Varnas, in order to divide them [and] make them Guards and Pages’; K. 92, v. 11: so ninditapuraśresthavarnasantānasantatiḥ; K. 221B, 11. 7-8: varṇa qnak pūrva ’the Varṇa of the people of the East’; K. 254 B, 11. 2-3: añ amcas varṣa chnam tap pra[m]piy gi nu gal ta varņa nā vrah canmāt ‘I, having reached the age of 18, served in the Varna of the Sacred Bulls’; K. 1036 (NIC II-III, 149– 155), A 1. 27: varnna smin ’the Varna of the officiants’.

161. They are distinguished from the common people’ in K. 71 (mid-tenth century), II. 7-8: sāmānyajana nu khñum vraḥ kamraten an ’the common people and (nu) the slaves of the god’.

162. JACQUES 1976a, citing instances of (1) a va (‘male slave’) donating another to a god; see K. 54, I, 1. 13 (IC 3:159): amnoy va jlen ta vraḥ kamratān añ va et (= NIC II-III, 21, reading va cat rather than va et) ‘Va Jlen donated Va Et/Cat to the god’; and (2) a gho purchasing a paddy-field for a price that included two slaves’. In the second case, however, the gho is described as a superintendent of temple personnel; see K. 958, North, 11. 21-25: sre cāmkā ti gho kumāra khloñ qnak khnet dun ta vap ṛṣi vap dhap ten so ten vit vāp vrau pamcām dravya nu duñ khñum vyar sru bhay vyar ti samakṣa nu vraḥ sabhā san gol jvan ta vraḥ kammraten an śrībhadreśvara qnau rudramahālaya ‘The paddy field [called] Camkā that Gho Kumāra, superintendent (khlon) of the personnel of the light fortnight, purchased from Vap Rṣi, Vap Dhap, Ten So, Ten Vit, Vap Vrau pamcam for [the following] goods: two slaves (khñum) and forty measures of rice, after the fixing of its boundaries had been witnessed by [representatives of] the Venerable Council (vraḥ sabha), was donated to V.K.A. Śrī Bhadresvara at Rudramahālaya’. See also VICKERY 1998, 225-250, 271-274.

163. See, e.g., K. 33 of A.D. 1017; K. 105 of A.D. 987; K. 493 of A.D. 657; K. 933 of A.D. 1013. 164. For the expression khñum vraḥ see K. 254 B, 1. 13 and K. 523 B, 1. 27. For Khmer devadāsa see K. 415, 1. 8. For Sanskrit devadāsaḥ see K. 717, v. 15.

164. K. 666, v. 2: rajaprasādena hi somatistrī tasyaś [ca] p[u]tras tv atha pautrakāś cal adāsabhāvam prajagāma tasmai prabhāsasomā yamachidra*bāṇaiḥ (corr.: vānaiḥ Ep.) ‘By the favour of the king Prabhāsasomā, the wife of Somati, together with her children and grandchildren, ceased to be slaves, in [Śaka] 592.’ The term adāsabhāvam prajagāma, literally ‘became ’non-slaves’ (adāsaḥ) alludes to the formula of manumission “adāsaḥ!” as seen in Nāradasmṛti 5.40-41: svadāsam icched yaḥ kartum adāsam prītamānasaḥ/ skandhād ādāya tasyāpi bhindyāt kumbham sahāmbhasā | akṣatābhiḥ sapuṣpābhir mūrdhany enam avākiret / adāsa iti coktvā triḥ prānmukham tam athotsrjet ‘One who being delighted wishes to make his slave a non-slave should lift a pot full of water from that slave’s shoulder and smash it. He should then scatter rice grains and flowers over his head, pronounce the [formula] “adāsaḥ” three times and then release him, turning away’. In the brahmanical Dharmaśāstra the only slaves that the king is said to have a duty to liberate are those who have been enslaved by force, having been kidnapped by criminals and sold (Nāradasmrti 5.36: caurāpahrtavikrītā ye ca dāsīkṛtā balāt / rājñā mokṣayitavyās te dāsatvam teṣu neṣyate; Katyāyanasmṛti 726).396

Alexis SANDERSON

Now, it might be thought that these persons formed a class in Khmer society so degraded that we could claim that while much of the detail of the Indian system of caste is lacking, the Khmers had at least its essential structure, namely the distinction between pure groups, of whom the purest were the brahmins, and a mass of persons excluded as pollutant. But this would be an error. There would be a prima facie reason to see the khñum in this light, if it were the case that slaves in India were considered pollutant. 166 But I find no evidence that this was so and much that it was not.

For slaves working in Indian Śaiva temples we have the testimony of the Śiva- dharmottara, in which ‘Siva’s slaves’ (śivadāsāḥ) are distinguished from temple servants hired for wages in a passage that promises both categories of worker that they will attain the world of Rudra when they die:

ye capi vṛttibhṛtakāḥ śivāyatanakarmiṇaḥ

yanti te ‘pi mṛtāḥ svarge sivakarmānubhāvataḥ sivadāsatvam āpannā naranārīnapumsakāḥ

te ‘pi tannāmasamyogād yānti rudrapuram mahat

f. 12[75]v5-6 (2.166-167)

Those wage-earners who work in the temple of Śiva will also go to heaven when they die by virtue of their work for Śiva (śivakarma). As for men, women and the neuter who have become Śiva’s slaves (Śivadāsas), they too, because of their connection with the name of that [god], will go to the great paradise of Rudra. 167

The Saiva Paddhati Naimittikakarmānusandhāna composed by Brahmasambhu of the Karkaroņi branch of the Mattamayura lineage in 938/9 A.D. also distinguishes these two categories of worker. We are told that after the cremation of an ascetic of a hermitage (Matha) the Acārya should announce the event to the initiated ascetics, lay Maheśvaras, slaves and workers [of the Matha]:

deśikādisamayyantān vyāhṛtya tu tapodhanān

māheśvarajanāmś cāpi dāsān karmakarāms tathā drṣṭapurvāparān brūyād iti sarvvān sadharmmiṇaḥ.

ff. 92v5-93rl

Similarly, when an outgoing Ācārya passing on his duties to his successor tells him all the details of the foundation over which he will preside, these should include the slaves he must support:

105 idam sthānam iyam vṛttir eṣā pustakasamhatiḥ amī vai bharaṇīyās tu dāsāḥ karmakarāś ca naḥ

166. This has been taken for granted by JACQUES 1976a, 73-74. He argues that those khñum who were working within the temple, for example in the preparation of food, cannot have been slaves in the Indian sense, since this would have contravened brahmanical dietary taboos, and that this would surely have been unacceptable in Cambodia, even though the system was probably less rigid there.

167. The role of neuter slaves (napumsakaḥ, klībaḥ), that is to say, of men congenitally incapable of sexual intercourse and fatherhood rather than ’eunuchs’, as these terms are commonly mistranslated, is unclear. I suppose that it was in the quarters reserved for the large numbers of women dedicated to the god as Rudragaṇikā dancers or in humbler capacities (Devadāsīs). The reference to connection with the name of the god mentioned in this passage shows that the term sivadāsaḥ is a title as well as a description. Cf. such terms as sivagānavit “a singer in a Siva temple”, sivadīksitah “a Saiva initiate”, sivabrāhmaṇaḥ “a Saiva brahman”, sivavratī “a Saiva ascetic”, and sivārāmaḥ “the garden of a Śaiva temple or hermitage”.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

106 etat sarvam mayā tubhyam dattam adya tvayāpi ca

pālanīyam tathā samyag yathāsmābhiḥ prapālitam

f. 73v1-3, 4.105-106

=

105d dāsāḥ em. : dāsya Cod.

397

Such is the foundation; such is the revenue; such is the library; and these are the slaves and workers that it is my duty to support. All this I have given to you this day, and you should properly maintain it as I have done. 168

The Saiva scripture Bṛhatkālottara defines the property of a temple-god (devasvam) as whatever has been donated to that god, including humans (dvipadāḥ):

yad dattam devadevaya tac caṇḍāya prakalpayet

loham bhū tvājayed yatnādi dvipadaś ca catuṣpadāḥ

maṇayo ratnanicayam devasvam parikīrtitam

f. 44v5-6, 22.8c-10b

=

He should assign to [the charge of the deity] Canda whatever has been donated to Śiva. The property of a deity (devasvam) is defined as ‘metals, lands, † …†, human beings (dvipadāḥ), livestock, jewels and precious stones. 169

and inscriptions confirm that such slaves were a common feature of temples. 170

As for the relative purity or impurity of slaves in ancient India, it was a matter of their caste or that of their owner (svāmī), not of their degraded civil status. Thus when considering the proper duration of the periods of impurity (āśaucakālaḥ) for the various castes caused by the death or birth of a relative both brahmanical and Saiva authorities rule that the period for a domestic slave should be that prescribed for his master, or if his master has died, that prescribed for his own caste, which would normally but not always be Śūdra. 171

I see no reference to the period of impurity for temple slaves in brahmanical sources. But the Saiva Trilocanaśiva rules that a female temple slave (devadāsī) and any Śūdra that works in the temple (which would include and is probably intended to mean male temple slaves of that caste) is subject to impurity for twenty days. 172 During this period they are not excluded

168. A related passage in the Keralan Siddhāntasāra of Iśānaśivagurudeva adds female slaves; see Īsānaśivagurudevapaddhati, Kriyāpāda, p. 196: idam sthānam ime dharmas caite pustakasañcayāḥ | dāsīdāsādayas caite paripālyā yathā purā.

169. Cf. K. 81 A, v. 33ab: dasagokṣetrahemādi devadravyam aseṣataḥ ’the property of the god in its entirety comprising the slaves, cows, fields, gold etc.’

170. On evidence of male and female domestic slaves (adiyār) and ‘slaves of the god’ (devaraḍiyār) in South Indian inscriptions see APPADORAI 1990, 23-24, 256-258, 313-322; KARASHIMA 2001, 2: 124-129.

171. For this see Brhaspatismrti, Āśaucakāla, v. 35: svāmitulyena saucena śuddhyante ’they become pure after a period of purification equal to that of their owner’; Bhavadevabhatta, Savasūtakāśaucakāla- prakaraṇa, p. 13: dāsadāsīnām tu na pṛthag āśaucam. kim tu svāmiśaucakāla eva teṣām śuddhiḥ. svāmyabhāve tv ātmīyam evāśaucam; ‘Male and female slaves do not have a period of impurity specific to them [as slaves]. On the contrary, their purification is in the period of time that is required for the purification of their owner. However, if their master has died, then the period of impurity is that which applies to them in their own right [as determined by their caste and any other relevant factors]’; Trilocanaśiva, Prayaścittasamuccaya p. 65: bhrtyānām svāmijātyuktam anyeṣām svoktam iṣyate ‘[the period of impurity] for slaves is that prescribed for the caste of their owners. For others it is held to be that prescribed for their own [caste]’.

172. Prāyaścittasamuccaya p. 65: dinair vimsatibhiḥ śuddhir devadāsyām prakīrtitā / tathā devālaye karmaratāḥ śūdrāḥ prakīrtitāḥ.

398

Alexis SANDERSON

from the temple but like anyone else in this state, regardless of their caste, may not come closer to the god than the outside of the entry hall that leads to the inner sanctum.

173

Moroever, Trilocana follows Manu in prescribing thirty days for the purification of an ordinary Śūdra. 174 By prescribing only twenty days for Devadāsīs and Śūdra temple workers he conveys that they are of greater purity because of their connection with Śiva. For this is an adaptation of a ruling which has a similar sense in the brahmanical Dharmasastra. There we find that Śātātapa and Bṛhadvyāsa declare that Śūdras require only twenty days to be returned to full purity, and that this discrepancy is resolved by taking these authorities to mean this to apply only to devout, observant Śūdras, the rule of thirty days laid down by Manu applying to the rest. 175

Moreover, just as not all Indian slaves were Śūdras, so the slaves of god in the Khmers’ temples included some at least who are likely to have been of high birth. The evidence of this is in the names of the slaves listed in our inscriptions in records of donations. While nearly all the donors have Sanskrit names, the names of most of these slaves are Khmer, and some of them are derogatory. 176 Among the Sanskrit names too are some that are consonant with low status. For example, some male slaves mentioned in pre- Angkorean inscriptions were named after a day of the lunar month, probably because they were born or acquired on those days. 177 But we also find such names as Jyesthavarma, Īśānaśiva, Brahmasiva, Mūrdhaśiva, Vaktraśiva, Varmaśiva, Śikhāśiva and Hrdayaśiva. 178 The first of these is indicative of ‘kṣatriya’ status, names in - varma being held among the Khmers by royalty, generals and other high non-religious dignitaries. The rest are Saiva initiation names (dīkṣānāma) and of a kind given only to brahmins according to most Indian authorities and to members of all castes above the Śūdras according to the rest,

179

173. Prāyaścittasamuccaya p. 65, continuing: āśaucinām tu sarveṣām prasādasya praveśanam / agramaṇḍapabahye tu na doṣāya prakalpitam.

174. Prāyaścittasamuccaya p. 61, = Manusmrti 5.83d: śūdro māsena śuddhyati ‘a Śūdra is pure after one month’.

175. See Savasūtakāśaucakālaprakaraṇa, 12-13.

176. See VICKERY 1998, 247, citing as examples the names va cke ‘Dog’; va kdit ‘Arse’; svā kmau ‘Black Monkey’; va sa-uy ‘Stinker’.

177. See, e.g., K. 66 (7th century): va caturthī, vā pañcamī, vā dvādaśī; K. 140 of 676: vā pañcami, vā tray… (probably vā trayodaśī), vā daśamī and vā pūrṇṇamī; K. 600 of 612: va daśamī; K. 560 (7th century): vā ekādaśī, vā pañcamī; K. 424 (7th century): vā daśamī; K. 562 (7th century).

178. K. 600: va jyeṣṭhahvarmma; K. 232: gho īśānaśiva; K. 232: gho murddhnaśiva (= Mūrdhaśiva); K. 824: sī vaktraśiva; K. 232: gho varmmasiva, K. 232: gho vrahmaśiva; K. 420: si sikhāśiva; K. 420: si hrdayaśiva.

179. The view that initiation-names in -siva (originally also -jyotis, -śikha and -savitra [the four Gocara names]) are the prerogative of brahmin males is taught in Vidyapurāṇa cited by Rājānaka Takṣakavarta in Nityadisamgrahapaddhati f. 63v11, 64r12-13: sivo jyotiḥ śikha caiva savitras ceti gocarāḥ …yena ye dikṣitās te pi tadgocarasamakhyayā/khyātās tv asramadharmaś ca svecchāsankalpato bhavet etās sañjñā dvijāgryāṇām rājādīnām gaṇānkitāḥ | śaktisamjñās tathā strīņām sarvāsām parikīrtitāḥ ‘-śiva, -jyotis, sikha and -săvitra are the lineage[-name]s. A person is given the lineage-name of his initiator. Duties according to stage of life are a matter of personal choice. These names are those of brahmins. The names of kings (kṣatriyas) and others are distinguished by [ending in] -gaṇa. It is ruled that all women should have names [ending in] -śakti’; Mrgendra, Kriyāpāda 8.60c-61b: srajam vimocayen nāma dīkṣitānām tadādikam / śivāntakam dvijendrānām itareṣām gaṇāntakam; ‘He should cast forward the flower. The names of initiates must begin with that [of the deity on to which it falls]. In the case of brahmins it should end in -siva and for other [male initiates] in -gana’; and Brhatkalottara, f. 91v3-4: sivasamjñā dvijasyaiva kavacākhyā nṛpasya ca/ vaisyānām devasamjñā ca śūdrāṇām ca *gaṇāntakam (em.: gaṇāntikam Cod.) ‘Only the brahmin may have a name in -śiva. The king’s name should be in -kavaca. Vaisyas’ names should end in -deva, and Śūdras’ names in -gana’. The minority view is seen in Kashmir: Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakantha ad Mrgendra,

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

399

names found elsewhere in our inscriptions as those of gentry and high-ranking religious dignitaries. 180

That even persons of the highest rank could fall into slavery is apparent from K. 158 of the reign of Jayavīravarman (1002 c. 1010). This records that of three persons found guilty of misappropriating lands two were punished by the mutilation of their lips and the amputation of their hands and the third given to the litigant at his request along with his entire family and domain in what is surely a case of the punitive enslavement (danda- dāsatvam) recognized by brahmanical authorities. 181 The reason for the difference in

Kriyāpāda 8.60c-61, taking dvijendraḥ ’the foremost of the twice-born’ to refer implausibly to the best in all three caste-classes of the twice-born, i.e. outstanding brahmins, kṣatriyas or vaiśyas; Tantrālokaviveka ad 4.265ab; and Manodaguru, Kalādīkṣāpaddhati, BORI MS. 157 of 1886-92, ff. 96v16-97r: tatpātāvasare śivanāmānkitam sisyam vidhāya striyam ca śaktināmānkitām vidhāya bhagavan sakaleśvara tvatpādapadmapūjanarasikamanāḥ ayam amukaśiva āgata iti pumviṣaye. striviṣaye tu bhagavan sakaleśvara tvatpādapadmapūjanarasikamanāḥ iyam amukadevī āgatā iti puṣpāñjalipātāvasare guruḥ kathayed ity arthaḥ. südraviṣaye tu ayam amukagaṇa āgata iti prayojyam. ayam viṣayo bhuktiparaḥ. mumukṣau tu gurur evecchayā nāma kuryāt “[The words] “When, at the time that it has fallen, the Guru has given a male candidate a name in - siva and a female a name in -śakti” mean that as soon as the handful of flowers has fallen he should say in the case of a man “Lord Sakaleśvara [= Sakalasvacchanda], this [man] N- śiva has arrived, eager to worship the lotuses that are your feet” and in the case of a woman “Lord Sakaleśvara, this [woman] N-devi has arrived, eager to worship the lotuses that are your feet.” But in the case of a Śūdra [male] he should use “this [man] N-gaṇa has arrived”. This matter concerns [the attainment of] rewards. As for one who seeks liberation, the Guru may give him any name he pleases’.

180. K. 352, N II. 18-19: Loñ Astraśiva; K. 343: Vāp Īsānašiva; K. 950: Acarya Caitanyaśiva, Sabhadhipati; K. 373: Loñ Vrahmaśiva; K. 723: Vaktraśiva; K. 1050 (Pou 2001, 99): Mraten Vaktraśiva; K. 265 A: Steñ Varmasiva, Khloñ Vnam (Skt. sailadhipaḥ) of the royal Indreśvara temple; K. 220: Vāp Varmasiva (Karmmantara of Thkval Lon) and Sten Varmasiva the younger; K. 933: a hermitage founded at Hariharālaya in 978 A.D. by Loñ Varmasiva, grandson in the maternal line of Nandikācārya, the Acāryapradhāna and Vrah Guru of Indravarman (r. 877-889 A.D.); K. 235: Vāmasiva, Guru of Yasovarman, priest of the Devarāja; K. 253: Sikhāśiva, Hotar of Yasovarman; K. 834: Śikhāśiva, Purohita of Jayavarman V; K. 1074 / K. 1090: Mratāñ Sikhāśiva; K. 1152 (Pou 2001, 126-128): land given to Vāp Sarvasiva and transferred to Mrateñ Somasiva, his nephew; Ban That inscription, BEFEO XII, 2 ff.: Mūrdhaśiva (= Bhupendrapandita I), Sabhāpati of Jayavarman VI (1080-c. 1107), Dharaṇindravarman I (1107-1113) and Suryavarman II (1113-c. 1150). The giving of names in -varma to kṣatriyas follows Manusmrti 2.32b. If these slaves with names in -siva were brahmins then this was in contravention of the rule of Kātyāyanasmrti 715cd: trişu varneṣu vijñeyam dāsyam viprasya na kvacit ‘Know that the three caste-classes [kṣatriya, vaiśya and sūdra] may be slaves, but never a brahmin’; ibid. 717: samavarno ‘pi vipram tu dāsatvam naiva kārayet/ brāhmaṇasya hi dāsatvān nṛpatejo vihanyate ‘Even a person of the same caste-class may not make a brahmin his slave. For the enslavement of a brahmin destroys the king’s power’.

=

181. See Manusmrti 8.415cd, in which the dandadāsaḥ ‘the slave by punishment’ is listed as the last of seven types of legally permitted slave. Judicial enslavement is also recognized in the Saiva context. The Śivadharmottara reports that free women could be forced as punishment for unspecified offences to become Rudragaṇikās (also called Rudrakanyās or Rudranārīs), female temple slaves of a superior class whose duty was to gratify the deity with dancing (f. 12[75]v7-8, 12.168): dattāḥ krītāḥ praviṣṭāś ca *daṇḍotpannā (em. daṇḍātpannāḥ Cod.) balāhṛtāḥ / vijñeyā rudragaṇikāḥ śivāyatanayoṣitaḥ ‘Know that Rudragaṇikās, the women of the temple of Siva, are [of five kinds:] those given, those purchased, those who have entered [of their own free will], those who have become [Rudraganikās] as a punishment [for a crime] (dandotpannāḥ), and those acquired by force’. They are superior to other persons who are the god’s property because Trilocanaśiva gives the rule that the period of impurity caused by the death or birth of a relative is only fifteen days in their case, whereas he gives it as twenty days for a Devadāsī; see Prāyascittasamuccaya p. 65: ye ca māheśvarāḥ śūdrā bhasmarudrākṣadhāriṇaḥ/ teṣām pañcadaśāhena śuddhiḥ sūtau mṛtāv api/ tathaiva *rudrakanyāyām (em.: śūdrakanyāyām Cod.) pañcācārye ‘pi *sammatam (em.: sammatau Cod.) ‘Sūdras who are devotees of Śiva and wear ashes and Rudrākṣa seeds are purified in fifteen days if there is a

400

Alexis SANDERSON

treatment seems to be that the third culprit was the brother of the litigant’s mother. This means that he was the son of Virendravīra, the general of king Harşavarman II. 182

Indian slaves, then, were not impure by reason of their civil status and there is no evidence that Khmer slaves, domestic or belonging to deities, were considered more impure than their Indian counterparts. The Chinese Zhou Daguan, observing the Khmers at the end of the thirteenth century, reported that their numerous domestic slaves were made to sit and sleep beneath the raised floors of the Khmers’ houses, and that any visiting Chinese who had sexual intercourse with a slave girl even once was shunned by her Khmer master. But he also reports that slaves were allowed to enter the house, as in India, to carry out domestic duties. 183 This is far from untouchability in the brahmanical sense, and there is no sign of a more degraded group in Khmer society. For an Indian untouchable (candalaḥ) was required by the brahmanical tradition to live with others of his caste far outside the limits of the settlement (grāmaḥ) of the four caste-classes. He might enter it only in the forenoon to remove ordure and to perform any executions that may be required; he was to be executed himself if he were found within the settlement after midday; and he was ruled to be without right of access to the benefits of religion (sarvadharmabahişkṛtaḥ, sarvakarmabahiṣkāryaḥ). 184

Premodern Indian sources reveal no knowledge even of the existence of the Khmers. But how, one wonders, would Indian brahmanical authorities have looked upon this region? Would they have recognized it as part of the territory of their religion, that is to say, as a land fit for the performance of its sacrifices (vajñiyo deśaḥ)?

The answer must be no, if one applies the standard of the authoritative brahmanical jurist Medhātithi, writing in the ninth or tenth century, 185 since he rules the following in his commentary on Manusmrti 2.23:

yadi kathamcid brahmāvartādideśam api mlecchā ākrameyuḥ tatraivāvasthānam kuryur bhaved evāsau mlecchadeśaḥ. tatha yadi kaścit kṣatriyādijātīyo rājā sādhvācarano mlecchān parājayet cāturvarṇyam vāsayet mlecchāmś cāryāvarta iva cāṇḍālān vyavasthāpayet so ‘pi syad yajñiyaḥ

If somehow foreigners (mlecchāḥ) were to invade a region such as Brahmāvarta and establish themselves there it would certainly become foreign [and so unfit for brahmanical sacrifices]. Equally if some king of orthodox observance belonging to the

birth or death. The same is accepted for the Rudrakanya and the [musicians and dancing-instructor known as] the Five Acāryas’. Evidently this rule applies to them on the assumption that they are Śūdras, that is to say, as a further reduction of the thirty days ruled for castes so classified.

182. K. 158, 25-26: osthacchedam karacchedam hemnämnaḥ pvāhvāyasya ca/ yatha taddoṣataḥ kuryād iti tadrājaśāsanam / svamātāmahasūnus tu kenāmā sakulas tadā | yācitas sahadevena rājñā dattas sabhumikaḥ ‘That king commanded that because of their crime Hem and Pū should have their lips mutilated and their hands amputated. But at Sahadeva’s request, Ke, [being] the son of the father of his mother, was given to him along with his family and lands’. That the father of his mother was Virendravīra and the general of Harşavarman (II) is stated in K. 158, v. 11.

183. PELLIOT 1951, 19. Zhou Daguan gives the going rate for a slave as one hundred lengths of cloth for one that is young and strong, and about thirty or forty for one that is old and weak. This corresponds quite well with the prices indicated in our inscriptions. For example, K. 933 of A.D. 1013 records the purchase of a woman and four children for sixty garments, of a woman for one buffalo, of a woman for twenty measures of paddy, of a woman for one frying-pan weighing six jyan, and of a man for ten yo of garments and twenty measures of paddy. These reports reveal, incidentally, that the Khmers’ economy was not monetarized.

184. See Manusmrti 10.12b, 10.51-56; Vaikhānasadharmasūtra 144.3-8.

185. DERRETT 1975, 6. KANE, 1930-1962, vol. 1, section 63, 275, = 1/i (2nd ed.), 583, places him between 800 and 900 A.D.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

401

kṣatriya or other [appropriate] caste were to conquer the foreigners [of some country], settle a community of the four caste-classes [there], and reduce the foreigners to the status of untouchables (caṇḍālāḥ), as in Āryāvarta, then that too would become fit for brahmanical sacrifice, 186

As we have seen, there is no evidence that any part of the indigenous Khmer population was reduced to untouchability, let alone the whole of it, as Medhātithi requires. 187 But the absence of a fully formed caste system is unlikely to have been problematic for many, since the fundamental distinction, that between brahmins and their patrons was present. This may have been all the more so for the Śaivas, since their religion was essentially that of a brahmin-kṣatriya culture centred on the court, the royal temple and the hermitage. As for the other non-brahmanical aspects of Khmer society there are large parts of India itself in which traditions such as matrilineal succession and cross- cousin marriage have survived within otherwise fully brahmanical communities, 188 traditions that were so integral to those communities that the theorists of Brahmanism conceded them as deśadharmaḥ, as institutions prescribed and therefore meritorious for persons within the regions (desa-) in which they are practised. 189 So those who had reason to do so could have accommodated Khmer traditions of inheritance and property in the same way.

In any case we have clear evidence in the Khmers’ inscriptions that there were Indian brahmins prepared to migrate to the region and to accept the daughters of Khmer royalty in marriage.

• Durgasvāmin, a Taittirīya brahmin, is said to have been born in the Deccan (Dakṣiṇāpatha) and to have married the daughter of Īsānavarman I (r. 616/7, 627-c. 635) (K. 438).+++(5)+++
• Another Taittiriya, the Saiva Śakrasvāmin, is said to have been born in Madhyadeśa (K. 904) and to have married a daughter of Jayavarman I (r. 657, -690+). K. 95, v. 5 (= K. 323, v. 6) tells us that a brahmin Agastya of Āryadeśa, expert in the Veda and its ancillary sciences, married the princess Yaśomatī, the great-great-grandmother of the wife of Indravarman I (r. 877-before 889);
• and K. 263, v. 30 reports that the brahmin Divākarabhaṭṭa, husband of the younger sister of Rajendravarman (r. 944-968), had been born where Krsna sported beside the river Yamuna, which is to say in the region of Mathura in northern India.
• K. 910 of A.D. 651 mentions the benefactions of a brahmin Anantasvāmin from Mālava in western India;
• and K. 923, v. 14 describes Śrīnivāsakavi, who served as a royal priest under Indravarman and his predecessor Jayavarman III (r. c. 835-before 877), as supremely learned in the Veda and as an immigrant who came from the excellent land of his birth to purify that of the Khmers. 190

It is very probable that this ’excellent land’ was some region of the Indian subcontinent. Finally, K. 300, v. 7-10

186. For Medhātithi the relevant criteria in the present case must have been that the barbarians should be made to live apart as untouchables outside the religion. Only then could a conquered and colonized territory be fit for Brahmanical rites.

187. The same was and is the case among the Balinese of Bali and Lombok. They classify society within the four brahmanical caste-classes (caturwangsa): brahmana, satria, wesia (triwangsa [gentry]) and sudra (commoners); and they recognize no untouchable group outside them. On the Balinese caste- system see HOBART et al. 2001, 76-82.

188. Matriliny is practised by the Nayars of Kerala (see FULLER 1976; GOUGH 1993) and there is cross-cousin marriage (marriage between the children of a brother and sister) throughout the communities in which Dravidian languages are spoken (see TRAUTMANN 1993a and 1993b).

189. See TRAUTMANN 1993a, 87-88. There he renders deśadharmah as ‘regional custom’. But as dharmaḥ it is more than custom. It is religiously valid activity that generates merit, but only, in this case, for those in the region in which the custom is established.

190. K. 923, v. 14: yah prasaste svadese pi sambhūto vedavittamaḥ praśasyakamvudeśānām pāvanārtham ihāgataḥ.

402

Alexis SANDERSON

reports the tradition that the preceptorial lineage of the fourteenth-century Saivācārya and royal Guru Vidyeśa descended from an Indian Sarvajñamuni, who was believed to have transported himself to the land of the Khmers by means of Yoga in order to worship the pre-eminent Śiva of this region.

191

Moreover, there is Chinese testimony that there were Indian brahmins elsewhere in mainland Southeast Asia. The Wenxian tongkao, Ma Duanlin’s encyclopaedic history of institutions published in A.D. 1317, draws on an early Chinese report that Indian brahmins had been greatly favoured by the king of the nearby kingdom of Panpan on the Malay peninsula and that many had come to his court to profit from his patronage; 192 and a source of the fifth century cited in the Taiping yulan, the general encyclopedia (leishu) published by Li Fang and others in A.D. 984, reports that there were more than a thousand Indian brahmins in Dunsun, a principality in the same area and a dependency of the early kingdom of southern Kambujadeśa that the Chinese called Funan. The people of Dunsun, we are told, followed the religion of these brahmins, many of whom had settled there permanently since they had been given local women as wives. 193

The Pre-eminence of Śaivism

Of the three Indian faiths of the Khmers Saivism appears to have been the most widespread and the most deeply rooted. Already in the sixth century a Chinese source, the Nan Qishu, the Standard History of the Southern Qi dynasty (A.D. 479-501), cites the report of an Indian Buddhist monk Nägasena sent by the king of Funan to the Chinese court in 484 that though Buddhism was present in the region the dominant religion was the worship of Maheśvara (= Śiva). 194 In later times it was so central to the ceremonial life of the monarchy that it may be called the state religion. Śaiva temples and associated hermitages far outnumber others in the epigraphic and material records; and it was Śaiva ascetics that were the pre-eminent preceptors and priests of the élite. The pyramid-based state-temples built by the major Khmer rulers of the Angkorean period at the centre of the ceremonial capitals (puram) whose foundation marked their reigns were mostly temples of Śivas incorporating the ruler’s name installed by Saiva officiants; 195 and during this same period Śaiva initiation (dīkṣā) became a regular addition to the conventional brahmanical rite of royal consecration (rājyābhiṣekaḥ), being received even when a king’s personal religious loyalty (bhaktiḥ) was to Visnu or the Buddha rather than to Śiva. 196 For their services these officiants were rewarded with lands, slaves, and other valuables, and they were granted the golden palanquins (dolā, dolāyānam, śibikā), golden-handled fly-whisks (cāmaram), fans (vyajanam), white parasols (sitātapatram), peacock feather parasols

191. It is possible, though not probable, that the Madhyadeśa and Dakṣiṇāpatha mentioned in the first two of these cases were Khmer localities named after those in India; for these see K. 300, v. 22, Ka. 18 (Madhyadeśa) and K. 289 B, v. 10 (Daksinapatha); and cf. VICKERY 1998, 124, 194, 205.

192. See CŒDÈS 1968, 52.

193. PELLIOT 1903, 279.

194. The relevant passage of this work, composed by Xiao Zixian (A.D. 489-537), has been translated in PELLIOT 1903, 260.

195. For the Indian practice of establishing a deity under the name N-isvara, N-iśvarī etc. where N is the name of the founder (vajamānaḥ) or a person designated by him, commonly a parent, see below, p. 415 and n. 250. It does not imply any degree of apotheosis.

196. These matters of the Saiva state-temples and royal Saiva initiation will be taken up in the sequel of this study.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

403

(māyārātapatram), and other regal insignia that marked elevation to the ranks of the highest dignitaries of the state; 197 and they were not infrequently related to the royal families by marriage.

The Śaivization of the land

Furthermore, neither Pāñcarātrika Vaiṣṇavism nor Mahāyāna Buddhism became so intimately connected with the land itself. In the pre-Angkorean period most of the Sivas whose installation in Lingas is recorded in our inscriptions, at least two thirds, were given the names of the Sivas of venerable Śaiva sites of pilgrimage in India. They have a name in -iśvara preceded by the name of one of those sites, meaning, therefore, ’the Śiva of X’, or the name (in -iśvara) of the deity that presides there. The effect of the practice is to transfigure the Khmer realm by creating a Saiva landscape whose sacred enclaves could be seen as doubles of those of the religion’s Indian homeland.

Nineteen such names, some given to more than one Khmer Śiva, are those of Indian Śivas of such fame and sanctity that they are included in the following four lists in Indian

sources:

1. The “five Lingas” of v. 50 of the Sivastuti of Halayudha in an inscription of A.D. 1063 on the Ardhamaṇḍapa of the Amareśvara temple at Mandhātā (A).

198

2. The forty Śiva sites, in five sets of eight, taught in the Śivadharma 199 and

3. K. 156: the ascetic Kambu, the king’s emissary; K. 194, II. 13-33: Divākarapaṇḍita, the Rājaguru [Vraḥ Guru] of Jayavarman VI (r. 1080-1107), Dharaṇīndravarman I (1107-1113) and Suryavarman II (r. 1113-c. 1150); K. 218, v. 23, reign of Suryavarman I (1002-1050): Madhava, father of Deva-Vāgisvarapandita; K. 235, vv. 75-76: Deva-Jayendrapandita (formerly Sadasiva as a religious), purohita of the Devaraja under Suryavarman I (r. 1002-c. 1050); K. 235, vv. 97-117: dakṣiņā to the same after the dikṣā of Udayadityavarman II (r. 1050-1066); K. 381, v. 2: Deva-Tapasvindrapandita, from Suryavarman I; K. 532, v. 39: the Śaivācārya Hṛṣīkeśa, from Rajendravarman (r. 944–968); K. 706 A v. 8: an unnamed Rājaguru; K. 834, v. 94: Śivacārya, Purohita of Jayavarman V (r. 968-1000), Hotar of Suryavarman I; K. 842, v. 18: Acārya Yajñavarāha, Guru of Jayavarman V; K. 842, v. 31: Acārya Viṣṇukumāra, younger brother of Yajñavarāha; K. 692, v. 53: Bhupendrapandita II, Sausnātika of Suryavarman II.

->

These royal insignia are pan-Indic. Indian sources for the chowry (cāmaraḥ) and the parasol (chattram, ātapatram) and their distinctions according to the status of those for whom they are carried are Varāhamihira, Bṛhatsamhita, Adhyāyas 71-72 and Visnudharmottara Khanda 2, chs. 12-13. For the giving of a palanquin and other royal insignia (rājāngāni) to the Saiva officiant at the time of his consecration to office (ācāryabhiṣekaḥ) see Svacchanda 4.470; → Bhojarāja, Siddhāntasārapaddhati A, f. 41v2: uṣṇīṣamakuṭacchatrapādukācāmarahastyaśvaśibikādirājāngāni; → Somasambhupaddhati 3:483 (Acāryabhiṣekavidhi v. 17abc). Cf. the list of the king’s insignia (rājacihnāni) to be empowered before battle in Lingapurāṇa, Uttarabhāga 27.259c-260b: his white parasol, conch, chowry, ‘drum etc.’ (bheryadyam), palanquin (śibikā) and war banner (vaijayanti).

198. EI 25, 185: avimuktaś ca kedāra omkāras cāmaras tatha / pamcamam tu mahākālaḥ pañca lingāḥ *prakīrttitāḥ (em. Ed.: prakīrttaye Ep.) ‘Avimukt[eśvar]a, Kedar[eśvar]a, Omkār[eśvar]a, Amar[eśvar]a and, fifth, Mahākāla, are called the Five Lingas’.

199. Śivadharma (H), A, f. 40v6-41r5; B, f. 37v3-38r1 (12.110c-122b): bhastrapadam rudrakotir avimuktam mahālayam / 111 gokarnṇam bhadrakarnṇañ ca suvarṇākṣo ’tha diptimān / sthāṇvīśvaraś ca vikhyātas triṣu lokeṣu viśrutaḥ/ 112 sthānāṣṭakam idam jñeyam rudrakṣetram mahodayam | bhastrāpadādi sthāṇvantam rudrasāyojyakāraṇam/ 113 chagalando durandaś ca mākoṭam mandaleśvaram / kālañjaram sankukarnnam *sthuleśvaraḥ sthaleśvarah (B: sthaleśvaraḥ sthuleśvaraḥ A) 114 pavitraṣṭakam ity etat mahāpunyābhivarddhanam / mṛtāḥ prayānti tatraiva sivasya paramam padam / 115 gaya caiva kurukṣetran nakhalan kanakhalan tatha / vimalesvarottahasam mahendram bhīmam *aṣṭamam (conj. aṣṭakam AB)/ 116 etad guhyāṣṭakan nāma sarvvapapavimocanam / gatvā tu puruṣaḥ śrīmān prāpnoti sivamandiram / 117

404

Alexis SANDERSON

throughout the literature of the Saiva Mantramarga, where they are listed in accounts of the hierarchy of worlds (bhuvanādhvā) in the five ascending reality-levels of Water, Fire, Wind, Ether and the I-maker (ahańkāraḥ), as paradises to which the uninitiated laity who die in the eponymous sites are translated. 200

śrīparvvatam hariścandrañ jalpam amrātikeśvaram / madhyamañ ca mahākālam kedāram bhairavan tathā / 118 etad guhyatiguhyañ ca astakam parikīrttitam/ santārya tu pitṛn sarvvān sivam *yanti (B: śānti A) param padam / 119 amresvaram prabhasañ ca naimiṣam puskaran tatha aṣādhi dindimundis ca bhārabhūtim bhavāntakam / 120 nakuliśvaro tha vikhyātas tathā pratyātmiko mahān/ pratyātmikāṣṭakan kṣetram rudrasya hitakāmikam / 121 tatra yānti mṛtās sarve rudrasya paramam padam / dānāny āvasatham kūpam udyanan devatālayam/ 122 tīrtheṣv etāni yaḥ kuryat so ‘kṣayam phalam apnuyat. The reading amreśvaram in 119a is for the sake of the metre, standing for amaresvaram.

