“Converting the Ḍākinī: Goddess Cults and Tantras of the Yoginīs between Buddhism and Śaivism”

Shaman Hatley

This article diachronically charts the distinctive soteriologies articulated in the earliest scriptures of the cult of Tripurasundarī, a popular trans-regional Śākta tradition, which was promulgated in south India as Śrīvidyā. First, I analyse contexts, beginning in the tenth-century CE, in which words for liberation (mukti and mokṣa) were discussed in the unpublished tantras of the antecedent Nityā cult and the Vāmakeśvarīmata, a foundational text of the cult of Tripurasundarī. Although these texts eulogised the transcendent aspect of the Goddess, they exhibited little interest in salvific practices. In contrast, the later Yoginīhṛdaya emphasised the soteriological meaning of practices, embracing internalised, meditative techniques dedicated to the realisation of liberation during one's lifetime (jīvanmukti), associated with non-dual Śaivism. I argue that the Yoginīhṛdaya built on the existing ritual and mantra system and developed it toward a sophisticated and robust doctrine by which adherents deepened the resilience and longevity of this ritual tradition.

Tantra has been integral part of several ancient Indic–religious traditions. Its roots are very old, presumably as old as the Mohenjodaro civilization. All of the tantra traditions had a live engagement with the feminine divine. Like other religions in India, Buddhism too has an affiliation with female divinities. The Vajrayāna tradition especially is pervaded with a diverse range of feminine imagery. In Buddhist tantra the symbolism of tantric goddesses and their practices is backed by profound philosophical doctrines. However, unlike other religious tradition, the non–theistic framework of Buddhism does not consider the intrinsic existence of tantric goddesses and their appearance and practices are meant to serve the purpose of transcending all sorts of dualistic thoughts for attaining enlightenment. This paper inquires into the evolution of tantra in different religious traditions in general, and in Buddhism in particular. The focal point of the discussion is the practices of goddesses in Buddhist tantra. The interaction and influence of other religious traditions on Buddhism too is pointed out. On the one hand this paper explores textual sources for explaining abstract appearances and unusual practices associated with tantric goddesses and on the other, the functional aspects of tantric goddesses in ancient religious settings. The neo–orientalist interpretation of tantra as given by Western scholars is examined to point out their misinterpretations of tantric symbols and rituals. After documenting some of the diverse traditions of goddesses within tantric cults, this paper makes an effort to find harmony between the overlapping layers of popular belief– and the profound philosophy of Buddhist tantrism.

Post-print version of “Converting the Ḍākinī: Goddess Cults and Tantras of the Yoginīs between Buddhism and Śaivism.” In Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation, edited by David Gray and Ryan Richard Overbey, pp. 37–86. Oxford University Press, 2016. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199763689.003.0003 Converting the Ḍākinī: Goddess Cults and Tantras of the Yoginīs between Buddhism and Śaivism1 Shaman Hatley Introduction The corpus of Mahāyāna scripture known as Yoginītantras (“Tantras of the Yoginīs”) or Yoganiruttaratantras (“Highest Yoga Tantras”), according to some classification schemas,2 represents the last major wave of Buddhist literary production in India, along with its exegetical traditions. The pantheons and practices of the Yoginītantras assumed considerable prominence in the latter centuries of Indian Buddhism, and characterize the religion as it took root in Tibet. Some texts of this corpus, as Alexis Sanderson has delineated in a pioneering, if somewhat controversial series of articles (1994, 2001, 2009), also have remarkable parallels in another body of tantric literature: scriptures of the vidyāpīṭha division of the Śaiva tantras. Much as texts of the vidyāpīṭha (“Wisdom Mantra Corpus”) mark a shift from the pacific deity Sadāśiva to the skull-bearing Bhairava and his wild female companions, maṇḍalas of the Buddhist Yoginītantras (and some precursors) center not upon Mahāvairocana, the radiant supreme Buddha of the Yogatantras, but upon divinities of the vajra clan (kula) presided over by the Buddha Akṣobhya. Their iconography is frequently mortuary (kāpālika), while their maṇḍalas exhibit increasing emphasis on goddesses, including consorts of the Buddhas. It is within the scriptures and practice systems centered upon divinities of Akṣobhya’s clan, especially erotic, kāpālika deities such as Cakrasaṃvara and Hevajra, that the goddesses known as yoginīs or ḍākinīs rise into prominence, parallel to the cult of yoginīs evidenced in Śaiva tantras of the vidyāpīṭha. Sanderson’s contention that the Yoginītantra corpse drew heavily upon Śaiva models has generated fresh debate on the nature of Buddhist–Hindu interaction in early medieval India. Undoubtedly some of the most fascinating historiographic issues surrounding Indian tantric traditions lie in the dynamics of this interaction, and the formation of parallel ritual systems across sectarian boundaries focused, to a surprising degree, upon the figure of the yoginī. For while there is much that is similar in older forms of Tantric Śaivism and Buddhism, it is with the cult of yoginīs represented by the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha and Buddhist Yoginītantras that parallels in ritual, text, and iconography reach their most remarkable levels. Assessment of the enormous body of comparative evidence and its interpretation in light of the social and historical contexts of early medieval India shall 1 I would like to thank Jacob Dalton, David Gray, Harunaga Isaacson, and Iain Sinclair for their comments on this essay, the shortcomings of which are my responsibility alone. 2 For for an insightful study of classifications of the Buddhist tantric canon in India and Tibet, see Dalton (2005). 1 require sustained scholarly engagement, admirably begun in the works of Sanderson (1994, 2001, 2009), Davidson (2002), and others (Sferra 2003; Gray 2007, 7–11; Ruegg 2008). Recent scholarship (Davidson 2002; Sanderson 2009) has extended the earlier focus on systemic influences and textual appropriation (cf. Sanderson 1994, 2001) to historical processes and contexts, thereby navigating some of the problems inherent to historiography focused upon origins and influences. For while such analysis seems in some measure integral to historical inquiry, the attendant problems are considerable: excessive focus on the sources and influences involved in complex cultural phenomena risks obscuring both the actual phenomena and the agency of the historical persons involved. Such analysis may also inadvertently depend upon essentialist constructions of religion (e.g. ‘Original Buddhism’ and ‘syncretism’). Particularly vexing is the problem of implicitly positioning what is under scrutiny in a hierarchy of authenticity. As Carl Ernst (2005, 15) poses the problem, “once influence has been established, it is felt, one has said something of immense significance; the phenomenon has been explained—or rather, explained away... ‘Sources’ are ‘original’ while those ‘influenced’ by them are ‘derivative’.” With this predicament in mind, I should like to clarify from the beginning that while this essay seeks to highlight ways in which certain Vajrayāna Buddhists may have creatively adapted aspects of a competing tradition—one itself having remarkably hybrid roots, including a long history of exchange with Buddhism—I certainly do not intend to contribute to a perception of Buddhist Yoginītantra traditions as ‘derivative’, but rather to explore some of the ways in which they are historically situated. The present essay seeks to elaborate upon the evolving figure of the yoginī/ḍākinī in Indian Tantric Buddhism, tracing its antecedents and shifting representations in relation to non-Buddhist traditions. My aims hence depart from those of Herrmann-Pfandt (2001) and Simmer-Brown (2002), for instance, whose important studies draw predominantly on Tibetan source material and are more synchronic in orientation, advancing interpretations of the cultural, religious, and psychological ‘meanings’ of the Vajrayāna ḍākinī. It will be shown that the latter represents a goddess typology shared by contemporaneous Buddhist and Śaiva tantric traditions. The first section reviews non-Buddhist conceptions of the yoginī and ḍākinī, their relationship to deities known as Mother-goddesses (mātṛ), and their roles in Tantric Śaivism. Though Buddhist and Śaiva conceptions of yoginīs share much in common, there exists a distinction in terminology: while in Śaiva goddess taxonomies (as in earlier Buddhist sources) the term ḍākinī frequently connotes a dangerous, often vampiric variety of female being, the Buddhist Yoginītantras by and large treat the word as a synonym of yoginī. This terminological choice seems meaningful, reflecting an elevation of the ḍākinī consonant with Buddhist precedents for “conversion” and incorporation of hostile deities, noteworthy examples of which include the early tradition’s assimilation of yakṣas and yakṣīs, and of the Mother-goddess Hāritī. Within tantric Buddhist literature, transformations in conceptions of ḍākinīs and related female deities, especially the Seven Mothers (sapta mātaraḥ), appear to provide key indicators for the historical developments culminating in the Yoginītantras. In the second section of this essay I attempt to map out aspects of this process, limited by reliance upon Sanskrit sources and the scholarship of others on account of my lack of competence in Tibetan and Chinese. The third and final section discusses the relationship between two influential, indeed formative, works of tantric literature focused upon yoginīs: the Brahmayāmala or Picumata of the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha, and the Laghuśaṃvaratantra or Herukābhidhāna of the Buddhist Yoginītantras. I will adduce additional evidence in support of Sanderson’s contention that the latter draws upon the former; however, I will 2 also argue that one section of the Brahmayāmala shows signs of having been redacted from an unknown Buddhist Kriyātantra. Yoginīs and Ḍākinīs in non-Buddhist traditions The roots of the figure of the yoginī lie above all in ancient Indic goddesses known as mātṛs, “the Mothers” or “Mother-goddesses,” as I have attempted to demonstrate elsewhere and summarize below.3 Much like yakṣas and yakṣīs or yakṣiṇīs, divinities intimately connected with the natural world, mātṛs were popular deities in ancient India whose identities and worship were not initially circumscribed by a single religious tradition, whether Buddhism or the emergent theistic sects of the early common era. Defined by maternity and a nexus of beliefs concerning nature’s feminized powers of sustenance, fecundity, contagion, and mortality, mātṛs figure prominently in Kuṣāṇa-era statuary, early medical literature, and the tale-cycles of Skanda in the Mahābhārata. In their early manifestations, especially in the context of the apotropaic cult of Skanda’s “seizers” (skandagrahāḥ), Mother-goddesses represent potentially dangerous forces who afflict children with disease if not propitiated, hence being intimately associated not only with fertility and life, but also sickness and death. By the fifth century, a particular heptad of Mothers coalesces with identities mirroring those of a series of major Brahmanical gods—Brahmā, Śiva, Skanda, Viṣṇu, Varāha (or Yama), and Indra. In this “Hinduized” form, mātṛs became the focus of a widespread temple cult linked closely to Śiva which attracted considerable elite patronage in the Gupta era. As do their iconic forms, the names of these Mothers mirror those of their male counterparts: Brāhmī, Māheśvarī, Kaumārī, Vaiṣṇavī, Vārāhī (or Yāmī), and Aindrī, each name having several variants. Exceptional is the seventh goddess, Cāmuṇḍā, the fierce and skeletal hag who is “leader of the Mothers” (mātṛnāyikā) and the counterpart of no male deity. Her identity appears closely linked to that of the warrior goddess Caṇḍī or Caṇḍikā,4 one of the principle ciphers for emergent conceptions of the singular Mahādevī, “the Great Goddess.” As a set, they become known as the “Seven Mothers” (sapta mātaraḥ, saptamātṛkāḥ), though an eighth member often joins their ranks (e.g. Mahālakṣmī, Yogeśvarī or Bhairavī). In addition to the temple cult of the Mothers, mātṛs also emerge among the earliest important tantric goddesses. Their significance extends beyond chronology, for the figure and cult of the mātṛ appear to underlie those of yoginīs. In the most archaic textual sources of Tantric Śaivism, goddesses have little cultic importance. Such is true of the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, one of the earliest surviving Śaiva tantras,5 which refers to the Mother-goddesses not as tantric mantra-deities, but goddesses of public, lay religion (laukikadharma) alone.6 The only evidence for their appropriation as tantric deities occurs in the context of cosmology, rather than ritual. Chapter five of its Guhyasūtra (5.1–21), a comparatively late stratum of the text, lists several varieties of goddess among the lords of a series of seven netherworlds (pātāla). In particular, the kapālamātṛs, “Skull Mothers,” who preside over the fourth netherworld, appear to represent a transformation 3 Hatley (2012); see also White (2003, 27–66). Note, for instance, that the Brahmayāmala uses the names Caṇḍikā, Carcikā (or Carcā), and Cāmuṇḍā interchangeably (Hatley 2007, 376). 5 Goodall and Isaacson’s preliminary assessment would place “the earlier parts of the text between 450–550 AD” (2007, 6). 