200. See, eg, Niśvāsaguhya f. 64r5-v3 (A): pratyātmikāṣṭakād ūrdhvam guhyāṣṭakam ataḥ param/ atigu[hyā]ṣṭakam caiva pavitrāṣṭakam eva ca/ *sthāṇvaṣṭakam (em.: sthānāṣṭakam Cod.) ca pañcaite pravakṣyāmy anupūrvaśaḥ / amaresam *prabhasam (em.: prahāsam Cod.) ca naimiṣam puskaram tathā / āṣādhir dindimundim ca bhārabhūtim *salākulim (em. : samākulim Cod.) / *pratyātmike (em. : pratyātmikā Cod.) mṛtā ye tu te vrajanty eva tat padam / hariścandram puram guhyam guhyam madhyamakeśvaram/ śrīparvatam samakhyātam jalpeśvaram ataḥ param/ ambratike[śvaram] caiva mahākālam tathaiva cal kedāram uttamam guhyam mahabhairavam eva ca/ guhyāṣṭake mṛtā ye tu te vrajantīha tat padam / gayā caiva kurukṣetram nakhalam kanakhalam tatha / vimalam caṭṭahasaś ca mahendram bhīmam aṣṭamam/ atiguhye (em.: atiguhya Cod.) mṛtā ye tu atiguhyam vrajanti te/ bhastrapadam (em.: bhadrapadam Cod.) rudrakoțim avimukta mahālayam (em. : mahābalam Cod.)/ gokarna bhadrakarṇaś ca svarṇ[ākṣaḥ sthānu]r aṣṭamam / etesv api mrtaḥ samyag bhittvā lokam aseṣatah / dipyamānās tu gacchanti atra sthäneṣu ye mṛtā / chagarandam dvirandam ca mākoṭam maṇḍaleśvaram / kālañjaram samākhyātam devadāruvanam tatha / sankukarnan tathaiveha sthaleśvaram ataḥ parameteṣv api mṛtā ye tu bhittvā lokam aseṣataḥ / dipyamānās tu gacchanti sthānva[aṣṭaka]m idam priye; Svayambhuvasutrasamgraha 4.45-54 (B); Matanga, Vidyāpāda 18.109-112, 19.34-38, 20.51c-55, 21.17–19; 22.13–15 (C); Sarvajñānottara, Adhvaprakaraṇa 62-85b (B, pp. 62-4) (D), giving the names of the presiding Sivas rather than the sites themselves: 62 eṣām ūrdhvam bhaved apo daśadhavṛtya samsthitaḥ/ tkharäravamukharan avartormisamakulāḥ (corr.: samākulaḥ Cod.)/ 63 tatraste bhagavan devo varuno mṛtasambhavaḥ / suddhasphaṭikasamkāśa (corr. : samkāśī Cod.) ādiguhyāṣṭakāvṛtaḥ / 64 omkāras tasya pūrveņa āgneyyām sasibhuṣaṇaḥ/ devadevas tu yāmyāyām ajagandhis (em.: m bhojagandhas Cod.) tu nairṛte/ 65 *āṣāḍhis caiva (em.: āṣāḍhames ca Cod.) *vāruṇyām (corr.: vāruṇyāḥ Cod.) vāyavyam dindir eva ca / *bhārabhūtis (corr.: bhārabhūmis Cod.) tu saumyāyām aiśānyām lākulam viduḥ/ 66 ata urdhvam bhaved anyad *agneyāvaraṇam (conj.: āgneryāvaraṇam Cod.) viduḥ/ *sudhmātāyasasamkāśo (em.: sudmātāyasusamkāśa Cod.) megha- stanitanisvanaḥ / 67 taträste bhagavan agnir *atiguhyāṣṭakāvṛtaḥ (em.: iti mahyastakā pratiḥ Cod.)/ padmarāgapratīkāso jvalantas tena tejasă / 68 haraś ca tripuraghnaś ca *triśūlī (corr.: triśulih Cod.) sukṣma eva ca/ mahākālaś ca sarvas (corr.: sarvas Cod.) ca iśāno *bhairavas (corr.: bharavas Cod.) tatha 69 ata urdhvam bhaved anyad vayavyāvaraṇam punaḥ/ nīlajimutasamkāśo bhinnāñjana- samaprabhaḥ/ 70 tatraste bhagavān vāyuḥ *krṣṇavarno njanopamaḥ (corr.: kṛṣṇavarṇāñjanopamaḥ Cod.)/ subhagaḥ kāmarūpī ca guhyādguhyāṣṭakāvṛtaḥ / 71 *pitāmahapituḥ (corr.: pitāmaham pituḥ Cod.) sthānam svayambhur ugra eva cal viśveśaś ca *mahānādo (em.: mahābādo Cod.) mahad bhimas tathāṣṭamaḥ/ 72 atas cordhvam bhaved vyoma bhūtatstve+ *sampratisthitaḥ (conj. pradaṣitaḥ Cod.)/ aprameyam anirdesyam mokṣasthānam iväparam (corr.: iväparaḥ Cod.)/ 73 tatraste bhagavan devo vyomarūpi maheśvaraḥ / sūkṣmamurtir (corr.: murti Cod.) *mahāms (corr.: mahāś Cod.) căsau pavitrair aṣtabhir *vrtah (corr.: vitaḥ Cod.) / 74 *bhavas (corr.: bhāvas Cod.) caiva mahāyogi trimurti rudra eva cal mahābalasivas caiva sahasrākṣaḥ sthāṇur eva ca / 75 ato hy urdhvam bhavet *tattvam ahamkārasya (corr.: tattvamhamkārasya Cod.) ṣaṇmukha / diptapāvakavarṇābham bhīmanādam durāsadam / 76 trividhas *sa ca (conj. : tastrya Cod.) vijñeyo hamkāro ghorarupadhṛk/ pralayambudanirghoṣaḥ (corr.: pralayambudhanirghoşa Cod.) sthāṇvastakasamāvṛtaḥ / 77 kaparda urdhvaretāś ca (em.: rebhaś ca Cod.) mahan utkata eva ca / śrīkantho nilakanthaś ca mahātejās tathaiva ca/ 78 *mahalingas (em.: mahalingis Cod.) ca sthuleśaḥ kāraṇājñānuvartinaḥ / ādiguhyāṣṭakā rudrā atiguhyāṣṭakās tathā / 79 guhyādguhyāṣṭakāś caiva pavitraṣṭaka eva ca / sthāṇvaṣṭakāś ca *pañcaite (em. : paścaite Cod.) niyogād *bhūmivāsinaḥ (em. : bhāmivāsinaḥ Cod.) / 80 anugrahāya *lokānām (em. mokānām Cod.) lingabhūtāḥ *pratisthitaḥ (em. :

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

405

Since this set of forty sites is found both in the Śivadharma and throughout the scriptural authorities of the Mantramarga, and since there is nothing specifically Mantramärgic about the list itself-indeed the first eight are clearly Pasupata 201. -it is probable that it was already current when the first scriptures of the Mantramārga came

pradaṣṭitāḥ Cod.)/ teṣām eva samīpa*stham (corr.: sthaḥ Cod.) yad yat toyam ṣaḍānana/ 81 tat tīrtham *paramam (em.: punaram Cod.) punyam tatra snātvā śivam vrajet, Kirana VP 8.108c-118c (E); Svacchanda 10.853-854, 871-873b, 883-884, 886c-890b (F); Mālinīvijayottara 5.15c-22b (G). The five sets are also mentioned in the Rauravasūtrasamgraha (4.12cd: pañcāṣṭakam caiva pratyātmakam athāditaḥ / guhyam tathatiguhyam ca pavitram sthāņusamjñitam) and the Pauṣkaraparameśvara/Pāramesvara (as quoted by Bhatta Nārāyaṇakantha ad Mrgendra, Kriyāpāda 8.78-79: uktam hi śrīmatpauṣkare: kālāgnirudrāt prabhṛti kramāt pañcāṣṭakāvadhi / laukikānugrahaḥ kāryaḥ), though the forty sites are not listed in what we have of either. In most of these sources only the site is named, but in the Sarvajñānottara and, in a few instances, in the Matanga the names of the Sivas of the sites are given, though in some cases the name given is simply that of the site followed by -iśa/iśvara. In some of these cases it appears that the deity may be referred to either in that way or under his proper name. In other cases the presiding deity is identified only in the first style. This is the case with Lakula/Lākulin/Lakulīśvara, Bhārabhūtīśvara, Aṣādhīśvara, Dinḍīśvara, Mahākāla, Bhairava, Vimaleśvara, Bhimeśvara and Sthāṇvīśvara. The forty, then, are as follows with the names of the presiding Śivas, where these differ, in parentheses. (1) Lākula (BCDF) / Lakulin (AEG) / Nakuliśvara (H), (2) Bhārabhūti, (3) Dindimundi (AFH) / Dindi/Dindiśa (BCDEG), (4) Āṣāḍhi/Āṣāḍhisa, (5) Puskara (Ajāgandhi), (6) Naimisa/Naimiśa (Devadeva), (7) Prabhāsa (Saśibhūṣaṇa [= Someśvara]), (8) Amareśvara (Omkāra); (9) Bhairava/Mahābhairava, (10) Kedāra (Īśāna), (11) Mahākāla, (12) Madhyama/Madhyamesa/Madhyamakeśvara, (13) Amrātikeśvara/Amrātakeśvara (Sarva), (14) Jalpa/ Jalpeśvara (Sūkṣma), (15) Hariścandra (Hara), (16) Śrīparvata/Śrīśaila (Tripuraghna [= Tripurāntaka]), (17) Bhima/Bhimesvara/Bhimakeśvara (C), (18) Mahendra (CEG)/Mahendra (ABF) (Mahant [D] / Vrateśa [C] [Mahāvrata]), (19) Aṭṭahāsa (Mahānāda) [CD]), (20) Vimala/Vimaleśvara, (21) Kanakhala (AFHG) / Nakhala (BCDE) (Isa [D], Nakhaleśa [C]), (22) Nakhala/Nākhala (Ugra [D] Nākhaleśa [C]), (23) Kurukṣetra (Svayambhu [D], Rudra [C]), (24) Gaya (Pitāmahapitṛ [D] Prapitāmaha [C]), (25) Sthūleśvara / Devadaruvana (A) (Sthūleśvara), (26) Sthaleśvara (Mahalinga), (27) Sankukarna (Mahātejas), (28) Kālañjara (Nilakantha), (29) Maṇḍaleśvara (Śrīkantha), (30) Mākoṭa (Mahotkaṭa [mahān utkaṭaḥ]), (31) Dviranda (ACE) / Duranda (BFHG) (Urdhvaretas), (32) Chagalanda (A [Chagaranda] BCEH) / Chagalāṇḍa (FG) (Kaparda), (33) Sthāņu/Sthāṇvisvara (H), (34) Suvarṇākṣa/ Svarṇākṣa (Sahasrākṣa), (35) Bhadrakarna (Śiva), (36) Gokarna (Mahābala), (37) Mahalaya (Rudra), (38) Avimukta (Trimurti), (39) Rudrakoti (Mahāyogin), (40) Vastrapada (FBCE, G [Ambarāpada]) / Bhastrāpada (AH) (Bhava). Of these the following would seem to be of particular antiquity, since they are already mentioned as sacred places associated with Śiva/Maheśvara in the pilgrimage text of the Aranyakaparva of the Mahabharata: Mahākāla, Sthāṇutīrtha, Śankukarṇeśvara, Vastrapada, Rudrakoți, Suvarṇākṣa, Bhadrakarṇeśvara, Śrīparvata, and Gokarṇa. Vārāṇasī is associated with Maheśvara there; but there is no mention of Avimukta.

201. The original Skandapurāṇa (167.118–149) says that Śiva incarnated himself at Kārohaṇa near the Narmada as Bhārabhūti in the Kṛtayuga, as Dindimunda (sic) in the Tretayuga, as Āṣāḍhi in the Dvaparayuga, and as the Guru of Kausika, Gargya, Mitra and [Kurusya], that is to say as Lakulisvara/Nakulīśvara, in the Kaliyuga. Karohaṇa, the supposed site of the revelation of the Pasupata system, is modern Kārvān, a large village in the Dabhoi Taluk of the old Baroda State in Central Gujerat about 18 miles south of Baroda, not far from the Narmada, probably once a station on the road from ancient Ujjayini to ancient Bhrgukaccha (mod. Broach). According to Matsyapurāṇa, Adhyāya 194 (in the Narmadāmāhātmya) Bhārabhūti is a Sivakṣetra on the Narmada below Broach. It is no doubt the Bhádbhut (sic) on the north bank of the Narmadā about 8 miles from Broach reported to be the site of a Śiva in whose honour there is or was a pilgrimage every nineteen or twenty years in The Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency. Gujerát: Surat and Broach (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1877), 550-551. In the Gazetteer of the Ordnance Survey the village is written more correctly as Bharbhut. Āṣāḍhi is mentioned in passing by the Matsyapurana’s version of the Narmadāmāhātmya after Bhārabhūti and before Strītīrtha. I have no information on the location of Dindimundi/Dindi, but it too was doubtless in this area. These four then, which head the lists, are Pasupata sites. Of the other four, Amareśvara and Prabhāsa too were Pasupata strongholds, to judge from inscriptions surviving at these sites.406

Alexis SANDERSON

into existence, which is not likely to be later than the sixth century. In any case it is earlier than the ninth. The Nepalese “Licchavi” script of an undated and fragmentary palm-leaf manuscript of the Sivadharmottara suggests that it was penned in that century, 202 and that text is certainly not earlier and very probably later than the Śivadharma. That is also the probable date of a fragmentary Nepalese manuscript of the Sarvajñānottara, whose script closely resembles that of this Śivadharmottara manuscript. 203 We have early Nepalese manuscripts of two other of the Mantramārgic sources that retail this list, one of the Niśvāsaguhya from c. 900 and one of the Kirana from A.D. :924. (B).

3. The forty-eight Śiva sites in the Ur-Skandapurāṇa, Patala 167 (Śivāyatanavarṇanapaṭala), 204 which has come down to us in a Nepalese manuscript of A.D. 810.205 It is unlikely that this text was composed later than the end of the seventh century or earlier than the sixth. 206 Its background is the pre-Tantric Atimārga (C).

4. This manuscript is NAK 5-892, NGMPP Reel No. A 12/3.

5. The Sarvajñānottara manuscript is NAK MS 1-1692, NGMPP Reel No. A 43/12.

6. First (167.1-28) come nine sites that humans cannot reach: (1) Adityabandhana, a peak in the Vindhya mountains; (2) Hemasomodbhava, a peak in the Himālaya; (3) Lake Satya on the Mountain of the Sunrise (Udayagiri); (4) the Mahānīla Linga in the hermitage on Mt. Uśīrabija; (5) the golden Linga on a peak on the unilluminated northern side of Mt. Meru; (6) the vast Linga installed by Jaigīṣavya on the Mountain of the Sunset (Astaparvata); (7) the Linga installed by Indra in the Nandana park; (8) the Linga of rock crystal installed by the Balakhilyas in the ocean of milk; (9) and the golden Linga Kubereśvara installed by Kubera on Mt. Gandhamadana. Then (167.29-204) the text teaches the holy temples of Rudra (167.205: punyani rudrasyāyatanāni) that are accessible to humans (167.29b: gamyāni puruṣaiḥ). They are as follows. (1) Mahālaya, (2) Kedāra, (3) Madhyameśvara, (4) Gaurīśikhara (the site of Umā’s asceticism), (5) Mt. Rṣabha (the site of Nandin’s asceticism), (6) the Himalayan peak that is the site of Rudra Bhastresvara, (7) Kanakhala at Gangādvāra, the site of Bahurūpeśvara, (8) Japyeśvara, (9) Mahābhairava, (10) Kumbhakāreśvara, (11) Utkutukeśvara, (12) Chagalandeśvara (10-12 are within the domain of Mahabhairava), (13) Rudrakoti, (14) the Devadāruvana, (15) Sthāneśvara installed by Dadhica, (16) Takṣakesvara on the bank of the Ganges, (17) Amrāteśvara installed by Agastya, (18) the Linga on Mt. Kālañjara, (19) Puspabhadra in the Vindhya mountains installed by the Rākṣasa Meghanāda, (20) Citraratha in Andhra, (21) Śrīparvata in Andhra, where Śilāda installed a thousand Lingas, (22) Uttaragokarṇa, (23) [Dakṣina-]Gokarna, (24) Mt. Hariścandra, (25) Karohaṇa to the north of the river Narmadā: Śiva was incarnated here as Bhārabhūti (in the Krta age), Dindimunda (in the Tretā), Aṣāḍhi (in the Dvapara) and Lakuliśvara (in the Kali); all have their temples; (26) Avimuktesvara in Benares, (27) Prayaga, (28) Naimiśa, (29) Kurukṣetra, (30) Gṛdhrakūteśvara at Gaya, (31) Prahasitesvara in Magadha at Paṭalīputra (eight sites in Magadha sanctified by the sojourn of Lakulīśvara and his disciples mentioned but not named), (32) a site among the Yavanas, (33) Hemacuḍeśvara in Anga, (34) the Linga *Brahmeśvara (brahmaṇā sthāpitam lingam) installed where the Ganges meets the sea, (35) Prabhāsa, (36) Puṣkara, (37) the temple of Rudra on Mt. Mahendra, (38) Mahākāleśvara in Ujjayinī, (39) Drimicaṇḍeśvara, (40) Śankukarṇeśvara, (41) Dingeśvara in the Himalaya, (42) Suvarṇākṣa, (43) the temple of Rudra at Saptagodāvara, (44) Bhadresvara, (45) Ekamra in Orissa, (46) Virajā in Orissa, (47) Nepāla (Pasupati), (48) Naikatungadhipeśvara in the Himalaya. The total of forty-eight sites is as I have counted them. It has not been stated in the text itself. One might more accurately count forty-five, since Kumbhakāreśvara, Utkutukeśvara and Chagalandeśvara are properly subsumed under Mahabhairava; see BISSCHOP 2004: 3, n. 1. Drimicandeśvara is probably the tirtha Drimi associated with the worship of Maheśvara in the pilgrimage text of the Mahābhārata (3.80.87).

7. NAK 2-229. For this date see ADRIAENSEN, BAKKER and ISAACSON 1998, 32.

8. Yuko YOKOCHI has observed (1999a: 81-82) that the icon of the goddess Mahiṣāsuramardini seen in texts of the sixth and seventh centuries gives way to a new iconic type around the beginning of the eighth century and that the original Skandapurāna belongs with the earlier sources in this regard. The same scholar has argued (1999b: 68-75) that the “Gupta” type of this icon seen in the Skandapurāṇa corresponds closely to the subtype seen in a sixth-century image in the Siddhi-ki-Gupha at Deogarh and concludes that there is a distinct possibility that the text was composed in that century.

The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

407

4. The sixty-eight Śiva sites of the Tīrthamāhātmya of the Nāgarakhanda of the Venkatesvara Press Skandapurāṇa (Adhyāyas 108-109). 207 This list, though appearing in a composite text of uncertain date, is ancient enough to have provided the sixty-eight Rudras of the nine cremation grounds of the initiation Mandala of the Picumata (Brahmayāmala), a work whose earliest surviving manuscript is from A.D. 1052,208 and

5. The source gives the sites and the names of the presiding Śivas, as follows: (1) Vārāṇasī: Mahadeva; (2) Prayaga: Maheśvara; (3) Naimișa: Devadeva; (4) Gayāśiras: Prapitāmaha; (5) Kuruksetra: Sthāņu; (6) Prabhāsa: Śaśiśekhara; (7) Puskara: Ajāgandhi; (8) Viśveśvara: Viśva; (9) Attahāsa: Mahānāda; (10) Mahendra: Mahāvrata; (11) Ujjayini: Mahākāla; (12) Marukoţi/Marukoța [= the Agamic Mākoṭa]: Mahotkața; (13) Sankukarna: Mahāteja; (14) Gokarṇa: Mahābala (15) Rudrakoți: Mahayoga; (16) Sthaleśvara: Mahalinga; (17) Harṣita: Harṣa; (18) Vrsabhadhvaja: Vṛṣabha; (19) Kedara: Iśāna; (20) Madhyamakeśvara: Śarva; (21) Suvarṇākṣa: Sahasrākṣa; (22)

(22) Kārttikeśvara: Susukṣma; (23) Vastramarga/Vastrapatha: Bhava; (24) Kanakhala: Ugra (sic also Lingapurāņa 1.7.32; according to Ur- Skandapurāṇa 167.64 the Śiva is Bahurūpeśvara [Ugra=Aghora-Bahurūpa]); (25) Bhadrakarṇa: Śiva; (26) Dandaka: Dandin; (27) Tridaṇḍā (= Agamic Dviranda/Duranda): Urdhvareta; (28) Krmijāngala: Caṇḍīśvara; (29) Ekāmra: Kṛttivāsa; (30) Chagalaka/Chāgaleya (= Agamic Chagalanda/Chagalanda): Kapardin; (31) Kāliñjara: Nilakantha; (32) Mandaleśvara: Śrīkantha; (33) Kāśmīra: Vijaya; (34) Marukeśvara: Jayanta; (35) Hariścandra: Hara; (36) Puraścandra: Śankara; (37) Vāmeśvara: Jatin; (38) Kukkuṭeśvara: Saumya; (39) Bhasmagātra: Bhūteśvara; (40) Omkara: Amarakantaka; (41) Trisandhyā: Tryambaka; (42) Virajā: Trilocana; (43) Arkeśvara: Dīpta; (44) Nepāla: Pasupati (paśupālakaḥ); (45) Duṣkarna: Yamalinga; (46) Karavīra: Kapalin; (47) Jageśvara: Triśūlin; (48) Śrīśaila: Tripurantaka; (49) Ayodhya: Rohaṇa; (50) Pātāla: Hāṭakeśvara; (51) Karohana: Nakulīśa; (52) Devika river: Umapati; (53) Bhairava: Bhairavākāra; (54) Pūrvasāgara: Amara; (55) Saptagodāvarītirtha/Saptagodāvara: Bhima; (56) Nirmaleśa: Svayambhū; (57) Karṇikāra: Gaṇādhyakṣa; (58) Kailāsa: Gaṇādhipa; (59) Jāhnavītīra/Gangādvāra: Himasthāna; (60) Jalalinga: Jalapriya; (61) Vāḍavāgni: Anala; (62) Badarītirtha/Badarikāśrama: Bhima; (63) Kotitīrtha/Śrestha: Kotiśvara; (64) Vindhya: Vārāha; (65) Hemakūṭa: Virūpākṣa; (66) Gandhamādana: Bhūrbhuva; (67) Lingeśvara: Varada; and (68) Lankā/Laṁkādvāra: Narāntaka.

208. There are eight Rudras in each of the eight peripheral cremation grounds and four at the centre of the Mandala. They are identical, with only a few discrepancies, with those of Skandapurāṇa’s sixty-eight sites. The source is Picumata, f. 8r5-9r3 (3.132-156): 132 pūrve *mahāśmaśāne (corr.: mahāśmaśānes Cod.) tu mahadevam tu vinyaset / karnnikāyām likhen mantrī purvapatre tathaiva ca 133 *maheśvaram (em. māheśvaram Cod.) tathagneye devadevan tu dakṣine / älikhet tu dale mantrī nairitye prapitāmaham/ 134 paścime tu vidu sthanam *ajagandhim (em.: ajogandham Cod.) ca vayave / visvesvaram tathaiva ca älikhedd uttare dale/ 135 īsāne tu mahānādam vinyasen mantravit kramāt / mahāvanam tathagneye mahāghantesvaram likhet/ 136 mahāvratam tatha caiva tathā caiva mahotkaṭam / tathā likhen mahātejam tatha caiva mahābalam/ 137 mahāyogam tatha caiva tatha sthuleśvaram punaḥ/ harikeśvaram tathā canyam sarvatra navamam smṛtam / 138 dakṣine tu dale devi aṭṭahāsam samālikhet / punas caivāṭṭahāsan tu tasya pūrve tu patrake / 139 īśānāñ ca tathā rudram sahasrākṣam tathaiva ca / bhairavam ca tatha ugram urdhvareta kapardinam / 140 nairite navake ramye ālikhec *chaśibhūṣaṇam (corr.: chaśibhūṣiņam Cod.)/ sasibhūṣaṇam punaś caiva kīrttivāsam tathaiva ca/ 141 punaḥ pārvadale caiva vinyasec chaśibhūṣaṇam | āmrātikeśvaram caiva nīlakantham tathaiva ca/ 142 śrīkanthañ ca mahāyogi tathā ca hāṭakesvaram / tathaiva vijayan devi navamam parikīrttitam/ 143 paścime tu mahākālam karnṇikāyām samālikhet/ pūrvapatre tathā caiva mahākālam samālikhet/ 144 sankarañ ca haram caiva jați saumyan tathāparam/ tryambakan ca tatha canyam tatha canyam trlocanam/ 145 trisulinam tatha canyam navamam parikīrttitam/ vayavye tu gaṇādhyakṣam tatha ca trpurantakam / 146 lakulisam tatha caiva tatha caiva umāpatim / pasupatiñ ca tatha devam tathā kāmesvaram likhet/ 147 amaresvaram tatha caiva omkaran ca tathāparam/navamañ ca tathā bhīmam vinyasen mantravit kramāt / 148 uttare bhuvane devi ekapādan tu bhairavam / svayambhuñ ca tathā caiva tathā caiva gaṇāpatim / 149 virūpākṣan tathā caiva bhūrbhuvan tu samālikhet/ tatha caiva himasthānam analeśvaram eva ca 150 bhasmagātram tatha caiva kirātesvaram eva cal navamam tu samākhyātam *uttare nātra (corr.: uttareṇātra Cod.) samsayaḥ/ 151 iśāne tu mahādevi hetukeśvaram ālikhet/ vārāhañ ca tatha śreṣṭham raviṣṭa jambukeśvaram / 152 prahasitañ ca tatha devi tatha caiva jaleśvaram / asubhañ ca tatha caiva varadam navamam smṛtam / 153 mūlāsanasya devesi brahmasthānābjake tathā / karnṇikāyām catuskan tu rudrāṇām viniveśayet / 154 sinharūpā mahādevi

408

Alexis SANDERSON

to have been mentioned by the Kashmirian scholar Kṣemarāja (fl. c. A.D. 1000–1050) (D). 209 The nineteen Khmer doubles of the Śivas of these lists, five of them appearing more than once, are the following: (1) an Amareśvara (ABD), 210 (2) an Avimuktakeśvara (ABC), (3) six Amrātakesvaras (BCD) along the length of the Mekong river from Kratie down to the Delta, 211

(4) a Kanakaleśvara, which is no doubt an orthographical errror for Kanakhaleśvara (BC), (5) Kālañjaleśvara, 212 which is probably the same

for Kālañjareśvara (BCD), (6) a Kedāreśvara (ABCD), (7) a Tripurāntakeśvara (BD), (8) a Naimiseśvara (BCD), (9) three Puşkareśvaras (BCD), (10) two Prabhāsasomeśvaras (BCD), 213 (11) a Prahasiteśvara (CD), 214 (12) a + karnṇeśvara (K. 719), probably for Gokarṇeśvara (BCD), Bhadrakarṇeśvara (BD) or Sankukarṇeśvara (BCD), (13) several Bhadresvaras (C [= Bhadrakarṇeśvara]), (14) a +++ trāpadeśvara (K. 46), which is probably Vastrapadeśvara/ Bhastrapadeśvara (BCD), (15) a Bhimeśvara (BD), (16) a Mandaleśvara (BD), (17) two Rudramahālayas (BC), 215 (18) a Vijayeśvara (D), and (19) a Vimaleśvara (B).

We should probably add (20) Siddheśvara, of which several installations are recorded in pre-Angkorean inscriptions. I find the name in our lists only in a variant of B found in the Matsyapurāṇa, in which it is compounded with the familiar Mahalaya. 216 But there is evidence of numerous Indian Siddheśvaras, many with Pasupata associations: at the Nolamba capital Hemavati (Pasupata); 217 at Eḍedore; 218 at Palārī, about 20 km north of Sirpur, in ancient Dakṣina Kosala (Pāśupata); 219 at Barākar in the Burdwan District of Bengal (Pasupata); 220 at Mandhātā on the Narmada (Pāśupata); 221 at Somnathpattan/- Prabhāsa in Kāṭhiāwād; 222 and at Lohari in Rajasthan. 223

tṛtatvasyāpi copari (conj.: kopari Cod.)/ amareśvarañ ca *agneye (corr.: agneye Cod.) karṇṇikāyān tu vinyaset / 155 omkāra nairite bhage dindi vai vāyugocare/ īsāne ca tathā *dindim (conj.: candi Cod.) sinharūpās tu vinyaset. The hypermetrical Harikeśvara of v. 137 is for Harṣeśvara, probably through Harikheśvara.

209. Svacchandoddyota vol. 5a, p. 103: vārāṇasyādigataśrīmahā*devādyaṣṭaṣasteś (em.: devāṣṭa- sasteś Ed.) ’the sixty-eight beginning with Mahadeva in Vārāṇasī etc.”.

210. I have given references to the Khmer inscriptions that record these foundations only in those cases that cannot be found through the index of names in IC vol. 8. I cannot assert with the incomplete materials at my disposal that this list is exhaustive, but am confident that at worst it is nearly so.

211. VICKERY 1998, 379.

212. Ka. 39, NIC II-III, 211-213.

213. The Śiva of Prabhasa is called Saśibhūṣaṇa or Śasisekhara in the Indian lists used here. But the name Someśvara or Somanatha is elsewhere standard for this deity.

214. According to the original Skandapurāņa (167.181) this is the Śiva of Pāṭalīputra in Magadha: anyad ayatanam punyam magadhāsu pinākinaḥ / nagare pāṭalīputre nāmnā prahasiteśvaram.

215. In the Indian lists cited here the place is Mahalaya and the presiding Śiva is Rudra. But the name Rudramahālaya is seen in a context that suggests that the same place is intended in Devala as quoted by Lakṣmīdhara in his Krtyakalpataru, Tirthavivecanakanda p. 250: kṣetrāņi vārāṇasī mahābhairavam devadāruvanam kedāram *madhyamam rudramahālayam.

216. Matsyapurāna 181.25-26c: vastrapadam (em.: vastrapadam Ed.) rudrakotim siddhesvara- mahālayam gokarṇam rudrakarnam ca suvarṇākṣam tathaiva cal amaram ca mahākālam tathā kāyāvarohaṇam / etani hi pavitrāṇi.

217. EC 12: Si 28.

218. EC 7: Sh. 40.

219. EITA 21:245, plates 490–491.

220. EITA 2ii:406, plate 881.

221. Kurmapurāṇa 2.39.58.

222. See OZHA 1889.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

409

There are at least six more pre-Angkorean Śivas that are likely to have been named after Indian prototypes that are not listed in A, B, C or D. These are (21) Acaleśvara, (22) Kadambakesvara/Kadambesvara, (23) Pingaleśvara, (24) Vīreśvara, (25) Vṛddheśvara, and (26) Tungisa (= Tungeśvara). There are Acaleśvaras on Mt. Abu, within the bounds of Achalgarh on that mountain, 224 Śrīśailam 225 and Tiruvarur; 226 Kadambakeśvara/Kadam- besvaras at Śrīsailam 227 and in Kashmir; 228 Pingaleśvaras on the Narmada river 229 and in Kashmir; 230 a Vīreśvara in Vārāṇasī, venerated by those seeking male offspring, 231 a Vṛddheśvara in Kārohaṇa (Karvan), the supposed place of Rudra’s incarnation as Lakulisa, the origin of the Pasupata teaching, 232 and a Tungeśvara in Kashmir and another listed in the Lingapurana as one of six Saiva sites propitious for the practice of the text’s Pasupata Yoga. 233

Bhadresvara

Of these Khmer doubles Bhadreśvara appears to have been especially revered. Its Indian eponym, at Kanakhala in Brahmavarta, the area within North India venerated as Brahmanism’s purest territory, that most fit for the performance of its sacrifices, was believed to have been installed by the deity Brahmā to mark the site of what is arguably the pivotal episode in the devotional mythology (śivakathāḥ) of the Saiva religion, that in which Dakṣa’s Vedic Aśvamedha sacrifice was destroyed as punishment for his failure to include Śiva among the gods invited to receive a share of the offerings, 234

There were several Bhadresvaras in Kambujadeśa, a fact that attests the special status of this Śiva among the Khmers, 235 but the most important, and perhaps the original, was at a temple-complex whose architectural remains date from the 7th to the 12th centuries A.D.

223. Dasharatha SHARMA 1959, 231 (‘Pasupata”).

224. See the inscription of 1331 edited in EI 30:10 and Sivapurāṇa 4.2.26.

225. Lingapurāṇa 1.92.165.

226. For the ancient Acaleśvara at Tiruvarur mentioned by Appar, now in the second prākāra of the Tyāgarāja temple, rebuilt in stone by Sembiyan Mahādevi, see BALASUBRAHMANYAM 1971, 195–197.

227. Lingapurāṇa 1.92.161.

228. Nilamata 120.

229. Kūrmapurāņa 2.39.21-22.

230. Nīlamata 1031; Haracaritacintamani 11.29.

231. Śivapurāṇa, Śatarudrasamhita, Adhyāyas 13-14.

232. Kāravaṇamāhātmya p. 53. D.R. BHANDARKAR (1909: 182, 184) reports that there is still a Vrddheśvara at Karvan and that the image in the sanctum of the Naklesvar temple is pointed out as the conjoint figure of Brahmeśvara and Lakulīśa.

233. Nīlamata 1368c: tungesatīrthakṣetram tu, Lingapurāṇa 1.92.7: vārāṇasīkurukṣetraśrīparvata- mahalaye / tungeśvare ca kedare tatsthāne yo yatir bhavet. Of these Lingas with Indian prototypes 1-4, 6, 8-10, 15-18, 20 and 22-24 have been identified by Kamaleswar BHATTACHARYA (1961: 50-56 [À propos de quelques nom de Śiva].

234. The installation of the Indian Bhadreśvara by Brahmā at Kanakhala just south of modern Hardwar and the tradition that it was the site of the overthrow of Dakṣa’s Aśvamedha by Bhadrakali and the Gaṇeśvara Hari/Haribhadra/Virabhadra are the subject of the thirty-second chapter of the original Skandapurāṇa. This Rudrakṣetra, whose sanctity is declared to extend in all directions for a distance of one yojana around the Linga (32.164), is said there to contain the Bhadrakarṇa lake (32.166) and to be situated near Kubjāmra (32.171-176). Evidently, then, Bhadreśvara is none other than the Bhadra- karṇeśvara already reported to be situated near Kubjāmra by the Mahābhārata (Āraṇyakaparvan 82.35- 36) in its account of the pilgrimage route from Kurukṣetra to Prayaga.

235. See, e.g., K. 81; K. 136 A, v. 10; K. 162; K. 190 A, v. 24; K. 258; K. 728; K. 809; K. 818; K. 940; K. 958, v. 16.

410

Alexis SANDERSON

located at Vat Phu near the ancient town of Lingapura, near the foot of Phu Kao massif (1,416 m.) in the Champasak District of southern Laos close to the modern Lao- Cambodian border.

Mt. Phu Kao, known in our inscriptions as the Mountain of the Linga (lingaparvataḥ, lingadriḥ), owed its ancient name to an impressive Linga-like outcrop on the summit at the centre of the massif. A deity personifying the mountain (bhagavān śrīlingaparvataḥ), probably a Śiva, is mentioned in a fragmentary inscription assigned on palaeographic grounds to the second half of the fifth century found close to the mountain in the remains of an as yet unidentified city. 236 A royal decree from the reign of Jayavarman I (657, −690+) expresses the wish that the endowments of this god be used to good effect and underlines the sanctity of the area by prohibiting persons (1) from taking the life of any creatures that dwell on the mountain, even if they are criminals deserving punishment, (2) from moving about in its hermitage without restraint, riding in carriages, with raised umbrellas and chowries, and (3) from feeding or raising dogs and chickens on the god’s lands. 237 The God Lingaparvata is also mentioned as the recipient of a silver bowl donated by Sankarapandita, the priest (Purohita) of Harşavarman III (r. 1066/7-1080) and his two predecessors, 238 and as the recipient of a platter offered by king Tribhuvanadityavarman (r. c. 1165-1177 A.D.) to mark the occasion of the second annual Kotihoma after his accession. 239

As for the outcrop after which the mountain was named, it was not perceived as merely Linga-like. It was venerated as a Linga, under the name Nişkala; 240 and the remnants of the brick foundations of a temple have been discovered on its top, with a carved sandstone Linga lying at its foot. 241 In the Indian Saiva tradition natural Lingas of this kind are termed self-created (svayambhu) or self-manifest (svayamvyaktam) and they

236. K. 365 (fragmentary; found at Wat Luong Kau, 6.5 kilometres east of Vat Phu), A, v. 2: bhagavatā śrīlingaparvvatenāsmin …. The city, on the alluvial plain on the west bank of the Mekong River, with an archaeological area of about 400 hectares, has tentatively been identified as Śresthapura; see UNESCO 1999, 70 (1.3.23). But this appears to rest on no firmer foundation than the long established assumption that Śresthapura was near Vat Phu. VICKERY (1998, 346, 410-413) has shown the weakness of this assumption and has argued convincingly that the evidence points, though not conclusively, to a site in the central Angkor region between Siem Reap and Kompong Thom.

237. K. 367, ed. SALOMON 1998 (281-284), v. 4b-5: atra śrīmati lingaparvva[tava]re ye sthayinaf prāṇi[naḥ] (8) vaddhyantān na janena kenacid api prāptāparādhāḥ kadā devāya pratipāditam yad iha taddhemādikam siddhyatull (9) devasyāsya

devasyasya yathābhilāṣagamanā

yathābhilaṣagamanā gacchantu naivāśra[me] yānārohadhṛtātapatraracanābhyutkṣiptasaccāmaraiḥ (10) posyaḥ kukkurakukkuṭā na ca janair ddevasya bhūmaṇḍaleṣv ity ājñāvanipasya tasya bhavatu kṣmāyām alanghyā nṛṇām.

238. K. 136, Khmer II. 29–30: kamraten jagat lingaparvvata khāl prāk 1.

239. K. 418 B (undated): +++ kamraten añ śrītribhuvanādityavarmmadeva ta kamraten jagat lingaparvvata nã thve dvitiya vraḥ kotihoma ‘[Offered by] K.A. Śrī Tribhuvanādityavarmmadeva to K.J. Lingaparvvata when the second Kotihoma was celebrated.’ See CŒDÈS 1929, 305-6, arguing that this would have been one year after his accession, since the first Kotihoma was at the time of his accession. But K. 194, which he cites as evidence that the Kotihoma was performed at the time of accession, says only that it is performed every year after accession, as do our Indian authorities on royal ceremonies. These do not require it among the ceremonies of accession itself.

240. K. 583, v. 6 (as edited in JACQUES 1976b). That Niskala is its name rather than a description of a type of Linga, i.e. ‘subtle’, ‘interior’ (BHATTACHARYA 1967) or ‘simple’, that is to say a Linga proper without faces (BRUNNER-LACHAUX 1968, 445-447), follows from the accompanying Khmer text, in which it is called vraḥ kamrateǹ añ śrī niṣkala (11. 3-4). This was pointed out by DAGENS in a private communication reported by JACQUES in his edition of the inscription (1976b, 368). The sense of niskala- that justifies its technical use to denote the simple kind of Linga is ‘undifferentiated’. This would be even more appropriate as a name for a Linga that has not been formed in any way by man.

241. See UNESCO 1999, 54 (1.3.2).

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

411

differ from other Lingas in that they may be of any shape, size and colour, may be found anywhere in nature, and are permanently and unconditionally imbued with Śiva’s presence. They need no base (pīthaḥ) or shrine to support and house them, but may be provided with these and in this sense ‘installed’. Furthermore they lack the differentiation into lower, middle and upper sections that characterizes ordinary, man-made Lingas. So

242

242. For these features of the svayambhulingam see Īsanaśivagurudevapaddhati, Kriyāpāda 38.4— 10b: atha svayambhulingāni *jarjarāni (corr.: jarjharāņi Ed.) kṛśāni cal hrasvāni cătidirghāni phalakāsadṛśāni ca/ 5 anekāgrāṇi gokarṇamātulunganibhany api/ ṣatpañcatridaśāgrāņi mānon- mānādibhir vinā / 6 śṛngāgrāṇy api vakrāņi nānāvarṇākṛtīni ca/ sapīṭhāny apy apīṭhāni sālayāny agṛhāņi vā 7 vanaparvatanadyabdhitirthakṣetragatany api/ darśanasparśanarcābhir eṣām siddhir anuttamā / 8 vidyāt svayambhulingāni yeṣu nityam sthitaḥ śivaḥ / mūlam na sodhayet teṣām sodhanam sarvanāśakṛt/9 amīmāmsyāni tāny āhuḥ pūjyāny eva yathasthiti / naiṣām mūrtivibhāgo ‘sti na ca syān mantrasankaraḥ / 10 manuṣeṣv eva lingeṣu mantramurtyādisankaraḥ ‘As for self-born Lingas they may be split, narrow, short, extremely long, slab-like, with more than one summit, with the shape of a cow’s ear or a Matulunga fruit, with six, five or thirty protuberances at the top, without conformity to any of the rules of height, width and the rest, crooked, of various colours and shapes, with or without a pedestal, with or without a shrine to house them, located in the wilderness, on mountains, in rivers, the ocean or at holy bathing places and sacred sites. By seeing them, touching them or worshipping them the highest Siddhi [is attained]. One should know that it is in self-born Lingas [alone] that Śiva is permanently [and unconditionally] present. One should not purify the original [Linga]. To do so would cause universal destruction. [The learned] declare that these [Lingas] should not be examined [to determine whether they are in a state fit for worship]. They should be worshipped as they are. They do not have [the usual] division into the [three] segments; nor is it possible to be guilty of mixing Mantras [of different classes]. [The danger of] mixing Mantras and icons applies only in the case of Lingas installed by human beings.’ In ordinary Lingas one may not install Mantras of one sort where Mantras of another have already been installed. This restriction does not apply in self-born and other natural Lingas such as Bāṇalingas. This is another aspect of their immunity to contamination.

In Saiva scripture see Kirana, f. 74v3: svayamudbhūtalingasya sthāpitasya maharṣibhiḥ / devair *vā (em. vya Cod.) sthāpitasyāpi rūpamānam na grhyate ‘Form and dimension are irrelevant in the case of a self-arisen Linga or of one that has been installed by a great sage or god’. Differentiation into sections (mūrtivibhāgah) is that into the square brahmabhāgaḥ, which is the lower third of the Linga, the octagonal viṣṇubhāgaḥ, which is the central, and the rounded cylindrical rudrabhāgaḥ, which is the upper and the only one that is visible once the Linga has been installed.

This category of Linga is mentioned in K. 762. It records the installation of a natural (svāyambhuvam) Linga with the name Kedaresvara in A.D. 673. It is probable that another instance is recorded in K. 400B, v. 4-5: lingam suvarnnasamghātam surāsuraganais tu+rggajanitam puu amratasya kalpitam / [vi]yadratnasvarānke smin kāle tat sthāpayat tadā sadravinany eva so smai prādāc ca bhaktitaḥ. I propose that the second Pāda read surāsuragaṇais stutam ‘hymned by all the gods and Asuras’. Cf. the Pāda formula surāsuranamaskṛtaḥ that appears frequently in the Mahabharata (1.94.34b etc.) and Purāņas. For the beginning of the third Pada CŒDÈS conjectured svarggajanitam. But this is implausible because the three syllables after the first may never be UUU, and because the cadence of the Pāda would be a ma-vipula without the required word-break before the closing. It is more probable, therefore, that there were two syllables in the initial lacuna and only one syllable after pu, probably nyam. I propose nisarggajanitam punyam, understanding the first word to mean ‘born by nature, natural’. For the synonym nisargaja- in this sense see, e.g., Manusmrti 8.414cd and 9.16ab. As the object of the reverence of both the gods and the Asuras it is appropriate that the Linga should be of this kind. That it is a ’natural’ Linga is also suggested by the expression suvarnṇasamghātam ‘a conglomeration of gold’. This would be an odd way to refer to a Linga cast in gold, but makes good sense if it was rather a naturally Linga-shaped nugget. As restored the passage means ‘In 790 [Śaka, = 868/9 A.D.] he installed the nugget of gold, an auspicious natural Linga that had been hymned by Gods and Asuras’. I leave unsolved the cruxāmrātasya kalpitam, though I suspect a reference to the name of the Linga and therefore to Amrātesa/Amrātesvara/Amrātakeśvara.

412

Alexis SANDERSON

it follows that even if they are broken into pieces the deity will remain equally present in each of the fragments. That this view was held by the Khmers may be inferred from the fact that the purpose of the inscription that names this Linga is to report that a fragment of it, perhaps detached through erosion, was installed for worship in another place. Dating from the reign of Rajendravarman (944-c. 968) the inscription tells us the following about Indrāyudha, a son of king Jayavarman II (r. 802-c. 834):

prāg eva campā[dhipa]tigrahane labdhavikramaḥ tīrttvā kālam va(yo)[vr]ddhau śivabhaktiparāyaṇaḥ gantā lingapu(ra)ñ citran tapaḥ kaṣṭañ cakāra saḥ tataś śivājñayā lingam aisan nişkalalingataḥ lavan tat sthāpi[ta]n t[e]na santūnāmni [p]ure mudā K. 583, v. 4c-6 (ed. JACQUES 1976b)

JACQUES proposes plausibly that ganta in 7c is an error for gantvā

After many years, having earlier achieved an act of great valour in capturing the king of Campa, he turned in his old age to devotion to Śiva. He went to Lingapura and performed various harsh austerities. Then at Śiva’s command he took a Linga of Śiva that was a fragment [fallen] from the Linga [called] Niskala [on the summit of the mountain] and joyfully installed it in Santupura.

Two other Linga fragments (lingaikāṛśau), probably from the same source, are reported to have been installed for worship in Aninditapura by Śivācārya, a Śaiva officiant in the service of the four Khmer kings from Iśānavarman II (r. c. 922-c. 928) to Rajendravarman (r. 944-968). 243 That this Śaiva dignitary should have chosen to install these fragments where he did is in keeping with his special connection with the Sivalinga already established there. Generally the opening verses of the Khmers’ Sanskrit inscriptions offer praise or obeisance to one or more deities in their unlocated universality, with the principal deity at the head. In this case after venerating Śiva, Visņu, Brahmā, Uma and Sarasvati in that manner he adds, most unusually, a verse of devotion addressed to the Śivalinga of Aninditapura. 244

Now the Bhadreśvara enshrined on a terrace near the foot of Mt. Phu Kao and aligned with the natural Linga on its summit appears to have been seen as the national deity, in a

In K. 806, v. 27 we read of Rajendravarman that ‘he increased the endowments of both the natural and the installed deities in Kambujadeśa’: kamvuviśvambharāyām yas tridaśānām svayambhuvām / sthāpitānāñ ca yajvaiko bhūtvā pūjān avarddhayat. CŒDÈS missed the meaning of svayambhuvām ’natural’ and tridaśānām here ‘gods’. He took the former to mean ‘gods’ and the latter to indicate their number (’thirty’): ‘il accrut le culte des trente dieux érigés sur la terre de Kambu’. The price of this reading was to overlook the conjunction ca.

243. K. 532, v. 27: lingam bhimapure moghapure linge ca sa vyadhat/lingaikāmśau sabhīmārccāv aninditapure punaḥ ‘he installed one Linga in Bhimapura, two in Amoghapura, and two fragments of the Linga and an image of Bhima in Aninditapura’. I suppose that these may be fragments of the Niskalalinga because I know of no other natural Linga that could be intended.

244. K. 532, v. 6: vande śrīsivalingakhyam sankaram visvasankaram/ animadiguṇānindyam aninditapurāspadam ‘I venerate the Sankara (Śiva) at Aninditapura, holy Sivalinga by name, who bestows joy (-sankaram) upon the whole world who is [indeed] irreproachable (anindya-) because of [his possession of] the [eight supernatural] attributes [of godly power], minuteness (aṇimā) and the rest.’ Aninditapura is important in royal genealogies as one of three kingdoms, the other two being Sambhupura and Vyādhapura, from which the early kings of Angkor had descended. But it is not mentioned before the reign of Yasovarman I (889–910) and its location is uncertain. VICKERY (1998:384) considers it the puram of a lineage whose estate was somewhere between Kompong Thom and Kompong Cham, in the central part of modern Kampuchea.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

413

role analogous to that of such South Asian Śivas as Nataraja of Cidambaram for the Tamils of the Far South and Pasupati of Deopatan for the inhabitants of the Kathmandu Valley. Thus we learn that the lineage of Vidyeśa (vidyeśavit, vidyeśadhīmān), 245 a Śaiva Rajaguru of the fourteenth century, had emanated from an Indian Śaiva called Sarvajñamuni who, we are told, had employed Yoga to transport himself from India (āryadeśaḥ) to Kambujadeśa to worship Bhadreśvara, mostly that of this site: 246

7 sa[r]vvapriyo bhavad vipras sarvvāgamaviśārada[h] sarvvalokārthakṛt nāmnā sarvvajñamunir īri[taḥ]

8 caturvve[da]nidher yyasya caturānanam āvabhau caturmmukhasyeva bhṛśañ caturvvedasa - - 9 āryya[de]se samutpannaś śivārādhanatatparaḥ yo yogenāgataḥ kamvudeśe smin[n] i U-U-

10 śrībha[dreśvaraśa]mbhor yyo yajanārtham samāgataḥ cirakālan tam abhyarcya prayayau parama[m] pa[dam]

K. 300, vv. 7-10

7a sa[r]vvapriyo conj. Bergaigne: sa[r]vva ++ Ep. 10d parama[m] pa[dam] CŒDÈS: padam aisvaram conj. BERGAIGNE

There was a brahmin devoted to Śiva, skilled in all the [Śaiva] Āgamas, acting for the good of all, called Sarvajñamuni. He had memorized the four Vedas and his skillful mouth loudly [reciting them] seemed like that of the four-faced [Brahma] himself. He was born in Aryadeśa and devoted himself to the propitiation of Śiva. Having reached this land of Kambu by means of meditation […] he came to worship Bhadresvaraśiva and having done so for a long time proceeded [in death] to the ultimate goal.

Moreover, an inscription composed during the reign of Dharaṇīndravarman I (A.D. 1107-1113) by Yogiśvarapandita, grandson in the maternal line of Viralakṣmi, daughter of Suryavarman I (r. 1002-c. 1050), in which he records his career as a Saiva officiant and his lavish donations to Bhadreśvara, refers to the latter in terms that reveal that it was venerated as the source and guarantor of the supremacy of the Khmer emperors.

In the first benedictory verse of that inscription Śiva is revered in abstract, metaphysical terms as that from which all creation flows and as that into which all creation returns:

yasmāt kramena sakala. i-dbhavanti

bhūtāni tantuvisarā iva †pūlikāyāḥt

yatraiva tāni nidha – †nidihat

vyomniva ta siva

K. 258 C, v. 1

Emending the first quarter verse, restoring diagnostically the sense of the corrupt and lacunose second and third, and providing the last, whose engraving was not completed, with a makeshift ending of the kind required by the context, I propose:

yasmāt krameņa sakalāni samudbhavanti

bhūtāni tantuvisarā iva lūtikāyāḥ

yatraiva tāni nidhanam punar eva yānti

vyomnīva tam śiva[*m aham praṇamāmi bhaktyā (?)]

245. I propose that the Sanskrit expressions vidyeśavit and vidyeśadhīmān that refer to him (K. 300, v. 40; K. 300, v. 103) are to be understood as metrical substitutes for the name-title Vidyeśapandita/ Vidyeśvarapandita, designations in -pandita being standard for Khmer royal officiants.

246. No later Sanskrit inscription from the Khmer realm has been published.

414

Alexis SANDERSON

[*With devotion I offer my obeisance (?)] to Śiva, from whom all creatures emerge in due order like threads from a spider, [and] into whom they disappear again as though into space.

247

In the second verse he is invoked simultaneously in his transcendent nature and in his perceptible manifestation as the deity on the mountain of Bhadresvara, this double juxtaposition, both between the verses and within the second, heightening the sense of the latter’s sanctity:

sarvveṣām api kāraṇan tri[*jagatām (?)] –U-yo vibhuś śrīmatkamvujadeśabhūpatigaṇāms tadbhaktibhūmādarāt karttum sarvvamahībhṛtām api [patīn] — [*ā(?)]gataś śaśvad vo vatu śaktibhiḥ paśupatiḥ bhadreśvarādrau sphutaḥ

K. 258 C, v. 2

2b gaṇāms corr: ganāms CŒDÈS

[I pray] that Pasupati, the Lord of Bound Souls, may protect you at all times with his Powers, he, who though omnipresent (vibhuh) and the source of the three [*worlds (?)], is visible to us (sphutaḥ) on the Bhadreśvara mountain, having [*come down to earth (?)] to make the rulers (bhūpatigaṇāms) of holy Kambujadeśa [lords] over all [other] kings, [moved] by the great fervour of their devotion.

That the Bhadreśvara mountain of this verse is the mountain of the Linga (Phu Kao) with Niskalalinga as its summit and the temple of Bhadresvara at its foot is evident from K. 723, an undated pre-Angkorean inscription from the largest of three caves 1500 metres north of Vat Phu, which refers to the consecration of that cave as a place for meditation and locates it “on the side of the Bhadreśvara mountain”. 248

247. Cœdès’s reading pūlikāyāḥ, which he translated ’d’un écheveau’ (‘from a skein’) is suspect. The word is not found to my knowledge in Sanskrit. At best one may postulate it on the basis of pūlaḥ, pūlakaḥ ‘bunch, bundle’. But even so the sense is not apposite, because the term is used of grass or straw. I see two possibilities. The first is that pūlikāyāḥ is an error for punikāyāḥ ‘from a roll of cotton’ or ‘from a spindle’. But this too invokes an unrecorded form, one for which we must rely on the Prakrit words pūņiā and poṇiā, which are attested in these two meanings respectively, though the analogy is somewhat less inapposite, and the syllables ni and li could easily be confused. However, I have preferred to propose that the author intended lūtikāyāḥ ‘from a spider’. Though it is a step further away from the reading attested by Codès it provides an entirely appropriate sense. For the spider’s emanating threads from within its body is well-attested in key Indian theological texts as a metaphor to illustrate how it is that the world can come forth from within its divine source, so that its efficient cause and its material cause (its nimittakāraṇam and its upādānakāraṇam) are one and the same, whereas the alternatives before us are not found to my knowledge. We see it in the Brhadaranyakopaniṣad 2.1.20, in the Vaidika-Pasupata Śvetāśvataropaniṣad 6.10 and Mundakopanisad 1.1.7; and it was standard among those emanationist (pariņāmavādin-) Vedāntists who preceded or survived the illusionist reformation of Sankara and Mandanamiśra. Thus it is invoked by Bhaskara Brahma- sūtrabhāṣya ad 2.1.14 (concerning Chandogyopaniṣad 6.1.4: mṛttikety eva satyam: apracyutasvabhāvasya śaktivikṣepalakṣaṇaḥ / parināmo yathā tantunābhasya patatantuvat); and it is challenged by the Mimāmsaka Kumārila in Ślokavārtika, Sambandhākṣepaparihāra 50c-51, tacitly treating it as a standard argument by analogy. That such emanationism is rejected by the dominant tradition of learned theology within the Siddhānta, the mainstream Śaivism whose rituals and observances were followed among the Khmers is not an argument against this reading. All three readings are equal in that regard, and the fact that those who propagated the Saiva dualism that strictly separated God as the efficient cause of the universe from māyā as its inanimate material cause were followers of this ritual system does not require us to conclude that all its followers adhered to the same view.

248. K. 723: samādhaye sarvvatapodhanāṇām iyam guhā vaktraguheti nāmnā sā niṣṭhitā vaktrašivena saktyā vibhāti bhaddresvarasailapārśve ‘This cave shines forth on the side of Mt.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

415

Though the exact words that occupied the lacuna in the third line cannot be inferred with certainty, there is little room for doubt concerning the meaning intended, namely that Śiva came to earth as the Bhadresvara of Vat Phu in order to reward the Khmer kings’ devotion to him with power over their neighbours. I propose, tentatively, that the noun in the accusative plural required in the lacuna by the context was patīn (karttum sarvvamahībhṛtām api patin ’to make [the rulers …] lords over all [other] kings’) because it provides the required sense and fits both the metre and style. As for the last criterion, we see the same expression for the Khmer king as paramount ruler later in this same composition (K. 258 C, v. 6c) in the compounded form mahībhṛtpatiḥ and in the uncompounded form in another inscription. 249 It is also alliterative (api patīn) and echoed by pasupatih in the next Pada.

There is other evidence of the role of the Śiva Bhadresvara of Vat Phu as the patron of the Khmer monarchs and thence as the protector of the Khmer realm. After re-occupying the temporarily abandoned city of Angkor (Yasodharapura) and constructing his new capital on the south bank of the Yasodharataṭāka or ‘Eastern Baray’, the vast water reservoir excavated by Angkor’s founder Yasovarman I (r. 889–910), Rājendravarman (r. 944-968) established two eponymous Śivalingas, the first in 953 in the ‘Eastern Mebon’, a temple-complex on an island constructed for this purpose at the centre of that reservoir, and the second in 961/2 in the central tower at the summit of his pyramid-temple now known as Pre Rup, built at what was probably the centre of his capital. The name of the first of these Sivalingas was formed in accordance with the common practice observed in the Indic world for images of deities enshrined by individuals, that is to say, as a compound consisting of the distinctive part of the individual’s name, or of that of a person designated for the honour, followed by a term indicating the universal deity invoked into the image for worship: -iśvara for a Śiva, -svāmin, -mādhava or -nārāyaṇa for a Visņu, - svāmin or -āditya for a Sūrya, and -īśvarī for a goddess.

250

Bhadresvara, established to the extent of his ability by Vaktraśiva under the name Vaktraguhā for the meditation practice of all ascetics’.

249. K. 81 A, v. 2 (7th c.): rājā śrībhavavarmmeti patir āsīn mahībhṛtām.

250. For these naming conventions see, e.g., Mohacurottara, ff. 34v9-35r1: yajamānasya yan nāma yojayed isvarena tu ‘he should compound the name of the patron with -iśvara’; Bhojarāja, Siddhānta- sărapaddhati, f. 76r4: yajamānādyam īśvarāntam bhagavate nāma datvā ‘after giving the deity a name that begins with [that of] the patron and ends in -iśvara’; Somasambhupaddhati 4:227 (N-iśvara for a Śiva), 275 (N-iśvari for a Goddess), 291 (N-svāmin or N-aditya for a Sun), 311 (N-svāmin or N-mādhava for a Viṣņu); Īsānaśivagurudevapaddhati Kriyāpāda, p. 446: yajamānābhidhānādyam *nāmeśvara(em. : nāmaiśvarya Ed.)padāntakam ’the name, beginning with the name of the patron and ending with the word -iśvara’; Pratisthāmayukha, p. 30b7: atha kartṛnāmayutam devanāma kuryāt sarvadā vyavahārārtham ‘For the sake of mundane transactions one should always give the deity a name compounded with that of the patron’. I interpret the last of these passages as pointing to the fact that the apparent individualization of the deity through the giving of this composite name is understood as a device that enables the deity in the principal image of the temple to be treated in law as the owner of the lands and other goods gifted by the founder and any subsequent benefactors. It has no further reality. The Śiva in an image is never worshipped under this name but only as Śiva pure and simple. That the legal fiction of ownership is the function of the name is implicit in Somasambhupaddhati 4:227 (v. 46): hiraṇyapaśubhūmyādi gītavādyādihetave / amukeśāya tad bhaktyā saktyā sarvam nivedayet ‘With devotion he should make over all that he can, such as gold, domestic animals and lands “to N-isvara” to [fund] the singing, instrumental music and other [expenses of the cult]’. The naming convention is mentioned only in this context. The Sivagamasekhara cited by BRUNNER-LACHAUX ad loc. elaborates this as follows: tato rājāntikam kartā gatvā hiranyagrāmādi dāsadāsīparyantam nṛttagītādihetave amukesvarayeti svasaktitas tāmraśilāśāsanam kṛtvā nivedayet. ‘Then the patron should go to the king and having prepared a copper-416

Alexis SANDERSON

In this case, since the image was a Śivalinga it was named Rajendreśvara (“Rājen- dra[varman]’s Śiva’). 251 But the name given to the second was Rajendrabhadreśvara (‘Rajendra[varman]’s Bhadreśvara’):

sa śrīrājendrabhadreśvara iti viditam lingam atredam agryam gaurīśaurīśvarāṇām catasṛbhir abhirāmābhir arccābhir ābhih

kirttim vaktum prasannam mukham iva muditasyorddhvam āsyaiś caturbhis sambhor bhāsvadbhir iddhe sikhitanuvasubhis sthāpayām āsa śāke

K. 806, v. 277

277a atredam corr.: atraidam CŒDÈS 277d vasubhis corr.: vasubhi CŒDÈS

In Śaka 883 [= A.D. 961/2] to proclaim his fame he installed here this excellent Linga called Śrī-Rajendrabhadreśvara together with these four lovely images of Gaurī, Viṣṇu and Śiva, resembling the calm upper face of joyful Śiva with his [other] four radiant faces. 252

This is an altogether exceptional title that expresses both Bhadreśvara’s exalted status among the Khmers and his special role as patron of the monarch, a role that was also that of certain

plate or stone edict he should donate gold, villages and the rest down to male and female slaves for the sake of the dancing, singing and other [expenses], saying [that he does so] “to N-iśvara”.

251. K. 286, v. 44cd; K. 872, v. 15; K. 528, v. 218.

252. The complex of the Linga surrounded by the four images is compared to that of the five faces of Sadasiva, the form of Śiva venerated in the Siddhanta, which was then the Śaivism of the state. Just as Sadasiva has a superior upper face (Iśāna) and four lesser faces below it (Tatpuruşa, Aghora, Sadyojāta and Vamadeva) looking in the four directions, so this Linga shrine has four somewhat lower shrines around it forming the corners (SE, SW, NW, and NE) of a square of which it occupies the centre. For the quincunx layout of the uppermost level of the Rājabhadreśvara temple (Pre Rup) see JACQUES 1999, 76– 78. The secondary images, installed in the corner-shrines, were (1) a Rajendravarmeśvara (SE) for the king’s own benefit, (2) a Viṣṇu Rajendraviśvarupa whose purpose is not stated, (3) a Gauri, probably called Rajendreśvari, for the salvation of his consort Jayadevi, and (4) a Rajendravarmadeveśvara for the welfare of his younger brother Harşavarman (K. 806, vv. 278–281).

CŒDÈS translates lingam …agryam ‘ce linga principal’ as though it were related to others; but see the following close parallel in a Nepalese inscription of 468/9 A.D. in which another solitary linga is so described: aisānam lingam agryam vidhivad anupamam sthāpayām āsa bhaktyā (Dh. VAJRACARYA 1973, No. 6).

CŒDÈS reads kirttim vaktum …muditasya …asyaiś caturbhis ‘joyeux de proclamer sa renommée par quatre bouches brillantes’, but this abandons the syntactic parallel and makes no sense: gods do not proclaim their fame and that is certainly not the function of Sadasiva’s four lateral faces. On the other hand it is in keeping with Indic convention to say that the purpose of a religious installation is to enhance the founder’s reputation (kīrttiḥ, yaśaḥ), that and the increase of merit (punyam, dharmaḥ) being everywhere identified as the goals of such activity, for the founder, others, usually his parents, or both. See K. 53, v. 12: yo tisthipad imau devau śraddhayā bhūridakṣiņau kīrttistambhāv ivodagrau ‘who installed these two gods with faith like two loft pillars of [his] fame, giving abundant fees’; K. 528, v. 202cd: sthāpayām āsa pitṛṇām dharmavṛddhaye ‘he established [it] to augment the merit of his ancestors’; K. 323, v. 59ab: imas svaśilparacita gurūņām punyavṛddhaye ’these [images] fashioned by his own craft to increase the merit of his elders’; K. 339, v. 39: khātam idam mātuḥ taṭākam punyavṛddhaye ’this tank was excavated to increase the merit of his mother’; Lajimpāt inscription of Mānadeva (467/8 A.D.) (Dh. VAJRĀCĀRYA 1973, No. 4): mātuḥ …sarvadā punyavṛddhyai ‘for ever to increase the merit of his mother’; Varahamihira (6th century), Brhatsamhita 55.1cd: devatāyatanam kuryād yasodharmābhivṛddhaye ‘he should construct a temple to increase his fame and merit’; Bānskherā copper-plate inscription of Harsa (628 A.D.), EI 4, pp. 210 ff., line 11 and the Sunak grant of Karṇa I (1091), EI I, 36, line 8 (prose): punyayaśobhivṛddhaye ’to increase his fame and merit’; Ujjain copper- plate of Bhojadeva (Indian Antiquary 6, pp. 53 ff.): mātāpitror ātmanaś ca punyayaśobhivṛddhaye ’to increase the merit and fame of his parents and himself”.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

417

’national’ Śivas in the Indian subcontinent. In the Tamil country Nataraja of Cidambaram became the family deity of the Cola emperors; 253 Pasupati in the Kathmandu valley is regularly invoked as the patron of the kings of that region from the seventh century to the present; 254 and the Gangas who conquered Orissa claimed the same relationship with Śiva Gokarṇasvāmin on Mt. Mahendra in the Ganjam district, as did the Solankis with Umāpatiśiva, the Hoysala Yadavas with Vajreśvarasiva, 255 and the Guhilot kings of Mewār with Ekalingaśiva. 256 The Rajendrabhadreśvara of the Pre Rup pyramid-temple was evidently intended as a local double of the national deity, permanently accessible to the monarch at the heart of the new capital and no doubt visible from his palace (rājamandiram). No remains of this palace have yet been identified, perhaps because they have not been searched for with sufficient diligence. But JACQUES has proposed that in accordance with normal practice it would have been located directly to the north of the Rajendrabhadreśvara temple, between it and the Yasodharataṭāka and in alignment with both the Rajendrabhadreśvara and Rajendresvara on the island at its centre. 257

The role of Bhadresvara as the sustainer of the king and his realm is confirmed by another passage of the same inscription:

kamvuviśvambharāyām yas tridaśānām svayambhuvām sthāpitānāй ca yajvaiko bhūtvā pūjām avarddhayat

rājendunā yena yathā yathā śrī- bhadresvare diyata mandalaśrīḥ tathā tathāvarddhata niṣkalaṁkā candraśriyam hrepayitum mudeva K. 806, vv. 270-271

Having become [as king] the unique worshipper of [all] the gods of Kambujadeśa, both the self-manifested and those installed, [Rajendravarman] increased their endowments.

253. SII 5:458: tan kulanayakam; HALL 2001, 87-95.

254. The constant epithet of the kings of the Kathmandu valley in their inscriptions of the seventh and eighth centuries, beginning in the time of Amsuvarman (d. 639/40), is bhagavatpasupatibhaṭṭāraka— pādānugṛhītaḥ pādānudhyātaḥ ‘favoured by the feet of Lord Pasupatibhaṭṭāraka’ (see Dh. VAJRACARYA 1973, Nos. 71 and 72). Similarly in the epigraphy of Malla times the standard epithet of the kings of the region begins pasupaticaranakamaladhūlidhusaritaśiroruha- ‘with their hair made grey with the pollen of the lotuses that are the feet of Glorious Pasupati’ (e.g., G. VAJRĀCĀRYA 1976, No. 12 of 761, 1640/1 A.D.); and later, under the Shah dynasty, Nepalese inscriptions pray that this lineage may endure by the favour of the dust of the feet of Guhyakāli and Pasupati (e.g. G. VAJRACARYA 1976, No. 74, 11. 18-19: yāvan nakṣatramālā vilasati gagane tavad eva sthiraḥ syāt prthvīnārāyaṇasya kṣitipatimukuṭaprotahīrasya vamso nepale guhyakalipasupaticaraṇadvandvadhūlīprasādāt. subham astu. śrīśrīśrīpasupataye namah).

=

255. See, e.g., SIRCAR 1983, 170 (Ganga): gokarṇnasvāminas samārādhanaladbhanikhila- manorathānām ‘who have obtained all their desires by propitiating the Lord Gokarṇa’; EI 27 (1956): 41, concerning Ganga Samantavarman: mmahendrācalaśikharavaranivāsino gokarṇṇasvāminaḥ satata- praṇāmaparicaryyādibhiḥ rnni[rdhau]takāleyadoṣo (lines 1-5) ‘who has eliminated the sins of the Kali age by his constant obeisance, worship and [donations?] to the lord Gokarna who dwells on the summit of Mt. Mahendra’; SIRCAR 1983, p. 404 (Solanki): śrī-umāpativaralabdhaprauḍhapratāpa- ‘whose great might was obtained as a boon from Umāpatīśvara’; p. 544 (Hoysala Yadava): vajreśvarārādhana- labdharajyaḥ who obtained his realm by propitiating Vajreśvara’.

256. See James TOD (1829 and 1832) 1920, 1:222-225, 516. He reports that the Guhilot kings were seen as the regents of this Śiva (eklin kā diwan), Ekalingasiva himself being seen not only as their tutelary deity but also as the true ruler of the realm.

257. JACQUES 1999, 71 (map of Angkor), 72.

418

Alexis SANDERSON

[And] the more this moon among kings gifted the untainted wealth of his realm to Bhadresvara the greater it grew, as though it sought through joy to shame the splendour of the moon itself.

The special status of this Śiva is also indicated by the fact that he was believed to have manifested a double of himself (punarbhāva) at Śikhareśvara/Śikharīśvara (Preah Vihear):

man [kamra]ten jagat śrībhadreśvara lingapura mok punarbhāva āy śrīśikharisvara piy gi vraḥ tejaḥ ta yal pratyakṣa prādurbhāva

K. 380 E, 11. 3-5

Then the Lord of the World Bhadresvara of Lingapura came to be born a second time in Śikharīśvara, so that the divine radiance (vraḥ tejaḥ) should be made manifest [there].

and to have been induced to do so by king Suryavarman I (r. 1002-c. 1050) as the reward of his ascetic practice (tapovīryya):

man kamraten jagat śrībhadresvara lingapura ti vraḥ pāda kamraten kamtvan añ śrīsūryyavarmmadeva sadhya nu tapovīryya gi pi mok rājya ay śrīśikharīśvara piy gi vraḥ tejaḥ pradurbhāva pratyakṣa pi loka mel

K. 380 E, 11. 58-60

Then the Lord of the World Śrībhadreśvara of Lingapura, by the power of asceticism achieved by His Majesty Suryavarman [I], came to rule in Sikharīśvara, to make his divine radiance (vraḥ tejaḥ) visible, so that all the world could see it.

This public manifestation of Śiva’s radiance was the installation of a Linga, as is revealed by parallel expressions. 258 The meaning, then, is that Suryavarman I engaged in ascetic practices, probably in the vicinity of Bhadreśvara, and was rewarded with a vision in which that god had instructed him to install a double (punarbhāva) in the form of a Linga bearing this name at Preah Vihear. It is at least probable that this event was intended to be understood as a divine authorization of the king’s rule, which we know to have been won by force of arms and after a long struggle. The theme of ascetic retreat from the world as enabling the seizing of power through conquest and as the support of its exercise is well- documented in Southeast Asian sources, among the Khmers, the Chams, and the Javanese; 259 and Preah Vihear was a site of special significance to this king’s rule. It was

258. K. 769 (12th/13th century): tejas saivam atiṣthipat ‘he installed the radiance of Śiva’; K. 232, v. 2cd: jyotis tad uccaiś śasisekharasya lingībhavad *bhātu (conj. : bhāti Ed.) vibhūtikṛd vaḥ ‘May that intense light of Śiva taking the form of the Linga shine forth to bring you glory’; K. 834, v. 5: namo stu sivalingaya yadadijyotir aisvaram niśśreyasābhyudayayos siddhyai dhātrādisādhitam ‘Let there be obeisance to the Linga of Śiva, *whose primal divine radiance (or: ‘which, being the primal radiance of God’ [yad adijyotir aiśvaram]) was propitiated by Brahma and the other [gods] as the means of accomplishing both salvation and prosperity’; K. 380 W, Khmer A, Il. 14-15: nu man udyoga cām pāñjīy kāla vraḥ śivatejaḥ kamraten jagat śrīsikharīśvara ta yal pratyakṣa prādurbhāva ‘He carefully preserves the inventory [of goods received] since the time that the divine Śiva radiance of the Lord of the World Śikhariśvara was directly manifested to our senses’.

259. K. 323, v. 26 (eulogy of Yasovarman I): śaminā yena guptapi krtye śaktiḥ prakāśitā / tapasābhena hariņā nakhālīva guhaukasā ‘Practising withdrawal in the guise of an ascetic living in a cave he manifested the power to act that had been concealed [within him], just as Hari [Narasimha] manifested his claws [when he appeared from the pillar to rend the impious Titan Hiranyakasipu]’; K. 79, v. 1 (eulogy of Bhavavarman II): rājā śrībhavavarmmeti tapasă dhāraṇād iti (conj.: dhāraṇādditiḥ Ep.: dhāraṇāditiḥ corr. CŒDÈS) ‘called Bhavavarman [‘Protector of the World’] because he supported [it] through his ascetic practice’; K. 806, v. 289 (Rajendravarman addressing all the future kings of the Khmers): labdhā dharitrī tapasā bhavadbhir ‘you have obtained the earth [to rule] by virtue of your

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

419

the northern of four sites around the limits of his kingdom at which he chose to establish Lingas incorporating his name (Sūryavarmeśvaras) in A.D. 1018; 260 it may well have been where he was first consecrated; 261 and it was the principal of three sites at which the written records of the reigns of his royal ancestors and the various departments of their governments were preserved during his reign. 262

asceticism’. This theme is seen among the Chams in C. 66 M. 31, the Dông Duong stele of Indravarman II (A.D. 875), A, vv. 18-21. There we are told the following. Bhadravarman’s son Śrī- Indravarma now rules (nrpo bhavati) in the royal city of Campā (campanagare), through the might of Šiva (māheśvaraprabhāvāt) (18). The perfect sovereignty that the king has acquired is not simply an inheritance from his ancestors (19ab), the gift of his grandfather to his father and of his father to him (19cd). He has won it from Bhadreśvara as the exceptional award of his religious austerities (tapaḥphalaviseṣāt) [in many former lives (cf. prose after v. 37)], his pious actions, his wisdom and his valour (punyabuddhiparākramāt) (20-21). In Java we find the theme that the ideal king’s career comprises ascetic preparation, victory through war and eventual retirement into life as a hermit. This pattern is ascribed to Pikatan, the Saiva king of the Sañjaya dynasty in Central Java who expelled the Sailendras from Java in the mid-ninth century, and to the East Javanese conqueror Airlangga (r. 1019- 1049) (TAYLOR 1992, 177–178). The latter is said to have spent four years in a hermitage on the mountain Vanagiri before he acceded to the pleas of the brahmans and other dignitaries that he should accept royal power (CŒDÈS 1968, 144-145). It is very probable that it was the latter’s career that motivated his court poet Mpu Kanva to compose his Arjunawiwāha (A.D. 1053), since that retells the myth derived from the Mahabharata of the asceticism undertaken by Arjuna on the Indrakila mountain to obtain from Śiva the weapon that would bestow victory on the humiliated Pandavas (HENRY 1986, 14, following BERG). The theme persisted after the arrival of Islam, being found in the Javanese chronicles (babad). SUPOMO (1997, I:67), writes: “we often read in various babad, that a would-be rebel against a Javanese king, Dutch authority, or both, would invariably practice asceticism before embarking on his dangerous undertaking”.