6 Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, Mukhasūtra 2.28, 3.33–34ab. 4 3 of the Mothers into deities whose kāpālika iconography presages that of the śākta vidyāpīṭha’s cult goddesses. Positioned higher in the series of netherworlds are the yogakanyās, “yoga maidens” or “daughters of Yoga,” of the sixth and seventh pātālas. Powerful, youthful goddesses, they appear to intimate the deities subsequently referred to as yoginīs or yogeśvarīs. The evidential record is unfortunately fragmentary for Śaiva traditions bridging the gulf between the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā and Śaiva cult of yoginīs, which perhaps first comes into evidence with the cult of the four Sisters of Tumburu (bhaginīs), attested as early as the sixth century (Sanderson 2009, 50, 129–30). The (poorly preserved) scriptures of this system were classified as the vāmasrotas or “Leftward Stream” of scriptural revelation, spoken by Sadāśiva’s northern or leftward face, the feminine Vāmadeva. Linked by tradition to the Sanskrit verbal root √ḍī, “to fly,”7 ḍākinī is the basis for ḍāin (Hindi, etc.) and a number of related modern Indo-Aryan terms for “witch” (Turner 1962–6, 311)—one of the senses it had in the medieval period as well. Like the yoginī, the figure of the ḍākinī has roots interwoven with Mother-goddesses (mātṛ), a connection evident in the early fifth-century inscription of Gaṅgdhār, in western Mālwa district.8 Dated 423/24 or 424/25 CE, this mentions (v. 23, on lines 35–37) the construction of an “extremely terrible temple of the Mothers” (mātṝṇāṃ…veśmātyugraṃ) “filled with ḍākinīs” (ḍākinīsaṃprakīrṇṇam). The inscription speaks of the Mothers as deities “who make the oceans tumultuous through powerful winds arising from tantras” (tantrodbhūtaprabalapavanodvarttitāmbhonidhīnām). This description of mātṛs uses imagery suggestive of powerful, “unfettered” tantric goddesses,9 not at all in the image of the protective World Mothers (lokamātaraḥ) mentioned in other Gupta-era inscriptions. Of unspecified number and identity, mātṛs are here associated with ḍākinī hordes, a temple cult, and occult spells (tantra) and powers,10 suggesting that some key elements of the subsequent tantric cult of yoginīs had come together by the early fifth century. Unfortunately, this inscription is exceptional: we have no other ﬁrmly dated evidence for a cult of Mother-goddesses in the company of ḍākinīs in the ﬁfth century, which makes the inscription difﬁcult to contextualize. A tantric tradition foregrounding ḍākinīs first comes into evidence in the seventh century, it seems, when the Mādhyamaka philosopher Dharmakīrti makes critical remarks concerning Ḍākinītantras and Bhaginītantras. The commentary of Karṇakagomin 7 The derivation of “ḍākinī” is discussed by Hermann-Pfandt (1992, 115–16). The etymological link to the root √ḍī or √ḍai is traditional; H. Isaacson (personal communication) points out that the connection is drawn in chapter 1 of the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga, in a verse quoted widely (e.g. p. 3 in Ratnākaraśānti’s Guṇavatī commentary on the Mahāmāyātantra). Bhavabhaṭṭa and Jayabhadra, commentators on the Laghuśaṃvaratantra, also both connect the word ḍākinī to √ḍai; see Bhavabhaṭṭa ad Laghuśaṃvara 1.2, Sarnath edition, p. 6; and Jayabhadra commenting on the same verse, p. 107 in Sugiki’s edition of the Cakrasaṃvarapañjikā 8 This inscription was first published by John F. Fleet in Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, vol. III (72–78), and subsequently by Sircar (1965, vol. 1, 399–405). 9 Borrowing an expression from the title of an article of Chitgopekar (2002). 10 The inscription’s use of the word tantra is probably, as D. C. Sircar recognized (1965, vol. 1, 405), in the well-attested sense of “spell,” such as in the expression tantramantra. (Cf., e.g., Mālatīmādhava IX.52.) It seems improbable that the word could refer here to tantric scripture, as “powerful winds” (prabalapavana) would not be described as having arisen (udbhūta) from texts. My interpretation of this passage undoubtedly has been influenced by H. Isaacson’s remarks on the subject, in a lecture given at the University of Pennsylvania in January 2003. 4 identifies the latter as “Tantras of the Four Sisters” (caturbhaginītantras)—in all probability, Sanderson argues (2001, 11–12), scriptures of the Leftward Stream (vāmasrotas) of Śaiva revelation. The Ḍākinītantras Dharmakīrti refers to, which appear not to have survived, seem to represent a Śaiva tradition; he implies that these are nonBuddhist, and the existence of Śaiva texts by this designation can be confirmed from other sources.11 Authors mentioning these texts associate them with parasitic, violent magical practices mirroring activities ascribed to ḍākinīs. Descriptions of similar practices do survive in vidyāpīṭha sources, and it is possible that the tradition represented by the Ḍākinītantras was, at least in part, subsumed within the yoginī cult of the vidyāpīṭha.12 While not clearly documented until Dharmakīrti, magical practices centered upon ḍākinīs could date to the period of the Gaṅgdhār inscription, and seem to represent an important formative influence in the development of Buddhist and Śaiva yoginī cults. With earlier precedents, Tantric Śaiva goddess cults become prominent in the Bhairavatantras, which have two primary divisions: tantras of the mantrapīṭha and vidyāpīṭha, distinguished by whether their pantheons consist predominantly of mantras— i.e. male mantra-deities—or vidyās: the “lores” or “wisdom mantras” which are the female mantra-deities (Sanderson 1988, 668–671; 2009, 19–20, 45–49). Literature of the vidyāpīṭha is hence intrinsically concerned with goddesses, and the vidyāpīṭha/mantrapīṭha divide appears intended, primarily, for distinguishing Bhairavatantras with goddess-dominated pantheons from those centered upon forms of Bhairava (cf. the distinction between Buddhist Yoganiruttaratantras and Mahāyogatantras). Four major vidyāpīṭha works appear to be extant: the Brahmayāmala, Siddhayogeśvarīmata, Tantrasadbhāva, and Jayadrathayāmala, none of which has been fully edited.13 Much as the vidyāpīṭha appears to represent a development from the mantrapīṭha cult of Bhairava, additional tantric systems referring to themselves as Kaula (“Of the Clans of [Goddesses]”) appear to have developed within and have substantial continuity with the vidyāpīṭha. Hence, while the earliest attested literature of the Śaiva yoginī cult belongs to the vidyāpīṭha, a substantial corpus of Śaiva literature concerned with yoginīs instead identifies itself with Kaula lineages (āmnāya), the lines between the two sometimes being problematic (Sanderson 1988, 679–680; 2009, 45–49). The close connection between Mother-goddesses and emergent conceptions of yoginīs is evident in numerous ways. Vidyāpīṭha accounts of “the characteristics of yoginīs” (yoginīlakṣaṇa)14 classify these goddesses according to clans (kula, gotra) that have the Seven or Eight Mothers as matriarchs, clan mothers in whose natures the yoginīs partake as aṃśas, “portions” or “partial manifestations.” Tantric practitioners too establish kinship with the Mother-goddesses, leaving behind their conventional clan and caste identities and entering into initiatory kinship with the deities, who when propitiated 11 See Sanderson (2001, 12 [n. 10]), who identifies several other references to Ḍākinītantras, including Kṣemarāja’s Netroddyota, ad Netratantra 20.39. 12 It seems likely that Ḍākinītantras taught practices such as pañcāmṛtākarṣaṇa, “extraction of the five [bodily] nectars,” said in the Mālatīmādhava to be the source of the wicked yoginī Kapālakuṇḍalā’s flight. On the bodily nectars (blood, semen, etc.) and the methods of their extraction, yogic and otherwise, see “dikcarī,” “nāḍyudaya,” “pañcāmṛta (3),” and “pañcāmṛtākarṣaṇa” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, vol. 3 (forthcoming). 13 Among these, most of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata has been edited by Törzsök (1999), while the present author has edited several chapters of the Brahmayāmala (Hatley 2007)—both in doctoral theses yet unpublished. 14 Siddhayogeśvarīmata, ch. 29; Brahmayāmala, ch. 74; and Tantrasadbhāva, ch. 16. 5 may bestow siddhi upon individuals initiated into their own clans.15 Beyond tantric literature proper, the old Skandapurāṇa (circa 6–7th centuries CE) also intimates these connections, linking the temple cult of the Seven Mothers to yoginīs and to Śaiva texts it refers to as Tantras of the Mother-goddesses (mātṛtantra) or Union Tantras (yāmala). These include the Brahmayāmala, an extant scripture of the vidyāpīṭha with extensive parallel passages in the Buddhist Laghuśaṃvaratantra. While the Brahmayāmala may have been reworked in the interval between the copying of its earliest extant manuscript (mid eleventh-century) and its mention in the Skandapurāṇa, its attestation in the latter is an important pieces of evidence pointing toward the development of a Śaiva cult of yoginīs by, at the latest, the early eighth century (Hatley 2007). Representations of yoginīs in tantric Śaiva literature are extremely diverse, but some of the most common characteristics of this deity typology include occurrence in groups (e.g. sextets, with configurations of sixty-four becoming common by the tenth century), organization into “clans” of the Mother-goddesses, theriomorphism and shapeshifting, the ability to fly, association with guarding and/or transmitting tantric teachings, and potency as sources of both grave danger and immense power. In addition, yoginīs often blur the boundaries between human and divine, for through perfection in tantric ritual, it was held that female practitioners could join the ranks of these sky-traveling (khecarī) goddesses (Hatley 2007, 11–17; cf. White 2003, 27). In tantras of the vidyāpīṭha, the entire edifice of tantric ritual appears oriented toward the aim of power-bestowing “union” or encounter (melaka, melāpa) with yoginīs, a communion through which the sādhaka assumes the powers of Bhairava himself. Originally esoteric deities, from the tenth century yoginīs became prominent in the wider Indic religious landscape, as attested by their entry into purāṇic literature and the unique circular, open-air temples enshrining them across the subcontinent (Dehejia 1986; Hatley, forthcoming B). Though connected intimately with the Seven Mothers, yoginīs demonstrate remarkable continuity with more ancient Mother-goddess conceptions. Their theriomorphism, shapeshifting, multiplicity, extraordinarily variegated appearances, bellicosity, independence, and simultaneous beauty and danger all find precedent in the Mahābhārata’s representation of the Mother-goddesses, as does, suggests White (2003, 39, 205), their connection with flight. While taking on the powerful iconography of tantric deities, yoginīs also maintain clear visual continuity with the Kuṣāṇa-era Mother-goddess, as reflected in statuary. Other ancient feminine deities figure in their formation as well: White (2003, 27–66) highlights notable continuities with the apsaras (“celestial maiden”) and the yakṣī or yakṣiṇī (“dryad”), in addition to early mātṛs and other grahas (“seizers”). Other significant sources for conceptions of yoginīs include vidyādharīs (flying, semidivine sorceresses), and in particular, Śiva’s gaṇas: male deities whose theriomorphic or otherwise bizarre forms, multiplicity, variety, and engagement in activities such as warfare are highly suggestive of yoginīs. Serbaeva (2006, 71) also points out that gaṇas and yoginīs share an important similarity in representing states of being that Śaiva practitioners sought to attain. 15 A yoginī of the clan of Brāhmī/Brahmāṇī is said to be brahmāṇyaṃśā, “possessing a portion of Brahmāṇī.” See, e.g., Tantrasadbhāva 16.253cd. An initiate too is said to be “connected to” or “possess” (yukta) an aṃśa of a Mother-goddess. Note, e.g., Brahmayāmala 74.47cd: brahmāṇīkulajā devi svāṃśasiddhipradāyikā (“[She is] a yoginī of the clan of Brahmāṇī, O Goddess, who bestows siddhi upon those [sādhakas] of her own [Mother-goddess] aṃśa”). 6 Beyond yoginī taxonomies based on clans of the Mother-goddesses, vidyāpīṭha and Kaula sources develop additional classificatory schemata that order a much more diverse cast of divine and semi-divine female beings, based for instance upon notions of “habitat” (e.g. yoginīs who are aerial, terrestrial, aquatic, of the netherworlds, or who inhabit sacred places), degrees of divinity, or disposition.16 Prominent in such taxonomies is the figure of the ḍākinī, which the Brahmayāmala, among other sources, associates with cruelty and ritual violence. Attainment of their state of being transpires though “perverse” (viloma) methods.17 The Śaiva ḍākinī appears closely linked to, and sometimes synonymous with the decidedly non-vegetarian śākinī, of which Kṣemarāja quotes the following definition from the Tantrasadbhāva: A female who, for the purpose of shapeshifting, ever drinks the fluids of living beings after drawing them close by artifice, and who after obtaining [that fluid] slays the creatures—she should be known as a śākinī, ever delighting in dreadful places.18 The conflation of the ḍākinī and śākinī is evident in a verse occuring in multiple vidyāpīṭha sources, with minor variations, which in some cases defines the rudraḍākinī but elsewhere the rudraśākinī.19 Note also, for instance, that a taboo on uttering the word “ḍākinī” ( Siddhayogeśvarīmata 6.51) is applied by other sources to the word “śākinī.”20 Representations of the ḍākinī as a vampiric, śākinī-like being also find expression in period non-tantric literature, especially the Kathāsaritsāgara of 11th-century Kashmir. The colorful yoginīs of its tales range from powerful goddesses to impetuous, even vile “witches” as well as virtuous and accomplished female tantric adepts.21 Reflecting yoginī taxonomies from tantric Śaiva literature, those referred to with the epithets ḍākinī or śākinī are invariably malevolent, while yoginīs not given such qualifiers are benevolent, or at least ambivalent. The yoginī Citralekhā, for instance, utilizes her prowess in flight to facilitate the union of the princess Uṣā with Aniruddha of Dvāravatī.22 Another wellmeaning yoginī instructs her friend in mantras for turning her illicit lover into a monkey, and for restoring her pet to human form on demand.23 In contrast, the ḍākinī Kālarātri, the 16 Note for instance chapters 56 and 101 of the Brahmayāmala, both of which concern the classification of goddess clans. 17 For descriptions of the ḍākinī as a dangerous variety of female spirit, see, e.g., Brahmayāmala 56.12, 56.43–44, and 101.38–39. Cf. Sanderson (2001, 12 [n. 10]). 18 Netroddyota, quoted in the commentary on Netratantra 2.71: chalenākṛṣya pibati kṣudrā prāṇipayaḥ sadā | rūpaparivartanārthaṃ labdhvā pātayati paśūn | śākinī sā tu vijñeyā raudrasthānaratā sadā | With minor variants and corruptions, this corresponds to 16.163cd–64 in Dyczkowski’s draft edition of the Tantrasadbhāva. Cf. Tantrasadbhāva 16.181–218, which describes the pernicious activities of several varieties of yoginī, such as the adhoniśvāsikā and its sub-types; several verses from this passage are quoted by Kṣemarāja ad Netratantra 19.55. 