260. The others were at Jayakṣetra (= Vat Baset in Battambang) in the west, Suryadri (= Phnom Chisor) in the south, and Iśānatīrtha, presumably in the east. JACQUES proposes (1999, 96-99) that it may have been by the Mekong river. Perhaps it was within the territory of the old kingdom of Iśānapura in the Sen river valley to the east of the Tonlé Sap. The installation of these four Suryavarmeśvaras is recorded in K. 380 E, v. 12: ekam śrīśikharesvarādrisikhare śrīsānatirthe para[m] śrīsuryyādriśiloccaye nyad asame śrīsūryya- varmmeśvaram/ lingam samyag asau śriyādhikajayakṣetre purātiṣṭhipat paścāt tīrṇaviyatpayodhivivarais śrīsūryyavarmmā trișu ‘Sūryavarman first installed a Suryavarmeśvaralinga in Śrījayakṣetra and then, in 940 elapsed, in three [other sites], one on the summit of the hill of Sikhareśvara, another at Īsānatīrtha, and yet another on the summit of the hill of the Sun (Sūryādri)’.

261. This hypothesis has been proposed by JACQUES (1976b, 364).

262. K. 380 W of 1037/8 A.D., Khmer, ll. 11-26: 959 saka amavasyā māgha ta jā pusya dhanisthanakṣatra madhyaha nu vraḥ kamraten añ śrīrājapativarmma cau vraḥ kamraten añ śrīrājapativarmma ta qcas sruk avadhyapura pangam thpvan nivedana ta vraḥ pāda kamraten kamtvan añ śrīsūryyavarmmadeva ruv gi bhaktiy śrīsukarmmā kamsten nā man jā tem ta gi karmma durggama phon nā kamrateń jagat śrīśikharīśvara nu kamraten jagat śrīvṛddheśvara nu man udyoga cām pāñjīy kāla vraḥ sivatejaḥ kamraten jagat śrīśikharīśvara ta yal pratyakṣa prādurbhāva ta nu jā vraḥ yasasthirāvasāna nu man gi ta män santāna ta cām likhita kamvuvansa nu anga vraḥ rājakāryya likhita kīrtti kamrateń phdai karom damnepra gi vraḥ pāda śrutavarmmadeva Ivoḥ ta vraḥ kīrtti vraḥ pāda kamraten kamtvan añ śrīsūryyavarmmadeva ta rājakula vraḥ pāda kamraten añ śrīndravarmmadeva ta stac dau isvaraloka nu kammraten an śrīvīralakṣmi mahādevī āy vrac vraḥ sruk rajakula vraḥ pāda śrīharṣavarmmadeva ta stac dau rudraloka nu vrah pada śrīśānavarmmadeva ta stac dau paramarudraloka nu man gi ta lamtap vraḥ likhita pi duk ta vrah rikta pi duk na kamraten jagat śrīśikharīśvara nu kamraten jagat śrīvṛddheśvara nu ta ti duk ay kanlon nu man sapata tem bhaktiy mvāy vaddha nu vraḥ kamraten añ śrīrājapativarmma gi pi vraḥ pāda kamraten kamtvan añ śrīsuryyavarmmadeva karuṇā pandval vraḥ vara ta śrīsukarmmā kamsteni oy prasāda rajadravya nu sruk vibheda mṛtakadhana mratāñ śrīpṛthivīnarendra kamnun (kamn[u]n) kamsten śrīmahīdharavarmma vraḥ sruk ta śrīsukarmmā kamsteni pandval pre cā ta vraḥ śilāstambha nā kamraten jagat śrīśikharīśvara pre căr ta śilāprasasta pi duk ta sruk vibheda mna vraḥ pāda kamraten kamtvan añ śrīsūryya[varmma]deva oy vraḥ karuṇā prasāda ta śrīsukarmmā kamsteni nu kulasantāna śrīsukarmmā

420

Alexis SANDERSON

The pre-eminence of Bhadresvara as the principal Śiva of the realm is also seen in references to a practice in which the king’s Guru, after consecrating him as the monarch, would receive lavish gifts from him and then go on a pilgrimage to sacred sites (kṣetrādhigama) to pass on those gifts as his own donations to the deities of those sites, to perform sacrifices there, install images, found hermitages, excavate reservoirs and establish endowments. Divākarapaṇḍita, after serving in lesser capacities under Udayādityavarman II (r. 1050-1066) and Harşavarman III (r. 1066–1080), is said to have followed this practice as Vrah Guru under Jayavarman VI (r. 1080-1107), Dharaṇīndravarman I (r. 1107-1112) and Suryavarman II (r. 1113-c. 1150). We are told that after he had performed the royal consecration of Suryavarman II, given him Śaiva initiation, taught him the Saiva scriptures and other branches of learning, and been invited to perform the Kotihoma and other annual brahmanical sacrifices for him, he was given golden palanquins and many other valuables so that he could visit various sacred sites around the kingdom and give these to the deities installed there, each engraved with a verse composed by the king himself to the effect that it was a gift to Śiva made by his revered Guru. The sites chosen for this purpose were five, of which the first three are clearly the most important: Bhadreśvara, Sikharīśvara (Preah Vihear), and Sivapura Danden (Phnom Sandak). At each of these he had a water-reservoir excavated, founded a hermitage, gave it slaves and villages and made an endowment to provide for worship. Similarly, Sadasiva Jayendrapandita, high priest of the royal Saiva cult of the Kamraten Jagat ta Rāja (Devarāja) and Guru of Udayādityavarman II, is praised for his constant lavish donations to ‘Bhadreśvara and other gods’. 263

kamsteni ta ti duk ta sruk vibheda ta jmaḥ kurukṣetra īlu ‘In 958 Saka, on the new moon day of Magha in Pusya, under the asterism Dhaniṣṭhā, at midday. V.K.A. Śrī Rājapativarman, grandson of V.K.A. Śrī Rājapativarman the elder, of Sruk Avadhyapura, respectfully informs H.H. Suryavarman [I] of the works of devotion of Sri Sukarmā Kamsten on the occasion of the beginning of the works of fortification for the gods Śikhariśvara and Vṛddheśvara. He preserves with great effort the inventory [of goods received] since the time that the Śiva splendour of Sikhariśvara was directly manifested to our senses…There is a family that preserves the records of the Kambu lineage and the departments of the royal service, records of the splendid deeds of the kings from [those of] Śrutavarman down to those of Suryavarman I in the royal family of Indravarman who went to Iśvaraloka and [down to those of] the queen Vīralakṣmi Mahadevi of Vrac of the Vrah Sruk, relative of Harsavarman who went to Rudraloka and of Isanavarman who went to Paramarudraloka. The collection of the sacred records is kept on leaves stored in Sikharīśvara, Vṛddheśvara and Kanlon. He took the same oath of loyalty *following the same formula as Rajapativarman (?). So Suryavarman I favoured Sukarma and gave him royal goods and the Sruk Vibheda, inheritance of Pṛthivinarendra being part of the goods of Mahidharavarman of Vrah Sruk. He ordered that [this decision] be engraved on a stone pillar in Sikhariśvara and ordered it to be engraved on [another] stone pillar to be placed in the Sruk Vibheda given by him to Sukarmā in Sruk Vibheda, formerly called Kurukṣetra’.

263. The account of Divakarapandita’s offices and donations is given in K. 194, A9-B17. The gifts of Sadasiva Jayendrapandita are mentioned in K. 235, v. 119ab: maṇikanakamayadi dyumnajātam vadanyas satatam adita deve bhūri bhadreśvarādau ‘A liberal donor, he constantly gave valuables made of jewels, gold and other [precious substances] in great abundance to Bhadresvara and the other deities’. CŒDÈS and DUPONT (1943-46: 137-139) discuss this practice of redistributing royal gifts to the gods of the kingdom in the introduction to their edition of this inscription, considering both these passages. They also cite the case of the general Samgrāma. K. 289 D recounts his campaign against a chieftain called Slvat, who had attacked him in Prthusaila. He defeated him at Praśānvraimmyat and founded two hermitages dedicated to Śiva Bhadresvara at the site in this same year, giving one thousand cows and a hundred and twenty cows. The inscription records a further encounter near a temple of Visņu. Once again victorious he made donations to this god and having returned handed over the booty (dhanāni hṛtāni) to the king, Udayādityavarman II. The king gave these riches back to the general as the reward of his loyal service. The general declined to accept them and asked that they be given to the king’s subtle inner self,

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

421

Neither Buddhism nor Vaiṣṇavism offered the Khmers any deity so central to their collective identity and only Saivism had inscribed itself so deeply into the Khmers’ sense of place, by establishing this and other doubles of the Sivas of ancient temple-sites of the Indian subcontinent and by locating natural, autochthonous Śivas in their landscape.

Śaivism and Khmer Vaisnavism

Moreover, while Pāñcarātrika Vaiṣṇavism and Mahāyāna Buddhism flourished alongside Śaivism, there are indications they were unable to escape its shadow. Thus Nārāyaṇa, a Bhāgavata courtier of Jayavarman V (r. c. 970-1000), could found a Vaisnava hermitage and build a Visnu temple within it, but then install images of Nandin and Mahākāla to guard its entrance, although these two are the door-guardians prescribed in the Śaiva systems for shrines of Śiva. 264

cakāra cakrisaubhaktyāt samkrāntapadam āśramam dāsīdāsahiraṇyādidhanair āpūrayac ca saḥ

dviprasthan cātra sucyannam dātavyam prativāsaram triprasthadevayajñañ ca cakrine so py akalpayat

nandinam śrīmahākālam dvāsstham viṣṇor vvidhāya saḥ dviprastham anvahan tābhyām yajñan deyam akalpayat

K. 256 C, v. 9-11 (= K. 814, v. 9-11)

265

9a saubhaktyāt conj.: saubhaktyā (saubhāktyā K. 814) CŒDÈS and DUPONT • 10a dviprasthan cātra śucyannam conj. dviprastham tadā sucyannam CŒDÈS and DUPONT

266

Out of his great devotion to Visnu he founded the Samkrāntapada hermitage and filled it with male and female slaves, gold and other valuables. He provided for two prastha measures of pure food to be given here daily [for the residents] and for [daily] offerings of three prasthas to Visņu. He also established a Nandin and a Mahākāla at the door of [this] Viṣṇu [temple] and provided for a daily offering of two prasthas to be given to them. 267

the Śiva in the golden Linga (v. 27bc: suvarnṇamayalingagatesvare te sukṣmāntarātmani), which was probably that which Udayadityavarman II had established c. 1060 on the Tribhuvanacūḍāmaṇigiri (the Baphuon temple-mountain) (see K. 136 B, v. 24).

264. See Pañcārthabhāṣya ad Pāśupatasūtra 1.9; Somasambhupaddhati 1:95; Suryasevana p. 135; Svacchanda 2.25 and Netratantra 3.9; Kṣemarāja ad Svacchanda 2.25 and Netratantra 3.9; and Tantrāloka 15.183-188b.

265. The emendation saubhaktyāt cannot be supported by any citation of this word; but it is well- formed as an abstract from subhakta- ‘very devoted, very loyal’ (cf. such words as saugandhyam and saubhagyam), whereas saubhaktyā, which could only be understood to mean subhaktyā, is an implausible solecism.

266. The version of K. 814 is given by CŒDÈS and DUPONT as catuḥprastha - śucyannam, reporting that the syllable after stha is că or ccha with tra written beneath. The reading dviprastham tadā śucyannam accepted by CŒDÈS and DUPONT in K. 256 C is unmetrical.

267. The word sucyannam ‘pure food’ is a Vaisnava usage. In our Old Khmer inscriptions sucyanna and samvibhāga are in the worship of Visnu what caru and naivedya are in that of Śiva and the Goddess. See K. 989 B, 1. 47-C, 1. 1. For this usage among Indian Vaisnavas see Rahasyamnāya cited and discussed by Vedantadeśika in his Saccaritrarakṣā, p. 90, 11. 7-10, also Alaśingabhaṭṭa ad Sātvatasamhitā 6.181c-182: …odanapacane śucyannam śrapayitva vedyām bhagavate nayati …..

422

Alexis SANDERSON

268

The deities required at the entrance to a Vaisnava shrine are Canda and Pracanda. There is further evidence of the intrusion of Saivism into the Vaisnavism of the Khmers if the great temple established by Suryavarman II (r. 1113-c. 1150) and now known as Angkor Vat was originally dedicated to Visņu, as is probable and generally accepted. In the bas-relief on the wall of the eastern section of its southern gallery thirty- two hells are depicted, each with an accompanying Khmer legend that names it and identifies the kinds of sinners being punished in it. 269 Now the schema of thirty-two hells is distinctively Saiva. It is taught in the Saiva scriptures Niśvāsamukha, Matanga (VP 23.74-81b), Parākhya (5.11–32b), and Kiraṇa (Vidyāpāda 8.7-11c). There is some small variation among these sources in the names or identities of the hells, and no scriptural list known to me agrees exactly with that of the Angkor Vat bas-relief. But there is a particularly close agreement, both in names and in their order, with that of the Niśvāsamukha. 270 In any case all the Saiva lists are closer to that of Angkor Vat than are those seen in brahmanical and Vaisnava sources. 271

But more telling than this is the fact that the inscriptions identifying the categories of sinners who are punished in these hells disclose an unambiguously Šaiva perspective. For they include persons who have committed offences against Śiva or his devotees but none who have committed sins against Visnu or Vaisnavas. 272 Thus:

kriminicaya. anak ta nindā devatā vraḥ vlen. guru. vrāhmaṇa. mahājñāna. anak ta pradau dharmma. anak ta śivabhakti. ame. vapā. suhṛt.

K. 299, no. 6 273

Kriminicaya: [Here are] those who denigrate the gods, the sacred fire, a Guru, a brahmin of great knowledge, a teacher of religious duty, devotees of Śiva, their mother, father or friends.

268. These, and, in subordinate roles, Jaya and Vijaya, Śankhanidhi and Cakranidhi are prescribed in Jayākhyasamhitā 13.79-81; Lakṣmītantra 33.49-60; Pādmasamhita 2.48; 4.17; 10.63–66.

269. K. 299 (NIC II-III, 156–163). The hells are the following: 1 Avici, 2 Kriminicaya, 3 the river Vaitaraṇī, 4 Kūṭaśalmalī, 5 Yugmaparvata, 6 Nirucchvāsa, 7 Ucchvāsa, 8 Dravattrapu, 9 Taptalākṣāmaya, 10 Asthibhanga, 11 *Krakacaccheda (corr.: krakaccheda Ed.), 12 Pūyapūrṇahrada, 13 Asṛkpūrṇahrada, 14 Medohrada, 15 Tīkṣṇāyastunda, 16 Angāranicaya, 17 Ambarīṣa, 18 Kumbhīpāka, 19 Tālavṛkṣavana, 20 Kṣuradhāraparvata, 21 S, 22 Sucimukha, 23 Kalasūtra, 24 Mahāpadma, 25 Padma, 26 Sanjīvana, 27 [Sujīvana], 28 [Usna], 29 Šīta, 30 Sandratamas, 31 Mahāraurava, and 32 Raurava.

270. Niśvāsamukha, f. 17v6-18r1: avīcī kṛminicayo vaitaraṇī kūṭaśālmali giriyamala ucchvāso nirucchvāso hy athāparaḥ/ pūtimānsa dravaś caiva trapus taptajatus tatha pankalayo ‘sthibhangaś ca krakacacchedam eva cal medosṛkpuyahradaś ca tīkṣṇāyastundam eva ca/ angārarāsibhuvanaḥ śakuniḥ khañjarīṭakaḥ00000–hy asitalavanas tathā sūcīmukhaḥ kṣuradhāraḥ kālasūtro ‘siparvataḥ / / | padmas caiva samakhyato mahāpadmas tathaiva cal tayoko+rat uṣṇaś ca sañjīvanasujīvanau | śītatamondhatamasau mahārauravarauravau / dvātrimsad ete narakā mayā devi prakīrttitāḥ.

271. See, e.g., Manusmrti 4.88–90, Viṣṇudharma 45.9-12, Brahmapurāṇa 215.84–135, Agnipurāṇa 203.6-23.

272. This incongruity was considered in a study of these bas-reliefs by CŒDÈS (1911, 210). He considered that it did not contradict the exclusively Vaiṣṇava character of the bas-reliefs of Angkor Vat, on the ground that the inscriptions might be a little later than the bas-reliefs and that they may therefore have been executed after the fashion for Vaisnavism had receded in favour of Saivism, the persistent primary religion. This hypothesis is weakened by the fact that, as we have seen, the bas-reliefs of the hells are themselves Śaiva in inspiration. CŒDÈS wrongly thought the inspiration to be Buddhist (1911, 207–8).

273. These inscriptions were published by AYMONIER (1883), then, with some corrections of Aymonier’s readings by CŒDÈS (1911). They have now been re-edited by Pou (2001, 156-163) with notes and some unremarked deviations from the text of CŒDÈS. The text given here and the following citation is that of CŒDÈS and POU.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

and:

padma. anak ta lvac vnya. peḥ vǹya ta sivārāma. duk jey sin.

K. 299, no. 29

423

Padma: [Here are] those who steal flowers, who pluck flowers from the garden of a Śiva [temple] (śivārāma), *and enjoy keeping them (duk) in their huts (jey) (?).

Indeed both these passages have striking Sanskrit parallels in the treatment of the candidates for infernal punishment given in the Sivadharmottara, one of the two principal Śaiva scriptures concerned with the duties of the uninitiated Saiva laity. These are:

and:

ye nindanti mahātmānam ācāryam dharmadeśakam

śivabhaktāmś ca sammūḍhāḥ śivadharmam ca śāśvatam

f. 38r7-8, 7.192c-193b

=

Those fools who denigrate a man of great wisdom, a Guru, a teacher of religious duty, devotees of Śiva and the eternal Śivadharma … 274

ye śivārāmapuṣpāṇi lobhāt samgṛhya pāṇinā

jighranti mūḍhamanasaḥ śirasă dhārayanti ca

f. 38r6, 7.190c-191b

Those of deluded mind who out of greed pluck flowers from the garden of a Śiva [temple], enjoy their fragrance, and wear them on their heads

In my translation of the last phrase of the second Khmer passage (duk jey sin) I have reproduced that given by the Khmerologist Saveros POU with her edition of the inscription. But I have queried it, because jey is not found in any other Old Khmer inscription, and the meaning ‘hut’ that POU attributes to it is both hypothetical and less than compelling in the context. 275 I propose that jey is an error for thep ‘smell’. The characters th- and j- are similar enough in the Khmer script, as are p- and y-, to be easily confused; and the emendation replaces the puzzling reference to those who keep Śiva’s flowers in their huts with exactly what we find in the Sanskrit parallel: ’those who wear them [on their heads] (duk) and those who smell [them] (thep)’. Only the order of the two is different. 276

274. The Khmer text suggests that it might be based on a variant of this verse with the reading mahājñānam rather than mahātmānam. The meaning is any case the same.

275. See Pou 1992, 191ab and 545b (s.v. hajaya). Her evidence for this meaning is the hapax legomenon hajaya K. 324a (NIC II-III, 62-64), 1. 36 (9th century): cmām hajaya tai kanlak ‘Guard of the hajaya: the female servant Kanlak’, and Middle and Modern Khmer jai. See also Pou 2001, 163 (ad loc.). But only the meaning of jai would seem to be certain. CŒDÈS (1911, 207) saw no meaning in duk jey sin and so attempted no translation.

276. The point of the rule against smelling the flowers for worship, that is to say, deliberately inhaling their fragrance, is that having been enjoyed by another they become impure and therefore unfit to be offered to the deity. See, e.g., Paramasamhita 5.29cd: anyair anupayogas tu sarveṣām śuddhir uttama ’the highest purity is not to have been used by others’; 5.46c-47b: bhuktaseṣam parimlānam asprsyaspṛṣṭam eva ca ll puspam vihitam apy etam apatkale ‘pi varjayet ‘He should avoid these flowers though enjoined [for offering] if they have been already enjoyed, if they are faded and if they have been touched by an untouchable, even in times of dire distress’.

424

Alexis SANDERSON

Saivism and Khmer Buddhism

As for Mahāyāna Buddhism, whose presence among the Khmers is apparent from the seventh century onwards in images of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, that too received extensive patronage from the Khmer élite, 277 particularly during the reigns of Jayavarman V (c. 970-1000) and Jayavarman VII (1181-c. 1210), both of whom, but especially the latter, were active supporters and adherents of this form of Buddhism. Indeed Jayavarman VII’s vast and grandiose program of Buddhist temple and monastery building was evidently part of a conscious attempt to supplant Śaivism as the dominant religion, empowering it to take over the roles of protecting the state, validating its hierarchies and sanctioning the authority of the emperor.

The Mahāyāna was already well placed to do this, especially since it had provided itself through the Way of Mantras (mantranayaḥ, mantrayānam) with an elaborate and impressive system of rituals designed along Saiva lines to offer its royal patrons exactly the protective and apotropaic benefits promised by their rivals. However, the Mahāyānist versatility of method (upāyakauśalam) that enabled this development went a step further among the Khmers. For they adopted the Saiva practice of installing deities under names that incorporate that of the founder. Moreover, in the case of Lokeśvara, these names end in -isvara, as do those of Siva-images. Indeed in one case such a Lokeśvara is even referred to as a Linga, a surprising inroad from Saiva terminology, in which lingam denotes all three varieties of Siva image, namely the Linga proper (avyaktam lingam,

277. For seventh- and eighth-century images of two-armed Avalokitesvara see JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, nos. 7-10. Images of the four-armed and eight-armed Avalokitesvara generally called Lokeśvara in the inscriptions abound in the Angkorean period; see ibid., nos. 59, 95-98. The earliest epigraphic reference to Lokeśvara is K. 244 of A.D. 791/2: samaguṇaśasinagaśāke prathito yas supratisthito bhagavan / jagadīśvara iti nāmnā sa jayati lokeśvarapratimaḥ ‘Victorious is the renowned Lord well installed in Śāka 713 under the name Jagadīśvara in the likeness of Lokeśvara’. Inscriptions record many installations of Lokeśvara, the Buddha, and the goddess Prajnāpāramitā, the Perfection of Wisdom who is the Mother of the Buddhas (jinamātā K. 273, v. 36; jinānām jananī K. 273, v. 5); and there is material and epigraphic evidence of the currency of the worship of those three as a triad on a single base, a meditating Buddha seated on the coils of the Naga Mucilinda being flanked by attendant standing figures of the other two; see, e.g., JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, no. 95. We also find a tetrad comprising these and Vajrin (= Vajrapāņi, the wrathful defender of the faith); see ibid., no. 59, where they appear on the four sides of a small Caitya. The cult of Ekādaśamukha, the eleven-faced Avalokitesvara, was also present. K. 168 of A.D. 973 records gifts of slaves and other valuables to Ekādaśamukha, Lokeśvara and Bhagavati (Prajñāpāramitā). The popularity of this cult in the early phase of the development of the Mantranaya within Mahāyāna is shown not only by the survival of its principal scriptural authority, the Ekādasa- mukhadhāraṇī, among the sixth-to seventh century manuscripts of the Gilgit horde (ed. DUTT 1939, 35- 40), but also by the existence of three Chinese versions (Taishō 1070, translated by Yaśogupta around the middle of the sixth century, Taishō 1071, translated by Xuanzang in 656, and Taishō 1069, translated by Amoghavajra at some time between 720 and 774) and by its conspicuous role in the religious rituals of Japan during the eighth century (ABÉ 1999, 159-176). By the time of Jayavarman V, if not earlier, the more esoteric, Vairocana-centred Mantranaya of the Yogatantra that reached China in the eighth century and Japan in the ninth, was in vogue among the Khmers (K. 111, see below n. 284; K. 240-241, which refers to a donation to the deity Trailokyavijaya (1. 2), for whose position in the Buddhist Yogatantra tradition see LINROTHE 1999, 26, 178–211, 214-215); and by the late twelfth century the cult of Hevajra, a major deity of the Buddhist Yoginitantras that followed the phase of the Yogatantras in India, was flourishing there, as can be seen by many surviving images (LOBO 1997; JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, nos. 99-102), though by no epigraphic reports.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

425

nişkalam lingam), the anthropomorphic image (sakalam lingam), and the hybrid Linga with Śiva’s faces (vyaktāvyaktam lingam, sakalanişkalam lingam). 278

Jayavarman VII adopted this practice of installing deities incorporating his name, evidently for the glorification of himself and his lineage, in his two vast foundations at Angkor, the Rājavihāra (Ta Prohm) and the Jayaśrīnagari (Preah Khan). In 1186/7 he had an image of Prajñāpāramitā with the likeness and name of his devout Buddhist mother Jayarajacūḍāmani installed as the presiding deity of the former, 279 and in 1191/2 he had a Lokeśvara embodying his father installed with his own name (Jayavarmeśvara) as the presiding deity of the latter. 280

He also installed Jayabuddhamahānāthas, images of the Buddha incorporating his name, in many sites throughout his realm 281 and ordained that every year during the month of Phalguna these should be invited to the temple of the Lokeśvara Jayavarmeśvara, together with

with the “Eastern Buddha”, the Buddha Viraśakti (vīrasaktisugataḥ), 282 the Buddha of Phimai (vimāyasugataḥ), the Prajñāpāramitā Jayarajacūḍāmani of the Rajavihāra, and Bhadreśvara, Campeśvara, Pṛthuśaileśvara and the other major deities of the realm, in all one hundred and twenty-two. 283 This must have

278. The Sanskrit portion of K. 239 records the installation in A.D. 961/2 of a — keśvaralingam …prāsādam (S, 1. 13, v. 7) by Bhadrātiśaya, a servant of King Rajendravarman. The text begins with obeisance to the Three Jewels and the donor prays that the merit of the act should go to his mother, father, the king, [his] guru, his kinsman and his friend, and that by means of this good deed he may be a Bodhisattva in life after life in order to save people drowning in the ocean of incarnation. The Khmer portion of the inscription records the consecration in A.D. 966 of bricks offered to V.K.A. śrī Jagannathakeśvara (1. 23) and donations to him of various paddy-fields. This deity is surely the same as that of the U-kesvaralingam …prāsādam of the Sanskrit text, though the metre precludes exactly that name. Given the context and the name in -īśvara it is highly probable that this deity was a Lokeśvara. We may compare the Lokeśvara Jagadīśvara of K. 244.

279. K. 273, v. 36-37: pratisthipac chrījayarāja*cūḍāmaṇim (corr.: cuddāmanim Ep.) manidyotita- punyadehām / tasyan jananyā jinamātṛmūrttim murttim samūrttidyuśaśānkarupaiḥ so tisthipac chrījayamangalar[tha] devam tathā śrījayakīrttidevam mūrttim guror dakṣinavāma - yas ṣastim sate dvau parivāradevān ‘In [Śāka] 1108 he installed Jayarajacūḍāmani, an image of the Mother of the Buddhas. Its body was illuminated by its jewels and it incorporated his mother. He installed a Jayamangalarthadeva and a Jayakīrtideva, embodying his Guru, to its left and right, and two hundred and sixty deities as its retinue’.

280. K. 908, v. 34-35: sa śrījayavarmmanṛpaś śrījayavarmmesvarakhyalokeśam / vedendu- candrarūpair udamīlayad atra pitṛmūrttim / āryāvalokiteśasya madhyamasya samantataḥ śatadvayan trayośītis tena devāḥ pratiṣthitāḥ ‘In [Śāka] 1113 that king Jayavarman [VII] installed here a Lokeśa called Jayavarmeśvara embodying his father. Two hundred and eighty-three deities were installed around this central Avalokitesvara’.

281. K. 908, v. 115-121b. This says that Jayavarman installed a Jayabuddhamahānātha at each of twenty-three listed locations (120c-121b: trayovimsati*deseṣv [em.: deveṣv CŒDÈS] eṣv ekaikasminn atisthipat jayavuddhamahānātham śrīmantam so vanīpatiḥ). But in v. 159 it speaks of the Jayabuddhamahānāthas of the twenty-five locations (jayavuddhamahānāthāḥ pañcavimśatideśakāḥ).

282. This Buddha is probably the “god Viraśakti” mentioned in Jayavarman’s Rājavihāra foundation stele, K. 273, v. 85: bhagavan bhagavatyāsau *caturddasyām (corr. CŒDÈS: caturddhasyām Ep.) pradakṣinam/ triḥ kuryyāt *paurṇamāsyāñ (corr.: paurṇamāsyañ CŒDÈS) ca vīraśaktyādibhis suraiḥ ‘On the fourteenth [of Caitra] and on the full moon day the [Buddha] and the goddess [Prajñāpāramitā] should circumambulate [the temple] three times, keeping it on their right side, together with Vīrasakti and the other gods’. K. 240 N comprises the words kamraten jagat śrī jayavīraśaktimahādeva. This, given that it is found on a Buddhist temple, is no doubt the same deity rather than a Śiva (Mahādeva).

283. K. 908, v. 158-160: atrādhyeṣya ime devāḥ phalgune prativatsaram pracyo munīndraś śrījayarājacūḍāmaṇis tathā | jayavuddhamahānāthāḥ pañcavimśatideśakāḥ / śrīvīraśaktisugato vimāya- sugato pi cal bhadreśvaracāmpeśvarapṛthuśaileśvarādayaḥ śatadvāvimsatis caite pinditāḥ426

Alexis SANDERSON

entailed processions (vātrā) in which their festival images we may presume that their primary images remained in place were transported in palanquins (śibikā) over considerable distances into the presence of the king’s personal Lokeśvara in the capital in a ceremony that mirrored that in which subordinate rulers would come before their overlord to demonstrate their dependence and loyalty.

The inscription that records these arrangements listed twenty-three sites throughout the kingdom in which Jayavarman VII established a Jayabuddhamahānātha. But when it speaks of the annual visit of these Buddhas to the temple of Lokeśvara Jayavarmeśvara it gives their number as twenty-five. Perhaps this is a lapse. But that would be surprising in an inscription that contains a great deal of precise numerical information on the funding of the foundation, the various classes of personnel engaged to serve in it, and its deities. I propose that the number has risen because the author’s list was of provincial Jayabuddhamahānāthas and that there were two others in the capital or its vicinity that were to be included in the total in the context of the annual visit. It is probable that one of the additional two was the image presiding in the Bayon, the great temple constructed by Jayavarman VII at the centre of his ceremonial capital Angkor Thom. The broken fragments of a Buddha were found at the bottom of a deep shaft under the tower in which the image would have been housed, perhaps, as has often been suggested, having been thrown there during the anti-Buddhist Śaiva backlash after the end of this reign. That Jayavarman VII installed a Buddha here is in any case highly probable. The Bayon, the Jayaśrīnagari and the Rājavihāra, his three principal Buddhist foundations, would thus have been dedicated to the Buddha, Lokeśvara, and Prajñāpāramitā respectively, completing the triad whose worship as a set, on a single base with the Buddha in the centre, is a well attested feature of Buddhist devotion during this period. That it should have been a personal Buddha is intrinsically probable in the light of his policy in his other foundations, and that it should have a personal Buddha in his own name is also probable, since that would have accomplished a further symmetry: his personal Buddha in the Bayon at the centre of Angkor Thom with a Lokeśvara and Prajñāpāramitā embodying his father and mother in Jayaśrīnagari and the Rājavihāra outside its walls.

That this cult of the personal deity-image was adopted from Śaivism, and in Kambujadeśa itself, cannot be demonstrated conclusively. But it is very probable. It is less than certain because it rests on an inference from an absence of evidence that this practice was ever adopted by Buddhists in India together with the assumption that though the installation of deities incorporating the name of the founder was also practised in Pāñcarātrika Vaisnavism, the preponderance of Śaivism in the religion of the Khmer state makes that an improbable source. My assertion that Buddhist images were not personalized in India through the incorporation of their founder’s name is, of course, a claim that further research or the greater knowledge of others may easily refute, since even a single example of the practice would suffice for this purpose. But in this case the inference of absence from the absence of evidence is somewhat strengthened by the fact we find no evidence of the practice in a context in which we would expect to see evidence if it existed. This is the record of the religious foundations of pre-Islamic Kashmir in

parivārakaiḥ. K. 254 (Sanskrit, vv. 28-29; Khmer, B 1. 44-d, 1. 42) details benefactions in 1127 for the Śiva Lingapureśvara / Kammraten Jagat Lingapura, the Śiva of Prthusaila (Phnom Roung, north of the Dang Raek range) / Kammraten Jagat Vnam Run, the Visnu of Campeśvara / Vraḥ Kānti Kammraten Añ Śrīcāmpeśvara, and the Buddha of Vaṛśārāma / Kammraten Jagat Chpā Ransi. In K. 289, C, v. 32 the military commander Samgrāma makes donations to Pṛthuśailaśiva and requests him to grant him success in his campaign to seize the rebel Kamvau during the reign of Udayādityavarman II (1050-1066): pṛthuśailaśivam prāpya samyag ārādhya so dhiyā / datvā rairūpyanāgendrān arīndrāptim ayācata.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

427

Kalhana’s chronicle of the dynasties of that kingdom (Rājatarangiṇī), completed in A.D. 1149/50. In Kashmir, as in Kambujadeśa, Buddhism, Saivism and the Pañcaratra were able to flourish side by side. In nearly all the cases of Śaiva and Vaisnava foundations established by the kingdom’s rulers and high dignitaries the deity installed or the Matha constructed has a name that incorporates that of the donor at its beginning, or that of a person that he or she has designated. But not one of the Buddhas whose installation he records and they appear together with those of Śivas, Visņus and other gods has a personal name of any kind. The only Buddhist foundations in Kalhana’s history with names incorporating the donor’s are monasteries (vihāraḥ).

What is more, even when royal support for Buddhism was at its most fervent, it seems to have been unwilling or unable to oust Śaivism completely from the circle of royal and state ritual. Nor did Buddhist fervor divert the monarchy from its traditional obligation to uphold the brahmanical Dharmaśāstra that the Saivas had always accepted as binding in the sphere of law and other mundane transactions.

An undated inscription of the reign of Jayavarman V (K. 111) records his ordinances for the conduct of religion in the Buddhist monasteries of his realm. It also reports that one Kirtipandita, a learned follower of the Mahāyāna and an expert in the esoteric Mantra rites of the Yogatantra, 284 was adopted by the royal family as their Guru, giving them many sermons on the Buddhist religion while seated

seated on the

the Dharma throne (dharmāsanam), 285 and that he was engaged within the royal palace to perform frequent

284. The evidence that he was a follower of the Yogatantra form of the Buddhist Way of Mantras is as follows. In K. 111, v. 23 he is said to have been devoted to the four Mudras: catussandhyāsu yogātmā caturddānānvito nvaha[m] caturmmudrātmako dharmmañ catusparṣatsu yo disat (conj.: yo CŒDÈS) ‘Devoted to meditation at the four junctures of the day, a giver of the four gifts, one with the four Mudras, he taught the Dharma to the four congregations’. The four Mudrās are a distinguishing mark of this system; see, e.g., Mkhas grub rje, Rgyud sde spy’i rnam par gźag pa rgyas par brjod (LESSING and WAYMAN 1980), pp. 226, 1. 28-248, 1. 7. He is said in vv. 28-29 to have resuscitated the long neglected study of the Madhyavibhāgaśāstra (= the Madhyāntavibhāgaśāstra of Maitreya) (v. 28: sastram madhyavibhāgadyam dipam saddharmmapaddhateḥ kāladoṣāniladhvastam bhūyo jvālayati sma yaḥ) and to have sought from abroad and taught the Lakṣagrantha Prajñāpāramitāsūtra and the tattvasangrahaṭīkāditantram (v. 29: *lakṣagrantham (corr.: lakṣagrantham Ep.) abhiprajñam yo nvesya pararāṣtrataḥ tattvasangraha- ṭīkāditantrañ cādhyāpayad yami). CŒDÈS took the Tattvasamgrahaṭīkā mentioned here to be Kamalaśila’s commentary on Santarakṣita’s Tattvasamgraha. It appears more probable that having mentioned sources of the two major branches of the Sūtra tradition of the Mahāyāna he now speaks of the complementary Way of Mantras, saying that Kirtipandita “taught the Tantra teachings (tantram) of such texts as the Tattvasamgraha and its commentary”, that title being an abbreviation, as commonly in Indian sources, for the Sarvatathāgatatattvasamgraha, the principal scripture of the Yogatantras. This combination of the exoteric and esoteric divisions of the mature Mahāyāna is also referred to in v. 42: vähyam guhyañ ca saddharmmam sthāpayitva cakāra yaḥ pūjārthan tasya samghasyatithes ca pṛthag asraman ‘Having propagated the Buddhist religion in both its exoteric and esoteric forms he founded separate hermitages to honour the monastic community and [lay] guests’. That the Way of Mantrayāna was also established in Jayavarman’s monasteries is clear from the fact that this inscription requires each such institution to engage an officiant (purohitaḥ) who must be “adept in the heart[-syllable]s, Mudrās, Mantras and Vidyās, and in the ritual of the fire-sacrifice, and who must understand the secret doctrines of the Vajra and the Bell” (v. 69: *hṛnmudrāmantravidyāsu (corr.: hṛnmudramantravidyāsu Ep.) homakarmmani kovidah bajra- ghaṇṭārahasyajño dakṣiṇīyaḥ purohitaḥ).