19 The verse defines the rudraḍākinī in Siddhayogeśvarīmata 26.14 and the Sarvavīratantra (as quoted by Kṣemarāja in Netratantroddyota, ad Netratantra 2.16); it defines the rudraśākinī in Tantrasadbhāva 16.165, also quoted by Kṣemarāja ad Netratantra 19.71. 20 Tantrāloka 15.552ab and Tantrasadbhāva 9.544ab; see Törzsök (1999, 18). 21 For more detailed discussions, see Herrmann-Pfandt (1996) and Hatley (2007, 101–6). 22 Kathāsaritsāgara VI, 5.1–36. Cf. Bhāgavatapurāṇa X, 62. 23 Kathāsaritsāgara, VII.107–18. 7 grotesque and lusty wife of an orthodox brahmin teacher (upādhyāya), possesses the power of flight through mantra-practice and consumption of human flesh, and acts secretly as guru to a coven of ḍākinīs.24 Another story tells of a weary traveller who unknowingly accepts the hospitality of a śākinī. He thwarts her attempt to use enchanted barley to turn him into a goat, but ends up being turned into a peacock by the butcher’s wife, a “wicked” (duṣṭa) yoginī.25 Elsewhere, a jealous queen, a greedy female renunciant, and clever barber conspire to make the king think his newest bride is secretly a ḍākinī, who sucks out his vitals whilst he sleeps.26 Book seven tells of Bhavaśarman of Vārāṇasī, who had an affair with a fickle brahmin woman, Somadā, a “secret yoginī” (guptayoginī, 150d) of the worst sort—a “petty śākinī” (kṣudraśākinī, 168b) who eventually turns him into an ox. After his sale as a beast of burden, the yoginī Bandhamocinī spots him and restores him to human form.27 In another, parallel episode, a certain Vāmadatta discovers that his wife, Śaśiprabhā, is secretly both an adultress and a śākinī. Caught in the act with a herdsman, she turns her enraged husband into a buffalo, beats him, and sells him off. A “perfected” (siddhā) yoginī, however, recognizes him in animal form and restores his humanness, eventually imparting to him the vidyā-mantra of goddess Kālasaṃkarṣaṇī, the supreme deity of Krama Śaivism.28 In these tales, the yoginī/ḍākinī dichotomy functions virtually to demarcate the ‘good witch’ from the ‘bad’, echoing yoginī taxonomies of Tantric Śaivism. In light of this, it is remarkable that the categories came to be largely interchangeable in the Vajrayāna Yoginītantras. Mother-goddesses and Ḍākinīs in early Buddhist tantric literature Significant uncertainties surround the chronology of Buddhist tantric literature, though attenuated by the assistance Chinese and Tibetan sources offer in dating specific works. Of particular value, we know the periods of early learned authors such as Buddhaguhya and Vilāsavajra, active in the mid and late eighth century, respectively, who quote or comment upon tantric scriptural sources; for extant, reliably pre-tenth century commentary on Tantric Śaiva scripture, we have only Sadyojyotis, who may have been active in the period circa 675–725 (Sanderson 2006a).29 As is well known, “proto-tantric” Buddhist literature of the variety later classified as Kriyātantras survives from the early centuries of the common era, often only in Chinese translation. Concerned largely with accomplishing worldly aims, this literature contains much that is characteristic of later tantric ritual, yet without articulating mantra-practice within a Mahāyāna soteriological 24 Ibid., III, 6.102–218. Ibid., XII, 4.263–77. 26 Ibid., VI, 6, especially vv. 153–80. 27 This episode occurs as Kathāsaritsāgara VII, 3.147–69. 28 Ibid., XII, 1.31–72. 29 On the dating of Buddhaguhya, see Hodge (2003, 22–23); see also Sanderson (2009, 128–32). Concerning Vilāsavajra, I follow Davidson (1981, 6–7). Evidence Sanderson (2006a) cites for dating Sadyojyotis includes the fact that he was known to Somānanda (early tenth-century), appears to have been familiar with Kumārila (but not Dharmakīrti), that his commentary on the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha is paraphrased in the Haravijaya (circa 830 CE), and that in his critique of the Vedāntins, he displays no awareness of the vivartavāda or “illusionism” associated with Śaṅkara (fl. c. 800 CE?) and Maṇḍanamiśra. See also Watson (2006, 111–14). 25 8 framework.30 Evidence for a developed tantric literature and eye-witness reports concerning the prevalence of tantric Buddhist traditions in India emerge only in the middle or latter half of the seventh century.31 Cultic emphasis upon the figure of the yoginī is not yet evident in the Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhi(-tantra/sūtra)—hereafter Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi—though closely related goddesses register a presence. This is one of the few extant Buddhist texts of the transitional variety sometimes classified as Caryātantras, similar in many respects to the subsequent Yogatantras but appearing to lack a developed soteriological vision of tantric ritual.32 Composed, according to Stephen Hodge, around 640 CE or somewhat earlier, this survives primarily in Chinese and Tibetan translations.33 Prominent in the maṇḍala of the supreme Buddha Mahāvairocana, as delineated in the second chapter, are goddesses such as Tārā. In the same maṇḍala appear “wrathful Mother-goddesses” headed by the goddess Kālarātri, who form the retinue of Yama, lord of Death and guardian of the southern direction (II.50). Kālarātri is accompanied by Raudrī, Brahmī, Kaumārī, Vaiṣṇavī, Cāmuṇḍā, and Kauberī (XIII.89)—an unusual heptad, being a variant upon the Seven Mothers: Brāhmī, Raudrī/Māheśvarī, Kaumarī, Vaiṣṇavī, Vārāhī, Indrāṇī, and Cāmuṇḍā. In this case Kauberī replaces Indrāṇī/Aindrī, while Cāmuṇḍā’s preeminent position is usurped by Kālarātri, who appears to be identified with Yāmī, the female counterpart of Yama.34 That they are tantric divinities, however minor, is evidenced by occurence within the maṇḍala and their invocation by mantra.35 Kālarātri and seven unspecified Mothergoddesses also figure in the entourage of Śākyamuni,36 while elsewhere Mothers are included in an enumeration of potentially dangerous spirits.37 Chapter six links them to 30 Hodge (2003, 5–8) provides a valuable account of the chronology of the Chinese translations of early tantric literature. Buddhist Kriyātantras in all likelihood drew upon ancient and perhaps nonsectarian magical traditions, such as the vidyā practices attested in an early Jaina narrative, the Vasudevahiṇḍī (on which see Hatley 2007, 95–101). 31 Hodge (2003, 9–11) points out that a Chinese traveller, Xuanzang, gives no indication that Buddhist tantric traditions were prevalent in India in the period up to 645 CE. On the other hand, there are first-hand reports concerning tantric practices and scripture from the latter half of the century. 32 See Tribe (2007, 207–10). Hodge, offering a different assessment of the soteriological dimension of the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, considers this text “likely to have been one of the first, if not actually the first fully developed tantra to be compiled, that has survived in some form to the present day” (2003, 29 [quotation], 33–39). In my discussion of this text, I rely entirely upon Hodge’s English translation from the Chinese and Tibetan. 33 Concerning the dating, see Hodge (2003, 14–17). Translated into Chinese in 724 CE, the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi appears to have been among the manuscripts collected by Wuxing in India at some point during the eight years prior to his death in 674. 34 “Wrathful Mothers” perhaps translates the Sanskrit rudramātaraḥ (“Rudra/Śiva’s Mothergoddesses”). That this could refer specifically to the Seven Mothers is suggested by Kṣemarāja’s explanation of the term as it occurs in Netratantra 2.13c (he glosses rudramātaraḥ with brahmyādyās—“Brahmī, etc.”). The identification of Yāmī with Kālarātri is suggested in the Chinese translation of I.19; see Hodge’s note thereon (2003, 63). Yāmī and the sow-faced Vārāhī alternate in textual accounts of the Seven Mothers, while sculpted sets appear as a rule to depict Vārāhī. 35 Note also their association with a series of drawn insignia (mudrā), as with the other maṇḍala deities (XIII.89). While Kālarātri is invoked with her own mantra, the others are paid reverence with the generic NAMAḤ SAMANTABUDDHĀNĀṂ MĀTṚBHYAḤ SVĀHĀ (IV.11). 36 See Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi IV.11. 37 Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi XVII.13; also mentioned are, e.g., piśācas and rākṣasas. 9 mantras for causing illness, bridging the goddesses’ roots as grahas (“Seizers”) in the entourage of Skanda, as described in the Mahābhārata and early medical literature, with tantric “magical” practices.38 Furthermore, as do the Śaiva Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā and a variety of other tantric sources, the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi lists Mother shrines—as well as temples of Śiva—among the places appropriate for performing solitary sādhana, though without cultic emphasis on these deities.39 In addition to Mother-goddesses, the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi contains several references to ḍākinīs and female divinities such as the yakṣiṇī (“dryad”), while the text’s “appendix tantra” (Uttaratantra) describes rites for bringing the latter and female denizens of the netherworlds under one’s power.40 While in Yoginītantras of the subsequent period ḍākinīs would become prominent deities, the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi groups them with minor, potentially pernicious beings such as the rākṣasa, yakṣa, and piśāca, consistent with early non-Buddhist conceptions of the ḍākinī. Early Buddhist works also emphasize the malevolence and predatory violence of the ḍākinī, with the Laṅkāvatārasūtra linking them to the nocturnal, flesh-eating rākṣasī of Indic folklore.41 No evidence for the figure of the yoginī is present in the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, although the vocative-case epithets yogini and yogeśvari appear in a mantra; the deity is not named.42 In this text we hence find evidence for interest in some of the divinities prominent in the later Yoginītantras, in particular a limited appropriation of the Mothers as tantric deities. This accords with roughly contemporaneous sculptural evidence for Buddhist interest in these goddesses, for a shrine of the Mothers is present in the Buddhist cave temple complex at Aurangabad (Hatley 2007, 68–69). The Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa43 attests a similar, yet broader range of female deities and spirits. Classified within the tradition as a Kriyātantra, a portion of this heterogeneous text has been shown to date to the middle of the eighth century, the period in which some sections appear in Chinese translation (Matsunaga 1985). In its opening chapter, the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa enumerates a vast pantheon of divine, semi-divine, and human beings who assemble to hear the Dharma, among whom are an array of female divinities that include pūtanās (“Stinkers), bhaginīs (“Sisters”), ḍākinīs, rūpiṇīs (“Beauties”), 38 VI.15: “Then, for example, the Asuras manifest illusions with mantras. Or, for example, there are [mundane] mantras which counteract poison and fevers. Or else there are the mantras with which the Mothers send sickness upon people...” (Hodge 2003, 170–71). 39 Lists of suitable locations are present in V.9 and VI.30. In Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, Uttaratantra III.2, Mother shrines are listed among the places appropriate for fire sacrifice having as its goal “subduing” (Sanskrit vaśīkaraṇa, presumably). 40 A short series of mantras for minor divinities and spirits such as rākṣasas, ḍākinīs, and asuras is provided in IV.16, while mudrās and mantras for a larger series, including ḍākinīs, are listed in XI.98–99. A list of dangerous beings in the Uttaratantra includes both ḍākinīs and what Hodge translates as “witches” (IV.1). As described in III.9 of the Uttaratantra, through fire sacrifice one may “draw to himself yakṣiṇīs and likewise girls of the subterranean realm with the male and female assistants.” 41 Laṅkāvatārasūtra 8.10–16 (verse version) speaks of birth from the womb of a ḍākinī or rākṣasī as a potential fate for the carnivore. See the discussion of Gray (2005, 50–51). 42 XV.10; the mantra for the “Mudrā of Upholding the Bhagavat’s Yoga” is given as NAMAḤ SAMANTABUDDHĀNĀṂ MAHĀYOGAYOGINI YOGEŚVARI KHĀÑJALIKA SVĀHĀ. 43 The text is better known as the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa. While both titles occur in manuscript colophons, I follow the convention preferred by Martin Delhey, who is currently preparing a critical edition of sections of the text. 10 yakṣiṇīs (“Dryads”), and ākāśamātṛs (“Sky Mothers”). Each of these beings is said to have ordinary and “greater” (mahā-) varieties; the “Great [Sky] Mothers” include the standard Seven augmented by Yāmyā, Vāruṇī, Pūtanā, and others, with retinues of innumerable nameless Mothers.44 This is highly suggestive of the range of female divinities described in literature of the Śaiva and Buddhist yoginī cults. Although they are not prominent in the ritual of this text, the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa, like the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi, positions the Seven Mothers in the retinue of Yama among the non-Buddhist deities in the outer layers of the maṇḍala.45 The effort to give them a Buddhist identity is suggested by the addition of “Vajracāmuṇḍi” to their ranks.46 In general, the depiction of the Mothers is consonant with the ancient cult of Skanda’s countless grahas, with whom their connection is made explicit: most of the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa’s copious references to the Mothers point toward their identity as dangerous female spirits, and only rarely the seven Brahmanical goddesses. Mother-goddesses are mentioned among the spirits by whom one may become possessed, alongside beings such as the piśāca and ḍākinī,47 while the “Mothers of Skanda” (skandamātaraḥ) are mentioned in 22.24b (TSS edition vol. 1, p. 233)—a chapter rich in its accounts of beings fabulous and dangerous. As for ḍākinīs, their characterization is entirely that of pernicious, possessing female spirits, against whom one requires mantras for protection; no indications are present of the positive associations and prominence assigned to them in Yoginītantras. One vidyā-mantra, for instance, is said to have the power to conjure a yakṣiṇī, or else to destroy ḍākinīs.48 Among a number of other references is described a curious rite for removing the breasts and genitalia of proud, wicked ḍākinīs and women. Used on a man, it changes his gender.49 Of additional interest in this tantra is its incorporation, as tantric deities, of Tumburu and the Four Sisters—Jayā, Vijayā, Ajitā, Aparājitā—the core pantheon of Śaiva tantras of the Leftward Stream (vāmasrotas). Chapters forty-seven to forty-nine are devoted to practices connected with these deities, and include the tale of their conversion to Buddhism.50 Further developments towards a cult of yoginīs are evident in the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (hereafter Tattvasaṃgraha), among the earliest extant scriptures classified as Yogatantras and representative of a developed Buddhist soteriological vision 44 Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa 1, vol. 1, p. 20–21 (Trivandrum Sanskrit Series edition). The Seven Mothers (precise identities unspecified) occupy a position in the southeastern direction, adjacent to Yama in the south, and are also among the deities around the perimeter of that layer of the maṇḍala; their company includes major brahmanical gods, gaṇa-lords such as Mahākāla, sages, Tumburu and the Four Sisters, the Planets, and so forth. Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa 2, vol. 1, p. 44–45. 46 Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa 45 provides mudrās connected to and named after the Mothers, and includes both Cāmuṇḍi (45.229cd–30ab) and Vajracāmuṇḍi (45.228cd–229ab). Vol. 2, p. 510. Verse numbers here and elsewhere are given as per the reprint edited by P. L. Vaidya, while volume and page numbers are those of the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series edition. 47 See for example Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa 3, vol. 1, p. 53, and chapter 9, vol. 1, p. 82. Cf., e.g., 22.229 (vol. 1, p. 249), in a vivid description of the activities of Mother-goddesses. 48 Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa 2.4–5, vol. 1, p. 30. 49 Chapter 52, vol. 3, p. 563–64. 50 The vidyā-mantras of these deities are first given in 2.15–17, where they are said to be “attendants of the Bodhisattva” (bodhisattvānucārikā[ḥ], 2.16b). Vol. 1, p. 32. Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa ch. 47 presents a brief narrative of their taking refuge in the Dharma, after which begin instructions on their worship. See also the discussion of Sanderson (2009, 129–30). 45 11 of tantric ritual. Its composition had apparently commenced by the last quarter of the seventh century, and the text was partially translated into Chinese in 753.51 Although the Tattvasaṃgraha thus does not necessarily postdate the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa, it takes the “conversion” of goddesses considerably further, and its range of female deities even more clearly intimates that of the Yoginītantras. Here, for instance, we find reference to Mother-goddesses classified under the categories antarīkṣacāri (“aetherial”), khecarī (“aerial”), bhūcarī (“terrestrial”), and pātālavāsinī (“denizens of the netherworlds”)— closely related to categories applied in later classifications of yoginīs.52 Along with a host of other erstwhile hostile deities, headed by Śiva, Vajrapāṇi confers upon them tantric initiation and initiatory names; thus Jātahāriṇī becomes Vajramekhalā, Māraṇī becomes Vajravilayā, Kauberī becomes Vajravikaṭā, and Cāmuṇḍā becomes Vajrakālī, to name one from each respective class.53 The latter goddess, adorned with a garland of skulls and bearing a skull-staff, is once addressed as Vajraḍākinī.54 Leaving behind their identities as grahas of Skanda or as maternal, Brahmanical goddesses, the Mothers here explicitly take on identities as goddesses of the “Adamantine Vehicle,” the Vajrayāna. In the Tattvasaṃgraha, we are presented with perhaps the earliest narrative of the conversion and accommodation of ḍākinīs. Charged with quelling wicked beings, Vajrapāṇi utters the “Heart Mantra for Drawing Down All Ḍākinīs and other Wicked Possessing Spirits,” upon which the ḍākinīs and other grahas assemble in a circle, supplicate, and express concern about the dietary restrictions their new allegiance will entail: Then Vajrapāṇi, the great Bodhisattva, again spoke the Heart Mantra for Drawing Down All Ḍākinīs and other Wicked Possessing Spirits: ‘OṂ VAJRA quickly draw down all wicked possessing spirits by the word of Vajradhara HUṂ JAḤ’! Then, as soon as this had been uttered, all the ḍākinīs and other wicked possessing spirits formed a ring around the summit of Mt. Meru and remained there. Then Vajrapāṇi, the great Bodhisattva, summoned the ḍākinīs and other wicked possessing spirits, and said, ‘Resort, O friends, to the assembly of the pledge of teaching abstention from slaughter, lest I should incinerate your clans with my burning vajra, [when it has] become a single, blazing flame’. Then the ḍākinīs and other wicked possessing spirits, folding their hands to where the Lord was, entreated the Lord: ‘O lord, we eat meat; hence direct [us] how [this] should be obtained’.55 51 Elements of this text were introduced in China by an Indian, Vajrabodhi, who would have learnt the teachings around 700 CE; Amoghavajra partially translated the text in 753. See the discussion of Hodge (2003, 11–12). 52 Among Buddhist sources, note for instance Laghuśaṃvaratantra 2.26–27, referring to ḍākinīs of the skies, earth, and netherworlds, as well as Mother-goddesses of the eight directions. (Laghuśaṃvara verse numbers are given as per the forthcoming edition of David Gray.) On the Śaiva classification of yoginīs as aerial, terrestrial, and so forth, cf., e.g., the Śaiva Kulasāra, discussed by Törzsök (“dikcarī,” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, vol. 3). 53 Tattvasaṃgraha 6, p. 173 (lines 3–21). I cite the text from the edition of Yamada (1981). 54 Tattvasaṃgraha 14, pp. 306–7 (lines 10–14, 1–4); Cāmuṇḍā/Vajrakālī is addressed as e.g. kapālamālālaṅkṛtā (“adorned with a garland of skulls”) and vajrakhaṭvāṅgadhāriṇī (“bearer of a vajra and skull-staff”). 55 Tattvasaṃhgraha 6, p. 180–81 (lines 8–17, 1–3): atha vajrapāṇir mahābodhisattvaḥ punar api sarvaḍākinyādiduṣṭagrahākarṣaṇahṛdayam abhāṣat | OṂ VAJRĀKARṢAYA ŚĪGHRAṂ SARVADUṢṬAGRAHĀN VAJRADHARASATYENA HUṂ 12 Advised by Vajrasattva, the supreme Buddha, the compassionate Vajrapāṇi does indeed provide appropriate means: Next, the Lord spoke to Vajrapāṇi thus: ‘O Vajrapāṇi, after generating great compassion for these beings, assent to give them a means’. Then Vajrapāṇi, possessing great compassion, spoke this, the Heart Mantra of the Mudrā for Knowing the Deaths of All Living Beings: ‘OṂ VAJRA seize extract the heart if this being dies within a fortnight then let its heart emerge SAMAYA HŪṂ JJAḤ’. Now this is the binding of the mudrā: ... Through this mudrā, you may extract hearts from all living beings and eat them’. Then the ḍākinīs and other wicked possessing spirits made clamorous hulu hulu sounds and returned home.56 The episode, a conversion story of sorts, suggests growing concern with the figure of the ḍākinī, and perhaps also the entry of mantra techniques associated with them into the battery of those available to practitioners. An early eighth-century Chinese commentary on the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi provides a closely related narrative, wherein the association of ḍākinīs and their practices with Śiva and Śaivism is made explicit.57 While this signals a process of providing Buddhist identities to ḍākinīs and connected practices— techniques presumably similar to those described in the lost (presumably Śaiva) Ḍākinītantras referred to by Dharmakīrti—there is as yet little indication in the Tattvasaṃgraha of their transformation into the wild and ambivalent, yet supremely powerful and potentially beneficent sky-wanderers of the Yoginītantras. A scripture completed perhaps in the latter half of the eighth century, the Guhyasamājatantra evidences a marked increase in engagement with the erotic and the impure, intimating developments carried even further in the Yoginītantras. Its ritual has a significant kāpālika dimension and incorporates both coitus and ingestion of impure substances, while erotic imagery distinguishes the iconography of its deities.58 Focused || athāsmin bhāṣitamātre ḍākinyādayaḥ sarvaduṣṭagrahāḥ sumerugirimūrdhni bāhyato maṇḍalībhūtvāvasthitā iti || atha vajrapāṇir mahābodhisattvaḥ tāṃ ḍākinyādīn sarvaduṣṭagrahān āhūyaivam āha | pratipadyata mārṣāḥ prāṇātipātavairamaṇyaśikṣāsamayasaṃvare mā vo vajreṇādīptena pradīptenaikajvālībhūtena kulāni nirdaheyam | atha te ḍākinyādayaḥ sarvaduṣṭagrahā yena bhagavān tenāñjaliṃ baddhvā bhagavantaṃ vijñāpayām āsuḥ | vayaṃ bhagavan māṃsāśinas tad ājñāpayasva kathaṃ pratipattavyam iti Concerning vairamaṇya, see its lexical entry in Edgerton (1953, vol. 2). 56 Tattvasaṃgraha 6, p. 181 (lines 4–12, 15–18): atha bhagavān vajrapāṇim evam āha | pratipadyasva vajrapāṇe eṣāṃ sattvānāṃ mahākaruṇām utpādyopāyaṃ dātum iti | atha vajrapāṇir mahākāruṇika idaṃ sarvasattvamaraṇanimittajñānamudrāhṛdayam abhāṣat | OṂ VAJRA PRATIGṚHṆA HṚDAYAM ĀKARṢAYA YADY AYAṂ SATTVO MĀSĀD ARDHENA MRIYATE TAD ASYA HṚDAYAN NIṢKRAMATU SAMAYA HŪṂ JJAḤ || athāsya mudrābandho bhavati | ... anayā mudrayā bhavadbhiḥ sarvasattvahṛdayāny apakṛṣya bhoktavyānīti | atha te ḍākinyādayaḥ sarvaduṣṭagrahā hulu hulu prakṣveḍitāni kṛtvā svabhavanam gatā iti || 57 This passage from the commentary of Śubhakarasiṃha and his disciple Yixing is translated and discussed by Gray (2005, 47–49). The commentators’ remarks concern Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi IV.16, mentioned above (n. 40). 58 On the dating of the Guhyasamāja, I follow Matsunaga (1978, xxiii–xxvi). On eroticism in the iconography and ritual of the Guhyasamāja, see Sanderson (2009, 141–42). JAḤ 13 upon the Buddha Akṣobhya, patriarch of the vajra-clan deities, the transitional status of this and closely related literature is reflected in its classification, frequently, as neither Yoga- nor Yoginī-, but Mahāyogatantras (Tribe 2000, 210–13). In chapter seventeen of the Guhyasamāja occurs an important early reference to vajraḍākinīs—transformations of these hostile beings into wielders of the vajra sceptre, marking their entry into the Vajrayāna pantheon. Vajrapāṇi discloses a series of initiatory pledges (samaya) connected with specific deities, among whom are female beings: yakṣiṇīs, nāga queens (bhujagendrarājñī), asura maidens, rākṣasīs, and vajraḍākinīs. The pledge connected with the latter is as follows: Next, Vajrapāṇi, lord of all Buddhas, sent forth from the vajras of his body, speech, and mind the Pledge of All Vajraḍākinīs: ‘One should always eat urine, feces, and blood, and drink wine and so forth. One should slay through the vajraḍākinī yoga, through padalakṣaṇas (?). Arisen by their very nature, they [ḍākinīs] roam the triple universe. One should observe this pledge wholly, desiring the good of all beings’. [Then Vajrapāṇi entered?] the meditative trance called ‘The Assembly of the Entire Triple Universe’.”59 That the “Pledge of All Adamantine Ḍākinīs” binds one to the consumption of urine, feces, blood, and alcohol, and to magical slaying suggests as yet little fundamental transformation in conceptions of ḍākinīs, despite their conversion. Some evidence points toward the emergence of material with close affinity to the Yoginītantras in the eighth century, separated little in time from the Yogatantras. Amoghavajra wrote a description of the Sarvabuddhasamāyogaḍākinījālasaṃvara, a text referred to in some scholarship as a “proto-Yoginītantra” (English 2002, 5), after his return to China in 746 CE (Giebel 1995, 179–82); it seems likely that, with possible exceptions, most other Yoginītantras date to the ninth century and beyond. The Yoginītantras and their exegetical literature constitute a vast corpus, much of which survives only in Tibetan translation and relatively little of which has been published, in cases where the Sanskrit original is preserved. 59 Guhyasamāja XVII, p. 99: atha vajrapāṇiḥ sarvatathāgatādhipatiḥ sarvavajraḍākinīsamayaṃ svakāyavākcittavajrebhyo niścārayām āsa | viṇmūtrarudhiraṃ bhakṣed madyādīṃś ca pibet sadā | vajraḍākinīyogena mārayet padalakṣaṇaiḥ ||24|| svabhāvenaiva sambhūtā vicaranti tridhātuke | ācaret samayaṃ kṛtsnaṃ sarvasattvahitaiṣiṇā ||25|| sarvatraidhātukasamayasamavasaraṇo nāma samādhiḥ | Aspects of this seem puzzling; vajraḍākinīyoga might refer to the invasive yogic processes by which ḍākinīs prey upon victims (cf., e.g., “pañcāmṛtākarṣaṇa,” in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, vol. 3). padalakṣaṇaiḥ suggests no plausible interpretation to me, while the interpretation of the next verse-quarter is unclear as well. Candrakīrti, commenting on this verse, glosses vajraḍākinīyogena with “the yoga of Gaurī, etc.” (gauryādiyogena). His remarks on padalakṣaṇaiḥ are unfortunately corrupt, but contain clear reference to the parasitic practices of ḍākinīs (padalakṣaṇaiḥ duṣṭānām †uḍya†raktāk[ṛ]ṣṭyādiprayogaiḥ mārayet, “One should slay with padalakṣaṇas, i.e. the application of ... extraction of blood from the wicked”). Pradīpoddyotana, p. 206. 