285. K. 111, v. 32: santaḥpuraiḥ pramuditai rājabhir yyo gurukṛtaḥ/ dideśa vahuso dharmmam vauddham dharmmāsane sthitaḥ ‘Appointed as their preceptor by the delighted king and his female household he taught the Buddha’s Dharma [to them] on many occasions, seated on the Dharma Throne." The plural rajabhiḥ I take to be a plural of respect (ādare bahuvacanam). On the Dharma throne see, e.g., Suvarnabhāsottamasūtra, Parivarta 6, p. 77-78. According to that account when the king wishes to hear

428

Alexis SANDERSON

rituals for the averting of dangers (sāntiḥ), the promoting of welfare (pustih) and similar ends, for the protection of the kingdom. 286 But the same inscription, in spite of its purely Buddhist focus, praises Jayavarman V for guiding his subjects in strict accordance with the precepts of brahmanical Smrti and Śruti. 287 Moreover, the royal high-priest Divākarabhatta praises him as a devotee of the Saiva Path of Mantras, that is to say, of the Tantric Saivism of the Siddhanta, which implies that like other major Khmer monarchs he had received Śaiva initiation at the time of his elevation to the throne in 970 or shortly thereafter. 288

Since the Buddhist inscription is undated we are not able to assume that his involvement in Śaivism and Buddhism were contemporaneous. He may have been committed to Śaivism around the time of his accession and then turned to Buddhism later. Nor may we assume from Divākarabhatta’s claim that Jayavarman “delighted” (rarāma) in the Saivism of the initiate that his commitments to Saivism and Buddhism were of a similar kind. It is all too possible that his Śaiva initiation and subsequent involvement in the Path of Mantras were matters of social convention dictated by his position in the state, and that his personal faith in Buddhism was already present at that time. That his Buddhism was indeed a matter of personal conviction is clear enough from his relationship with Kirtipandita and his drawing up of regulations to govern the [royal] monasteries. It is confirmed by the name Paramavīraloka he was given after his death. For it was the custom among the Khmers, as it was among their neighbours the Chams, to give their kings posthumous name that expressed the belief that the bearer had ascended to the paradise (-loka, -pura) of a certain god or to some other goal (-pada) of [their] religious endeavour. 289 In the great majority of cases this world or goal is Śaiva. But there are a few

the Suvarnabhāsottamasutra he should sprinkle the palace with scented water, scatter it with flowers, set up a high, richly adorned Dharma throne for the preacher (dharmabhāṇakaḥ), decorating the place with chowries, parasols, banners and pennants, and a lower throne for himself on which he is to sit and listen without any thoughts of his royal power.

286. K. 111, v. 36: rastramandalarakṣārtham satkṛtyāyunkta yan nrpaḥ mandirabhyantare (corr.: mandirabhyantare Ep.) bhīkṣnam śāntipustyādikarmmasu ‘whom the king bestowed honours on and then engaged repeatedly within the palace in rituals of pacification, invigoration and the like’.

287. K. 111, v. 12-13 and 16: 12 svarggāpavarggamargena yaḥ piteva vahan prajāḥ / smṛtiraśmir vvimärggebhyaḥ svendriyāśvān nyavārayat/ 13 vyavahāre satām mārgge manvādīnām mate same kāladhvāntaniruddhe yo *madhyāhnārkka (corr.: madyāhnārkka Ep.) ivābhavat… 16 tyaktām dharmmasutenāpi kalidoṣamahodadhau yaś śrutismṛtihastābhyām uddharet satyatānganām ‘Holding the reins of Smrti, conveying his subjects like a father along the road to heaven and liberation, he restrained the horses of his senses from wandering into the false paths [of forbidden objects]. In law he [Jayavarman V] illuminated the unequalled path of the virtuous taught by Manu and the other [sages], a path that had been obscured by the darkness of [advancing] time, just as the midday sun [illuminates an uneven road that has been obscured by the darkness of night]. … With the Śruti and Smrti as his two hands he rescued Lady Truth from the ocean of the defects of the Kali age when she had been abandoned even by the son of Dharma [Yudhisthira]’.

288. K. 669, v. 21 (A) / K. 263 C, v. 2 (B): mahipates tasya babhūva putro digrajavandyo UU-U - yaḥ dhateva varnṇāśramasadvyavastham kṛtvā rarāmesvara*mantramargge (em.: mantramārggaiḥ A: ma - ‘That king had a son [Jayavarman V] who was revered by kings in every direction, who after effecting like Brahma himself an orthodox settlement of the “order of castes and life-stages” delighted in Śiva’s Path of Mantras’.

289. That the Sanskrit compound names in -loka or -pada, literally ‘one who has the world or domain [of N]’, were understood to mean ‘one who has gone to that’ or ‘who is in that’ is revealed by Old Khmer renderings and Sanskrit periphrases. Thus, in the case of Jayavarman III (Viṣṇuloka) we see vraḥ kamrateń añ ta stac dau viṣṇuloka ‘My Sacred Lord, the King who has gone to Visnuloka’ (K 256A, 11. 12-13); in the Sanskrit portion of the same inscription we see mananiyo guruś śāstā viṣṇulokasthitasya yaḥ / parameśvaraputrasya rājñaś śrījayavarmmaṇaḥ ’the venerable Guru who was

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

429

exceptions. Among these are this posthumous name of Jayavarman V and that of Jayavarman VII: Mahāparamasaugatapada. The latter is obviously Buddhist, since it means that the bearer has attained the domain (padam) reached by those who are supremely devoted to the Buddha (paramasaugataḥ). The former is less obviously so, but it too must be Buddhist, since vīraḥ is a common epithet of the Buddha and is not found in Saiddhantika Śaiva, Pañcarātrika or brahmanical usage in any appropriate sense that would allow an alternative interpretation. I propose, therefore, that it is equivalent to Paramabuddhaloka and so testifies to the king’s personal devotion as opposed to what may have been no more than religious obligations imposed by his position. 290

As for Jayavarman VII, the intense commitment to Buddhism manifest in his vast architectural undertakings might have been expected to entail that those who sang his praises in the inscriptions would have presented him in purely Buddhist terms, so that we would find no evidence of involvement in the earlier tradition of royal devotion to Śiva. But on the stele in front of the chapel of Lokesvara in the south-western corner of Angkor Thom a eulogy of this king speaks of him as having Śiva permanently in his heart:

sraṣṭur manobhūr gatavān mano pi krodhādibhis svair anugair nu duram nirasya nityasthitaśūlibhītyā

tan yasya citte vahirangalīnaḥ

K. 288, v. 24

[When] Love, deprived of his material form entered the mind of the creator [Brahmā], [he did so] with Anger and his other attendants. [But when] he entered the heart of [Jayavarman] [he] surely [did so only] after banishing them afar, because he feared Śiva (-śūli-), who was ever present [there]. 291

With this we may compare the following in a eulogy of Indravarman I (r. 877-before 889):

the teacher of the son of Parameśvara [Jayavarman II], King Jayavarman [III] who is in Visnuloka’ (K 256A, v. 6); and in K. 826, v. 30 we see sa viṣṇusvāmināmānam murārātim atisthipat / viṣṇulokaprayātasya bhūtyai śrījayavarmmaṇaḥ ‘He established a Visnu with the name Viṣṇusvamin for the welfare of Jayavarman [III] who had gone to Visnuloka’. Similarly, for an early ruler, perhaps Jayavarman I, we find vraḥ kamratan añ ta dau sivapura ‘My Lord who has gone (dau) to the world of Śiva’ (K. 451 of 680); vraḥ kamratan añ ta dau svarga sivapura ‘My Lord who has gone to the heaven that is the world of Śiva’ (K. 726); for Jayavarman II (Parameśvara) vraḥ pāda stac dau parameśvara ‘The Venerable King who has gone to Parameśvara’ (K. 956); for Yašovarman I (Paramaśivaloka) dhūli vraḥ pāda ta stāc dau paramasivaloka (K. 238); for Harşavarman I (Rudraloka) vraḥ pāda stac dau rudraloka (K. 72); for Īsānavarman II (Paramarudraloka) vraḥ rājya stac dau paramarudraloka (K. 72).

290. The posthumous name Paramabuddhaloka is seen among the Chams as that of the ninth-century king Indravarman II (C. 67 = M. 36, p. 101). For vīraḥ as a name of the Buddha see, e.g., the vocatives vīra addressed to the Buddha in the devotional Satapañcāśatka of Matṛceta, vv. 19c, 45c, and 87d.

291. When Love had tried to distract Śiva from his meditation with feelings of desire for Umā, Śiva had punished him by reducing his body to ashes with the fire from his third eye. Love thus disembodied was able to enter the mind of the Creator (Brahmā, Prajāpati), and did so along with anger and the other moral taints that accompany love in lower beings. But Śiva was permanently present in the heart of the King. So Love dared to enter there only after dismissing this company, lest Śiva, who had already destroyed his outer form, be angered by this contamination of his presence and destroy him altogether. The poet thus proclaims the king’s moral perfection. If he allowed himself to feel carnal desire it was because he could not otherwise fulfill his duty to his subjects by fathering a son. This is a variant of an ancient theme in the brahmanical portrayal of the ideal king. See, e.g., Raghuvamsa 1.7d: prajāyai gṛhamedhinām ‘marrying [only] for offspring’.

430

adhyaste yasya hrdayam naiva kāmo nirantaram tatsannihitacandrārddhacūdāmaṇibhayād iva

K. 713, v. 12

Alexis SANDERSON

Carnal love never entered his heart, as though out of fear of [the god] who wears the digit of the moon on his crest, [since he was] ever (nirantaram) present there.

292

It seems, then, that this reference to Jayavarman VII’s devotion to Śiva is conventional praise, part of the stock in trade of royal eulogy. But the fact that it was not considered inappropriate to use it in his case is significant. It is hard to believe that it could have been used if Jayavarman VII would have found that it misrepresented his religious sensibilities.

Similarly, in the same inscription the king is claimed to have been an offerer of sacrifices to Śiva:

dakṣo mahesapratipaditestir

maheśvaro dhvamsitakālakūṭaḥ

jiṣṇus svadārair niyatas sudhir yo dakṣesvarendral laghayan cakāra

K. 288, v. 91

That wise [king] surpassed Dakṣa, for he was dakṣaḥ (a skilled [ruler]) and offered sacrifices to Śiva [unlike Dakṣa who refused to do so]. He surpassed Maheśvara (Śiva) for he was a great lord (maheśvaraḥ) and eliminated the dishonesty of the [Kali] Age (dhvamsitakālakūṭaḥ) [unlike Maheśvara, who did not destroy the Kālakūta poison (dhvamsitakālakūṭaḥ) since though he saved the world from its effects by imbibing it, it remains forever visible in the dark colour of his throat]; and he surpassed Jisnu (Indra), for he was jiṣṇuḥ (victorious in battle) and faithful to his wife [unlike Jisnu (Indra), who took many consorts].

Finally, a verse of this inscription compares him to a Śaiva Guru through terms with double meanings, one pertaining to the role of that Guru as the saver of souls through initiation and the other to the king’s skill in governance:

gurur niniṣur bhuvanāni mantrais

sivan dhruvam mantravidām varisthaḥ

vidhūya dṛṣṭiprativandhabhutan

tamo nvagād yas samayān aśeṣān

K. 288, v. 79

Wishing to bring mankind to eternal Śiva / lasting welfare by means of the Mantras his policies [this] Guru who was the foremost among the Masters of Mantras experts in politics banished the darkness that was the obstacle to knowledge and honoured his pledges.

This might be thought to mean that he too had received Saiva initiation, because the function of that ritual is believed to be to remove the substance Impurity (malah) that prevents the soul from experiencing the deployment of its innate Śiva-ness and because

292. A variant of this verse is v. 19 of K. 826 of A.D. 881/2, also in praise of this king: na sthātum asakad yasya hṛdaye kusumayudhaḥ / tatsannihitacandrārddhacudamanibhayad iva ‘The Flower-Bowed [Love God] could not dwell in his heart, as though it was afraid of [the god] who wears the sliver of the moon on his crest, [since he was] present there’.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

431

“darkness” (tamaḥ) is one of the terms used by the Saivas to denote this Impurity. 2 Moreover, the term samayān that I have translated ‘pledges’ is that used by the Saivas to refer to the special rules that bind the conduct of persons once they have been initiated. But to compare his governance to the giving of initiation in the first half of the verse and then to report the king’s having received initiation in the second seems excessively lame and muddled. If the whole verse is about the king’s governance of his subjects compared in all four quarters with the benefit bestowed by a Śaiva Guru on his disciples, then the effect, though not compelling, is at least coherent. It would in any case be improper to say that the person who receives initiation dispells his own darkness. That is the function of the officiant or rather of Śiva acting through him; and the alternative, that we are being told that Jayavarman was himself a Saiva officiant, is very improbable. That the political sense of the last two quarters lacks attack is a lesser defect than overall incoherence. Perhaps he was referring in the third quarter to the king’s exercise of his duty to promote knowledge, certainly evident in his generous provision for education in the Rājavihāra (Ta Prohm), and in the fourth to his loyalty to his followers. Even so, the very fact that the king’s conduct towards his subjects is compared to that of a Saiva Guru towards his disciples shows clearly that the Buddhism of Jayavarman VII was not defined by any radical and intolerant exclusion of Saivism either by the king himself or by those who like the author of this eulogy wished to win or maintain his favour.

The same conclusion follows from the plan of the Jayaśrīnagari. Two hundred and eighty-three deities are said to have been enshrined around Lokeśvara Jayavarmeśvara, the king’s personal deity at its centre. In addition to various Buddhist deities installed to the south and east of it thirty gods lead by [Visnu] Campeśvara were installed to its west and forty lead by [the Śiva of] Śivapāda to its north. 294 The complex is likewise said to be especially holy because of its association with sacred bathing sites dedicated to the Buddha, Śiva and Visņu. In this regard, we are told, it surpasses even the famous Prayāga of northern India. That is visited by pilgrims seeking purification because the two sacred rivers Yamuna and Gangā come together there. But here three sacred waters combine to empower the site. 295 The same holds with the arrangements for the annual ‘durbar’ in

293. Kirana, ed. Goodall 1988, 2.19c-20b: malo jñānam paśutvam ca tiraskārakaras tamaḥ/ avidyā hy āvṛtir mūrcchā paryāyās tasya coditāḥ. Cf. also v. 49 of the Bilhari inscription of the Kalacuri Yauvarajadeva II (EI 1, 251-270) referring to the initiation of Avantivarman in about 825: mattamayūra- nāthaḥ / niḥseṣakalmaṣamaṣīm apahrtya yena sankrāmitam paramaho nṛpater avanteḥ ‘[Purandara,] the abbot of Mattamayūra, who entirely removed from the king Avanti the black stain of all his Impurity and transmitted to him the supreme radiance [of Śivahood]’.

294. K. 908, vv. 35-38: āryavalokiteśasya madhyamasya samantataḥ śatadvayan trayośītis tena devāḥ pratisthitaḥ/ 36 vivudhāś śrītribhuvanavarmmesvarapurassarāḥ trayaḥ pratisthitās tena pūrvasyān disi bhubhṛtā / 37 kāṣṭhāyān dakṣinasyām śrīyasovarmmesvaradayaḥ / tena pratisthitā devā vimśatir dvādaśottarā / 38 śrīcāmpeśvaravimvādyas trimśat paścimatas surāḥ / kauveryām sivapādādyāś catvārimsat pratisthitaḥ ‘He installed 283 gods around the central Avalokitesvara, three gods beginning with Tribhuvanavarmeśvara to the east [of it], thirty-two gods beginning with Yaśovarmeśvara to the south, thirty gods beginning with an image of [Visnu] Campeśvara to the west, and forty [gods] beginning with [that of] Śivapāda to the north…”.

295. K. 908, v. 33: satkṛtya tīrthadvayasannidhānāt sādhyo viśuddhyai jagatām prayāgaḥ/ kin kathyate vuddhaśivāmvujākṣatīrthaprakṛṣṭā nagarī jayaśrīḥ. In his annotation of his edition of this inscription CŒDÈS identified these three bodies of sacred water (tīrtham) as the Western Baray, the Eastern Baray (Yasodharataṭaka) and Preah Khan Baray (Jayataṭāka) or Srah Khan. These would be associated with Visņu, Śiva and the Buddha respectively. The Eastern Baray is referred to as a tīrtha in K. 258, A 1. 82: vrah tīrtha śrīyasodharataṭāka.

432

Alexis SANDERSON

which, as we have seen, the gods of the Khmers, Śivas and Viṣṇus as well as Buddhas, were to be brought before Lokeśvara Jayavarmeśvara in this complex.

That the strongly Buddhist royal family of this reign was unwilling or unable to sever its links with the non-Buddhist deities of the realm is also apparent from a record of the pious works of Jayarājadevī (/Jayarājacūḍāmaņi), the devoutly Buddhist chief queen (agradevi) of Jayavarman VII. She founded a Buddhist nunnery for abandoned girls, and made gifts to the Eastern Buddha (Pūrvatathāgata), the Jayarājacūḍāmani of the Rājavihāra, the Buddha of the Jayaśrīnagari (jayaśrīsugataḥ), and the [Avalokitesvara] who Eliminates the Eight Great Dangers (*aṣṭamahābhayaprabhañjakaḥ), 296 to [Śiva] Bhadresvara, 297 [Viṣṇu] Campeśvara, the Buddha of Phimai, and the Siva of Prthusaila, 298 installed and endowed with lands a Śiva and his consort in the temple of Śiva at Baset in Battambang (Jayakṣetraśiva), giving both the name of her husband: a Jayarajeśvara and a Jayarājeśvarī, gave one hundred decorated multi-coloured silk war banners to the god on the Central Mountain (madhyadrisurah) for her husband’s welfare in the world to come, 300 gilded the Vasudhātilaka temple in Śivapura that had been made in stone by a previous king, and installed golden statues of her three Gurus there. 301 She also set up images of her mother, father, brother(s), friends and family, both those she knew and those of whom she was informed. 302

299

It will have been noticed that the deities to whom she made gifts agree closely with those whose images are identified as having to be brought each year to the temple of Lokeśvara Jayavarmeśvara along with the twenty-five Jayabuddhamahānāthas, namely the Eastern Buddha, the Buddha Vīraśakti, the Buddha of Phimai, the Prajñāpāramitā Jayarajacūḍāmani of the Rājavihāra, Bhadreśvara, Campeśvara, and Prthuśaileśvara. Nor

296. K. 485, v. 80-86.

297. K. 485, v. 87: bhadresvare rūpyamayam suvarṇair ālepitan dundabhim apy adāt sā / devañ ca bhadreśvaraputrabhūtam asthāpayad dundabhisamjñam arthāt ‘To Bhadresvara she gave a gilded silver drum and installed a god called Dundabhi [i.e. Dundabhiśvara] as Bhadreśvara’s son’. The drum (dundabhiḥ [for dundubhiḥ]) has given its name to the deity, a usage of which I know no parallel.

298. K. 485, v. 88: cāmpeśvarākhye ca sure vimaye vuddhe ca prthvadryabhidhānake ca / sive disad dundabhim ekam ekam sā svarṇaliptam krtarūpyapūrvvam ‘She gave one gilded silver drum each to the god called Campeśvara, the Buddha at Phimai, and the Śiva called Pṛthuśaila’.

299. K. 485, v. 89: sa śrījayakṣetrasive ca devam maheśvaram śrījayarājapūrvam / nāmnesvarīñ ca tathāsapūrvām asthāpayat kalpitadeśabhūmām ‘She installed a god Maheśvara in [the temple of] Jayakṣetraśiva preceded by Śrījayarāja- [i.e. Śrījayarājeśvara] and an -iśvari with the same prefix [i.e. Śrījayarājeśvarī], on whom she settled land revenues’.

300. K. 485, v. 90.

301. K. 485, v. 91-92: vasudhātilakam pūrvakṣitīśena śilākṛtam svarṇaiḥ prāvṛtya să dharmad dyobhūmyos tilakam vyadhāt sā sādhu tatra trigurūn sauvarṇān ratnabhūṣaṇān asthāpayac chivapur[e] prataptan iva bhāsvarān. ‘She made the Vasudhatilaka [‘The forehead ornament of the Earth’] that had been built in stone by a former king the forehead ornament of both the earth and the heavens by covering it with gold. She piously installed in that [temple] in Sivapura golden bejewelled [statues of her] three Gurus, that shone as if on fire’.

CŒDÈS proposes (IC 2:180, n. 2) that the Vasudhatilaka may be the Phimeanakas, the small pyramid- based single-towered laterite state-temple of Suryavarman I. But this is blocked by the next verse, which says not, as CŒDÈS translated it, that she installed statues in Śivapura (‘A Çivapura, elle érigea …’) but that she did so “there in Sivapura” (tatra …asthāpayac chivapure). I do not see any alternative to concluding that the Vasudhatilaka too was in Śivapura, namely Phnom Bayang or Phnom Sandak. CŒDÈS’s translation treates the crucial tatra as though it were redundant. There is certainly no clue that he recognizes the presence of the word.

302. K. 485, v. 93: mataram pitaram bhrātṛsuhṛdvandhukulāni cal jñātāni jñāpitäny eṣā sarvvatrasthāpayat sudhīḥ.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

433

are the non-Buddhist deities treated less generously. The Buddha of Phimai, the Śivas Bhadresvara and Pṛthuśaileśvara and the Visnu of Campeśvara each receive the same gift: a gilded silver drum. As for the “Central Mountain” to whose god she dedicated banners for the welfare of her husband after his death, CŒDÈS suggested that this might be the Bayon at the centre of Jayavarman’s capital. But the text speaks of a god rather than a Buddha, the Bayon has not been called the Central Mountain (madhyādrih) in any other inscription, and there is an obvious alternative in Phnom Bakheng, the Saiva state-temple of Yasovarman I, constructed c. 900, since that is known in Old Khmer as Vnam Kantāl, “the central mountain”. 303

Relations between the Religions

Relations between the three faiths were generally tolerant. The inscriptions speak of Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva and Buddhist family lineages among the nobility, 304 but they record cases of marriage between persons of these different faiths, 305 and show that the palace, though predominantly Saiva, was not exclusively so.

Among the Khmer kings of Angkor Jayavarman V and Jayavarman VII were fervent promoters of Buddhism, as we have seen, and at least two were devotees of Visnu: Jayavarman III (r. c. 835-before 877) and Sūryavarman II (r. 1113–c. 1150). This is apparent from their posthumous names, Visnuloka and Paramaviṣṇuloka, which assert that these kings ascended after death to the paradise of Viṣņu. 306 Moreover, the preceptor of Jayavarman III was the Bhāgavata Śrīnivāsakavi; 307 and a bas-relief in Angkor Vat depicts Suryavarman II going forth to war mounted on an elephant preceded by a small statue of Visnu on Garuda.

308

303. K. 265, S 11. 4-5: vraḥ kamraten an [vnam ka]ntāl; K. 235, D II. 12-13: man vraḥ pāda paramasivaloka sthāpanā vnām kantāl ‘Then the Venerable Paramaśivaloka [Yasovarman I] established the Central Mountain’; K. 774.

304. K. 180, v. 24: svesām māhesvarāṇām yaḥ kulānām patih; K. 444, B 11. 28-30: dhuli vraḥ pāda dhuli je[n vrah] kamraten an śrī jayavarmmadeva phle maheśva[rānva]ya ‘My Venerable Majesty Jayavarman [V], born of a Śaiva lineage’; K. 532, v. 35: [su]ddhavaiṣṇavavamso of a pure Vaiṣṇava lineage’; K. 687, v. 19: yo ninditapurodbhutavaiṣṇa-(perhaps vaiṣṇavānvayasambhavaḥ); K. 86, v. 8: jinānvayam of the lineage of the Buddha’.

305. K. 86, v. 8: adiśat kṣitīndraḥ tām bhagineyām prakṛtisthagotrāñ jinānvayām viṣṇumayāya bhartre ’the king [Jayavarman VII] gave that daughter of his sister, who possessed an inborn seed of Buddhahood [and] was in a family [who were devotees] of the Buddha, to [Tribhuvanabrahmendra], a devotee of Visnu, as her husband’. CŒDÈS has misunderstood the terms prakṛtisthagotrām, jinānvayām and viṣṇumayāya bhartre: ‘appartenant à un clan très pur, et descendant du Jina, à un époux participant de la nature de Visnu’. For the technical Mahāyānist meaning of gotram and its prakṛtistham variety see RUEGG 1969 passim. For the suffix -mayaḥ, literally ‘one with’ in the meaning ‘devoted to’ in viṣṇumayāya see, e.g., Mahābhārata 6.26.10ab (Bhagavadgītā 4.10ab): vītarāgabhayakrodhā manmayā mām upāśritāḥ, and also śivātmā in the meaning ‘devoted to Śiva’ in K. 534, v. 13 (= K. 382A, v. 13).

306. For Viṣṇuloka see above, n. 289. For Paramaviṣṇuloka (Suryavarman II) see K. 298 (CŒDÈS 1911, 201) in the western gallery of the bas-reliefs of Angkor Vat: samtac vraḥ pāda kamraten añ paramaviṣṇuloka nā stac nau vnam sivapāda pi pañcuḥ vala ‘Our Venerable Majesty King Paramaviṣṇuloka on the hill of Sivapāda about to lead forth his army’.

307. K. 256 A, v. 5-10.

308. The scene is depicted in the bas-relief of Suryavarman II’s march to war (yātrā, prayāṇam) in the west half of the southern gallery of the third enclosure. This scene is described in FREEMAN and JACQUES 1999, 59–60. The practice of going into battle with an image of one’s personal deity and the belief that this will protect one’s troops and confound those of the enemy, is well attested in Indian

434

Alexis SANDERSON

Jayavīravarman (r. 1002-c. 1010) too may have been a devotee of this god. His posthumous name, if he was given one, has not been recorded, but he is described as having taken up his rule by Visnu’s favour. 309

Moreover, there were high-born Vaisnavas in the royal staff. We hear, for example, of members of a corps of Bhāgavata royal servants (bhāgavata pamre) and their chief (mūla bhāgavata pamre) going back to the time of Jayavarman II, 310 and of the Vaisnava endowments of a Pañcaratrika noble Kṣetrajña, given the title Mahendropakalpa ‘Assistant to the King’, who was the barber of Rajendravarman and had served in some capacity under all four preceding rulers. His ancestors too are traced back to the reign of Jayavarman II. 311 Other Bhāgavatas who served the palace received -upakalpa titles with the same meaning. Nṛpatīndropakalpa, the daughter of whose sister became the chief queen of Rajendravarman, has been encountered above in connection with his extensive Vaiṣṇava endowments; and he was a matrilineal descendant of a certain Narendropakalpa, the bother of his maternal grandmother (mātṛmatulaḥ). We also have a record of the Vaisnava endowment of a dignitary who had received the title Rajopakalpa from Jayaviravarman (1002-1006).

312

K. 91, an Old Khmer inscription from the reign of Jayavarman VI (1080-1107) at the earliest records a matrilineal line of Guru mandarins beginning with Kavīśvarapaṇdita, described as an observer of the rule of the Pañcarātra (śīla pañcarātra), who became the Guru and counsellor of [the Śaiva] King Suryavarman I. Of his two brothers, Jatibindu,

Buddhist sources and in Far-Eastern sources derived from them; see Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa 54.32-41: an image of Mañjuśrī to be taken into battle on the back of an elephant or on a standard; Mahabalasūtra, Tibetan translation, para. 19: ‘Mahabala attaché à l’étendard, quoi qu’il arrive dans la bataille, l’adversaire ne saura faire aucun mal’; Taishō 1248, a ritual of Vaiśravaṇa attributed to Amoghavajra, but not found in the Korean Tripitaka, teaches that one should attach an image of Vaiśravaṇa to a staff and enter battle with this standard carried fifteen paces in front of the army (DEMIÉVILLE 1929-30, 81b, II. 41-44). The eulogy of the Rastrakūta king Govinda III in his Nesarikā grant of 805 A.D. boasts that he has seized the standards (cihnani) of thirteen kings: the Fish from the kings of the Pandyas, the Bull from the Pallava king and the kings of Kosala and Avanti, the Tiger from the Cola king, the Elephant from the Ganga king, the Bow-stock from the king of Kerala, the Boar from the king of Andhra, the Calukya, Maurya, and Simhala, and the goddess Tārā from Dharmapāla, the king of Bengal. He then brought the whole world under his Garuda standard (EI 34, 19).

309. K. 989 A, v. 7: āsīd aseṣāvanipālamaulimanikyakoṭidyutiranjitānghriḥ/ caturbhujadvāradhṛ- tādhirājyaḥ prājyodayaś śrījayavīravarmmā ‘There was Jayavīravarman, [a king] of great success, whose feet were illuminated by the radiance from the tips of the emeralds on the crown of every king, who took on the position of supreme ruler through [the intervention of] the four-armed [god]’. For the convention that caturbhujah ’the four-armed’ means Visnu see, e.g., K. 165 S, v. 4; K. 256 C, v. 1; K. 275, v. 8; K. 323, v. 1; K. 528, v. 208; K. 532, v. 43; K. 534, v. 10 (= K. 382 A, v. 4); K. 814, v. 1; K. 814, v. 29 (= K. 256 C, v. 22). The expression caturbhujadvāradhṛtādhirajyah, which I have translated ‘who took on the position of supreme ruler through [the intervention of] the four-armed [god]’ may also refer to the date of his accession: ‘who took on the position of supreme ruler in 924 [śaka]’. CŒDÈS proposes only the second interpretation (IC VII, 179).

310. K. 165, K. 989 B, and K. 1036.

311. K. 522 of the reign of Rajendravarman (A.D. 944-968), after 28 January 953, since it refers to the temples in the Yasodharataṭāka, whose deities were installed on that date.

312. K. 856, v. 23, K. 814, E, v. 54. Other holders of variants of this title were Dharanindropakalpa during the reign of Rajendravarman (K. 262), a Kṣitīndropakalpa, whose title was given after his death to his matrilineal descendant Śivavindu (K. 278, v. 18), and Pṛthivindropakalpa (the courtier Paramarthaśiva) (K. 382 C, v. 5). See also K. 208, v. 53 (Rajendropakalpa). The Sanskrit term upakalpaḥ, literally “one who prepares or provides”, i.e. “an assistant” (Old Khmer upakalpa) is not used to my knowledge in this sense in Indian sources. In Old Javanese upakalpa denotes a religious officiant of some kind; see ZOETMULDER 1982, s.v.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

435

and Śrīkanthapandita, the latter is said to have taught at the Saiva site of Sivapada. His son, unnamed, had a son Vāgīśvarapandita, who became the principal fire-sacrificer (hotā) of Harşavarman III and the Guru of the queen. This record shows conclusively that families were not strictly Saiva or Vaisnava, that members of the same family could be of different religions, and that a Pañcaratrika could preside in Saiva centres, for Kaviśvarapandita is said to have been in control of the hermitages of Isvarapura, Śivapura, Suryaparvata and Jalāngeśvara and to have installed a Linga and a Bhagavati on vacant land acquired by royal favour and a Candi in the temple of K.J. Govinda, evidently a Vaisnava establishment.

There is evidence that the state did limit the freedom of individuals to change their religion, but only in the special case of persons from certain title-groups (varna) who had been selected for training as Saiva officiants in the service of the king. A decree of Jayavarman V (r. c. 970-1000) forbids these from becoming Vaiṣṇavas (bhāgavata). K. 444B, 11. 9-13:

nau rū kule ta qnak si [man ta] ac ti paryyann hon nam mok oy ācāryya [caturācāryya] pre paryyān sikṣā āy nagara pi pre na vraḥ rājakāryya nā pamnvās vvam ac ti bhāgavata

As for males of these families, those competent to be taught should be brought to the Acāryas among the Caturācāryas. It is ordered that they should be trained by them in the royal capital and that they should then work in the service of the king (/in royal ceremonies) as religious officiants and should not be able to become Bhāgavatas [Vaisnavas].

and insists that the women of the families from which they were selected should be given in marriage to none but persons who are of the highest status (uttama) and devotees of Śiva. K. 444B, 11. 2-4:

nau ampall kule ta strījana oy ta qnak ta uttama pi śivabhakti. vvam ac ti qnak ta hīnajāti yo[k dJau pi pañjā qnak khloñ

As for the women of these families, they are to be given to those who are [of] superior [status] and devoted to Śiva. Men of low birth (hinajāti) may not take them to make

them their wives.

The Unchanging Śaiva Temple Cult

Indian Śaivism was not static. During the course of several centuries new systems evolved and co-existed with their antecedents as beneficiaries of state-patronage. This history also affected the Khmers, who received the religion in at least two waves. The first is seen in inscriptions of the principalities of the pre-Angkorean period from the seventh to the early eighth century, the second in those of the kingdom of Angkor from the ninth to the fourteenth. These two forms of the religion fall within what Indian Saiva sources call respectively (1) the Atimārga (‘The Supra[-mundane] Path’), intending thereby the various divisions of the Pasupatas, principally the Pañcarthikas, Lākulas/Kālamukhas and Somasiddhāntins, and (2) the Mantramarga (“The Path of Mantras’), corresponding to what modern scholars have called Agamic or Tantric Śaivism, principally that of the Saiddhāntikas, the followers of the Siddhānta. But it should be understood that the differences between these two traditions, the Khmer evidence for which will be the principal subject of the second part of this study, bear for the most part on the private practice of initiates. Šiva temples in which Śiva was worshipped in the form of the Linga436

Alexis SANDERSON

and associated hermitages for the support of Saiva ascetics were institutions that appear to have remained unchanged in their fundamentals whatever the initiatory affiliation of the religious attached to them, and it is these common externals that are all that are usually apparent to us and recorded in the inscriptions.

This relatively unchanging aspect of the religion, which was already in place when the Atimārga held sway and which was inherited by the Saiddhāntikas when they came to the fore, was that of lay devotion (śivabhaktiḥ). Though the worship of initiates was focused on Śiva alone and on Śiva in one iconic form, the temples of Śiva in which they officiated for the benefit of the laity accommodated a broader range of deities. There was a single Śiva at the heart of each foundation, generally embodied in a Linga, 313 who received a version of the regular worship that initiates were required to perform for themselves. But the sites also enshrined (1) ancillary Śiva forms that had no role in the higher worship of the initiated, but evoked the mythological dimensions of the deity that are so central a feature of lay devotion, and (2) images of various other deities besides. As elsewhere in the Indic world distinctions between the religions were less relevant in the lay domain, where piety tended to be inclusive.

Thus during the reign of the pre-Angkorean ruler Iśānavarman I (c. 610-628) the temple of the Śiva Prahasiteśvara in his capital Īsānapura (Sambor Prei Kuk), named after the Indian Śiva Prahasitesvara of Pāṭaliputra in Magadha, received installations not only of a golden Linga, but also of a silver image of Vṛṣabha (Siva’s bull), a Brahma and a Sarasvati (his consort) and four anthropomorphic ancillary Śiva forms: (1) that in which the left of his body is that of Visņu, called Harihara or Sankaranārāyaṇa, (2) that in which this half is his consort Uma, called Ardhanarīśvara or Gaurīśvara, (3) dancing Rudra, called variously Nrtyarudra, Nṛtteśvara, Nṛtyeśvara, Nateśvara, Nāṭakeśvara and Natyeśvara, and (4) a Siva pure and simple, probably single-faced and two-armed:

harisambhor umārddhāngasamhatasya pinākinaḥ vṛṣabhānkasya –catasraf pra[timā imāḥ]

32 kārttasvaramayam lingam idañ ca sacaturmmukham sarvvasya †sarvvarīdhvāntanīvṛtāngam

–†

33 pratimeyam sarasvatya iyan nṛttesvarasya ca vidhinā sthāpitam sarvvam idan tena mahībhujā 34 sthāpiteyam pratikṛtir vṛṣabhasya ca rājatī yā mūrttir iva dharmmasya paripūrṇnā kṛte yuge

K. 440, vv. 31-34

31a harisambhor umārddhänga em.: hari - rccānga Ed. 31c vṛṣabhānkasya corr.: vṛṣabhānkasyā Ed. 32a kārttasvaramayam lingam em. : kārttasvaramayalingam Ed.

These four images of Harihara, Ardhanarīśvara, Śiva [and …], this golden Linga together with [an image of] the Four-faced [Brahma], this image of Siva ……; this image of Sarasvati, and this of Nṛttesvara: all this has been installed by that king. He has further installed this silver image of [Śiva’s] Bull, which seems to be the body of Dharma in the Krta Age, [when it was still] undiminished. 314

313. A notable exception is the golden image of Parameśvara (Śiva) consecrated by Rajendravarman in A.D. 948 in the central shrine at Baksei Chamkrong, as recorded in K. 286, v. 45: sa divyadṛśvā parameśvarasya hiraṇmayīm apratimām vidhānaiḥ / upāskṛtemām pratimām pravīṇaḥ prāsādaśobhāñ ca sudhāvicitrām ‘With celestial vision this gifted king provided with all due rites this matchless golden image of Parameśvara and adorned the temple-towers with beautiful stucco-work’.

uu

314. In his edition and translation of K. 440 (IC 4, 5-11) CŒDÈS expressed the view that hari - rccāngasamhatasya pinākinaḥ (31ab) (‘Hari … de l’Archer (Çiva) uni au corps de …’) referred to Viṣṇu and Harihara, i.e. the Siva form which is half Śiva (Hara) and half Viṣnu (Hari). But the fact that we have

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

437

Śaiva sites during the Angkorean period show the same openness. In addition to the primary Linga, the image of the five-faced, ten-armed Sadāśiva, the icon that Saiddhāntika Śaiva initiates are to visualize when they worship Śiva in the Linga, 315 the guardians Nandin and Mahākāla who stand at the right and left of the doorway into Śiva’s shrine, 316 and the wrathful Candeśvara, who receives the offerings that remain after Śiva’s worship (vajñaśeṣaḥ), 317 in addition, that is, to the deities that are found in the private cult of Śaiva

hari rather than hareḥ and the Saiva context render this interpretation less probable. The syllables recanga that CŒDÈS read after the lacuna are surely an error (his or the engraver’s) for rddhānga. Cf. K. 228, v. 5b: hararddhängadhara; K. 583, v. 1 (= K. 70, v. 2): namo ‘stu ta[s] (mai) [ru] (drā)ya yadarddhāngam ha(ri)r ddadhau, Kathasaritsagara quoted in Śrīvidyamantravivṛti, f. 35r: tatha ca brhatkathāsaritasägare devīm prati / mahādevavacanam: “madiyārdhāngabhūto ‘sau tato viṣṇus tvadātmanā / yo hi nārāyaṇaḥ sā tvam śaktiḥ śaktimato mama tataḥ prabhṛti vikhyātam rūpadvayam idam mamal ardhanārīśvaram rūpam ardhahāriharam vapuḥ / ato dadāmi nityatvam svabhakteṣu harer gatim” iti.