14 Among the most important Yoginītantras are the Laghuśaṃvaratantra or Herukābhidhāna, and the Śrīhevajraḍākinījālasaṃvara (i.e. the Hevajratantra), texts considered foundational to the systems of practice and cycles of scripture focused upon Cakrasaṃvara and Hevajra, respectively. Other important texts of this genre include, for instance, the Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra and Kṛṣṇayamāritantra—although the latter is perhaps more commonly considered a Mahāyogatantra60—texts teaching the cults of their namesake deities. While the dating of the major Yoginītantras is problematic, most undoubtedly belong to the period prior to the Laghukālacakratantra and its important commentary, the Vimalaprabhā, which date between 1025 and circa 1040 CE, as Newman (1998, 319–49) shows convincingly. It has been observed that the late eighth-century commentator Vilāsavajra may quote from the Laghuśaṃvara (Davidson 1981, 6–7), probably the earliest and most authorative scripture in the cycle of Yoginītantras focused upon Cakrasaṃvara. Gray (2007, 12–14), however, demonstrates that most of the citations at issue are shared with and could instead derive from the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga; evidently only two cases cannot be accounted for in this manner, with Sanderson (2009, 161–63) suggesting that these offer “no more than a possibility that Vilāsavajra knew the Laghuśaṃvara”—though this possibility still seems significant. In addition, Sanderson (2009, 158–61) argues that Jayabhadra, an abbot of Vikramaśīla and probably the text’s earliest commentator, was active in the tenth century, rather than the ninth, as had previously been supposed (Gray 2005, 62). While these considerations are inconclusive, they raise questions concerning the extent of Buddhist incorporation of the figure of the yoginī prior to the ninth century. The cult of yoginīs thoroughly permeates the literature and ritual of the Cakrasaṃvara tradition. I shall focus on the Laghuśaṃvaratantra,61 one of the foundational scriptures of the Yoginītantra corpus, to illustrate representations of goddesses in the Yoginītantras, for this text’s parallels and relationship with the Brahmayāmala of the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha form the focus of the subsequent section. In the Laghuśaṃvara, the cult deities comprise a kāpālika male divinity, Cakrasaṃvara or Heruka, and his consort, Vajravārāhī or Vajrayoginī, who preside over a maṇḍala primarily of goddesses referred to as ḍākinīs, vajraḍākinīs, or dūtīs (“consorts”).62 While the maṇḍala ḍākinīs have male counterparts in the twenty-four “heroes” (vīra), the latter have only secondary significance.63 The Laghuśaṃvara’s ḍākinīs are fully representative of the yoginī typology evident in the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha, combining in their kāpālika, theriomorphic iconography images of power and eroticism. They “pervade the universe,”64 a wild horde with names such as Khagānanā (“Bird-face”), Surābhakṣī (“Drunkard”), Cakravegā (“Wheel-speed”), Vāyuvegā (“Wind-speed”), Mahābalā (“Mighty”), Mahānāsā (“Big-nose”), and Caṇḍākṣī 60 H. Isaacson, personal communication (May, 2007). The orthographies -saṃvara and -śaṃvara sometimes alternate in the names of the text and its deity. I have adopted the convention Sanderson argues for (2009, 166–68) in referring to the deity as Cakrasaṃvara but the text as the Laghuśaṃvara(-tantra). 62 The primary maṇḍala is described in chapter 2 of the Laghuśaṃvara, while the twenty-four ḍākinīs are listed in chapter 4. For a discussion of the maṇḍala, see Gray (2007, 54–76); see also Sanderson (2009, 170). 63 Mentioned first in 2.19cd, the vīras are not named until chapter forty-eight. 64 Laghuśaṃvara 4.1ab, ... ḍākinyo bhuvanāni vijṛmbhayanti. Cf. 41.16ab, caturviṃśatir ḍākinya etābhiḥ sarvavyāptaṃ sacarācaram. 61 15 (“Grim-eyes”). All but the first two of these names are held in common with goddesses mentioned in the Brahmayāmala, while the remaining names reflect general typological congruence,65 illustrating the shared Śaiva-Buddhist image of the yoginī or ḍākinī. As goddesses of the clan of Vajrayoginī/Vajravārāhī, the Laghuśaṃvara’s maṇḍala ḍākinīs represent a single class among the spectrum of female beings with which the text is concerned—deities whose principal varieties are the yoginī, ḍākinī, rūpiṇī, lāmā, and khaṇḍarohā.66 Collectively, they comprise the “web” or “matrix” (jāla) of ḍākinīs that pervades the universe. They take cultic form in the “great maṇḍala” of deities (mahācakra) described in chapter forty-eight, the abode of all ḍākinīs (sarvaḍākinyālaya);67 based upon the “heart mantra of all yoginīs,” this incorporates goddesses of the five classes together with the twenty-four male heroes. “Consisting of all ḍākinīs,” the whole constitutes the supreme Buddha himself, Vajrasattva, the highest Bliss.68 The nature of the goddesses’ manifestation and movement (sañcāra) on the earth forms a central focus, reflected in the several chapters of the Laghuśaṃvara delineating typologies of the clans of goddesses. The text devotes several chapters to the subject of chommā as well, the secret verbal and nonverbal codes for communication between practitioners and the deities, or between initiates mutually.69 Sacred geography forms a concern as well, a mapping of the powerful places where the goddesses are said to manifest.70 As with the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha, the yoginī cult of the Laghuśaṃvara is thoroughly kāpālika in character,71 and this text’s rites of fire sacrifice utilize a battery of meats and other things impure, largely with aggressive magical aims.72 Prominent among the goals of ritual is attainment of encounters with ḍākinīs; to the heroic sādhaka, they may bestow the power of flight and freedom from old age and death.73 Enabled by the ḍākinīs, the sādhaka comes to traverse the entire world as their master.74 Significant attention is devoted, 65 The names of the twenty-four are given in Laghuśaṃvara 4.1–4. While Khagānanā has no precise counterpart in the Brahmayāmala, for avian imagery, note Lohatuṇḍī, “Iron-beak.” Surābhakṣī too does not figure in the Brahmayāmala; however, the principal Six Yoginīs are said to be fond of alcohol (madirāsavapriyā nityaṃ yoginyaḥ ṣaṭ prakīrtitāḥ, 54.15ab). 66 Lists of the five goddess classes occur in e.g. 13.3 and 14.2. Additional subcategories of ḍākinī are described in chapters 16–19 and 23. The twenty-four maṇḍala ḍākinīs are said to belong to the vārāhīkula in 2.18cd (ḍākinyas tu caturviṃśā vārāhyā[ḥ] kulasambhavāḥ). 67 The description of the sarvaḍākinyālaya (“abode of all ḍākinīs”) begins in 48.8, and is based upon the pantheon of the hṛdaya mantra stated in 48.3. The “great cakra” is also described as ḍākinījālasaṃvara (“the assembly (?) of the matrix of ḍākinīs”) in 48.16 (pūrvoktena vidhānena yajeḍ ḍākinījālasaṃvaram | mahācakraṃ sarvasiddhyālayaṃ tathā). 68 Laghuśaṃvara 1.3ab: sarvaḍākinīmayaḥ sattvo vajrasattvaḥ paraṃ sukham. 69 Chapters on chommā include Laghuśaṃvara 15 (single-syllable chommās), 20 (communication through pointing at parts of the body), 21 (similar gestures plus their correct responses), 22 (gestures made only with the fingers), and 24 (single-syllable and other verbal codes). 70 Lists of pīṭhas occur in Laghuśaṃvara 41, which associates specific sets of goddesses with these; and Laghuśaṃvara 50.19ff. 71 Note, for instance, that the initiatory maṇḍala described in chapter 2 is constructed with mortuary materials such as cremation ashes. 72 Particularly noteworthy are the homa rites described in Laghuśaṃvara 50. 73 See for instance the brief chapter thirty-nine; the heroic sādhaka is promised attainment of the state of a Sky-wanderer (nīyate khecarīpadam, 4b [Pandey edition]), and freedom from old age and death (na jarāmṛtyuḥ sarvatra sādhako mantravigrahaḥ, 5ab). 74 Laghuśaṃvara 3.16: ḍākinyo lāmayaś caiva khaṇḍarohā tu rūpiṇī | 16 furthermore, to rites of bodily transformation, a domain of magic characteristic of the shapeshifting, theriomorphic yoginī.75 While in the Yogatantras deities were organized according to clans (kula) of the five Buddhas of the Vajradhātu maṇḍala, Yoginītantras sometimes introduce new, in some cases matriarchal, deity clans for the classification of yoginīs. In the case of the Laghuśaṃvara, the chapters concerned with yoginī classification are among those which Sanderson claims drew most most heavily from Śaiva exemplars (2001, 42–43): chapters 16–19, and 23. It would appear that chapters 16, 18, and 19 reduce a taxonomy of seven or eight deity clans—in all likelihood those the Seven Mothers—to a smaller set of clans with distinctively Buddhist names, including clans of Śrīheruka, Vajravārāhī, and the Tathāgatas. The resultant overlap and lack of coherent systematization seem consonant with a non-Buddhist pedigree. Laghuśaṃvara chapter 17, in contrast, parallel to and possibly based on Jayadrathayāmala III, 32.137ff, provides an unusual taxonomy of deity clans neither based upon the Mothers nor obviously “Śaiva” or “Buddhist” in sectarian identity. In the cases of Laghuśaṃvara chapters 16 and 19, the apparent vidyāpīṭha exemplars are the extant Jayadrathayāmala (III, 32.119cd–127ab) and Siddhayogeśvarīmata (ch. 29), respectively, which delineate yoginī taxonomies based upon the Seven Mothers. Törzsök’s (1999, 192–196) careful comparison of the latter and Laghuśaṃvara chapter 19 (identical to Abhidhānottaratantra ch. 38) finds multiple indications that the direction of redaction was from the Śaiva source to the Buddhist, her observations including “changes of non-Buddhist references to Buddhist ones” (cf. Gray 2007, 9–10), alterations which render a metrical verse in the Śaiva text unmetrical in the Buddhist, and “Śaiva iconographic features left unchanged in the Buddhist version.”76 Such intertextuality, irrespective of the direction of influence, highlights common patterns of representing yoginīs, and illustrates the degree to which their cult and figure come to stand at the intersection of Buddhism and Śaivism in early medieval India. etair vicarej jagat sarvaṃ ḍākinyaiḥ saha sādhakaḥ ||16 || sarvā kiṅkarī tasya sādhakasya na saṃśayaḥ | Highly irregular grammatical forms such as etaiḥ (masculine, for the feminine etābhiḥ) and ḍākinyaiḥ (for ḍākinībhiḥ) are none too rare in this text, while the metrical irregularities of 16c and 17a are even more typical. 75 Note in particular the rituals of Laghuśaṃvara 49, which promise the yogin the power to transform himself at will (kāmarūpo mahāvīrya yogī syān nātra saṃśayaḥ, 49.15cd, Pandey edition). 76 Regarding Laghuśaṃvara ch. 16, Sanderson claims that this is based upon a passage from the Yoginīsañcāraprakaraṇa of the Jayadrathayāmala. The parallel text comprises Jayadrathayāmala III, 32.119cd–127ab (= Yoginīsañcāraprakaraṇa 9.119cd–127ab). The texts differ substantively primarily in the verse-quarters providing clan-names; the actual descriptions of the yoginīs differ relatively little. The Buddhist version is sometimes unmetrical or nonsensical precisely where the texts differ: compare especially Jayadrathayāmala III, 32.120cd (śivagoṣṭhīratā caiva sā jñeyā śivagotrajā) with Laghuśaṃvara 16.3cd: saugatagoṣṭhīratā caiva sā jñeyā kulagotrajā; 3c has metrical faults (short syllables in both positions 2 and 3, as well as hypermetricism), while 3d challenges interpretation (“born in the clan of the clan”?). I am grateful to Alexis Sanderson for sharing his draft edition of the Yoginīsañcāraprakaraṇa with me, and to Olga Serbaeva for sharing her transcription of other portions of the vast Jayadrathayāmala. 17 Buddhist and Śaiva Yoginītantras: the case of the Laghuśaṃvaratantra and the Brahmayāmala In a pioneering article of 2001, Sanderson identified extensive parallel passages in tantric literature within and across sectarian boundaries, and argued that substantial portions of important Buddhist Yoginītantras were redacted from Śaiva sources, largely unpublished (Sanderson 2001, especially 41–47). This constitutes some of the most important evidence marshalled in support of his thesis concerning the historical relationship between Śaivism and the esoteric Buddhism of the Yoginītantras, first argued in an article of 1994, where he asserts, “almost everything concrete in the system is nonBuddhist in origin even though the whole is entirely Buddhist in its function” (p. 92). More recently (2009), he has added substantially to the text-critical evidence, and framed his findings within a broader hypothesis on the reasons for Śaivism’s efflorescence in the early medieval period. While Sanderson’s examples concern several Buddhist texts, the most remarkable case is that of the Laghuśaṃvaratantra, nearly half the contents of which he holds “can be seen to have been redacted from Śaiva originals found in texts of the Vidyāpīṭha division” of the Bhairavatantras—namely, the Brahmayāmala, Siddhayogeśvarīmata, Tantrasadbhāva, Niśisañcāra, and the Yoginīsañcāraprakaraṇa of the Jayadrathayāmala (Sanderson 2001, 41–47 [quotation on p. 42]; 2009, 187–220). In the present discussion I shall confine myself to a specific case of textual history, rather than attempt to address the larger picture of Śaiva–Buddhist interactions. The longest of the passages Sanderson identifies as shared by the Brahmayāmala (/Picumata) and Laghuśaṃvara belongs to the first portion of chapter eighty-eight of the Brahmayāmala, entitled “The Section on the Pledges” (samayādhikārapaṭala),77 and to the greater part of chapters twenty-six to twenty-nine of the Laghuśaṃvara. He notes that this intertextuality extends to the Abhidhānottara as well, a text of the Cakrasaṃvara cycle, in which the Laghuśaṃvara is fundamental: chapter forty-three begins with text corresponding to Laghuśaṃvara 26.6 and Brahmayāmala 88.9. Though the text of Abhidhānottara chapter 43 closely parallels Laghuśaṃvara chapters 26–29—fortuitously so, given that this section of the Laghuśaṃvara does not survive in Sanskrit—the former contains none of the latter’s divisions into chapters.78 In addition to shared passages, the Brahmayāmala and Laghuśaṃvara share a number of idiomatic expressions, to a degree unlikely to be coincidental.79 77 The colophon reads, in the oldest manuscript (NAK 3-370), samayādhikāro nāmañcāśītimaḥ paṭalaḥ—with nāmañcāśītimaḥ no doubt corrupt for nāma pañcāśītimaḥ. Sanderson evidently follows the emended colophon in numbering this chapter 85 rather than 88, the latter being its number in order of occurrence (an estimate, given that several folia are missing). 78 I have consulted two manuscripts of the Abhidhānottara, as detailed in the list of references. 79 For instance, Laghuśaṃvara 26.13cd (aprakāśyam idaṃ guhyaṃ gopanīyaṃ prayatnataḥ), which occurs again as 31.14ab, is parallel to Brahmayāmala 90.2cd (aprakāśyam idaṃ devi gopanīyaṃ prayatnataḥ); variants of this phrase appear in chapters 21, 22, 45, and 46 of the Brahmayāmala as well. Note the absence of the (contextually inappropriate) vocative devi in the Laghuśaṃvara version. There are other similarities of idiom: another phrase shared by the Brahmayāmala and Laghuśaṃvara, and not with other Buddhist sources I am aware of, is nātaḥ parataraṃ kiñcit triṣu lokeṣu vidyate. This occurs as Laghuśaṃvara 5.25cd and 50.14ab (cf. 26.1ab and 48.7ab), and Brahmayāmala 14.262ab and 87.222ab. (Cf., e.g., the Revākhaṇḍa attributed to the Skandapurāṇa, 71.1cd: nātaḥ parataraṃ kiṃcit triṣu lokeṣu viśrutam.) Other 18 To the passages identified by Sanderson I can add the final five verses of Brahmayāmala chapter 87, which correspond to the opening verses of Laghuśaṃvara chapter 26 (Table 1). Hence, Laghuśaṃvara chapters 26–29 roughly correspond, more or less in sequence, to the last several verses of Brahmayāmala chapter 87 and the first fifty-odd verses of 88, although individual verses and several short sections in both have no parallels in the other. The crucial Baroda codex of the Laghuśaṃvara is unfortunately lacunose from the third verse of chapter 22 up to the colophon of 29.80 Pandey (2002) has attempted a reconstruction of the Sanskrit, utilizing the Tibetan translation, the commentary of Bhavabhaṭṭa, and parallels in the Saṃpuṭatantra and Abhidhānottara. This has been improved upon considerably in the new edition of Gray (forthcoming), who utilizes testimonia from additional Sanskrit commentaries and vyākhyātantras. Interestingly, though Gray does not utilize Śaiva testimonia in constituting the text (cf. Sugiki 2008), his well-considered reconstruction of the opening passage of chapter 26 brings it much closer to the parallel passage of the Brahmayāmala than Pandey’s does, particularly where he follows the oldest commentary: Jayabhadra’s Cakrasaṃvarapañjikā. Jayabhadra appears to have commented upon an early version of the Laghuśaṃvara lacking chapter divisions—much like the parallel text of Abhidhānottara chapter 43—as well as the concluding section of the received text. The latter includes some of the passages most recognizably ‘Buddhist’ in content (Sanderson 2009, 158–59). Table 1 places the passage from Brahmayāmala chapter 87 alongside the corresponding verses of Laghuśaṃvara chapter 26, as given in Gray’s edition. The passage in question is also shared by the Brahmayāmalasāra, a short recension of the Brahmayāmala preserved in two Nepalese codices.81 This short recension presupposes the existence of the twelve-thousand verse recension—although not precisely as transmitted in its oldest extant manuscript, for several readings of the Brahmayāmalasāra, as reported in the annotation below, are closer to those of the Laghuśaṃvara, and may derive from an earlier stage in the Brahmayāmala’s transmission. Table 1. A parallel passage in Brahmayāmala, ch. 87 and Laghuśaṃvara, ch. 26 idiomatic expressions shared by the Brahmayāmala and the Laghuśaṃvara include variations upon the following (Laghuśaṃvara 3.20cd–21ab): adṛṣṭamaṇḍalo yogī yogitvaṃ yaḥ samīhate || hanyate muṣṭinākāśaṃ pibate mṛgatṛṣṇikām | Striking the sky and drinking from a mirage are proverbial expressions for futile endeavor. My attention was first drawn to this verse by Harunaga Isaacson in the autumn of 2003. Compare e.g. Brahmayāmala 91.44: aviditvā -d- imaṃ sarvaṃ yaḥ pūjāṃ kartum arhati | hanate muṣṭinākāśam īhate mṛgatṛṣṇikām || Verses with remarkable similarities occur as Brahmayāmala 3.5, 11.44cd–45ab, 22.106, 75.212, 85.50, and 90.56. These parallels are not however unique to the Brahmayāmala; note also Tantrasadbhāva 28.88ab and Niśvāsakārikā (T.17) 44.241cd (hanate muṣṭinākāśaṃ pibate mṛgatṛṣṇikām). 80 Oriental Institute of Baroda manuscript no. 13290. 81 The short recension is transmitted in two manuscripts, as detailed in the list of references, one of which is incomplete. In its final chapter (81), the text refers to itself as the sāra (“essence”) of the twelve-thousand verse Brahmayāmala, just as the latter was drawn from the (putative) recension of 125,000 verses. I hence refer to the shorter recension as the Brahmayāmalasāra. 19 Brahmayāmala 87.222–28: nātaḥ parataraṃ kiñcit triṣu82 lokeṣu vidyate | jñātvā picumataṃ tantraṃ sarvatantrān83 parityajet ||222|| carvāhāravibhāge84 ’pi tālakārādhake85 tathā | sarvātmake ca yogo ’yaṃ sarvataḥ svānurūpataḥ ||223|| dūtīyogātmayogāc ca prakriyāyogayojanāt | sarvatra ca caturṇāṃ tu yogo ’yam parikīrtitaḥ ||224|| anulomavilomena dūtayaḥ saṃvyavasthitāḥ | adhordhvasiddhidā devi ātmadūtī86 tu sarvadā ||225|| taddravyaṃ sarvadā siddhaṃ87 darśanāt88 sparśabhakṣaṇāt | cumbanā gūhanāc caiva89 śivapīṭhe90 viśeṣataḥ ||226|| yāvato dravyasaṃghātaḥ91 sarvasiddhikaraḥ param92 | dātavyaṃ mantrasadbhāvaṃ nānyathā tu kadā cana94 ||227|| mātā ca bhaginī putrī bhāryā vai95 dūtayaḥ smṛtāḥ96 | Laghuśaṃvaratantra 26.1–5: ataḥ paraṃ mantrapadaṃ triṣu lokeṣu na vidyate | śrīherukamantraṃ jñātvā sarvān mantrān parityajet ||1|| anulomavilomena dūtayaḥ saṃvyavasthitāḥ | adhordhvasiddhidā nityam ātmadūtīṃ tu sarvagām ||2|| taṃ dūtīṃ sarvasiddhidāṃ darśanaṃ sparśanaṃ tathā | cumbanāvagūhanā nityaṃ yogapīṭhe viśeṣataḥ ||3|| yāvanto yogasaṅghātāḥ sarvasiddhikarāḥ smṛtāḥ93 | dātavyaṃ sarvasadbhāvaṃ nānyathā tu kadā cana ||4|| mātā bhaginī putrī vā bhāryā vai dūtayaḥ sthitāḥ97 | 82 triṣu ] corr.; tṛṣu MS (= National Archives of Kathmandu ms. no. 3-370) Here the Brahmayāmalasāra (NGMPP reel no. E1527/6) reads mantrāṃ sarvvāṃ, rather closer to the Laghuśaṃvara’s sarvān mantrān. 84 carvāhāravibhāge ] em.; °vibhāgo MS 85 °ārādhake ] em.; °ārādhane MS 86 The Brahmayāmalasāra reads ātmadūtin. 87 siddhaṃ ] em.; siddha MS 88 The Brahmayāmalasāra reads darśanā. 89 cumbanā gūhanāc caiva ] em.; cumbanā gūhanañ caiva MS. Understand cumbanā as ablative, with elision of the final -d (cf. Edgerton 1953, vol. 1, §8.46–48). The Brahmayāmalasāra agrees in reading cumbanā gūhanañ (the latter probably corrupt for the ablative), but, like the Laghuśaṃvara, reads nityaṃ rather than caiva. 90 The Brahmayāmalasāra reads tatpīṭhañ, which is hypometrical and presumably secondary. 91 yāvato dravyasaṅghātaḥ is supported by the Brahmayāmalasāra; understand yāvato as singular (cf. Edgerton 1953, vol. 1, §18.33). 92 °siddhikaraḥ param ] conj.; siddhikaraḥ paraḥ MS. The Brahmayāmalasāra reads °siddhikara smṛtaḥ; the latter lexeme is shared with the Laghuśaṃvara, and might represent the older reading. 93 In 4ab, there is evidence that some versions of the Laghuśaṃvara read the singular, as the Brahmayāmala appears to; see Gray (forthcoming, apparatus ad 26.4ab). 94 kadā cana ] em.; kadā canaḥ MS. The Brahmayāmalasāra reads kathañ canaḥ. 95 The Brahmayāmalasāra reads vā. 83 20 yasyā mantraṃ daden nityaṃ tasyaiṣo hi vidhiḥ smṛtaḥ ||228|| yasya98 mantraṃ daden nityaṃ tasya so hi vidhiḥ smṛtaḥ ||5|| In the Brahmayāmala, this passage concludes the first chapter of the Uttaratantra, an “addendum tantra” to the Brahmayāmala probably belonging to a comparatively late stratum of the text. Parallels for the some of the passage’s obscure terminology occur earlier in the chapter and elsewhere in the Brahmayāmala.99 In the Laghuśaṃvara, this passage instead opens chapter 26. With the negative particle na not in the initial position, as in the Brahmayāmala, but in the hypermetrical second verse-quarter, the opening gives the appearance of having been awkwardly rewritten to introduce a new topic. That the verse is unclear semantically is suggested by its divergent interpretations.100 The Laghuśaṃvara passage as a whole, or so it seems to me, reads as a tract of decontextualized text assembled with scant regard for meter and still less for grammar, the interpretation of which challenges the imagination. In verse six, the subject shifts to the Eight Pledges, with a passage parallel to Brahmayāmala 88.1–42.101 There are multiple and clear indications of the dependence of Laghuśaṃvara chapters 26–29 upon Brahmayāmala chapters 87–88, for the redactors appear to have been less than successful in removing traces of technical terminology distinctive to their source text. One case Sanderson (2001, 44–47) has discussed in detail is a reference to the smaraṇa, a word in ordinary parlance meaning “recollection,” but in the Brahmayāmala, a technical term for the seed-mantra of Kapālīśabhairava (HŪṂ). An ostensibly neutral word, the Buddhist redactors allowed this to remain, unconcerned with or perhaps unaware of its significance in the source text.102 In addition to the smaraṇa, I would single out another case in which characteristic jargon from the Brahmayāmala has not been redacted out of the Laghuśaṃvara: 26.15, which corresponds to Brahmayāmala 96 For smṛtāḥ, the Brahmayāmalasāra reads sthitāḥ, which is shared by the Laghuśaṃvara and possibly original. 97 See the previous note. 98 Jayabhadra reads yasyā, as does the Brahmayāmala, while the Brahmayāmalasāra reads tasya. 99 Note, for instance, that the reference to consorts (dūtī) being “with the grain” or “against the grain” (225ab) is apparently explained in 87.14cd: ṛtuyogaviyogena anulomavilomajā[ḥ], which seems to mean, “[consorts either] go with or against the grain, according to whether or not they are in their menstrual period (ṛtu).” 100 Gray (2007, 265) translates, “Furthermore, having known Śrī Heruka’s mantra, which does not exist in the triple world, all [other] mantras should be disregarded.” Cf. Bhavabhaṭṭa’s gloss: ato mūlamantrāt śreṣṭhamantrapadam | vidyatā vajravārāhī tasyāḥ sambodhanaṃ vidyate | nāstītyasya nirdeśo vā | mantraṃ mūlamantrādikam | jñātvā sarvān mantrān parityajet | (“‘From/than this’ [ataḥ] refers to the root mantra; [paraṃ mantrapadaṃ] means ‘most excellent mantra word’. vidyate is the vocative of vidyatā, which refers to Vajravārāhī. Or else, [na vidyate] specifies, ‘does not exist’ (nāsti). mantra refers to the root mantra and so forth. Having learnt [it], one should abandon all [other] mantras”). It is striking that Bhavabhaṭṭa would go so far as to seek a vocative epithet of Vajravārāhī in the commonplace verb vidyate (“exists”), illustrating his predicament in making sense of some of the Laghuśaṃvara’s more obscure passages. 101 Preceding Brahmayāmala 88.1 is a short series of mantras in prose, the text of which is badly damaged. These have no precise counterpart in the Laghuśaṃvara. There may however be a structural parallel, for the short chapter preceding Laghuśaṃvara ch. 26 consists of a single long mantra. 102 The term smaraṇa occurs in Laghuśaṃvara 29.3c. Concerning the smaraṇa and mantra-deities of the Brahmayāmala, see also Hatley (2007, 251–258). 21 88.9. This verse concerns a typology of the practitioner (sādhaka) that is as far as I can determine distinctive to the Brahmayāmala—and certainly alien to the Laghuśaṃvara. The text of the Laghuśaṃvara version of the verse is as follows, in Gray’s reconstruction: śuddho ’śuddho ’tha miśraś ca sādhakāś ca trividhā sthitāḥ | ārādhako viśuddhaś ca dīpako guṇavān naraḥ || Jayabhadra, the earliest commentator on the Laghuśaṃvara, recognized that this verse should concern a classification of practitioners, and offers the following interpretation: The “man of virtue” (guṇavān naraḥ)—the yogin—has a threefold division. Ārādhaka means “one in whom understanding has not arisen”; viśuddha means “one in whom capacity has arisen”; dīpaka (“lamplight”) means the madhyadīpaka (“average luminary”): one in whom some understanding has arisen, and who enlightens himself and others. Or else, ārādhaka means “worshipper of the deity through practice of mantra and yoga,” guṇavān means “one who understands the meaning of scripture,” [while] dīpaka means “capable of fulfilling the goals of all living beings,” like a lamp (pradīpa).103 Jayabhadra’s creative yet incongruent attempts to find three sādhakas in the second line testify to the fact that this verse lacks context; a threefold classification of this nature is otherwise absent from the Laghuśaṃvara and related literature. In contrast, the triad of ‘pure’, ‘impure’, and ‘mixed’ comprises a key conceptual framework in the Brahmayāmala: practitioners, ritual, scripture, and the Three Śaktis are patterned accordingly.104 Ārādhaka too has a specific, contextually germane meaning. In the Brahmayāmala, the verse in question occurs in a passage which follows the enumeration of initiatory Pledges (samaya): … ity aṣṭau samayāḥ105 parāḥ || 7 || jñātavyāḥ106 sādhakair nityaṃ107 sādhanārādhanasthitaiḥ108 | sāmānyāḥ sarvatantrāṇāṃ na hantavyās tu hetubhiḥ || 8 || śuddhāśuddhavimiśras109 tu sādhakas trividhaḥ110 smṛtaḥ | ārādhako viśuddhas tu dīpakādiguṇair vinā || 9 || grāme grāme vrataṃ tasya devatārūpalakṣaṇam | unmattam asidhārañ ca pavitrakṣetravarjitaḥ || 10 || 103 Jayabhadra, Cakraśaṃvarapañjikā: ārādhako viśuddhaś ca dīpako guṇavān nara iti guṇavān naro yogī tridhā bhidyate [em. H. Isaacson; vidyate Ed.] ārādhaka ity anutpannapratibhaḥ viśuddha ity utpannasāmarthyaḥ dīpaka iti madhyadīpakaḥ kiṃcidutpannapratibhaḥ svaparārthabodhakaś ca || athavārādhako mantrayogābhyāsena devātāradhakaḥ guṇavān śāstrārthavettā dīpakaḥ pradīpavat sarvasattvārthakriyāsamarthaḥ || 104 On the classification of scripture in relation to the śaktis, see Hatley (2007, 264–68); see below concerning the threefold classification of sādhakas. 105 samayāḥ ] corr.; samayā MS 106 jñātavyāḥ ] corr.; jñātavyā MS 107 sādhakair nityaṃ ] em.; sādhakai nnityaṃ MS (tops damaged) 108 °sthitaiḥ ] conj. (Cs. Kiss); °sthitau MS 109 °vimiśras tu ] em.; °vimuktas tu MS 110 trividhaḥ ] corr.; tṛvidhaḥ MS 22 sādhakas tu dvidhā proktaś carumārgo ’tha tālakaḥ | tālamārgaratānāṃ tu na carur naiva saṃyamaḥ || 11 || vidyāvrataviśuddhis tu triṣaṣṭivratam111 eva ca | abhedyatvaṃ tatas tasya tālādau sādhane vidhau || 12 || carumārgaikadeśo hi tālaḥ sarvātmako bhavet | kṣetrasthānāni siddhāni yoginyo yatra saṃgatāḥ || 13 || teṣu sthitvā japaṃ kuryāc carum ālabhate dvijaḥ | “… these are the supreme eight Pledges. [7d] They should always be known by sādhakas [whether] engaged in [mantra-]sādhana or [deity] worship (ārādhana). They are common to all the tantras, and should not be assailed with reasoned arguments. [8] The sādhaka is threefold—pure, impure, and mixed112—while the ārādhaka is very pure, free from the qualities of ‘lamplight’ and so forth (?).113 [9] From village to village, his observance (vrata) is [that of taking on] the form and characteristics of the deities, and the ‘madman’ and ‘razor’s edge’ [observances],114 avoiding the sacred fields. [10] But the sādhaka is [actually] twofold: the one following the path of caru (‘oblation gruel’), and the tālaka. For those on the tālaka path, there is neither caru nor self-restraint. [11] [After engaging in] purification by the vidyāmantra observance and the ‘sixty-three observance’,115 he then [reaches] the state of [making] no distinction between the ritual procedures of the tālaka, etc. [12] Following the way of the caru, having a single location, the tālaka would become a sarvātman (“universal”) [sādhaka].116 Remaining in the sacred, empowered places where 111 triṣaṣṭi° ] em.; ttriṣaṣṭhi° MS There are strong grounds for emending śuddhāśuddhavimuktas to °vimiśras, as I have done, for this threefold classification of sādhakas based upon degrees of ‘purity’ pervades the Brahmayāmala and fits the present context. Cf., e.g., Brahmayāmala 33.331c, śuddhāśuddhavimiśreṣu. Furthermore, several Buddhist sources support the emendation: Gray (forthcoming) reads śuddho ’śuddho ’tha miśraś ca in Laghuśaṃvara 26.15a, reporting as testimonia, for the last three syllables, misras ca, miśra vaiḥ, and mimra vai (apparatus ad 26.15a). In 9b, one could consider emending to sādhakaḥ trividhā smṛtaḥ, or to sādhakās trividhā sthitāḥ; a range of variants are attested in the Buddhist parallels (see Gray, forthcoming, apparatus at 26.15b). 