Vrsa (Siva’s bull) is seen as the embodiment or symbol of pious religious observance (Dharma). See, e.g., Śivadharmottara D, f. 71r4: īśvarāyatanasyādhaḥ śrīmān dharmavṛṣaḥ sthitaḥ. In the Kṛtayuga, the first and best in the cycle of the four ages, Dharma is believed to have been complete and to have diminished by one quarter with each age until now, in the fourth age, the Kaliyuga, only one quarter (pādaḥ) remains. Vrsa, being four-footed (catuṣpādaḥ), symbolizes the Dharma complete with all four of its quarters (catuṣpādaḥ).

315. See CŒDÈS 1923, 25-27, plates XI, 2, XII, 1-3, LI, 3. XI, 2. There is a relief sculpture in which a standing Sadāśiva is flanked by reverentially kneeling figures of Viṣņu (viewer’s right) and Brahmā (viewer’s left) on the rock face a few metres to the north of the Vat Phu sanctuary, illustrated in UNESCO 1999, 89. For an eight-armed variant see the 12th/13th century bronze in SOTHEBY’S 1995, pl. 99.

316. K. 191, v. 45; K. 275, v. 7; K. 278, v. 26; K. 300, v. 64. For the role of Nandin and Mahākāla as Śiva’s door-guardians see, e.g., Trilocanaśiva, Somasambhupaddhativyākhyā, IFI T. 170, 27-28; Jñānaśivācārya, Jñānaratnāvalī, IFI T. 231, p. 39; Tantraloka 15.183c-187.

317. Kirana f. 49v3: tarpayed yajñaseṣena candeśam tankadhāriṇam ‘With the remnants of the sacrifice he should make an offering to the hatchet-wielding Candeśvara’. Candesvara/Canda/Candarudra has his shrine in the NE corner of the Indian Śaiva temple compound. This is surely the deity given as Candiśvara in K. 593, v. 1 and K. 278 B, v. 26. The former records the installation of a Candiśvara, a Gaṇeśa, a Linga and the Grahas (candisvaram vighnapatiñ ca lingam grahais saha sthāpitavān), the latter that of a Linga and the re-installation of a Gaṇeśa, a Candīśvara, a Nandin and a Mahākāla: padmāsane sphāṭikam īśalingam | yas sthāpayām āsa yathāvidhānam / vighneśacandiśvaranandikālān | punar yathāsthānam *atisthipac (em. BARTH: adhisthipac Ep.) ca. I am unaware of any surviving Khmer image of this deity. However, the fact that he is in the company of Gaṇeśa, Nandin and Mahākāla make it unlikely that it is not Candesvara that is intended. For these are all deities of the same class, being among the eight leaders of Śiva’s attendant demigods (gaṇeśvarāḥ, pramathanāyakāḥ) that are worshipped in the systems of some of the Saiva Tantras as the deity-circuit outside the Vidyeśvaras, between the latter and the Lokapālas. The other four are Skanda, the skeletal devotee Bhrngin/Bhṛngiriți, Siva’s Bull, and Ambika/Umā (gaṇamātā ’the Mother of the Ganas’). See, e.g., Kirana ff. 40v6-41r1: evam *syad (corr.: syā Cod.) dvāravinyāsaḥ padmaiḥ *pūjyāḥ (corr.: pūjyā Cod.) khageśvarāḥ (i.e. khaga (voc.) iśvarāḥ [= vidyeśvarāḥ]) / *tīkṣṇāgrotpalasamsthānāḥ (corr.: tīkṣṇāgrotpalamsamsthānā Cod.) *pūjyāḥ (corr.: pūjyā Cod.) pramathanāyakāḥ| lokeśāḥ svastikaiḥ pūjyāś caturbhāgavivartitaiḥ; Mrgendra 3.20-26b; Sarvajñānottara B, p. 37 (Śivārcanaprakaraṇa 35ab, 37c-39a, 39c): vidyeśvarāms tṛtīye tu pūrvād ārabhya vinyaset ! …gaṇeśvarāmś caturthe tu kauberyāśādiśaḥ kramāt / *devīm (conj.: divam Cod.) caiva tu candeśam mahākālam ca nandinam / gaṇādhyakṣam ca bhrngisam vṛṣabham skandam eva ca/ dhyāyet …pañcame lokapālāms tu kramād avaraṇe budhaḥ vinyased astramargeṇa dhmata- cāmīkaraprabhān; Bṛhatkalottara f. 19r5 (13.102c- 103): anantadyān dalāgreṣu vidyeśāms tatra pūjayet/pithakanthe gaṇeśams tu lokeśān pithapādataḥ. Cf. also the opening sequence of deities invoked in the śāntyādhyāyaḥ of the laity’s Śivadharma: Siva, Umā, Skanda, Nandin, Gaṇeśa, Mahākāla, Ambika (Gaṇamātṛ), Mahiṣāsuramardini (Durgā), Bhṛngin/Bhṛngiriti, and Candeśvara, followed by Brahmā, Viṣṇu and the Mothers. See also the pre-Angkorean inscription K. 22, which records the

438

Alexis SANDERSON

initiates, we find installations of Siva’s vehicle (vāhanam), the Bull (vrṣaḥ, vrṣabhah) who sits facing the Linga of the central shrine, 318 the four ancillary Śiva forms already mentioned (Harihara, 319 Ardhanārīśvara/Gauriśvara, 320 the dancing Rudra, 321 and the simple Śiva 322) and Umāmaheśvara, also called Umesa, in which Umā, Śiva’s consort, sits on his right thigh with his right arm around her. 323

installation of a Harihara, and viṣṇucandesvareśānalingam, which most probably means ‘a Viṣņu, a Candesvara, and a Śivalinga’ (cf. K. 834, v. 84: lingam aiśānam), as thought by CŒDÈS (IC III, 145).

318. K. 300, v. 64. The Bull has been generally called Nandin or Nandi in secondary sources both Indological and Khmerological. But this usage is extremely rare in Indian sources before modern times (see G. BHATTACHARYA 1956) and is never seen in the Khmer inscriptions. In the classical and learned Sanskrit sources Siva’s mount is always simply “the Bull” (vrṣaḥ, vrsabhaḥ). The current usage is particularly unfortunate since Nandin (/Nandi/Nandiśa/Nandikeśa) is the name of the entirely different, anthropomorphic figure that stands guard at the right door-post of the entrance to the Śiva shrine, as Mahākāla guards the left.

Śiva’s Bull is understood as the embodiment of religious observance, dharmaḥ; and in consequence the word vṛṣaḥ is found as a synonym of dharmaḥ in Khmer and Indian inscriptions (K. 282 D, v. 9; K. 286, v. 20; K. 834, v. 44; Gwalior Museum Stone Inscription of Patangasambhu (MIRASHI 1962), 1. 15 (re the ascetic Vyomasambhu): vrṣaikaniṣṭho ‘pi jitasmaro ‘pi yaḥ śankaro ‘bhūd bhuvi ko ‘py apūrvvaḥ ‘He was a new and extraordinary Sankara/bestower of happiness in this world, [since he was] completely devoted to piety/rode only on the Bull and had conquered lust/conquered the God of Love*; ibid. 11. 24-25 (re Patangasambhu): acalasthitivṛṣanirataḥ prakaṭīkṛtaviṣamadarśanaḥ satatam / yo vijitamakaraketur ddhūrjjatilīlām alam vahati ‘He fully imitated Śiva, being content with unchanging piety/dwelling the Himalaya and fond of the Bull, always clarifying abstruse doctrines/with his three eyes ever manifest, having conquered lust/having defeated the Love God’.

319. K. 583, v. 1 (= K. 70, v. 2); K. 366, l. 16; K. 904 B, 11. 14 and 17; K. 926, Khmer, 1. 3. For [standing four-armed] images see e.g., JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, nos 16 and 17 (7th century), 40 (10th century; head only).

320. K. 324 B i, v. 1; K. 528, v. 7 and 135.

321. K. 908, v. 30 (natyeśvarau svarṇamayau); K. 276 (Pra Keo), 11. 6-13: [Yogiśvarapandita] gave a palanquin on which he installed a fully adorned, ten-armed V.K.A. Śrī Nātakeśvara (= Nāṭakeśvara) (vraḥ kamraten añ śrīnātakeśvara daśabhuja), along with the necessary vessels for his cult in gold and silver, a peacock-feather parasol, and the inhabitants of Ampena to serve him. I have not noted the name Nāṭakeśvara in any Indian source; but it is very improbable that this is other than the form called Natyeśvara, Nṛtteśvara etc., especially in the light of its description here as ten-armed. The same applies to the Nartakeśvara whose installation is recorded in Ka. 18 B, Il. 2 and 36-37. Khmer examples of ten- armed dancing Rudras have survived. He is found as the deity on temple tympana at Banteay Srei, Sikhoraphum and Phnom Rung. From the Prasat Thom at Koh Ker there survive exquisite fragments of a five-faced, ten-armed dancing Rudra in stone, of about twice human size (JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, no. 42). BOISSELIER (1955, 198) wrongly identified the image as a Sadasiva.

322. K. 95 A, v. 32: catasras sivayor arcca yaś śrutīr iva pāvanīḥ dvīpe śrīndrataṭākasya pitṛbhūtyai samam vyadhāt ‘He installed together four images of Śiva and his consort, like the four purifying Vedas, on the island in the Indrataṭāka for the welfare of his parents’; K. 323, v. 59 (the same installation); K. 191, v. 46 (a golden anthropomorphic image of Siva); K. 528, v. 207: samprāptayoḥ prāptayaśās svapitror bhuvaḥ patiḥ so ‘pi bhavodbhavena / *sasthānatām (em. : sa[m]sthānatām FINOT) sthāpitavān sthitijño nime ime dve sivayoḥ śivaya ‘Having acquired fame that lord of the earth, knowing the sacred order, installed two images, one of Śiva and the other of his consort for the welfare of his two parents now that they had gone to dwell with Śiva in his world’. For surviving [two-armed mild standing] Śivas of the Angkorean period see, e.g. JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, nos 33, 38 (head only), and 57.

323. K. 300, v. 64: + + + + + + + +m umayā sahitam punah nandinam kālasamyuktam haimasṛngagirau vṛṣam ‘[a Śiva] together with Umā, [the two door-guardians] Nandin and Mahākāla, and the Bull, on the Mt. of the Golden Peak (= Ta Keo)’. See the Umāmaheśvara from Banteay Srei, c. A.D. 967 (Phnom Penh, National Museum, Ka 1797) illustrated in JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, no. 56. For the bull see ibid., no. 24.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

439

We also find images of the following deities of the wider pantheon at Saiva sites: Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardini, Umā, Gaṇeśa, Skanda, Viṣṇu (including the forms Trivikrama and Hayagriva), Brahmā, Sūrya, Lakṣmi, Sarasvati, the Lokapālas, the Grahas (the Sun, the Moon, the five visible planets, and Rāhu and Ketu, the ascending and descending nodes of the moon personified as the causes of eclipses), the river Ganges (Gangā) and Bhīma.

324

Similarly, Saiva temples in which a central shrine of Siva was flanked by shrines of Brahma and Visņu were not uncommon in the region. Examples of such complexes are those built by, or in the reign of Yasovarman I (889-910) on the hills Phnom Krom and Phnom Bok roughly equidistant from the pyramid-based temple of Yasodhareśvara, the Linga incorporating his name on the summit of Phnom Bakheng at the centre of his new capital Yasodharapura (Angkor). 325 Others, all tenth-century, are recorded in K. 94 (on Phnom Trâp), K. 352–354 (at Rudrapada [Prasat Kantop]), and K. 532 (at Banteay Kdei). During the reign of Rajendravarman Hṛṣīkeśa, Śaivācārya and tutor of the royal family, had a Brahma and a Viṣņu installed to the right and left of a Linga established by his Guru in Yasodharapura (Angkor), 326 and these two gods are portrayed kneeling on either side of a standing Sadasiva in a bas-relief on the rock-face behind the Vat Phu Śiva temple. 327

324. K. 176, a cave inscription on Phnom Kulen below one of the images that adorn the walls, records the installation by a Śivasoma, the Saiva ascetic occupying the cave, in A.D. 1074/5, of the gods Śiva etc., their consorts Uma etc., the Gaṇas; Śiva with Visnu, the Ganas and Uma; Brahmā [?: prathamamakhabhuk]); K. 191, v. 41: a Linga, a Visņu and a Sarasvati; K. 218, reign of Suryavarman I (A.D. 1002-1050): a Linga, an Uma, a Trivikrama Viṣņu, a Hayagrīva, and a Trailokyasāra (Viṣṇu); K. 254 B, 11. 17-23: a Linga, a Viṣņu, and a Devi; K. 258 C, v. 26: two Lingas with a Viṣņu; K. 286, v. 32: Śiva, the Goddess (Umā), Viṣṇu, and the two Goddesses (Lakṣmi and Sarasvati?) in the Baksei Chamkrong; K. 366, II. 16–17: a Linga, a Mahiṣāsuramardini and a Visņu; K. 528, v. 218: Rājendreśvara on the Eastern Mebon together with a Visņu, a Brahmā, a Śiva and a Gauri; K. 528, v. 205: a Linga, a Visņu, a Gauri and a Śiva on the south bank of the Yasodharataṭāka; K. 532, vv. 1-6: Šiva, Visņu, Brahmā, Umā, Sarasvati, the Śivalinga of Aninditapura; K. 702, v. 22: Śiva and Sarasvati; K. 56 B (Vaisnava): Lakṣmī, five Viṣṇus, Kātyāyanī (Durgā), Gangā, a Viṣņu sleeping on the ocean (Jalaśāyin); Mahiṣāsuramardini: K. 56 B, v. 18cd (Katyāyinī); K. 257, 11. 31-32; K. 534, v. 21. Skanda: K. 57, v. 36; Gaṇeśa: K. 346, v. 36 (= K. 95 A, v. 36); K. 358 (an image); the Grahas: K. 593 (A.D. 930); K. 726 (8th century), listing their names; Ganga: K. 56 B, v. 19 (emending tripathagām tanum to tripathagātanum); K. 826, v. 29 (with Śiva and Umā: umāgangābhujalatāsamśliṣṭajaghanasthalam / sa isvaram sthāpitavān umāgangāpatīśvaram; see CŒDÈS 1939). Cf. K. 300, v. 26 (= K. 95 A, v. 36), which refers to a Yogin’s vision of Śiva accompanied by Umā and Gangā. The identity of Bhima is problematic. It is mentioned to my knowledge only in K. 532, v. 27: lingam bhimapure moghapure linge ca sa vyadhāt / lingaikāṛśau sabhīmārccāv aninditapure punaḥ ‘He established a Linga at Bhimapura, two Lingas at Amoghapura, two parts of a Linga together with an image of Bhima in Aninditapura’. Perhaps it was an image of the Epic Hero Bhima. A cult of this Bhima in association with the Linga cult was practised in East Java at Sukuh on the slopes of Mt. Lawu. Several Bhima statues survive from this area. He appears in Old Javanese literature as a compassionate saviour of souls, a tradition that has survived in the Balinese shadow play. See DE CASPARIS and MABBETT 1992, 317. For surviving images of these deities see, e.g., JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, nos 18 (Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardini); 19, 29 (Umā); 43 (Umā as Gana dancing before the dancing Rudra); 26 (Gaṇeśa); 25 (Skanda); 15, 30, 31, 34, 39 (head only), 67, 69, 70 (four- armed standing Visnu holding the disc of the earth on his lower right palm); 68 (Vișnu reclining on the waters); 14, 46 (Hayagrīva, both pre-Angkorean), 45 (Brahmā); 47 (the Lokapāla Varuņa); 66 (Lakṣmi?); MIKSIC and SOEKATNO 1995, 128, no. 9 (Bhima). For Khmer sculptures of the nine Grahas, from all periods see K. BHATTACHARYA 1956, 1957 and 1958; MALLERET 1960; and BÉNISTI 1976; JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997, nos 58 and 62.

325. CŒDÈS 1968, 113; JACQUES 1999, 42 (map), 62.

326. K. 532, v. 43: [te]nemau sthāpitau devau caturasyacaturbhujau / [da]kṣinottarayor atra guru- śāśanavarttinā.

327. Illustrated in UNESCO 1999, 89.

440

Alexis SANDERSON

In Central Java we see the same arrangement in the great Saiva temple-complex built in the late ninth or early tenth century at Prambanan near modern Yogyakarta, where the Śiva temple (the Candi Loro Jonggrang) (47m in height; 34m x 34m at the base) is flanked by two somewhat smaller temples housing Visnu and Brahmā (33m in height; 20m x 20m at the base). We see it also in Pura Meru, the state-temple established in 1720 in Cakranegara on Lombok. There too there are three pagodas in an inner courtyard. That of Śiva is in the centre with eleven roofs, that of Visnu on the north with nine, and that of Brahmā on the south with seven. 328 The same triad is conceptualized in the eleven-roofed pagodas that dominate the three shrine-complexes of Purah Besakih on Mount Agung, Bali’s principal state temple. The main pagoda of the central complex (Pura Penatarang Agung) is dedicated to Śiva, while those of the complexes to the left and right of it (Pura Batu Madeg and Pura Dangin Kreteg) are dedicated to Visnu and Brahmā respectively. 329 The ninth-century Candi Srikandi on the Dieng Plateau in Central Java has the same three deities in relief: Śiva on the east wall, flanked by Visnu on the north and Brahma on the south. 330 In the fourteenth century the East Javanese poet Mpu Tantular of Majapahit depicts an imaginary landscape that includes a ruined Saiva temple complex on a mountainside comprising shrines of Śiva and Visnu with one of Ganapati under the gate. 331

This laity-orientated Saiva inclusivism is also evident in the benedictory verses that open the Khmers’ Sanskrit inscriptions. Those that record benefactions creating or supporting Vaiṣṇava and Buddhist establishments open with strictly Vaiṣṇava (Pāñca- rātrika) or Buddhist benedictions. This convention is also seen with some of the Saiva benefactions. But many of the inscriptions recording these, while giving precedence to Śiva or to Śiva and his consort (Uma/Gauri), go on to venerate other gods, typically Brahma and/or Visnu (commonly both), sometimes with Lakṣmi and/or Sarasvati. 332

In this openness the Khmers were following the long-established practice of India. There too Śaiva temple sites housed a wider range of deities, bridging the gap between the exclusive worship of the initiates and that of the laity on whose support they were dependent. But the Khmers were following more than the principle here. For the Śiva- forms and ancillary deities of their Śiva temples are precisely those which are prescribed for this purpose in the surviving Indian Saiva scriptural sources, or rather in the earliest of them available to us, which comprise most of the works of this kind that were known to Indian Śaiva scholars between the tenth century and the thirteenth.

The most important of these are unpublished Pratiṣṭhātantras, works concerned specifically with the installation (pratistha) of Lingas and images, the consecration of temples, other religious edifices and the royal palace, and the ancillary topics of iconometry, iconography and architecture. They are the Devyāmata, the Pingalāmata alias

328. For these numbers of roofs for pagodas of Śiva, Viṣṇu and Brahmā in Balinese temples see VAN

EERDE 1910.

329. STUART-Fox 2002, 95-97.

330. SOEKMONO 1990, 68.

331. Mpu Tantular, Arjunawijaya 32.2 (śiwawimba, harirūpa, gaṇa); also Mpu Tantular’s Sutasoma 13.1-2, locating the Visnu to the north and the Gaṇa (Gaṇapati) under the gate. See S. SUPOMO 1977, 2:312-313 (ad Arjunawijaya 32.2).

332. See, e.g., K. 70: Śiva, Harihara, Viṣṇu; K. 34, K. 235, K. 436, K. 661: Śiva, Visņu, Brahmā; K. 92: Śiva, Devi, Visņu, Brahmā; K. 136: Śiva, Brahmā, Visņu, Sarasvati; K. 190 B: Śiva, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Gauri, Sarasvati; K. 218: Śiva, his Sakti, Visnu, Brahmā; K. 228: Śiva, Visnu, Brahmā, Umā; K. 323: Śiva (as taking form as Brahmā, Visnu and Rudra), Visnu, Brahmā; K. 532: Śiva, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Gauri, Sarasvati; K. 702: Śiva, Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Umā, Sarasvati, Lakṣmi; K. 834: Śiva, Narasimha, Visnu, Brahmā, Sūrya, Sarasvati; K. 989: Linga, Śiva (Parameśvara), Umā, Nārāyaṇa and Lakṣmi; K. 1002 (JACQUES 1968): Śiva, Umā, Sarasvati, Visnu, Brahmā.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

441

Jayadrathādhikāra, the Mayasamgraha and the Mohacurottara. All have come down to us in early Nepalese palm-leaf manuscripts.

333

Kashmirian Saiva scholars of the mid-tenth to early eleventh century, whose works are our earliest body of detailed, citation-rich Saiva exegesis, were familiar with at least the first three. One of these scholars, Bhaṭṭa Nārāyaṇakaṇṭha, appears to have written a commentary on the Pingalāmata, since it is mentioned and attributed to him by the twelfth-century South-Indian Saiva authority Trilocanaśiva in his commentary on the Somasambhupaddhati; 334 and another, Vidyakantha, a pupil of Bhatta Nārāyaṇakantha’s famous son Bhatta Ramakantha II, wrote a commentary on the Mayasamgraha, which has survived complete in a single Kashmirian manuscript under the title Bhāvacūḍāmaṇi, a work of importance not only in its own right but also because it is our only evidence of the contents of substantial parts of the text it explains, the Mayasamgraha itself having come down to us in a single incomplete manuscript. 336 The commentary cites the Devyāmata 337 and, very frequently, the Pingalāmata. 338 The fourth work, the Mohacurottara, also referred to as Mohaśūrottara and Mohacūḍottara, 339 is not cited or named by any of the

335

333. The relevant sections of these sources are as follows: Devyāmata, ff. 66v4-73r4 (Patala 61: surāṇām vividhapratimālakṣaṇapaṭalaḥ); Pingalāmata, ff. 13r2-27v3 (Prakarana 4: pratimādhikāraḥ); Mohacurottara, ff. 4v2-9v1 (Patala 2: vyaktalingaprakhyānam). The relevant section of the Maya- samgraha is one of those missing in the incomplete codex unicus, but its contents can be determined from the commentary on this text (Bhāvacūḍāmani) composed by the Kashmirian Saiddhāntika Vidyakantha II, pupil of Bhaṭṭa Rāmakantha II.

334. Somasambhupaddhativyākhyā, p. 99: tad uktam pingalāmataṭīkāyām nārāyaṇakanthena pīṭhāntam pīṭhavyāpīti.

335. For my evidence that the author of the commentary was a pupil of Rāmakantha II rather than the Vidyakantha who was a pupil of Rāmakantha I, and for my identification of the Mayasamgraha of the Nepalese ms. as the work known to the early Kashmirian commentators, see Dominic GOODALL 1998, x- xiii. I am very grateful to him for providing me with a photocopy of his photocopy of the Jammu manuscript, which he had acquired seeing that it might be a previously unknown work of Kashmirian Saiddhantika literature, and to another of my former pupils John NEMEC, who kindly acquired a direct photocopy of the manuscript for me in Jammu, a copy which proved, unlike the first, to be completely legible. This Mayasamgraha is not to be confused with the published, South-Indian Mayamata. They have in common only that they are Śaiva works on Pratisthā attributed to Maya, the architect of the Asuras.

336. Prakarana 2 of the Mayasamgraha, the section on iconometry and iconography (pratimā- lakṣaṇaprakaraṇam), is covered in the commentary on ff. 12r7-21v9.

337. Ff. 56v and 58v, on both occasions with the erroneous spelling Divyāmata, which no doubt reflects the tendency of the speakers of Kashmiri who transmitted this text not to distinguish Sanskrit ī and e; see GRIERSON 1915, 3b-4a.

338. E.g. ff. 4v, 8v, 21r, 24r, 25r, 25v, 35v, 37v, 40r, 43r, 43v, 44v, 50v, 53r, 53v, 55r, 57v, 61r, 61v, 62v, and 66r. The other works of this class that are cited as authorities by Vidyakantha are the Nandikesvaramata (ff. 17v, 18r, 53r, 54r, 67r), the Pratiṣṭhāpāramesvara (ff. 7r, 8r, 12r, 13v, 17v, 23r, 24v, 57v, 67r), the Paitāmaha and the Pratisthāsamuccaya (ff. 17r, 22r, 58r, 58v, 59r, 60r, 66r). I know of no surviving manuscript of any of these.

339. The name of this text is a puzzle. In the opening section Indra, the pupil here, says that he has already been taught the Mohacuḍa (1.2ab: tvatprasādāt parijñātam mohacuḍam mayā prabho), and asks Skanda to teach him the Mohacūrottara (1.3cd: mohacurottaram śāstram tadartham vaktum arhasi) to provide detailed instruction on the Linga and temples mentioned there. We therefore expect moha- cuḍottaram ‘The Sequel of the Mohacuḍa’, but the unmeaning -curottara- is repeated in all the colophons. The original source of the text, a mythical work in 70 million verses, is also Mohacura in the closing verses of the work (f. 46v5-6: saptakoṭipravistīrṇān mohacurān mayā tava / vyākhyātam sāram ādāya lakṣagranthena suvrata punaḥ prṣṭaḥ samasena tvayaham suranayaka tad ākhyātam tadarddhena mohacuram maya hare/ siddhisārasahasrais tu yugmacandrais tad antataḥ / yogajñānādisamyuktam vyākhyātam śāstram uttamam susamkṣepam sugambhiram pratiṣṭhātantram

442

Alexis SANDERSON

tenth-century commentators of Kashmir. But it was known to Somasambhu, who cites it in his Karmakāṇḍakramāvalī (Somasambhupaddhati 4:85, v. 42), which he completed in A.D. 1095/6 while he was abbot of the Central-Indian Golakimatha. It is excerpted by Hṛdayaśiva, probably of Mālava, in his unpublished Prāyaścittasamuccaya,

340 which may prove to have been earlier. But the evidence now available to me indicates that it may have been composed at any time from the late ninth century to 1157/8, the date of the earliest manuscript. 341

We also have the Kirana and the Netratantra, both major scriptural sources for the Kashmirians of the tenth century, the former surviving in a Nepalese manuscript completed in A.D. 924/5, the latter in one of 1200. 342 Neither of these Saiva scriptures is a work devoted exclusively to Pratisthā, but both include important relevant information on the range and iconography of deities. Chapter 52 (vyaktalingalakṣaṇam) of the Kiraṇa sets out the iconography of the wider Śaiva pantheon, that is to say, of the images of the various deities that a Saiva officiant may be expected to install. The Netratantra teaches the specialized cult of the Mantra-deity known as Mṛtyunjaya, Amṛteśa[bhairava] or Netranātha, but it is a peculiarity of its system that the Mantra is absolutely universal in that the officiant initiated into its cult is empowered to use it in the worship of any deity. The Mantra is constant; only the visualization changes. In this context the text sets out in its thirteenth chapter the principal forms of the deities whose worship may be assimilated. The range is wider than that of the other texts, since the Netratantra is not narrowly concerned with the programme of images in the Saiva temple-complex but envisages the whole range of deities, including the Buddha, whose worship was part of the religious calendar of the court, in which this Śaiva specialist was to serve in a role that encompasses and exceeds that of the brahmanical royal chaplain (rajapurohitaḥ). Though its iconographical information is less detailed than that of the other five works mentioned it is of use in that it agrees closely with the range of Śiva-forms envisaged in those sources.

These, minor discrepancies apart, are just those seen in the surviving inscriptions and statuary of the Khmers: the mild one-faced and two-armed Śiva, the ten-armed, five-faced Sadasiva, the ten-armed dancing Rudra, Ardhanarīśvara, Harihara/Śankaranārāyaṇa, and Umāmaheśvara. 343 The same applies to the wider Śaiva pantheon taught for installation in

uttamam. We also see it with the citation of the text in the manuscripts of the Prayaścittasamuccaya of Hṛdayaśiva. South-Indian citations always give the title as Mohaśurottara, which removes the problem but is certainly a misguided attempt to correct what was probably seen as a Tamilism, for Sanskrit -ś- is rendered by -c- in Tamil transcription. The puzzling spelling is also supported by the Kashmirian manuscripts of the Karmakandakramāvalī of Somasambhu. The Kashmirian edition has mahādūrāntare for the locative singular of this title in v. 1361b, but records the obviously less corrupt variant mohadūrāntare. This dū is more probably a corruption of cũ than of śū, because cũ and du resemble each other in the Kashmirian Šāradā script to a degree that makes confusion easy, whereas sū and dū do not. Moreover, cũ and du have one style of postconsonantal u, whereas su shows the other. I find the title in the expected form Mohacuḍottara in two Maharashtrian sources: a manuscript of Kamalākarabhatta’s Sudradharmatattva (AUFRECHT 1864, 279a) and the published edition of the Caturvargacintāmaṇi (1:134, 135) composed by Hemādri while he was a minister of the Yadava king Mahadeva of Devagiri (r. 1260-1271). I have retained the prevalent spelling in preference to this plausible correction.

340. Ff. 103v1-111r1, Mohacurottara, ff. 42v4-47r2 (the end). 341. For these termini see SANDERSON 2001, 3.

341. Amṛtesatantra, NAK MS 1-285, NGMPP Reel No. B 25/5; palm-leaf; Nepalese ‘Pala’ script. 343. Devyāmata, ff. 66v4-69r2: Nateśvara surrounded by the dancing Ganas (Nandin, Mahākāla, Umā, Skanda, Candeśvara and Bhṛngisa/Bhrngiriti), Ardhanarīśvara, Umamaheśvara/Umesa, mild Maheśvara forms (two-armed in the capital, four- or eight-armed in a Pattana), and various many-armed Bhairava-like fierce (raudra-) forms (for the wilds and villages); Mohacurottara, ff. 7r5-8r3: Sadeśāna

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

443

these texts, which comprises Gauri, Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardini, Brahmā, Viṣņu, Skanda, Gaṇeśa, Nandin, Mahākāla, Sarasvati, the Sun, or the Sun and the other eight heavenly bodies (Grahas), the Lokapālas, the seven Mothers with Vireśa, and, in some cases, also Lakṣmi and Bhairava. 344 The only major discrepancy between the Indian Śaiva and Khmer Saiva evidence is that the latter reveals no instance of the installation of images of Bhairava or of the Seven Mothers (Brahmāṇī to Camuṇḍā) and Vīresa. This might suggest the possibility that the Khmers received their Saivism before these elements had been integrated into its programme of temple images. But this is unlikely, since Saivism’s engagement with these deities goes back at least to the fourth century of the Christian era. The Vākāṭaka king Rudrasena I (r. A.D. c. 335-c. 360) is described as a loyal devotee of

(Sadasiva), Ardhanarīśvara, Umeśa, Haranārāyaṇa (Harihara), and Nṛtyeśa/Nṛtyarudra; Mayasamgraha (Bhāvacuḍāmani, f. 19r14-v3): ten-armed Śiva, Śiva on his bull, Ardhanarīśvara, naked and ithyphallic in the Devadāruvana, Natyastha and Sankaranārāyaṇa (Harihara); Kirana, Patala 52: ten-armed dancing Rudra, Umāmaheśvara, Ardhanarīśvara, Rudra-and-Krsna (Harihara); Netratantra 13.29-32b: ten-armed Rudra on his bull, four-armed Śiva with trident, gesture of protection, citron and rosary, Natyastha, Ardhanarīśvara, Harihara, Vivāhastha, Samīpastha (= Umāmaheśvara?); and Pingalāmata f. 19v2 ff.: Nateśvara, Sadasiva (four-faced and eight-armed), Umāmaheśvara, Ardhanarīśvara, and Harirudra (Harihara).

344. Devyāmata, ff. 69r2-73r3: Visnu forms (four-armed, seated on a lotus or on Garuda, Viśvarūpa, Narasimha, Trivikrama, Vārāha), Brahmā, 10-armed Mahiṣāsuramardani, fierce eight-armed Kausiki, Skanda, Gaṇeśa, the Lokapālas, Vīresa and Gaṇeśa with the seven Mothers Brahmāṇī to Camuṇḍā, Śrīdevi (Lakṣmi), and the Sun; Mohacurottara, ff. 8r3-9v2: Viṣṇu, Brahmā, the Sun, the Moon, the other Grahas, Gaṇeśa, Skanda, Nandin, Mahākāla, the ascetic Pārvatī (Aparṇā/Tapogauri), Durgā Mahiṣāsuramardini and Sarasvati; Mayasamgraha (Bhāvacūḍāmaṇi, f. 18v10-19r13): the eight Vidyeśvaras (ten-armed), the Ganas (Bhrigin etc.), Gauri mounted on a lion, Gaṇeśa, the hundred Rudras, the Lokapālas (with Yama + Kāla, the Pitrs and Vyadhis), Rudra and the Ganas, Brahmā; 19v4- 21v3: various forms of Visnu (one-faced, three-faced and four-faced, on Garuda, lying on the ocean [jalaśāyi], on Seṣa with Lakṣmi), the ten Avatāras of Viṣṇu, the seven Mothers, the Grahas, Durgā, Gaurī, Sarasvati, the seven rṣis, Revanta, Dhanvantari and the two Aśvins, the Rivers, and the Kṣetrapalas; Kirana, Patala 52: Brahmā, Skanda, Gaṇeśa, Candika/Mahiṣāsuramardini, the Lokapālas, Isa (= Vīreśa) as the lute-playing (vīņāhastaḥ) leader of the seven Mothers (mātṛṇām agraniḥ), the seven Mothers, Amardaka (ferocious, two- or four-armed carrying a knife and skull or severed head), the Sun, Sarasvati, and Gajalakṣmi; Netratantra 13.2-16: Viṣṇu: one-faced, four-armed Nārāyaṇa; three-faced, six-armed on Garuda with lateral Narasimha and Varāha faces and Lakṣmi as consort; eight-armed on a ram [= Bālasamkarṣaṇa]; Viśvarupa; on the ocean (sayanasthaḥ), in marriage with Lakṣmi (vivāhasthaḥ); with Laksmi as half his body (Lakṣmīvāsudeva); Narasimha, Varāha, Vāmana, Kapila, and Avyakta; 13.17- 28: various images of the Sun; 13.32c-43: Brahma with the four Vedas, the Buddha, Skanda, Kāmadeva, Surya, Soma, Gaṇeśa, the Lokapālas etc.; and Pingalāmata ff. 17v3-27v3: Bhairava and the Mothers, Gaṇeśa, Skanda and the other Ganas, Lakṣmi, Sarasvati, Durgā, the ascetic Parvati (pañcāgnih), Mahadeva and the hundred and eight Rudras, the eight Vidyeśvaras, the Lokapālas, Viṣṇu, the ten Avatāras of Viṣṇu, Brahmā, Gayatri, Sāvitrī, the Grahas, the Nāgas and Nāginīs, Yakṣiņīs etc. Among these sources the Netratantra and the Pingalāmata stand apart from the mainstream tradition seen in the Devyāmata, Mohacurottara, Mayasamgraha and Kirana. The subtypes detailed in the Netratantra belong, I shall argue elsewhere, to a Kashmirian tradition with strong local features. The Pingalāmata is not a text of the Siddhanta but rather of the Yamala tradition of the Sākta Śaivism of the Vidyapitha. It affiliates itself to the Brahmayāmala (Picumata) and in accordance with this stance, though it covers Saiddhantika territory, it teaches the iconography of the deities of the Vāma, the Dakṣiņa (Picumata) and the Trika, and builds up the role of Bhairava and the Mother Goddesses in its general Saiva iconography. In the absence of the relevant portion of the text of the Mayasamgraha it is impossible to be sure that all the deity-forms in Vidyakantha’s commentary were in that text. His reference to three- and four-faced Viṣņus seems likely to have been added on the basis of what he knew of the distinctive Kashmirian Pañcarātrika tradition.

444

Alexis SANDERSON

“Great Bhairava”; 345 and a copperplate decree issued by Mahārāja Bhuluṇḍa in A.D. 376 from Bagh (Valkhā) in Madhya Pradesh records a grant made to support the worship of the Mothers in a temple of those deities established by a Pasupatācārya Bhagavat Lokodadhi. 346 But in all other respects we find a strikingly close correlation between the Khmer evidence of the range of deities installed in Śiva temples and that prescribed in these early sources of Indian Śaivism. And this correlation demonstrates that the Saivism of the temples underwent little change when patronage shifted from the Atimārga to the Mantramarga. For although the extant Indian textual sources that record this iconography belong to the Mantramarga, the same iconography, with the exception of the Mantramārga’s Sadāśiva, is in evidence among the Khmers in the seventh century, well before the Mantramarga reached their shores.

The Problem of Provenance

What we do not find among the Khmers or their neighbours in mainland and maritime Southeast Asia is any trace of that range of ancillary Śiva-forms that has seemed so central to students of Saiva India because they are found throughout the Siva temples of the Tamil-speaking South, where Saivism has been best preserved down to modern times, and because they are those prescribed in Śaiva scriptures transmitted under ancient titles in that region. 347 I refer to forms such as Bhikṣāṭana, Somāskanda, Kaṁkālarūpa, Candrasekhara, Dakṣiņāmūrti, Gangadhara, Tripurantaka, Lingodbhava, Kāmāri, Kālāri, Caṇḍeśvaraprasāda, and Naṭarāja. 348

345. EI 22, 171 (Tirodi plates of Pravarasena II, r. c. 400-c. 450, 1, 11. 3-6): atyantasvāmimahā- bhairavabhaktasya …vākāṭakānām mahārājaśrirudrasenasya. For these approximate regnal dates of Rudrasena and Pravarasena see BAKKER 1997, 169.

346. RAMESH and TEWARI 1990, 21-22 (no. 10), 11. 2-: bhagavallokodadhipāśupatācāryya- pratiṣṭhāpitakapiñchikānakagrāmamātṛsthānadevakulasya piñchikānakam eva grāmam saha bhadra- dattavāṭakagrāmavāṭakachena devāgrāhāramatṛṇā[m] balicarusatradhūpagandhapuṣpamālyopayojya-

bhogaya….