113 I am unable to determine the probable intended sense of 9d, dīpakādiguṇair vinā, as transmitted in the codex. The parallel text in Laghuśaṃvara 26.15d provides no assistance obvious to me. 114 The unmattakavrata is fourth of the Nine Observances described in Brahmayāmala ch. 21, involving feigned insanity, as the name implies. The asidhāravrata (‘observance of the sword’s edge’) for its part comprises the subject of Brahmayāmala ch. 40 (edited by Hatley, forthcoming A). 115 While the various observances taught in Brahmayāmala ch. 21, are referred to collectively as vidyāvratas, “observances of the [nine-syllable] vidyā,” this term is primarily used for the final and most important of these, a kāpālika observance also called the mahāvrata (108a) or bhairavavrata (109ab). As for the triṣaṣṭivrata, this appears to be connected with a mantra-deity pantheon (yāga) of the same name; yet while the “yāga of the sixty-three” and its vrata are mentioned in several chapters, I have not identified a detailed description. 116 The implication is that the sarvātman sādhaka is bound by no single discipline and may engage at will in practices associated with the lower grades of initiate. This is consistent with the description of the sarvātman found in Brahmayāmala ch. 97. 112 23 the yoginīs assemble, he should perform his mantra recitation in those; the twice-born one obtains an oblation (caru) [from the yoginīs].”117 [13–14ab] Here ārādhaka, “worshipper,” refers to a specific category of practitioner. In its core chapters, the Brahmayāmala describes a threefold typology of the sādhaka: pure, impure, and impure-cum-pure, for which the primary designations are tālaka, carubhojin (“eater of the oblation gruel”), and miśra (“mixed”), respectively.118 This classification receives detailed elaboration in the text’s massive forty-fourth chapter, “the section on the sādhaka” (sādhakādhikāra). However, the latter chapters of the Brahmayāmala— chapters 87–104, comprising the Uttara- and Uttarottaratantras—introduce a new fourfold taxonomy of initiates: the ārādhaka, carubhojin, tālaka, and sarvātman (“universal”), whose activities and subdivisions comprise the respective subjects of Brahmayāmala chapters 94–97. This typology differs from the threefold insofar as the category of miśraka, the practitioner of “mixed” purity, appears to be reconfigured as the highest grade, the sarvātman—above the tālaka.119 On the other hand, the ārādhaka represents a variety of householder practitioner.120 That the redactors of the Laghuśaṃvara had intended to remove references to a Śaiva typology of practitioners is suggested by comparison; in Table 1, note that Brahmayāmala 87.223–24, which makes specific reference to the classification of sādhakas in question, has no parallel in the Laghuśaṃvara (nor in the Brahmayāmalasāra, which also omits this passage). Yet Laghuśaṃvara 26.15 nonetheless contains a reference to what is, in the Brahmayāmala, the same typology expressed with different terminology: the designations pure, impure, mixed, and “worshipper” (ārādhaka), as opposed to the more 117 The notion that one may attain siddhi through consuming oblation gruel (caru) offered directly by the yoginīs is mentioned in e.g. Brahmayāmala 104.29, and is in all likelihood alluded to here in 14b. For a detailed description, see Kaulajñānanirṇaya 11.7cd–10. 118 The terms for the threefold sādhaka are provided in Brahmayāmala 45.10cd–11ab: śuddhas tu tālakaḥ proktaś [corr.; proktaṃś MS] carubhojī tv aśuddhakaḥ || 10 || śuddhāśuddho bhaven miśraḥ [em.; misraṃ MS] sādhakas tu na saṃśayaḥ | On the term tālaka, see the entry in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa, vol. 3 (forthcoming). A detailed study of the Brahmayāmala’s threefold typology of sādhakas is currently under preparation by Csaba Kiss. 119 It is evident from the descriptions in Brahmayāmala 45 that the miśraka, as one might expect, constitutes the middle grade of sādhaka. Hence in 45.472, it is said that a miśraka purified through constant practice may become a tālaka (kadācin miśrako devi karmayogena nityaśaḥ | tālamārga[ṃ] samāpnoti yadā śuddhaḥ prajāyate). However, the sarvātman sādhaka is “mixed” in an entirely different sense: he is free from all regulations, engaging at will in the disciplines associated with lower practitioners. 120 It appears that the ārādhaka might not be considered a sādhaka, per se; their characteristic modes of ritual, ārādhana (“worship”) and sādhana, are placed in contrast. See e.g. 88.8b above. Nonetheless, the term ārādhaka figures in later Śaiva typologies of the sādhaka. In the Kulasāra, the ārādhaka features as fourth of the five grades of sādhaka, above the tālaka, cumbaka, and cārvāka (=carubhojin, presumably); transcending the ārādhaka is the śivodbhūta: tālako cuṃbakaś caiva cārvākārādhakas [em.; °korādhakas MS] tathā | śivodbhūta -m- [em. (Vasudeva); śivobhūtam MS] ataḥ proktaḥ pāṃcabhedo ’pi sādhakaḥ | I am grateful to Somadeva Vasudeva for providing me his draft edition of this passage. Given the terminological continuities, it seems possible that this fivefold typology develops out of the threefold classification present in the Brahmayāmala, the addition of the ārādhaka reflecting an intermediate stage. 24 distinctive “oblation eater” (carubhojin), tālaka, “worshipper” (ārādhaka), and “universal” (sarvātman).121 Verse 26.15 was perhaps retained by the Buddhist redactor either under the assumption that the more neutral terminology would not appear alien, or on account of ignorance of the jargon. Considered alongside the already strong evidence adduced by Sanderson, the presence of a typology of practitioners distinctive to the Brahmayāmala in the Laghuśaṃvara, where it lacks not only context but a plausible interpretation, provides strong indication of the direction of redaction in the passages shared by these texts. That the Laghuśaṃvara has drawn from the Brahmayāmala, whether directly or through another derivative source, seems the most plausible explanation for the relationship between the material in question. Derivation from an unknown common source is not impossible, but this would in all likelihood have been a Śaiva text intimately related to the Brahmayāmala, to the extent of sharing unusual terminological similarities. Although the case for the Laghuśaṃvara drawing on Śaiva source material seems compelling, this proposal, and especially Sanderson’s broader claims, have elicited controversy. Davidson (2002), in particular, has questioned the plausibility of extant tantric Śaiva texts being significant sources of material found in the Buddhist Yoginītantras, though he highlights the influence of the (non-tantric) Kāpālika and Pāśupata Śaiva ascetic orders on the Vajrayāna. One of his principal objections is chronological: he considers problematic the evidence attesting specific, extant works of tantric Śaiva literature prior to the ninth and tenth centuries.122 He questions, for instance, whether the mid eleventh-century Cambodian Sdok Kak Thoṃ inscription should be taken as an accurate record for the existence in the ninth century of the Śaiva texts it mentions— several texts of the Leftward Stream (vāmasrotas) of the cult of Tumburu and the Four Sisters (bhaginī)—which the inscription associates with a brahmin in the court of that period. While such caution may be laudable in principle, here it is perhaps excessive: the existence of Śaiva tantras of the vāmasrotas prior to the ninth century may be infered in multiple manners, including Dharmakīrti’s reference to the genre and the presence of two loose folios of an exegetical work of this tradition among the Gilgit manuscripts (perhaps mid-6th century). The texts mentioned in the inscription, including the extant Vīṇāśikhātantra, are known to have been fundamental scriptures of this genre.123 In fact, 121 Reference to the fourfold typology of practitioners is clearly present in Brahmayāmala 87.223, although out of sequence: carvāhāra (=aśuddha or carubhojin), tālaka (=śuddha), ārādhaka (by emendation of °ārādhane; =viśuddha), and sarvātmaka (=miśra). The point of 224cd is that the yoga expounded in this chapter is applicable to all four (caturṇām) types of practitioner. 122 On the evidence for pre-11th century works of Śaiva literature, see Sanderson (2001, 2–19; 2009, 45–53). Davidson’s cautious views on the chronology of Śaiva literature occasionally veer to the extreme, as when he refers to “the fact that most Kaula works appear composed after the sites [of the circa 9th–13th century yoginī temples] were constructed” (2002, 180). 123 Davidson addresses Sanderson’s remarks on this inscription as they were presented in Sanderson (2001, 7–8). Sanderson has subsequently discussed this material in greater detail (2003–4, 355–57). On the Gilgit fragment of an exegetical work of the vāmasrotas, see Sanderson (2009, 50–51). On early evidence for the vāmasrotas, see all of the preceeding. Recently, Tomabechi (2007) has identified a passage in the Sarvabuddhasamāyoga—sometimes spoken of as a proto-Yoginītantra—as being shared with the Vīṇāśikhatantra, apparently the only extant tantra of the vāmasrotas. He does not venture an opinion concerning the direction of redaction, but notes also that the text’s mantra code results in the supreme buddha, Vajrasattva, being given 25 Davidson’s objection appears inconsistent considering that he himself draws upon a single reference in the Kālikāpurāṇa for reconstructing the allegedly pre-Buddhist origins of the deity Heruka, relying heavily on a mythological text for reconstructing history, perhaps at a remove of well more than half a millenium. His speculations concerning the origins of Bhairava raise similar problems.124 Critiquing Sanderson’s thesis of the Buddhist Yoginītantras’ indebtedness to Śaivism, Davidson (2002, 217) counters that “a more fruitful model would appear to be that both heavily influenced the final formations of the agonistic other and that each had alternative sources as well.” A model of mutual influence certainly has appeal when considering Buddhist-Śaiva interactions broadly over the course of the first millienium,125 yet such cannot be assumed a priori in any particular case; indeed, most of what Davidson cites as examples of Tantric Śaiva texts having syncretic sources appear to be post twelfth-century works, and accordingly have little bearing upon the relation between the Śaiva vidyāpīṭha and Buddhist Yoginītantras. A potential exception is the Jayadrathayāmala, a vidyāpīṭha scripture which, as Davidson points out, shows awareness of the Vajrayāna in its account of the scriptural canon.126 The Jayadrathayāmala, Sanderson the mantra HAṂSA, “... the famous mantra representing the Śaiva Tantras’ supreme being, which is often identified with the movement of vital energy (prāṇa) within the human body” (p. 918). 124 Davidson’s attempts to show that Bhairava and “his Buddhist counterpart, Heruka,” have (independent) roots in tribal or local divinities seem unconvincing. The Kālikāpurāṇa, which may contain old material but which in its current form is unlikely to predate the sixteenth century (Stapelfeldt 2001, 35–40), associates a cremation ground called Heruka with Kāmākhyā; Davidson identifies this (plausibly) as the modern site called Masānbhairo (śmaśānabhairava). He further postulates that “Buddhists apparently appropriated a local term [Heruka] for a specific Assamese ghost or cemetery divinity and reconfigured it into the mythic enemy of evil beings in general” (Davidson 2002, 211–16 [quotations on 211, 214]). Even if it could be demonstrated that the reference to Heruka comes from a comparatively early stratum of the Kālikāpurāṇa, to argue that he was originally an Assamese cremation-spirit deity on this basis calls to mind what Davidson (2002, 206) elsewhere describes as “sustained special pleading about single reference citations, a questionable method of arguing history.” For another view on the origin of the name Heruka, see Sanderson 2009, 148 (n. 340). As for Bhairava, Davidson (2002, 211) asserts that he “seems to have been little more than a local ferocious divinity at one time… eventually appropriated by Śaivas, much as they aggressively appropriated so much other tribal and outcaste lore for their own ends.” He cites little evidence for this beyond origin myths found in the Kālikāpurāṇa for a liṅga called “Bhairava” near Guwahati. While the roots of Bhairava remain unclear, the evidence extends back well before the Kālikāpurāṇa. Mahābhairava (“The Great Terrifier”) is named as a Śaiva place of pilgrimage in the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā (Mukhāgama 3.21d and Guhyasūtra 7.115d) as well as the old Skandapurāṇa (chapter 167); the latter source makes clear that the site is named after the form of Śiva enshrined there (cf. Mahākāla of Ujjayinī). A fourth-century Vākāṭaka king is described as a devotee of Mahābhairava in an inscription of the fifth century, on which see Sanderson (2003–4, 443–44) and Bisschop (2006, 192–93). The emergence of Bhairava in the tantric Śaiva pantheon, whatever his roots may be, appears to have involved some degree of identification with Aghora, the southern, fierce face of Sadāśiva who is said to reveal the Bhairavatantras. 125 Note for instance Davidson’s (2002, 183–86) plausible suggestion that Pāśupata monasticism is a response to the śramaṇa ascetic orders. One should also mention the influence of Mahāyāna Buddhist thought upon the nondualist Śaiva exegetical tradition. For a recent and insightful study, see Ratié (2010); see also Torella (1992). 