347. I refer to the Kamika, Kāraṇa, Ajita, Raurava, Suprabheda, Dipta, Vātulaśuddhākhya, Amsumatkasyapa, and related Agamas. See Ajitāgama, Kriyāpāda 36.207-288b; Rauravāgama, Kriyāpāda 35.114-292.

348. A tradition of sixteen ancillary forms is taught in the Dipta, pp. 684-5: 17.119 ṣoḍaśapratimākāram vīkṣyate vidhinādhunā / prathamam sukhāsanam proktam vaivāhikam dvitiyakam / 17.120 trtiyam umaya yuktam vrṣārūḍham caturthakam / pañcamam tripuraghnam ca nṛttarupam ca ṣasthakam / 17.121 candrasekharam evoktam saptamam tu vidhiyate / aṣṭamam ardhanārī ca navamam hari-r-arddhakam / 17.122 caṇḍesvaraprasādan tu daśamam parikīrtitam / *kāmāry (em.: kaumāry Cod.) ekādaśam proktam dvādaśam kālanāśanam / 17.123 trayodaśam dakṣiņāmūrtim bhikṣāṭanam ataḥ param / sadasivam pamcadasam vidyal lingodbhavam ca ṣoḍaśa. This list is followed by the Sukṣma and the Isānasivagurudevapaddhati (Krivāpāda 43.1-84b). The Rauravāgama teaches fourteen forms (Kriyāpāda 35.1-292): Someśvara, Somāskanda, Vṛṣārūdha, Tripurantaka, Candrasekhara, Kālāri, Kalyāṇamūrti, Naṭarāja (Bhujangatrāsanṛtta), Uddandanṛtta, Atyuddandanṛtta, Bhikṣāṭana, Kaṁkāla, Ardhanāriśvara, and Dakṣiṇāmūrti. The Ajitāgama teaches the following twenty ancillary Śiva forms and other deities for installation in Siva temples (Kriyāpāda 36.207-375a): Lingodbhava, Sukhāsīna, with Gauri, Bhikṣāṭana, Kankālarūpa, Nṛttarūpa, Trimurti, Cakrada, Candrasekhara, Devyardha, Dakṣiṇāmūrti, Kāmāri, Kālāri, Vaivāhya, Somāskanda, Jalandhara, Harihara, Vṛṣārūḍha, Tripurāntaka, and Visasamharana; Visnu, Brahmā, Sakti, Vinayaka, Skanda, Surya, Durgā, Kṣetrapāla, Candeśa, Moți, Jyeṣṭhā, Šāstṛ, the Dikpālas, the Mātrs and Gaņas, Virabhadra and Gaṇeśa, the Rudras, Adityas, and Vasus, the Vidyesvaras, the eight Murtis, Nandin and Mahākāla, Śailādi, Śrī, Sarasvati, Agastya, Nārada, the Ganas, Bhrngi, Ganesvaras, Rudrakinkaras, Bhaktas, and Vṛṣa.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

445

But this should not be read as evidence that the temple Śaivism of the Khmers cannot have reached them from the Tamil-speaking region of South India. It may have been introduced from another source, but the mere absence of the Saiva iconography distinctive of that vigorous cultural zone does not settle the matter, since our evidence of Khmer Śaiva images goes back to the seventh century and so long predates the emergence of that iconography.

Against influence from this region one might also point to the Indian Śivas that proliferated in the Khmer realm during the pre-Angkorean period. We find no Śiva from the Tamil cultural zone among them and so might wish to conclude that the Khmers must have received their Śaivism from another direction. But this too carries no weight, since the names chosen are those of Śivas sanctified by inclusion in the lists of the early Śaiva tradition. That tradition is North-Indian in origin, as can be seen from the fact that the Śiva temples of its lists are overwhelming concentrated in that region. There are only three sites that approach the South and they are outposts: Śrīsaila (Tripurantaka) and Saptagodavara (Bhima) in Andhra, and Gokarṇa (Mahābala) just below Goa in northern Karṇātaka. But the tradition, with its religious topography, spread throughout India and indeed beyond it and therefore could have been brought to the Khmers from any part of the subcontinent.

Thus while it is entirely possible that the Khmers received their Śaivism from sources other than the Tamil South, there is as yet no evidence that definitely excludes that region. On the contrary there is evidence of South-Indian influence in other spheres that should make us hesitate to do so in this. There are the scripts of the Khmers and Chams, which are based on South-Indian models, and there is evidence that both peoples knew the Mahabharata Epic in its South-Indian recension. The evidence is slight in the case of the Khmers. A single verse cited in an inscription shows a reading that appears in all but one of the South-Indian manuscripts that have been collated and in only one other. 349 But the evidence is firmer for the neighbouring Chams, since one of their Sanskrit inscriptions relates the myth of Siva’s destruction of the celestial palaces of the three Asuras in a variant that appears only in that recension. 350

349. K. 279, C1, v. 1-2: sa hi viśvambharādhīśas sarvvalokagurus smrtaḥ yad istan tasya tat kuryyad vyāsagītam idam yathā sarvvalokaguruñ caiva rājānam *yo vamanyate (em.: yo timanyate Ep.) / na tasya dattan na krtan na śrāddham phalati kva cit. The expression vyāsagītam in 1d evidently means ’taught by Vyasa [in the Mahabharata]’ for the verse that follows is from that source. In the Poona critical edition it is given as follows (12.65.28): paralokagurum caiva rājānam yo ‘vamanyate / na tasya dattam na hutam na śrāddham phalati kva cit. According to the editors’ apparatus criticus all the manuscripts collated read sarvalokagurum as in this citation, except for two from Kashmir and a single Devanagari witness ($1, K1.4 and D1), whose reading they have adopted. The reading krtam is found in D7 and in all the South-Indian witnesses except G2.

=

350. C. 99 M. 17, the My-son stele inscription of Vikrantavarman (7th-8th century), v. 4: sāvitrī- jyāsanāthapraṇavadrḍhadhanur muktavāṇārivāṇam kṛtvā somorupunkham sphuradanalamukham sāra-

thiḍāviriñcam / aṣṭārddhabrahmadhuryam sakalasuramayasyandanam viṣṭapānām sāntyartham yena daho yugapad api purā traipurāṇām purāṇām ‘Who of old simultaneously burned for the peace of the worlds the palaces of the Traipura [Asuras], having made the Pranava (OM) his strong bow, the Gayatrimantra its bow-string, Visnu the arrow, Candra its broad flight-feather, blazing Agni its barb, and all the gods his chariot with the four Vedas as its horses and Iḍāviriñca as his charioteer’. Commenting on this MAJUMDAR (1985, 34) reports that the story to which this verse alludes is given in the Anuśāsanaparvan (= Mahābhārata 13.145.24-29b). But this is not the poet’s source, since several of the details differ. This version makes Yama rather than Soma the flight-feather and the Vedas rather than Pranava the bow, while the inscription makes the four Brahmas (the Vedas) the horses. The true source is the Dronaparvan in the Southern Recension. This version begins as in Mahābhārata 7.173.52-56a: asurāṇām purany āsams trīņi viryavatām divi ayasam rajatam caiva sauvarnam aparam mahat! āyasam tārakākṣasya kamalākṣasya rajatam / sauvarnam paramam hy asid vidyunmālina eva cal na446

Alexis SANDERSON

In the first part of this study I have considered evidence for Khmer Saivism in general in its relations to other religions, society and the state. In the second I shall turn to that for specific Śaiva traditions, beginning with the Atimarga and proceeding to the Mantramārga.

Abbreviations

ASB = Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta

BEFEO= Bulletin de l’EFEO

BL = Bodleian Library, Oxford University

BORI = Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Pune)

C = Cham inscription, numbered as in SCHWEYER 1999

CSS Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series

EFEO = École française d’Extrême-Orient

=

EC Epigraphia Carnatica

1

El Epigraphia Indica

EITA

=

=

MEISTER 1983-91

IC Inscriptions du Cambodge (CEDES 1937-1966)

IFI = Institut français d’Indologie, Pondicherry

=

ISC Inscriptions sanscrites du Cambodge (BARTH 1885)

ISCC Inscriptions sanscrites de Campã et du Cambodge (BERGAIGNE 1993)

GOS = Gaekwad’s Oriental Series, Baroda

K = Khmer inscription, numbered as in CŒDÈS 1966

Ka = Khmer inscription as published in NIC

KSTS Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies

=

M = Inscriptions of the Chams as numbered in MAJUMDAR 1985

=

NAK National Archives, Kathmandu

NGMPP = Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project

NIC = Nouvelles inscriptions du Cambodge (I, II-III) (POU 1989, 2001) SII= South Indian Inscriptions

SOAS = School of Oriental and African Studies, London

T = Devanagari transcript prepared for the IFI

=

Taishō TAKAKUSU and WATANABE 1924-1929

ULC = University Library, Cambridge, U.K.

śaktas tāni maghavan bhettum sarvayudhair api / atha sarve ‘marā rudram jagmuḥ śaranam arditāḥ / te tam ūcur mahātmānam sarve devāḥ savāsavāḥ/ rudra raudrā bhaviṣyanti paśavaḥ sarvakarmasu / nipatayiṣyase cainān asurān bhuvanesvara/ sa tathoktas tathety uktvā devānām hitakāmyayā. Then it has the following passage not found in any other recension according to the editors of the Poona critical edition: salyam agnim ca vai kṛtvā punkhe somam apām patim / sa kṛtvā dhanur omkāram sāvitrīm jyām maheśvaraḥ / hayāmś ca caturo vedān sarvavedamayam ratham / prajāpatim rathaśreṣthe viniyujya sa sarathim before continuing as in Mahābhārata 7.173.56c-58: atiṣthat sthānubhūtaḥ sa sahasram parivatsaran yadā trīņi sametāni antarikṣe purāņi vai / triparvaṇā triśalyena tena tāni bibheda saḥ / purāni na ca tam sekur dānavāḥ prativīkṣitum/ śaram kālāgnisamyuktam viṣṇusomasamayutam. The unique passage has all the details of the Cham version if we accept that the inscription’s Iḍāviriñca is the Epic’s Prajapati.

The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

Bibliography

447

Manuscripts 351

AGNIKARYAPADDHATI. A = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, MS Sanscrit 505 C; paper; Śāradā; B = Göttingen, Cod. Ms. Mu. 1, 134; paper; Śāradā. Paddhati of the fire-sacrifice as performed by the Saiva

Gurus of Kashmir.

ANNAPŪRAPŪJĀ. BORI MS 252 of 1883-84, Pt. 3. Paper; Śārada. See also CHANDRA 1984. The Kashmirian Saiva Paddhati for the annapūrapūjā/annapūripūjā that precedes the Aṣṭaka fire-sacrifice (śivāṣṭakā) in the annual Śraddha (śivaśrāddham).

‘ĀNANDANĀTHA’. SOAS MS 44389. Paper; Śāradā. Kashmirian Maithila Śākta collectanea.

UTTARAMNAYAPAVITRĀROHAṆAVIDHI. NAK MS 1-70, NGMPP Reel No. B 177/30. Paper; Newari script. Newari and Sanskrit. Paddhati for the periodic ritual of offering Pavitras to Siddhilakṣmi and the other deities of the Northern Transmission.

UMĀTILAKA. Locus of attribution of *SIDDHILAKṢMĪSTAVA, q.v.

=

KALĀDĪKṢĀPADDHATI of Manodaguru/Manodadatta, expanded by Śivasvamin. A = BORI MS 157 of 1886-92; B BORI Ms. 440 of 1875-76; C BORI Ms. 1147 of 1886-92. Paddhati of the rituals of initiation and consecration as performed by the Śaiva Gurus of Kashmir.

=

KAŚMĪRATĪRTHASAMGRAHA, BL MS Stein. Or. d. 2. Paper; Śārada. Abstracts of information gathered by Pandit Sahib Rām (d. 1872) while preparing a never-completed descriptive survey of the ancient Tirthas of Kashmir commissioned by Mahārāja Raṇbir Singh (r. 1868-1885). See STEIN 1961, 2:283-385.

KIRANA. NAK MS 5-893, NGMPP Reel No. A 40/23 (= Kiraṇatantra, Kiraṇāgama). Nepalese “Licchavi” script; an incomplete palm-leaf MS of A.D. 924 of the Saiddhantika scripture of this name. Contains text from 7.5c of VIVANTI 1975 to the end.

KRIYĀKĀLAGUŅOTTARA. NAK MS 3-392, NGMPP Reel No. B 25/3. Palm-leaf; Nepalese “Pāla” script; A.D. 1184/5. A Saiva Tantra covering the subject-matter of the Garuḍatantras and the Bhutatantras.

KRIYASAMGRAHAPADDHATI of Valadhārin. Kathmandu, Kaiser Library MS. 63, NGMPP C 5/3. Palm-leaf; Nepalese Bhujimol script; Samvat 211 A.D. 1090/1. A Saiddhāntika Paddhati covering the daily duties, initiation, consecration to office (abhiṣekaḥ), cremation and the postmortuary rituals.

GAJAŠĀNTIMAHABALIVIDHI. NAK MS 1-1322, NGMPP Reel no. A 235/29. Paper; Newari script. Paddhati of a ritual sponsored by Jayabhūpatīndramalla, king of the independent kingdom of Bhaktapur, A.D. 1696-1722.

GOPRADĀNAVIDHI: Gopradānavidhiḥ (śaivānām rītyā). BL MS Stein Or. f. 2. Kashmirian Śaiva Paddhati for the postmortuary gift of a cow.

CINCINĪMATASĀRASAMUCCAYA. NAK MS 1-767, NGMPP Reel No. B 157/19. Paper; Newari script; A.D. 1754. A syncretistic Kaula scripture of the Western Tradition (paścimāmnāyaḥ).

JAYADRATHAYAMALA, Şaṭka 4. NAK MS 1-1468, NGMPP Reel No. B 122/4. Paper; Newari script; A.D. 1671/2. A scripture of the Krama-based Kālīkula.

JNĀNARATNĀVALI of Jñānaśivācārya. IFI MS T. 231. A 12th-century Saiddhantika Paddhati written by a South-India Śaiva in Benares.

TANTRASĀRA of Kṛṣṇānanda. Banaras Hindu University Library MS Acc. No. C. 1028, wrongly catalogued (TRIPATHI 1971) as the Tantrasāra of Abhinavagupta.

TALEJUSAKE THĀPŪJĀ YAYA VIDHIH. NAK MS 4-220, NGMPP Reel No. 1230/9. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the thāpūjā of Taleju.

TUMBESVARĪPŪJĀPADDHATI. NAK MS 1-1696. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the worship of the Durga Tumbeśvarī.

351. All sources are in Sanskrit unless otherwise stated.

448

Alexis SANDERSON

TULAJĀCŪLIKĀSTHĀPANAVIDHI. NAK MS 1-168, NGMPP Reel No. 238/1. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for a ceremony of installing a finial on a temple of Taleju.

TULAJĀTHĀPŪJĀVIDHI (in the text: śrī 2 jayabhūpatīndramalladevanatayā thāpūjā). NGMPP Reel No. E 1948/4. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the thāpūjā of Taleju.

TULAJĀDĪPADĀNAPŪJĀVIDHI (Talejusake MATĀPŪJĀVIDHI). NGMPP Reel No. E 1930/31. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the ritual of worshipping Taleju by presenting lamps.

DIPTA. IFI MS T. 507, pp. 533-1051. A South-Indian Pratisthatantra under the title of a lost ancient Saiddhantika scripture of that name. It is identified in its chapter colophons as the Diptaśāstra- Pratisthatantra.

DEVYAMATA. NAK MS 1-279, NGMPP Reel No. A 41/15 (‘Niśvāsākhyamahātantra’). Palm-leaf; Nepalese “Licchavi” script. An early Saiddhantika Saiva Pratiṣṭhātantra, claiming to be a text of the Bijabheda of the Niśvāsa.

NAVARĀTRAPŪJĀ. NAK MS 1-220, NGMPP Reel No. A 240/17. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the rituals of the autumnal Navarātra festival.

NITYAKAULA. NAK MS 2-226, NGMPP Reel No. B 26/21. Palm-leaf; Newari script; comprising ff. 2-3 and 6-13, breaking off in the course of the sixth Patala. Codex unicus. A Kaula scripture of the Nitya cult.

NITYĀDISAMGRAHAPADDHATI compiled by Rājānaka Takṣakavarta. BORI MS No. 76 of 1875–76. Paper; Śārada (‘Bhṛngeśasamhita’: that is the locus of attribution of the last folio of a manuscript of the Mṛtitattvānusmarana that has been placed at the end of this codex); codex unicus. This is evidently the exemplar of BL MS Stein Or. d. 43 (Nityādisamgrahābhidhānapaddhati’). A Kashmirian digest of passages of Śaiva scriptures, Saiddhāntika and non-Saiddhāntika, pertaining to the regular and other Śaiva rituals.

NIŚVĀSAKĀRIKĀ. IFI MS T. 17. A later addition to the Niśvāsa group of Saiddhāntika scriptures. It includes the Dīkṣottara as its latter half.

NISVASAGUHYA. NAK MS 1-227, NGMPP Reel No. A 41/14 (Niśvāsatattvasamhita’), ff. 42r5- 114v. Palm-leaf; Nepalese “Licchavi” script; c. A.D. 900. A very early Saiddhāntika scripture.

NISVĀSAMUKHA. NAK MS 1-227, NGMPP Reel No. A 41/14 (‘Niśvāsatattvasamhitā”), ff. 1v-18v6. Details as for NISVĀSAGUHYA.

NAIMITTIKAKARMĀNUSAMDHĀNA of Brahmasambhu. ASB, MS G 4767. Palm-leaf; early Newari script; incomplete. The earliest surviving Saiddhāntika Paddhati, part of the Brahmasambhupaddhati, covering initiation, consecration (of Sādhakas, Ācāryas and the king and queeen), the last rites (antyestiḥ) and Śrāddha.

PARĀTANTRA. Calcutta, ASB MS 4775 (G). Paper; Newari script. A Nepalese scripture of the Malla period concerning the worship of the goddesses of the Amnayas, principally Siddhilakṣmi (Pratyangira), Guhyakāli and Kubjikā.

PINGALĀMATA. NAK MS 3-376, NGMPP Reel No. A 42/2. Palm-leaf; Newari script; A.D. 1173/4. Also called Jayadrathādhikāra. An early Saiva Pratisthatantra covering both Saiddhāntika and non- Saiddhantika domains, which assigns itself to [the tradition of] the Brahmayāmala.

PICUMATA (/BRAHMAYAMALA). NAK MS 3-370, NGMPP Reel No. A 42/6. Palm-leaf; early Newari script; 12 January A.D. 1052 (PETECH 1984, p. 44). The principal scripture of the Yamala division of the Vidyapitha.

PRATYANGIRĀPADDHATI. NAK MS 3-796, NGMPP Reel No. A 253/18. Paper; Newari script; Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the worship of Siddhilakṣmi, the fifty Kṣetrapālas, and the local deities of the wards of Bhaktapur.

PRAYAŚCITTASAMUCCAYA of Trilocanaśiva. IFI MS T. 1060. A summary of the rules concerning penance and purification, drawing on various undeclared Saiddhāntika scriptural sources.

PRAYAŚCITTASAMUCCAYA of Hṛdayaśiva. Cambridge, University Library, MS Add. 2833. Palm-leaf; early Newari script; A.D. 1157/8. A digest of Saiva scriptural treatments of penance.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

449

BṚHATKĀLOTTARA. NAK MS 1-89, NGMPP Reel No. B 24/59 (Kalottaratantram’). Palm-leaf; early Newari script; undated. A late eclectic Saiddhāntika scripture, probably of the tenth century.

BRAHMAṆĀDIJĀTĪYAKAVARṆANA. BL, MS Stein. Or. c. 4. Paper; Sāradā. A short anonymous tract on the divisions of the Kashmirian brahmins.

BHAVACUDAMANI. Jammu, Raghunath Temple Library, ms. 5291, now in the collection of the Ranbir Research Institute, Jammu. Paper; Kashmirian Devanagari; codex unicus. A commentary on the Mayasamgraha by Vidyakantha, pupil of Bhatta Ramakantha II.

MAYASAMGRAHA. NAK MS 1-1537, NGMPP Reel No. A 31/18. Palm-leaf; Newari script; incomplete; codex unicus. An early Saiddhantika Šaiva Pratiṣṭhātantra.

MRGENDRAPADDHATI of Aghoraśiva with the commentary (MRGENDRAPADDHATIVYAKHYA) of Vaktrasambhu. IFI MS T. 1021. A Saiddhāntika Paddhati based on the scripture Mrgendra.

MOHACŪROTTARA. NAK MS 5-1977, NGMPP Reel No. A 182/2. Paper; Devanagari; copied from an old Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript. A Saiddhāntika Pratiṣṭhātantra.

RUDRASANTI. NGMPP Reel No. A 256/44, ff. 8v6-23v8. Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for the Rudraśānti ritual.

REVANTAMAHABHAIRAVAPŪJĀVIDHI. NAK MS 1-625. Paper (thya saphū); Newari script. Sanskrit and Newari. A Paddhati for a ritual on the occasion of the installation by King Bhupatindramalla of Bhaktapur of a gateway (toranasthāpanam) for the pleasure of Revanta (Revantamahābhairava), son of the Sun and protector of horses.

LAKṢAKOTIHOMAPRAYOGA. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Hs or 9484. Paper; Nepalese; Devanāgarī. Detailed instructions for the fire-sacrifices of 100,000 and 10,000,000 oblations, composed during the reign of Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah (r. A.D. 1911–1955).

VĪŅĀSIKHA. NAK MS 1-1076; NGMPP Reel No. A 43/33. Palm-leaf; Nepalese ‘Pala’ script; codex unicus. A Tantra of the Saiva Vāmasrotas.

ŚĀRIKĀSTAVA of Sahib Kaul. SOAS MS 44389 (‘Ānandanātha’). Paper; Śāradā. ff. 1-5. A mystical hymn to the Kashmirian goddess Śārikā as the author’s lineage-deity (vamśadevī).

ŚIVADHARMA. A = ULC MS Add. 1694 (Śivadharma etc.’). Palm-leaf; earlier Newari script; undated; complete. Contains Śivadharma, Śivadharmottara, Śivadharmasamgraha, Śivopaniṣad, Umāmaheśvarasamvada, Uttarottara, Vṛṣasārasamgraha and Dharmaputrikā; B = ULC MS Add. 1645 (“Śivadharmatantra’). Palm-leaf; earlier Newari script; A.D. 1139/40). Same contents.

ŠIVADHARMOTTARA. Part 2 of Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine (London), South Asian Manuscript Collection, MS 8 16 (Śivadharmasastra’); paper; Devanagari transcript of a Nepalese palm-leaf manuscript. Folios numbered from 63 to 143 in the right margin of each verso and from 1 to 80 in the left.

SYĀMĀPADDHATI of Sahib Kaul. Photocopy of a manuscript from Jaipur, prepared when it was the property of Sam Fogg Rare Books and Manuscripts, 35 St. George Street, London. Paper; Devanagari. A Kashmirian Maithila Paddhati for the regular worship of Dakṣiņā Kāli (Śyāmā).

ŚRĪVIDYANITYAPŪJĀPADDHATI of Sahib Kaul. BL, MS Chandra Shum Shere e. 264 (‘Tantric Collectanea’), ff. 1[=227]v1-156[=382]v. Paper; Śāradā. A Kashmirian Maithila Paddhati for the regular worship of Tripurasundari (Śrīvidyā).

ŚRIVIDYAMANTRAVIVRTI of Upadhyāya Śivarāmasvamin. Staats-Bibliothek zu Berlin, Ms. 166 (Janert MS Ka 663), ff. 1[37]r-47[74]r; paper; Śārada script. A late Kashmirian tract in about 700 granthas showing that the Śivadvaita is supported by the Upanisads and that both Tantric and Vedic Mantras (the Saubhāgyavidyā and the Gayatri) share the same Śaiva meaning and reality.

SAMAYACARATANTRA. BL, MS Chandra Shum Shere d. 363 (vi). Paper; Devanagari. A scripture on the Kaula rites and observances.

SARVAJÑANOTTARA. A = NAK MS 1-1692, NGMPP Reel No. A 43/12. Palm-leaf; early Nepalese “Licchavi” script; undated but probably tenth century. B = IFI MS T. 334. An early Saiddhantika Śaiva scripture.

450

Alexis SANDERSON

SIDDHANTASĀRAPADDHATI of Mahārājādhirāja Bhojadeva. NAK MS 1-1363, NGMPP Reel No. B 28/29. Palm-leaf; early Newari script; A.D. 1077/8. A Saiddhantika Śaiva Paddhati covering the rituals of regular worship, initiation, installation and renovation.

SIDDHILAKṢMİMANTRAYANTRODDHĀRĀDISTOTRA of King Jitāmitramalla (r. 1673-1696) of Bhaktapur. In Uttaramnayapavitrarohanavidhi, NAK MS 1-70, NGMPP Reel No. A 253/18, ff. 42v7- 44r7. Paper; Newari script.

*SIDDHILAKṢMISTAVA. A hymn to Siddhilakṣmi in twelve Śārdūlavikriḍita verses at the beginning of an inscription in Sanskrit and Newari in the wall of the temple of Pūrṇacandi in Patan, Nepal, recording a restoration (jirnoddhāraḥ) of the temple in 1854. The inscription attributes the hymn to the Umatilaka (1. 12: ity umātilake siddhilakṣmyāḥ stavaḥ). Photograph.

SOMASAMBHUPADDHATIVYĀKHYA of Trilocanaśiva. IFP MS T. 170. A commentary on the Karma- kāṇḍakramāvalī of Somasambhu (Somasambhupaddhati).

SPANDAPRADIPIKA of Bhaṭṭārakasvāmin. BORI Ms. No. 513 of 1875-76 (Spandapradīpa’). Paper; Śāradā. A commentary on the Spandakārikā.

SVACCHANDA: Svacchandalalitabhairavatantra. NAK MS 1-224, NGMPP Reel No. B 28/18. Palm- leaf; early Newari script; A.D. 1068/9. The principal scripture of the Saiva Dakṣinasrotas.

SVACCHANDABHAIRAVAKRAMAMAHĀSARVAŠĀNTIVIDHĀNA, NGMPP Reel No. A 256/44, ff. lv-8v5. Newari and Sanskrit. A Paddhati for a Santi ritual addressed to Svacchandabhairava.

HṚLLEKHAPADDHATI of Sahib Kaul. BL, MS Chandra Shum Shere g. 27. Paper; Śāradā. A Kashmirian Maithila Paddhati for the regular worship of Bhuvaneśvari.

Published Sources

AGNIPURANA, ed. Acharya Baladeva Upadhyāya. Kashi Sanskrit Series, 174. Varanasi: CSS Office,

AJITĀGAMA, ed. N.R. Bhatt. 2 vols. Publications de l’IFI, No. 24. Pondicherry: IFI, 1964 and 1967.

ATHARVAVEDAPARISISTA: The Parisistas of the Atharvaveda, ed. George Melville Bolling and Julius von Negelein. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1909-1912.

AMARAKOSA, ed. A.A. Ramanathan with the commentaries of Lingayasūri (AMARAPADAVIVṚTI) and Mallinatha (AMARAPADAPĀRIJĀTA). The Adyar Library Series, vol. 101. Madras: The Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1989. Reprint of first edition of 1971.

ARJUNAWIJAYA of Mpu Tantular. See SUPOMO 1977. Old Javanese.

AVADĀNASATAKA, ed. P.L. Vaidya. Bauddha-Samskṛta-Granthāvalī, no. 19. Darbhanga: Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, 1958.

ĀGAMARAHASYA (UTTARARDHA) of Pandita Sarayūprasāda Dvivedi, ed. Gangadhara Dvivedi. Rājasthāna-Purātana-Granthamālā, No. 110. Jodhpur: Rajasthāna-Pracyavidyā- Pratiṣṭhāna, 1969.

ĀDIPURANA, ed. Yasuke IKARI and Takao HAYASHI in IKARI 1994, 83-136.

ĀPASTAMBASRAUTASŪTRA with the commentary of Rudradatta, ed. Richard Garbe. 2nd ed. with new appendix containing corrections and emendations to the text by C.G. Kashikar. Bibliotheca Indica, No. 92. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1983.

ĪSĀNASIVAGURUDEVAPADDHATI: the Siddhantasāra of Iśānaśivagurudeva, ed. T. Ganapati Sastri. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, 69 (Sāmānyapādaḥ), 72 (Mantrapādaḥ = Tantrasāraḥ); 77 (Kriyāpādaḥ pt. 1) and 83 (Kriyāpādaḥ pt. 2, and Yogapādaḥ). Trivandrum, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1925.

UDDHĀRAKOŚA: Raghu Vira and Shodo Taki (ed.), Dakṣiņāmurti’s Uddhāra-kośa. A dictionary of the secret Tantric syllabic code. 2nd edition. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal: 1978. Reprinted from the edition of 1938.

KATHĀSARITSÄGARA of Somadeva, ed. Pandit Jagadis Lāl Śāstrī. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

451

KARPŪRĀDISTOTRAṬĪKĀ of Vimalanandasvāmin: Karpūrādistotram with Introduction and Commentary by Vimalananda Svāmī translated by Arthur Avalon. Tantrik Texts, vol. IX. London: Luzac, 1922.

KARMAKANDAKRAMĀVALI of Somasambhu, ed. Pandit Jagaddhar Zadou. KSTS, No. 58. Srinagar, 1947. = Somasambhupaddhati.

KATYAYANASMRTI, text reconstructed and trans. with notes and introd. by P.V. Kane. Bombay: P.V. Kane, 1933.

KATHASARITSÄGARA of Somadeva, ed. Pandit Jagadīś Lāl Śāstrī. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.

MAHĀKĀLASAṀhitā (KāmakalāKHAṇḍA), ed. Umesh Mishra and Gopinatha Kaviraja. Rashtriya Sanskrit Samsthan Series, No. I. Allahabad: Gangānātha Jha Kendriya Samskṛta Vidyāpīṭha, 1971.

KIRANA. See GOODALL 1998 and VIVANTI 1975.

KULACŪDĀMAṆITANTRA, ed. Girisha Chandra Vedāntatīrtha. Tantrik Texts, vol. 4. London: Luzac,

KULĀRṆAVATANTRA, ed. Tārānātha Vidyāratna. Tantrik Texts, vol. 5. London: Luzac, 1917. KŪRMAPURĀŅA, ed. Ananda Swarup Gupta. Varanasi: All-India Kashiraj Trust, 1971.

KRTYAKALPATARU of Lakṣmidhara, ed. K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. GOS, No. 106. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1948.

GAṆAKĀRIKĀ with the commentary RATNAȚIKĀ, ed. C.D. Dalal. GOS, No. 15. Baroda: Central Library, 1920.

GUPTASĀDHANATANTRA, ed. Punyaśīla Śarmā. Guptāvatāradurlabhatantramālā, Caturtha-varṣa-mani 5. Prayaga: Kalyāṇamandira, [VS] 2027 (= A.D. 1970).

GORAKṢASATAKA, ed. Fausta Nowotny. Dokumente der Geistesgeschichte, 3. Köln: K.A. Nowotny,

CATURVARGACINTAMANI: Caturvargacintāmaṇi of Hemadri, ed. Pandita Bharatacandra Širomani. 7 volumes. Kashi Sanskrit Series, No. 235. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthan, 1985. Reprinted from the 1911 edition of the ASB.

JAYAKHYASAMHITA, ed. Embar Krishnamacharya. GOS, No. 54. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1967. JŇĀNASIDDHANTA. See SOEBADIO 1971. Old Javanese and Sanskrit. A compendium of Śaiva materials edited from Balinese manuscripts.

JVĀLĀMUKHĪPŪJĀPADDHATI. Among the Pariśistas of the DEVIRAHASYA.

TANTRASARASAMGRAHA of Nārāyaṇa of Sivapura, also called Viṣanārāyaṇīya, ed. Duraiswami Aiyangar. Vrajajivan Prachyabharati Granthamala 62. Delhi: Chowkhamba, 1992.

TANTRĀLOKA of Abhinavagupta with the commentary (TANTRĀLOKAVIVEKA) of Rājānaka Jayaratha, ed. Mukund Rām Śāstrī. KSTS 23, 28-30, 35-36, 41, 47, 52, 57-59. Bombay and Srinagar, 1918-38.

TODALATANTRA, ed. Gopinatha Kaviraja. In Tantrasangraha, Part II, pp. 53-94. Yogatantra- granthamālā, no. 4. Vārāṇasī: Vārāṇaseyasamskṛtaviśvavidyalaya, 1970.

DEVĪNĀMAVILĀSA of Sahib Kaul, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Shāstrī. KSTS 63 [Srinagar], 1942.

DEVIRAHASYA with Parisiṣṭas, ed. Ram Chandra Kak and Harabhaṭṭa Shastri. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan, 1993. Reprint of KSTS edition, Srinagar. 1941.

DESAWARNANA of Mpu Prapañca. See PIGEAUD 1960-63; and ROBSON 1995. Old Javanese. NĀRADASMṚTI, ed. Richard W. Lariviere: The Naradusmṛti critically edited with an introduction, annotated translation, and appendices. University of Pennsylvania Studies on South Asia, Vols 4-5. Philadelphia: Dept. of South Asia Regional Studies, University of Pennsylvania, 1989.

NILAMATA, ed. K. de Vreese. Leiden: Brill, 1936.

NETRATANTRA with the commentary (NETRODDYOTA) by Kṣemarāja, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Šāstrī. KSTS 46, 59. Bombay, 1926, 1939.

452

Alexis SANDERSON

NEPĀLAMAHATMYA, ed. Kedaranātha Sharmā. Chaukhamba Amarabharati Granthamala, 10. Varanasi: Chaukhamba Amarabharati Prakashan. 1977.

PANCARTHABHAṢYA: Pasupatasūtra (= Pañcārtha) with the commentary (-bhāṣya) of Kauṇḍinya, ed. R. Ananthakrishna Sastri. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, No. 118. Trivandrum: The Oriental Manuscript Library of the University of Travancore, 1940.

PARAMASAMHITĀ, ed. and trans. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar. GOS, No. 86. Baroda: Oriental Institute,

PARAKHYA. See GOODALL 2001.

PARĀTANTRA, ed. Lt.-Col. Śrī Dhan Shum Shere Jung Bahadur Rāṇā. Prayag: Caṇḍī Kāryalaya, VS

PADMASAMHITĀ, ed. Seetha Padmanabhan and R. N. Sampath. Pañcarātra Pariśodhana Parişad Series, Nos 3-4. Madras: Pañcarātra Pariśodhana Pariṣad, 1974 and 1982.

PRATISTHAMAYÜKHA

Bhagavantabhaskara.

of Nilakanthabhatta. Lithograph. Bombay, 1862. Part of the

PHETKĀRIŅĪTANTRA, ed. Gopinatha Kaviraja. In Tantrasangraha, Part II, pp. 161-306. Yogatantra- granthamālā, no. 4. Vārāṇasī: Vārāṇaseyasamskṛtaviśvavidyalaya, 1970.

BĀLĀPŪJĀPADDHATI. Among the Parisistas of the DEVĪRAHASYA.

BRHATSAMHITĀ of Varāhamihira with the commentary (-VIVRTI) of Bhattotpala, ed. A.V. Tripathi. Sarasvatibhavangranthamālā, 97. Varanasi, 1988.

BṚHASPATISMRTI (reconstructed), ed. K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. GOS, No. 85. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1941.

BAUDHAYANADHARMASUTRA, ed. Cinnasvāmiśāstrī. Kashi Sanskrit Series, Karmakāṇḍa Section, No. 11. Benares: CSS Office, 1991.

BRAHMAPURANA, ed. Peter Schreiner and Renate Söhnen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.

BRAHMASŪTRABHAṢYA of Bhaskara, ed. Pandit Vindhyesvarī Prasāda Dvivedin. CSS, Nos 70, 185 and 209. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Book Depot, 1915.

BHAṬṬIKAVYA, ed. and trans. Maheshwar Anant Karandikar and Shailaja Karandikar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1982.

MANJUŚRIMULAKALPA: Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa, ed. T. Gaṇapati Sāstrī, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, nos 70, 76 and 84. Trivandrum: The Oriental Manuscript Library of the University of Travancore, 1920, 1922 and 1925. Reprinted by P.L. Vaidya as Buddhist Sanskrit Texts, no. 18 (one volume), Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1964.

MATANGA: Matangapāramesvarāgama, Vidyāpāda, with the commentary (MATANGAVṚTTI) of Bhatta Ramakantha, ed. N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI, Pondicherry, No. 66. Pondicherry: IFI, 1977; Matangapāramesvarāgama, Kriyāpāda, Yogapada and Caryāpāda, with the commentary (MATANGAVRTTI) of Bhatta Rämakaṇṭha up to Kriyāpāda 11.12b, ed. N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI, Pondicherry, No. 65. Pondicherry: IFI, 1982.

MATSYAPURĀŅA. Anandāśramagranthāvali, No. 54. Poona: Anandāśrama Press, 1907.

MANUSMRTI with the commentary (MANVARTHAMUKTĀVALI) of Kullūkabhatta, ed. J.L. Shastri. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1996. Second reprint of the 1983 edition.

–with the commentary (Manubhāṣya) of Medhātithi. Ed. Ganganatha Jha. 3 vols. Bibliotheca Indica, 256. Calcutta: ASB, 1932 (vol. 1), 1939 (vols 2-3).

MAHABALASŪTRA, ed. and trans. F.A. Bischoff: Contribution à l’étude des divinités mineures du bouddhisme tantrique: Arya Mahābalanāma-Mahāyānasūtra, tibétain (mss. de Touen-Houang) et chinois. Series Buddhica, Première série, Mémoires, 10. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1956.

MAHABHARATA, ed. V. Sukthankar et al. and (since 1943) S. Belvalkar. 19 volumes. Poona: BORI,

1933-1966.

MĀLINĪVIJAYOTTARA: Mālinīvijayottaratantra, ed. Madhusudan Kaul. KSTS 37. Srinagar, 1922.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

MITĀKṢARĂ. See YAJNAVALKYASMRTI.

453

MRGENDRA: Mrgendratantra, Vidyāpāda and Yogapada, with the commentary (-VṚTTI) of Bhatta Nārāyaṇakantha, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Śāstrī. KSTS 50. Srinagar, 1930; MṚGENDRA: Mrgendrāgama (= Mrgendratantra), Kriyāpāda and incomplete Caryapada, with the commentary (-VRTTI) of Bhatta Nārāyaṇakantha, ed. N.R. Bhatt. Publications de l’IFI, No. 23. Pondicherry: IFI, 1962.

YAJNAVALKYASMRTI with the commentary (MITĀKṢARĀ) of Vijñāneśvara, ed. Wasudev Laxman Sastri Pansikar. Bombay, 1926.

RAGHUVAMSA of Kalidasa with the commentary (SAMJIVANI) of Mallinatha, ed. Narayan Ram Acharya. Bombay: Satyabhamabai Pandurang, 1948. Reprint: Chaukhamba Rajmata Series, No. 4. Varanasi/Delhi: Chaukhamba Orientalia, 1987.

RAMAYANA. See KERN 1900. Old Javanese.

RAURAVASŪTRASAMGRAHA, ed. N.R. Bhatt in Rauravāgama, vol. 1. Publications de l’IFI, No. 18. Pondicherry: IFI, 1985. Parts of this scripture are published here as the whole work, as Rauravāgama, Vidyapada, Patalas 1-10 (pp. 1-16, 173-194).

RAURAVĀGAMA, ed. N.R. Bhatt. 3 vols. Publications de l’IFI, No. 18. Pondicherry: IFI, 1961, 1972 and

LAKṢMITANTRA, ed. Pandit V. Krishnamacharya. The Adyar Library Series, Vol. 87. Madras: Adyar Library and Research Centre, 1959.

LINGAPURANA with the commentary (ŠIVATOSINI) of Gaṇeśa Nātu, ed. Gangāviṣṇu. Bombay: Venkatesvara Press, 1924. Reprinted, Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1989 and 1996.

VISNUDHARMOTTARA, ed. Kṣemarāja Kṛṣṇadāsa. Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1985. Reprint of 1912 edition (Bombay: Venkatesvara Steam Press).

VĪŅĀSIKHA. See GOUDRIAAN 1985.

VAIKHANASADHARMASŪTRA, ed. K. Rangachari. Ramanujachari Oriental Institute Publication, vol. 3. Madras: Diocesan Press, 1930.

ŚATAPANCĀSATKA of Matṛceta: The Śatapañcāśatka of Matṛceta. Sanskrit text, Tibetan translation & commentary and Chinese translation, ed. and trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

ŚAVASŪTAKĀSAUCAKĀLAPRAKARANA of Bhavadeva, ed. and trans. Rajendracandra Hajāra. Calcutta Sanskrit College Research Series, Nos. 4 and 6. Calcutta: Sanskrit College, 1959.

ŚAŃKHAYANAGRIYASŪTRA, ed. Sitarama Sahagal. Sri Garib Das Oriental Series, No. 42. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1987.

ŚIVAPURĀŅA, ed. Khemarāja (son of Kṛṣṇadāsa). Bombay: Venkatesvara Press, V.S. 2011 [= A.D.

1954].

ŚLOKAVĀRTIKA: Kumārila Bhatta’s versified clarification of

of the Tarkapāda of the Mīmāmsāsūtrabhāṣya of Sabarasvamin with the commentary (NYAYARATNĀKARA) of Parthasarathimiśra, ed. Dvārikādāsa Śāstrī. Prachyabhārati Series, No. 10. Varanasi: Tara Publications, 1978.

SACCARITRARAKṢA of Vedāntadeśika, ed. Anṇamgarācārya. Kāñci: Granthamālākāryālaya, 1947. Published with the Tattvaṭīkā, Nikṣeparakṣā, Pañcarātrarakṣā, Bhūgolanirnaya and other works as volume 3 of the section of commentaries in the Śrīmadvedāntadeśikagranthamālā.

SATKARMARATNĀVALI of Mahārājādhirāja Girvāṇayuddhavīravikramaśāhadeva, ed. Rāmanātha Acārya and Damodara Koïrālā. 2 parts. Kathmandu: Śrī 5 Ko Sarakārako Chāpākhānā, VS 2026, 2029.

SARVOLLĀSA: Sarvollāsatantra of Sarvānandanātha, ed. Rāsamohana Cakravarti, Calcutta: Herambacandra Bhaṭṭācārya, 1953. Forward by Gopinatha Kaviraj and introduction by Dineshchandra Bhattacharyya, both in English.

SATVATASAMHITA with the commentary (-BHAṢYA) of Alasingabhatta, ed. Vraja Vallabha Dwivedi. Library Rare Texts Publication Series, No. 6. Varanasi, 1982.

454

Alexis SANDERSON

SARDHATRISATIKĀLOTTARAVRTTI

of Bhatta

Rāmakaṇṭha, ed. N.R. Bhatt: Sardha- trisatikālottarāgama avec le commentaire de Bhatta Ramakantha: édition critique. Publications de l’IFI, No. 61. Pondicherry: IFI, 1979.

SUVARNABHĀSOTTAMASŪTRA, ed. Johannes Nobel (Suvarnaprabhāsottamasūtra: Das Goldglanz- Sūtra; ein Sanskrittext des Mahāyāna-Buddhismus nach den Handschriften und mit Hilfe der tibetischen und chinesischen Übertragungen). Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1937.

SURYASEVANA. See HOOYKAAS 1966. Balinese.

SOMASAMBHUPADDHATI. See BRUNNER-LACHAUX 1963-1998.

SKANDAPURĀŅA: Skandapurāṇasya Ambikakhaṇḍaḥ, ed. Kṛṣṇaprasāda Bhattarai. Mahendraratnagranthamālā 2. Kathmandu: Mahendrasamskṛtaviśvavidyalayaḥ, 1988. The original Skandapurāṇa surviving in Nepalese MSS, of which the earliest (NAK MS 2-229, NGMPP Reel No. B 11/4) was completed in A.D. 810.

SKANDAPURĀŅA, ed. Kṣemarāja Śrīkṛṣṇadāsa. Bombay: Venkatesvara Steam Press, V.S. 1967.

STUTIKUSUMANJALILAGHUPAÑCIKĀ of Rājānaka Ratnakaṇṭha. Published with separate pagination after p. 526 of Stutikusumāñjali, ed. Premavallabha Tripathi (Banaras: Acyutagranthamālā, V.S. 2021).

SVACCHANDA: Svacchandatantra with the commentary (SVACCHANDODDYOTA) of Rājānaka Kṣemarāja, ed. Madhusudan Kaul Sastri. KSTS 31, 38, 44, 48, 51, 53, 56. Bombay, 1921-35.

SVAYAMBHUVASŪTRASAMGRAHA, ed. Venkatasubrahmanyaśāstrī. Mysore: Rājakīyaśākhāmudrālaya,

HARACARITACINTAMANI of Rājānaka Jayadratha, ed. Pandita Śivadatta and Kāśīnāth Pāṇḍurang Parab. Kāvyamālā, 61. Bombay, 1897.

Studies and Translations

ABÉ, Ryuichi. 1999. The Weaving of Mantra. Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse. New York: Columbia University Press.

ACKER, R. 1998. “New Geographic Tests of the Hydraulic Thesis at Angkor”. South East Asia Research 6, 1: 5-47.

ADRIAENSEN, R. BAKKER, H.T and ISAACSON, H. 1998. The Skandapurāṇa. Volume 1. Adhyāyas 1- 25. Critically Edited with Prolegomena and English Synopsis. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1998.

APPADORAI, A. 1990. Economic Conditions in Southern India (1000-1500 A.D. 2 volumes. Madras: University of Madras.

AUFRECHT, Th. 1864. Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae Pars Octava Codices Sanscriticos Complectens. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

AYMONIER, E. 1891. Les Tchams et leurs religions. Paris: Leroux.

BAKKER, Hans. 1997. The Vākāṭakas. An Essay in Hindu Iconology. Gonda Indological Series, vol. 5. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.

BALASUBRAHMANYAM, S.R. 1971. Early Chola Temples. Parantaka 1 to Rajaraja 1 (A.D. 907–985). Bombay: Orient Longman.

BANERJI, S.C. 1992. Tantra in Bengal. A Study of its Origin, Development and Influence. New Delhi: Manohar Publications.

BARRETT JONES, Antoinette M. 1984. Early Tenth Century Java from the Inscriptions. A Study of Economic, Social and Administrative Conditions in the First Quarter of the Century. Dordrecht- Holland/Cinnaminson-U.S.A.: Foris.

BARTH, Auguste. 1888. Inscriptions sanscrites du Cambodge. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres, Notices et extraits des manuscripts de la Bibliothèque nationale et autres bibliothèques, vol. 27, no. 1, 1-180, Paris.

BEAL, Samuel. Trans. 1884. Si-yu-ki. Buddhist Records of the Western World. London: Trübner.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

455

BÉNISTI, Mireille. 1976. “Notes d’iconographie khmère”. Arts Asiatiques 33, 25-57. BERGAIGNE, Abel. 1893. Inscriptions sanscrites de Campā et du Cambodge. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Notices et extraits des manuscripts de la Bibliothèque nationale et autres bibliothèques, vol. 27, no. 2, 181-632, Paris.

BHANDARKAR, D.R. 1909. “Lakulīśa”. Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report: 1906–7,

179-192.

BHATTACHARYA G. 1956. “Nandin and Vrsabha”. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl. III, 2, 1545-1567, 7 pls. (Vortrag, XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag, Freiburg).

BHATTACHARYA, K. 1956. “Notes d’iconographie khmère”. Arts Asiatiques 3, 183-194.

1957. “Notes d’iconographie khmère”. Arts Asiatiques 4, 208–298.

1958. “Notes d’iconographie khmère”. Arts Asiatiques 5, 217-220.

1959. Les religions brahmaniques dans l’ancien Cambodge d’après l’épigraphie et l’iconographie, Publications de l’EFEO, vol. 49. Paris: EFEO.

1960. “À propos de niskalalinga”. Journal Asiatique 255, 227-229.

BISSCHOP, Peter. 2004. Early Saivism and the Skandapurāṇa. Sects and Centres. Doctoral Dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

BOISSELIER, Jean. 1955. La Statuaire khmère et son évolution. Publications de l’EFEO. Saigon:

EFEO.

BOSCH, F.D.K. 1925. “Het Linga-Heiligdom van Dinaja”. Tijdschrift Bataviaasch Genootschap voor Kunsten en Wetenschappen 64, pp. 227-286.

BROUGH, J. 1953. The Early Brahmanical System of Gotra and Pravara. A Translation of the Gotra- Pravara-Mañjarī of Purusottama-Pandita. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

BRUNNER-LACHAUX, Hélène. Ed. and trans. 1963, 1968, 1977, 1998. Somasambhupaddhati. 4 vols. Première Partie: Le rituel quotidien dans la tradition śivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu; Deuxième Partie: Rituels occasionnels dans la tradition sivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu 1: Pavitrārohaṇa, Damanapūjā et Prayaścitta, Troisième Partie: Rituels occasionnels dans la tradition sivaïte de l’Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu II: dīkṣā, abhiṣeka, vratoddhāra, antyești, śrāddha; Quatrième Partie: rituels optionnels: pratiṣṭhā. Publications de l’IFI No. 25. Pondicherry: IFI.

1968. “Toujours le nişkalalinga”. Journal Asiatique 256, 445-447.

BÜHLER, Georg. 1877. A Detailed Report of a Tour in Search of Sanskrit Manuscripts in Kaśmîr, Rajaputana, and Central India. Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 12; extra no. 34A. Bombay.

CABATON, A. 1901. Nouvelles recherches sur les Chams. Paris: Publications de l’EFEO.

CHAKRAVARTI, Adhir. 1982. Royal Succession in Ancient Cambodia. The Asiatic Society Mono- graph Series, 26. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.

CHANDRA, Lokesh. Reprod. 1984. Sanskrit Texts from Kashmir, Volume 7. Šata-pitaka Series, Indo- Asian Literatures, No. 333. New Delhi: Sharada Rani. This is a photographic reproduction of Kashmirian Paddhatis published in Devanagarī. Pp. 127-247 are Sangopanga-viṣṇubalividhi-sāngaśaivīkriyātmakam Karmakāṇḍam. Caturthapustakam (Paṇḍita Keśavabhaṭṭa Jyotirvid [Keshav Bhat Zutish], ed., Bombay: 1936), which contains the Paddhati of the Saiva funerary and postfunerary rituals.

CŒDÈS, George. 1911. “Les bas-reliefs d’Angkor-Vat”. Bulletin de la commission archéologique de l’Indochine, 170-220.

1923. Bronzes Khmers. Étude basée sur des documents receuillis par M.P. Lefèvre-Pontalis dans les collections publiques et privées de Bangkok et sur les pièces conservées au palais royal de Phnom Penh, au musée du Cambodge, et au musée de l’École Française d’Extrême-Orient. Ars Asiatica, 5. Paris et Bruxelles: Librairie Nationale d’Art et d’Histoire.

1924. “Études Cambodgiennes: 23. La date du temple de Bantay Srei, 24. Nouvelles données chronologiques et généalogiques sur la dynastie de Mahidharapura”. BEFEO 29, 289–330.456

Alexis SANDERSON

1937-1966. Inscriptions du Cambodge. 8 vols. Paris: EFEO. 1937 (vol. 1), 1942 (vol. 2), 1951 (vol. 3), 1952 (vol. 4), 1953 (vol. 5), 1954 (vol. 6), 1964 (vol. 7), 1966 (vol. 8).

1939. “Une statue de Çiva récemment découverte à Bakon (Cambodge)”. BEFEO 39, 221-222 (republished in CŒDÈS 1992, 117–118).

1940. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Translation of CŒDÈS, Les États hindouisés d’Indochine et de l’Indonésie, Paris, 1964.

1941. Articles sur le pays khmer, vol. 2. Paris: EFEO.

CŒDÈS, George and DUPONT, Pierre. 1943-46. “Les stèles de Sdok Kak Thom, Phnom Sandak et Práḥ Vihar.” BEFEO 43: 56-154. Reprinted in George Cadès. Articles sur le pays khmer: (Paris: EFEO, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 167-265.

DE CASPARIS, J.G. and MABBETT, I.W. 1992. “Religion and Popular Beliefs of Southeast Asia before c. 1500”. In TARLING 1992, 276–339.

DEMIÉVILLE, Paul. 1929–30. “Bishamon” in Hôbôgirin. Dictionnaire encyclopédique du bouddhisme d’après les sources chinoises et japonaises, Tokyo: Maison Franco-Japonaise, fasc. 1, pp. 79a-83b.

DERRETT, J. Duncan M. Ed. 1975. Bharuci’s Commentary on the Manusmrti: The Manu-Sastra- Vivarana, Books 6-12: text, translation, and notes. Schriftenreihe des Südasien-Instituts der Universität Heidelberg, Bd. 18. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.

DUTT, Nalinaksha. 1939. Gilgit Manuscripts. Volume 1. Srinagar, Kashmir.

VAN EERDE, J.C. 1910. “Hindu-Javaansche en Balinische Eredienst”. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van de Koninklijke Instituut 65, 1-39.

ENGLISH, Elizabeth. 2002. Vajrayogini, Her Visualizations, Rituals, and Forms. A Study of the Cult of Vajrayogini in India. Boston: Wisdom Publications.

FONTEIN, Jan with essays by R. SOEKMONO and Edi SEDYAWATI. 1990. The Sculpture of Indonesia. Washington: National Gallery of Art.

FREEMAN, Michael and JACQUES, Claude. 1999. Ancient Angkor. London: Thames and Hudson.

FULLER, 1976. The Nayars Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GAIL, Adalbert J. 1984-8. Tempel in Nepal. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Vol. 1 (1984): Ikonographie hinduistischer Pagoden in Patan Kathmandutal; vol. 2 (1988): Ikonographische Untersuchungen zur späten Pagode und zum Sikhara-Tempel.

GEERTZ, Clifford. 1980. Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

GELLNER, David. 1992. Monk, Householder, and Tantric Priest: Newar Buddhism and its Hierarchy of Ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GITEAU, Madeleine. 1976. The Civilization of Angkor, New York: Rizzoli, 1976. Translated by Katherine Watson from the French: Angkor: Un peuple - Un art, Fribourg: Office du livre, 1976.

GOODALL, Dominic. Ed. and trans. 1998. Bhattarāmakanthaviracitä kiraṇavrttiḥ. Bhatta Ramakantha’s Commentary on the Kiranatantra. Vol. 1: chapters 1-6. Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Publications du département d’Indologie, 86.1. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichery / EFEO.

-2001. The Parakhyatantra. A Scripture of the Saiva Siddhānta. A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation. Habilitation thesis submitted to the University of Hamburg, 2001. Forthcoming.

GOUDRIAAN, T. 1973. “Tumburu and His Sisters”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 17,

49-95.

Ed. and trans. 1985. The Vināsikhatantra: A Saiva Tantra of the Left Current. Delhi: Motilal

Banarsidass.

GOUDRIAAN, T. and SCHOTERMAN, J.A. Ed. 1988. Kubjikāmatatantra: Kulālikāmnāya Version. Critical Edition. Leiden: Brill.

GOUGH, E. Kathleen. 1993. “The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage”. In Uberoi 1993, 237–256.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

457

GRIERSON, Sir George, assisted by Mukundarāma Śāstrī of Śrīnagar. 1915. A Dictionary of the Kashmiri Language compiled partly from materials left by the late Pandit Isvara Kaula. Bibliotheca Indica, New Series, No. 1405. Hertford: ASB, 1915. Reproduced, Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1993.

HALL, K.R. 1985. Maritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast Asia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

2001. “Merchants, Rulers, and Priests in an Early South Indian Sacred Centre: Cidambaram in the Age of the Cōlās”. In Kenneth R. Hall (ed.), Structure and Society in Early South India. Essays in Honour of Noboru Karashima (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 85-116.

HEFNER, Robert William. 1985. Hindu Javanese: Tengger Tradition and Islam, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

HENRY, Patricia B. 1986. The Arjuna Wiwaaha. Gaya: Centre for South East Asian Studies. The Old Javanese Arjunawiwāha of Mpu Kanva, Sargas 1-13; text, translation and commentary.

HIGHAM, Charles. 2001. The Civilization of Angkor. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

HOBART et al. 2001: Angela Hobart, Urs Ramseyer and Albert Leeman, The People of Bali, Oxford: Blackwell (paperback edition). First published in hardback in 1996.

HOOYKAAS, C. 1964. Agama Tirtha. Five studies in Hindu-Balinese religion. Amsterdam: Noord- Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappji.

1966. Surya-sevana. The Way to God of a Balinese Siva Priest. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappji.

1967. Cosmogony and Creation in Balinese Tradition. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. HUNTINGTON, Susan L. 1984. The “Pala-Sena” Schools of Sculpture. Leiden: Brill.

IKARI, Yasuke. Ed. 1994. A Study of the Nilamata - Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient Kashmir. Kyoto: Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University.

ISWARANAND, S. 1995. A Concise Dictionary Newar-English. Kathmandu: Pilgrims Book House. JACQUES, Claude. 1968. “Études d’épigraphie cambodgienne: 1. La stèle du Phnom Srès (K. 1002)”. BEFEO 54, 605–622.

1976a. “À propos de l’esclavage dans l’ancien Cambodge”. In Pierre-Bernard Lafont (ed.), XXIX Congrès International des Orientalistes, Asie du Sud-Est continental, vol. 1, Paris: L’Asiathèque, 1976, 71-76.

1976b. “Études d’épigraphie cambodgienne: 9. La stèle du Baphûon, K. 583”. BEFEO 63, 351-

with the collaboration of René DUMONT 1999. Angkor. Cologne: Könemann. English edition of Angkor, Paris: Bordas, 1990.

2001 “Les noms posthumes des rois dans l’ancien Cambodge”. In Marijke J. Klokke and Karel R. van Kooij (ed.), Fruits of Inspiration. Studies in Honour of Prof. J.G. de Casparis (Groningen: Egbert Forsten), 191-198.

JESSUP, Helen I. and ZÉPHIR, Thierry. 1997. Angkor et dix siècles d’art khmer, catalogue of an exhibition at the Galeries nationales du Grand Palais, Paris, 31 January to 26 May 1997 and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, 29 June to 28 September 1997, prepared under the direction of Helen I. Jessup and Thierry Zéphir. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux.

KANE, P.V. 1930-1962. History of Dharmasastra. Government Oriental Series, Class B, 6. 5 volumes. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

KARASHIMA, Noboru. 2001. History and Society in South India. The Cholas to Vijayanagar, comprising South Indian History and Society (1984) and Towards a New Formation (1992). Omnibus edition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

KERN, H. 1900. Rāmāyaṇa kakawin, Oudjavaansch heldendicht. The Hague: Nijhoff.

KILAM, Jia Lal. 1955. A History of Kashmiri Pandits. Srinagar: S.N. Dar.

458

Alexis SANDERSON

KOUL Anand. 1991. The Kashmiri Pandit. Delhi: Utpal Publications. Reprinted from the edition of 1924 (Calcutta: Thacker Spink).

LESSING, F.D. and WAYMAN, A. Trans. 1980. Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems Translated from Mkhas grub rje’s Rgyud sde spyihi mnam par gźag pa rgyas par brjod with Original Text and Annotation. New York: Samuel Weiser. Reprint of the second edition (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980). First edition: The Hague, 1968.

LÉVI, Sylvain. 1905 (vols. 1-2), 1908 (vol. 3). Le Népal. Étude historique d’un royaume hindou. Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque d’études, 17-19.

LEVY, Robert I. 1990. Mesocosm. Hinduism and the Organization of a Traditional Newar City in Nepal. Berkeley: University of California Press.

LINROTHE, Rob. 1999. Ruthless Compassion. Wrathful Deities in Early Indo-Tibetan Esoteric Buddhist Art. London: Serindia.

LOBO, Wibke. 1997. “L’image de Hevajra et le bouddhisme tantrique”. In JESSUP and ZÉPHIR 1997,

71-78.

MABBETT, Ian and CHANDLER, David. 1996. The Khmers. The Peoples of South-East Asia and the Pacific. Oxford: Blackwell.

MADAN, T.N. 1989. Family and Kinship: A Study of the Pandits of Rural Kashmir. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Second, enlarged edition.

MAJUMDAR, R.C. 1985. The Inscriptions of Champa, Book III in Champa. History and Culture of an Indian Colonial Kingdom in the Far East, 2nd.-16th Century A.D., Delhi: Gian, a omnibus reprint of Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East, Champa, 1927.

MALLERET, Louis. 1960. “Contribution à l’étude du thème des Neuf Divinités dans la sculpture du Cambodge et du Champa”. Arts Asiatique 7, 205-230.

MANANDHAR, Thakur Lal. 1986. Newari-English Dictionary. Modern Language of Kathmandu Valley. Ed. Anne Vergati. Delhi: Agam Prakashan.

MANGUIN, Pierre-Yves. 1979. “L’introduction de l’Islam au Campa.” BEFEO 66: 255-269. MEISTER, Michael W. et al. Ed. 1983-91. Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture. Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies, Oxford University Press. Vol. 1, Part 1: South India, Lower Dravidadeśa 200 B.C.-A.D. 1324 (1983); Vol. 1, Part 2: South India, Upper Dravidadeśa, Early Phase A.D. 550-1075 (1986); Vol. 2, Part 1: North India, Foundations of North Indian Style, c. 250 B.C.-A.D. 1100 (1988); Vol. 2, Part 2: North India, Period of Early Maturity, c. A.D. 700-900 (1991).

Ed. 1984. Discourses on Śiva: Proceedings of a Symposium on the Nature of Religious Imagery. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

MICHAELS, Axel. 1984. “Śiva’s Wild and Wayward Calf - The Goddess Vatsala, her Temple and Yatra”. Kailash XI.3-4: 105-147.

1994. Die Reisen der Götter. Der nepalische Pasupatinatha-Tempel und sein rituelles Umfeld. Nepalica, 6. Bonn: VGM Wissenschaftsverlag. With a supplementary volume: Axel Michaels and Govinda Tandan with drawings by Harald Fritzenkötter, Pasupatikṣetra: Maps of Deopatan.

MIKSIC, John N. and SOEKATNO, Sri Hardiati (ed.). 1995. The Legacy of Majapahit. Exhibition Catalogue. Singapore: National Museum of Singapore.

MIRASHI, V.V. 1962. “Gwalior Museum Stone Inscription of Patangasambhu”. Journal of the Madhya Pradesh Itihasa Parishad 64, 3-13.

MISHRA, Abhaya Nath. 1984. Shrotriyas of Mithila. Bhadaini-Varanasi: Kishor Vidya Niketan.

MUS, Paul. 1933. “L’Inde vue de l’Est : Cultes indiens et indigènes du Champa”. BEFEO 33, 1: 367–410. NESBITT, H.J. 1997. “Constraints to Rice Production and Strategies for Improvement”. In H.J. Nesbitt, (ed.), Rice Production in Cambodia, Manilla: International Rice Research Institute.

O’MALLEY, L.S.S. 1907. Bengal District Gazetteers: Muzaffarpur. Calcutta: The Bengal Secretariat Book Depot.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

459

OZHA, Vajeshankar G. 1889. Ed. and trans. “The Somanāthpattan Prasasti of Bhava Bṛhaspati. With an introduction by G. Bühler”. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Morgenlandes 3: 1-19.

PARMU, R.K. 1969. A History of Muslim Rule in Kashmir 1320-1819. Delhi: People’s Publishing

House.

PELLIOT 1903. “Le Fou-nan”. BEFEO 3, 258-303.

Trans. 1951. Œuvres posthumes de P. Pelliot, Part 3: Mémoires sur les coutumes du Cambodge de Tcheou Ta-kouan: version nouvelle suivie d’un commentaire inachevé. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. Revised and expanded edition of the original translation published in 1902 (BEFEO 2, 123-177).

PETECH, Luciano. 1984. Medieval History of Nepal (c. 750-1482). Second, thoroughly revised edition. Serie Orientale Roma, 54. Rome: IIMEE.

PIGEAUD, Th. 1960-63. Java in the fourteenth century; a study in cultural history; The Nāgarakertāgama by Rakawi Prapanca of Majapahit, 1365 A.D. Vol 1: Javanese texts in transcription; Vol. 2: Notes on the texts and the translation; Vol. 3: Translations; Vol. 4: Commentaries and recapitulation; vol. 5: Glossary, general index. KITLV, Translation Series, 4. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

1967. Literature of Java. Vol. I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

PO DHARMA, 2001. “The History of Champa”. In Emmanuel Guillon, Cham Art. Treasures from the Da Nang Museum, Vietnam (Bangkok: River Books), 14-27.

POERBATJARAKA, Raden Mas Ngabei. 1926. Agastya in den Archipel. Leiden: Brill.

Pou, Saveros. 1989. Nouvelles inscriptions du Cambodge I. Collection de textes et documents sur l’Indochine XVII. Paris: EFEO.

1992. Dictionnaire vieux khmer-français-anglais. Bibliothèque Khmère, Série B: Travaux et Recherches, III. Paris: Cedoreck.

Ed. and trans. 2001. Nouvelles inscriptions du Cambodge II & III. Collection de textes et documents sur l’Indochine XXII-XXIII. Paris: EFEO.

RAMESH, K.V. and TEWARI, S.P. 1990. A Copper-plate Hoard of the Gupta Period from Bagh, Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

REGMI, D.R. 1965–66. Medieval Nepal, 4 vols. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyāya, 1965 (vol. 1), 1966 (vols. 2-4).

REID, Anthony. 1988. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680, Volume One: The Lands below the Winds. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1993. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1680, Volume Two: Expansion and Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.

RENOU, Louis. 1984. Grammaire sanscrite. Paris: Maisonneuve.

RICKLEFS, M.C. 1993. War, Culture and Economy in Java 1677-1726. Asian and European Imperialism in the early Kartasura period. Asian Studies Association of Australia, Southeast Asia Publication Series, No. 24. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

ROBSON, Stuart (tr.). 1995. Desawarṇana (Nāgarakṛtāgama) by Mpu Prapanca. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 169. Leiden: KITLV Press.

RUEGG, David Seyfort. 1969. La théorie du Tathāgatagarbha et du Gotra. Études sur la Sotériologie

et la Gnoséologie du Bouddhisme. Publications de l’EFEO, vol. 70. Paris: EFEO.

SALOMON, Richard. 1998. Indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

SANDERSON, Alexis. 1988. “Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions”. In S. Sutherland, L. Houlden, P. Clarke and F. Hardy (ed.), The World’s Religions, London: Routledge, pp. 660-704. Reprinted in F. Hardy (ed.), The World’s Religions. The Religions of Asia, London: Routledge, 1990, pp. 128-172.

1990. “The Visualization of the Deities of the Trika”. In A. Padoux (ed.), L’Image Divine: Culte et Méditation dans l’Hindouisme. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 31-88.

460

Alexis SANDERSON

1995. “Meaning in Tantric Ritual”. In A.-M. Blondeau and K. Schipper (eds), Essais sur le Rituel III: Colloque du Centenaire de la Section des Sciences religieuses de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études. Louvain-Paris: Peeters, pp. 15-95.

-2001. “History Through Textual Criticism in the Study of Saivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras”. In François Grimal (ed.), Les Sources et le temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium, Pondicherry, 11-13 January 1997 (Publications du Département d’Indologie, 91. Pondicherry, Institut Français de Pondichéry / EFEO), pp. 1-47.

2002. “Remarks on the Text of the Kubjikāmata”. Indo-Iranian Journal 45, 1-24.

SANTIKO, Hariani. 1995. “Early Research on Sivaitic Hinduism during the Majapahit Era” (an abridged translation from Indonesian by J.N. Miksic). In MIKSIC and SOEKATNO 1995, 55–70.

SCHNITGER, F.M. 1937. The Archaeology of Hindoo Sumatra. Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, Band 35, Supplement. Leiden: Brill.

SCHWEYER, Anne-Valérie. 1999. “Chronologie des inscriptions publiées du Campā. Études d’épigraphie cam I”. BEFEO 86, 321-344.

SHARMA, Dasharatha. 1959. Early Chauhan Dynasties. A Study of Chauhan Political History, Chauhan Political Institutions and Life in the Chauhan Dominions from c. 800 to 1316 A.D.. Delhi: S. Chand.

SHEA, David and TROYER, Anthony. Trans. 1937. Oriental Literature or the Dabistan. New York, Tudor. A reprint, with an introduction by A.V. Williams Jackson of the edition of 1843: The Dabistan or School of Manners translated from the original Persian with notes and illustrations, 3 volumes, Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. A translation of the Kitab-i Dabistan-i Mazahib attributed to Muhsin Fānī (17th century).

SIRCAR, D.C. 1976. “Indological Notes: R.C. Majumdar’s Chronology of the Pāla Kings”. Journal of Ancient Indian History 9 (1975-76), 209–210.

Ed. 1983. Select inscriptions bearing on Indian History and Civilization. From the Sixth to the Eighteenth Century A.D. Volume 2. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

SLUSSER, M.S. 1982. Nepal Mandala. A Cultural Study of the Kathmandu Valley. Volume 1. Princeton: New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

SMITH, V.A. 1917. Akbar, the Great Mogul, 1542-1605, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

SOEBADIO, Haryati. Ed. and trans. 1971. Jñānasiddhanta. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Sanskrit and Old Javanese.

• Ed. 1992. Pusaka. Art of Indonesia from the Collections of the National Museum. Singapore: Archipelago Press.

SOEKMONO, R. 1990. “Indonesian Architecture of the Classical Period: a Brief Survey”. In FONTEIN 1990, pp. 67-95. Translated from Indonesian by Jan Fontein.

SOTHEBY’S. 1995. Indian and Southeast Asian Art with property from the Mr. and Mrs. Klaus G. Perls Collections, Sale 6741. Catalogue, Auction of September 21, 1995.

STEIN, M.A. 1961. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini. A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir. Translated with an Introduction, Commentary and Notes. 2 Volumes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Reprinted from the edition of 1900.

STUART-FOX, David J. 2002. Pura Besakih. Temple, Religion and Society in Bali. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde. Leiden: KITLV Press.

SULEIMAN Satyawati. 1977. “The Archaeology and History of West Sumatra”, Berita Pusat Penelitan Purbakala dan Peninggalan Nasional 12.

SUPOMO, S. Ed. and trans. 1977. Arjunawijaya. A Kakawin of Mpu Tantular. Vol. 1: Introduction and Text; Vol. 2: Translation. Bibliotheca Indonesica, 14. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

TAKAKUSU, Junjiro and WATANABE Kaigyoku. 1924-1929. Taishō Issaikyō Kankōkai. The Chinese Buddhist Canon.

The Saiva Religion among the Khmers (Part I)

461

TAMOT, Kashinath et al. 2000. A Dictionary of Classical Newari Compiled from Manuscript Sources. Kathmandu: Nepal Bhasa Dictionary Committee.

TANDAN, Govinda. 1996. Pasupatikṣetrako Sanskritika Adhyayana. Kathmandu: Jharendra Shumsher Jang Bahadur Rana and Manju Rana.

1999. Pasupatikṣetrako Sanskritika Adhyayana (Duï Bhāga), Abhilekha Khanda. Kathmandu: Jharendra Shumsher Jang Bahadur Rana and Manju Rana. Document volume to accompany TANDAN 1996.

TARLING, Nicholas. Ed. 1992. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Volume One. From Early Times to c. 1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TAYLOR, Keith W. 1992. “The Early Kingdoms”. In TARLING 1992, 137-182.

TOD, James. 1920: William Crooke (ed. with introd. and notes), Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan or the Central and Western Rajput States of India. 3 volumes. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1920. First edition: James Tod, Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. 2 vols. London: Higginbotham and Co., 1829 and 1832.

TRIMINGHAM, J. Spencer. 1973. The Sufi Orders in Islam. London: Oxford University Press.

TRIPATHI, Ramā Šankar. 1971. Descriptive Catalogue of Samskrit Manuscripts in Gaekwada Library, Bharat Kala Bhavana and Samskrit Mahavidyalaya Library, Banaras Hindu University. Banaras Hindu University Samskrit Series, Vol. 6. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University.

1993,

TRAUTMANN, Thomas R. 1993a. “The Study of Dravidian Kinship”. In UBEROI 1993, pp. 74-90.

1993b. “Marriage Rules and Patterns of Marriage in the Dravidian Kinship Region”. In UBEROI pp. 273-286.

UBEROI, Patricia. Ed. 1993. Family, Kinship and Marriage in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. UNESCO. 1999. Champasak Heritage Management Plan. Govt. of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Ministry of Information and Culture. Bangkok: UNESCO.

VAJRACARYA, Gautamavajra. 1976. Hanuman Dhokā Rājdarbār. Kathmandu: Nepālar Eśiyālī Adhyayan Samsthān, Tribhuvan Viśvavidyalaya.

VAJRĀCĀRYA, Dhanavajra. 1973 [VS 2030]. Licchavikālakā Abhilekha, anuvāda, aitihāsika vyākhyā sahita. Kathmandu: Nepāl ra Eśiyāli Adhyayan Samsthān, Tribhuvan Viśvavidyalaya.

VERGATI, Anne 1995. Gods, Men and Territory. Society and Culture in Kathmandu Valley. New Delhi: Manohar.

VICKERY, Michael. 1998. Society, Economics and Politics in Pre-Angkor Cambodia. The 7th-8th Centuries. Tokyo: The Toyo Bunko.

VIVANTI, Pia. Ed. and trans. 1975. Il “Kiraṇāgama”: Testo e traduzione del “Vidyapada”. Supplemento n. 3 agli Annali: vol. 35 (1975), fasc. 2. Napoli: Istituto Orientale di Napoli.

WRIGHT, D. Ed. 1877. History of Nepal (translated from the Parbatiya by Shew Shunker Singh and Pandit Gunanand; with an introductory sketch of the country and people of Nepal by the editor, Daniel Wright). London: Cambridge University Press. A translation of the Buddhist recension of the Vamśāvalī or genealogical history of Nepal.

YOKOCHI, Yuko. 1999a. “The Warrior Goddess in the Devīmāhātmya”. In Masakazu Tanaka and Musashi Tachikawa (ed.), Living with Sakti. Gender, Sexuality and Religion in South Asia. Senri Ethnological Studies, No. 50. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

1999b. “Mahiṣāsuramardini Myth and Icon: Studies in the Skandapurāṇa, II”. In Studies in the History of Indian Thought (Indo-Shishōshi Kenkyu) 11. Kyoto: Association for the Study of the History of Indian Thought.

ZANEN, S.M. 1986. “The Goddess Vajrayogini and the Kingdom of Sankhu (Nepal)”. Puruṣārtha 10,

125-66.

ZHOU DAGUAN. See PELLIOT 1951.

462

Alexis SANDERSON

ZOETMULDER, P.J. (with the collaboration of S.O. ROBSON). 1982. Old Javanese-English Dictionary. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Editorial Conventions

When I have emended the reading of a manuscript or printed edition cited in the notes and when I have preferred the reading of one manuscript or group of manuscripts I have marked the beginning of the text-segment in question with a superscript asterisk. The end of the segment is followed by a parenthesis in which first the status of the segment is indicated, by “em.” for an emendation, “corr.” for an obvious correction, “conj.” for a conjectural emendation, or, if it is an attested reading, an upper-case letter or letters identifying the manuscript or manuscripts in which it is transmitted. The manuscripts to which these letters refer have been identified in the bibliographical entry for that text. Any testimonia relevant to the emendation or choice of reading have been indicated thereafter within square brackets. Then, after a colon, are given the readings that have been rejected. Where more than one rejected reading has been cited the later is separated from the preceding by a colon. Rejected readings are followed in every case by their source, either the letter or letters identifying the manuscript source, “Cod.” for the manuscript when only one has been available, “Codd.” when there is more than one and all give the reading, or “Ed.” when the source is a printed edition identified in the bibliography. When the reported reading of an inscription has been questioned its source has been indicated by the abbreviation “Ep.” The same conventions have been followed where text has been presented in the form of an indented citation within the main text rather than in the notes, except that emendations, variants and the rest have been given not within the citation, as in the notes, but in a register below it. The beginnings of the text-segments concerned have not been marked with a superscript asterisk because they have been given in the lower register at the beginning of each entry. I have enclosed problematic text-segments between obeli. In my transcriptions the character Upadhmānīya is rendered f.