126 Davidson (2002, 217), citing Dyczkowski (1987, 102), also claims that the Jayadrathayāmala names the Buddhist Guhyasamājatantra. This is Dyczkowski’s interpretation of the compound 26 argues, is a historically layered composition that, though assimilating early material, took its final form in Kashmir at some point prior to the period of Jayaratha (13th cent.).127 That sections of the text reveal awareness of Tantric Buddhism is neither surprising nor unusual, and Davidson’s assertion (2002, 217) that this suggests “dependence on Buddhist tantras” should require demonstration of the nature of such dependence. Among the other Śaiva texts Davidson singles out is “the Brahmayāmala;” but what he refers to is in fact a late medieval east Indian composition by this title, rather than the early vidyāpīṭha scripture.128 It would indeed appear that the late medieval śākta tradition of Śaivism, particularly in east India, appropriated much from Tantric Buddhism during the centuries of the latter’s decline. This is dramatized, for instance, in tales of the brahmanical sage Vaśiṣṭha’s sojourn to Mahācīna (“Greater China”) in order to learn worship of Tārā from the inebriated Buddha, and evidenced by the emergence of syncretic pantheons such as the “Ten Great Wisdom-mantra Goddesses” (daśa mahāvidyāḥ), who include Tārā (Bühnemann 1996; Sanderson 2009, 240–43). Regrettably, Davidson goes so far as to suggest that Sanderson’s model of the vidyāpīṭha is informed by a “curious theology of scripture,” contending that “while it is seldom that a received body of texts reflects no influence at all, this seems to be Sanderson’s ultimate position on the vidyāpīṭha Śaiva scriptures” (2002, 386 [n. 105]). This assertion appears entirely unsustainable in light of Sanderson’s research into the complex genealogies of Śaiva scriptures, including those of the vidyāpīṭha. Concerning the Tantrasadbhāva, a Trika text of the vidyāpīṭha, he demonstrates that it has incorporated and expanded upon cosmological material from the Svacchandatantra—an extensive tract of text which the latter, in turn, drew in part from the Guhyasūtra of the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, transforming this in the process within its own cultic system (Sanderson 2001, 23–32). He argues, moreover, that the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā itself—perhaps the earliest extant tantric Śaiva scripture—is heavily indebted to pre- and proto-tantric Śaiva Guhyādi (“those [scriptures] beginning with the Guhya”). The verse Dyczkowski might have had in mind reads differently in the version quoted and discussed by Sanderson (2007, 233): bhairavaṃ vajrayānaṃ ca guhyātantraṃ sagāruḍaṃ || bhūtatantrāditantraṃ ca viśeṣataram ucyate |. Here vajrayāna is mentioned as a class of scripture in the viśeṣatara (“more esoteric/restricted”) category, but the compound following it, guhyātantra, appears not to be its adjective but to represent another, distinct class of scripture—tantras of the Leftward Stream (vāmasrotas) of Śaiva relevation, according to Sanderson (2007, 233). 127 Sanderson sees within the Jayadrathayāmala multiple texts that might originally have been independent: the Śiraścheda, an early Vāmatantra (2001, 31–32 [n. 33]; 2002, 1–2); the Mādhavakula, a text cited by Abhinavagupta and incorporated into the fourth book (ṣaṭka) of the Jayadrathayāmala (2002, 1–2); and the Yoginīsañcāra of Jayadrathayāmala, book three (2009, 187). See also Sanderson (1990, 32 [n. 6]; 2002, 2). He has recently argued (2009, 203–12) in detail that a passage from the eighth chapter of the latter is “an expanded variant” of the Śaiva source for Laghuśaṃvara 8.3–28. Cf. Sanderson (2001, 41–43). 128 Davidson refers to the Rudrayāmala, Tārātantra, and Brahmayāmala as texts transmitting the legend of Vaśiṣṭha learning “cīnācāra” (“the Chinese method”) from the Buddha (2002, 216, citing Bhattacharya 1925–28, vol. 2, cxi–ii [in fact cxli–ii]; 1930). In this matter Bhattacharya drew upon Sanskrit textual materials edited from Bengali manuscripts by Vedāntatīrtha (1913). This publication includes excerpts from the first two chapters of a certain “Brahmayāmala” preserved in a manuscript of the Varendra Research Society. I find no indication that the text is related to the vidyāpīṭha scripture of the same name. 27 sects of the Atimārga.129 Particularly noteworthy is Sanderson’s more recent investigation (2005) into the formation of the Netratantra, a Śaiva text he argues was produced in the milieu of an eighth- or early ninth-century Kashmiri court. Note also his demonstration that the Bṛhatkālottara, a Kashmiri-provenance tantra of the Śaivasiddhānta, has incorporated material from a Vaiṣṇava scripture of the Pāñcarātra (Sanderson 2001, 38– 41). In light of this obvious commitment to identifying agents, circumstances, and sources involved in the formation of Śaiva scriptural literature, it hardly seems defensible to attribute bias to Sanderson for failing to unearth examples of the indebtedness of early texts of the vidyāpīṭha to Buddhist Yoginītantras. Nonetheless, the picture may well be more complex, for it is possible that the Brahmayāmala has itself drawn upon material redacted from an unknown Buddhist source— most probably not a Yoginītantra, but a more archaic text of the Kriyātantra variety. The principal chapter (paṭala) in question is Brahmayāmala chapter 65,130 the “chapter on the practices for mastering dryads” (yakṣiṇīsādhanapaṭalaḥ). This delineates a fourfold classification of yakṣiṇīs (yakṣiṇīkulacatuṣṭaya): those belonging to the clans (kula) of yakṣas, Brahmā (brahmakula), the lotus (padma), and vajra. The designations arouse immediate suspicion, for clans of the padma and vajra feature prominently in deity taxonomies of the Kriyātantras, and have no evident precedent or obvious rationale in Śaivism. While the Buddhist Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa, for instance, attests a variety of mantra-deity taxonomies, constant are the clans of the Buddhas/Tathāgatas, padma (associated with Avalokiteśvara), and vajra (associated with Vajrapāṇi); a yakṣa or guhyaka clan is attested as well.131 Another Kriyātantra, the Amoghapāśakalparāja, provides a fourfold clan system with deity clans of the vajra, tathāgata, gem (maṇi), and lotus (padma).132 It it possible that the Brahmayāmala draws upon a similar fourfold system, its Brahmā-clan yakṣiṇī perhaps supplanting what was, in the hypothetical Buddhist exemplar, a dryad of the clan of the Buddhas (tathāgatakula). I am presently unaware of a classification of dryads comparable to the Brahmayāmala’s in a Buddhist source, though one does find the expressions padmayakṣiṇī and vajrayakṣiṇī.133 The closest parallel for the Brahmayāmala’s fourfold classification is found instead in another Śaiva, vidyāpīṭha source: the Jayadrathayāmala.134 Here the The windows afforded by the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā into early Śaiva systems and its own dependence upon these comprise the subject of Sanderson (2006b). See also Sanderson (2001, 29). 130 While the chapter is the 65th in sequence, it is numbered 60 in its colophon (iti mahābhairave yakṣiṇīsādhanapaṭala ṣaṣṭhimaḥ); chapter 63 in sequence is likewise numbered 60 (iti kaṅkālabhairavādhikāro nāma ṣaṣṭhimaḥ paṭalaḥ). A critical edition of chapter 65 is currently under preparation. 131 A yakṣakula is mentioned in 30.31ab, 38.22cd, and throughout chapter 37. 132 Amoghapāśakalparāja, p. 114 (folio 25a, line 7): taṃ gṛhya ākāśenotpatati | ye ca vajrakulā tathāgatakulā maṇikulā padmakulā sarvve te mukhāgre ’vatiṣṭhanti | (“After taking hold of that [empowered noose], he flies into the air; and all [deities] of the Vajra clan, the clan of the Buddhas, the Gem clan, and the Lotus clan stand before him”). 133 Padmayakṣiṇī is the name of a mudrā in Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha 1605 (edition Horiuchi, vol. 2, p. 37); in 1638 (vol. 2, p. 49), it occurs as an epithet of Padmanarteśvarī. Padmoccā (Sanskrit Padmotsā, “lotus-born”) occurs as the name of a yakṣiṇī in Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa ch. 52. The expression vajrayakṣiṇī occurs in Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha 1137 (edition Horiuchi, vol. 1, p. 465). 134 The material on yakṣiṇīs occurs in ṣaṭka II, chapters 25 (vv. 457ff) and 26. I am grateful to Olga Serbaeva for allowing me to consult her electronic transcription. 129 28 yakṣiṇī clans are designated lotus (padma), red (rakta), white (śveta), and vajra. Though this too lacks precise Buddhist parallels, the occurence of clans of the padma and vajra arouses similar suspicion. That such suspicion may indeed have strong grounds finds support in another Śaiva text—the Uḍḍāmareśvaratantra—in the case of its instructions for conjuring a divine maiden (surasundarī). Here the Buddhist pedigree of the passage in question is suggested by the fact that the practitioner is instructed to perform the rite in a temple of [the bodhisattva] Vajrapāṇi.135 The Brahmayāmala shows signs of being a composite document, and chapter 65 belongs to a textual stratum which I have argued (Hatley 2007, 200–11) has incorporated materials from disparate sources. Chapters 51–104 have in some respects a miscellaneous character, containing a large number of short, often untitled chapters, many of which are devoted to deities marginal to the text’s primary mantra-deity systems. These include chapters that might originally have circulated as independent works: the Tilakatantra (ch. 62) and Utphullakamata/tantra (ch. 83), titles matching those of texts quoted by Abhinavagupta. Chapter 62, for its part, has incorporated material apparently from the Uttarasūtra of the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā (Hatley 2007, 219–20). In most cases, the passages redacted into the Brahmayāmala appear to have undergone substantial modification, being reasonably well-integrated in terms of both content and style of expression (the latter being a rather dubious distinction). This is evident in the treatment of yakṣiṇīs too, where one encounters the idea that one purpose of attracting a yakṣiṇī is for generating the sexual fluids required as offerings for the deities—a distinctive dimension of the ritual system of the Brahmayāmala. By and large, however, the Brahmayāmala’s treatment of rites for controlling dryads is remarkably free of identifiably Śaiva content. Chapters 63–66 of the Brahmayāmala appear closely related, forming a distinctive unit: the end of chapter 64 (vv. 162–164) intimates the subject of chapter 65, while the corpse ritual (kaṅkālavratasādhana) of chapter 63 appears, inexplicably, to find closure in the final verses of chapter 66, tacked on at the end of a discussion of recipes for magical pills (guḍikā). The mantras delineated in chapters 64–65 also share a common structure, one not elsewhere attested in the Brahmayāmala.136 If chapter 65’s rites for subjugating yakṣiṇīs draw on a Buddhist Kriyātantra, one might hence expect this to be true of material in the adjacent chapters as well. Chapter 66 may in fact suggest this 135 Uḍḍāmareśvaratantra 9, p. 34: atha surasundarīsādhanam—oṃ hrīṃ āgaccha āgaccha surasundari svāhā | vajrapāṇigṛhaṃ gatvā gugguladhūpaṃ dattvā trisaṃdhyaṃ pūjayet sahasraṃ trisaṃdhyaṃ māsaparyantaṃ japet tato māsābhyantare pratyakṣā bhavati antimadine raktacandanenārghyaṃ dadyāt | tata āgatya mātā bhaginī bhāryā vā bhavati tāsāṃ yāni karmāṇi tāny eva karoti | yadi mātā bhavati tadā siddhadravyāṇi rasāyanāni dadāti | yadi bhaginī bhavati tadā pūrvavad amūlyaṃ vastraṃ dadāti | yadi bhāryā bhavati tadā sarvam aiśvaryaṃ paripūrayati | 136 Note, for instance, the mantra of the yakṣa-clan dryad given in Brahmayāmala 65.6cd–8ab: OṂ YAKṢAKUMĀRIKE YAKṢAMUKHI EHY EHI RUDRO JÑĀPAYATE NIṂ SVĀHĀ. (Cf. the much simpler YAKṢAKUMĀRIKE SVĀHĀ of Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa ch. 52, saptayakṣiṇyaḥ section.) Compare this with the mantra for enslavement (kiṅkarasādhana) in Brahmayāmala ch. 64, which I reconstruct as follows: OṂ NAMO MAHĀKIṄKARĀYA KIRI KIRI KHAḌGAHASTĀYA VIḌĀLAVAKTRĀYA BHUJAṄGAHASTARAUDRĀYA [ ] EHY EHI RE RE RE RE RUDRO JÑĀPAYATE ṬAK[A?] SVĀHĀ. The formula RUDRO JÑĀPAYATI SVĀHĀ occurs with great frequency in the Kriyākālaguṇottara, one of the few surviving works of Gāruḍatantra variety. A similar expression occurs several times in the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa, e.g. after 2.29: OṂ GARUḌAVĀHANA CAKRAPĀṆI CATURBHUJA HUṂ HUṂ SAMAYAM ANUSMARA BODHISATTVO JÑĀPAYATI SVĀHĀ. 29 possibility in its description of procedures for preparing magical pills. After readying the substances and wrapping them with pipal (aśvattha) leaves, one engages in mantra recitation until success (siddhi) is signalled by one of three “signs” (cihna): heat, smoke, or fire (uṣman, dhūma, jvalana), which betoken increasingly greater degrees of magical attainment. Isaacson (2007) has drawn attention to this passage, pointing out that its threefold typology of signs and levels of siddhi finds attestation in the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā, perhaps the earliest extant Śaiva tantra, but is otherwise rare in Śaiva sources; on the other hand, it pervades the Buddhist Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa.137 While the mere presence of the tripartite typology in the Brahmayāmala might not intimate a Buddhist source, the presence of similarly suspicious material in the adjacent chapter lends greater weight to the possibility. In addition, the passage referring to the threefold siddhi contains another potential link to the Kriyātantras: the use of seven pipal leaves to wrap or cover the empowered substances has close and extensive parallels in the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa, where the procedure is remarkably similar to that outlined in the Brahmayāmala.138 In this case too a similar practice is outlined in the Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā (Guhyasūtra, especially 10.30), leaving open multiple historical scenarios. Identifying the possible origins of the Brahmayāmala’s yakṣinī rites in an unknown Buddhist source complexifies the issue of Śaiva vidyāpīṭha influence upon the Yoginītantras. While Sanderson’s thesis remains compelling, the case of the Brahmayāmala highlights the complex redactional histories of vidyāpīṭha literature, and suggests that the textual “flow” may have been multidirectional in some cases. Finding potential intertextuality at the level of Buddhist Kriyātantra and early vidyāpīṭha points toward what is likely to be a history of interaction, shared ritual paradigms, and textual appropriation extending back to early strata of Śaiva and Buddhist tantric literatures. Indeed, the extant Kriyātantra offering the most useful parallels to Brahmayāmala, chapters 63–66—the Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa—itself appears to have drawn extensively from Tantric Śaivism, as is especially evident in its wholesale incorporation of the cult of Tumburu and his Four Sisters (caturbhaginī), principal deities of the archaic Leftward Stream (vāmasrotas) of Śaiva scriptural revelation.139 Severe losses of early Śaiva scripture—especially those of the vāmasrotas, as well as Bhūta- and Gāruḍatantras, which among Śaiva sources 137 Note, for instance, the following passage from Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa ch. 55: tāṃ gṛhyātmano mukhe prakṣipya sarvabhūtikabalim upāhṛtya dakṣiṇamūrtau sthitaḥ haritālamanaḥśilāñjanamañjiṣṭhārocanāmekatrayaṃ gṛhya aśvatthapatrāntaritāṃ kṛtvā tāvaj japed yāvat trividhā siddhir iti ūṣmāyati dhūmāyati jvalati | ūṣmāyamāne pādapracārikāṃ pañcavarṣasahasrāyur bhavati | sarvasattvavaśīkaraṇam | dhūmāyamāne ’ntardhānaṃ daśavarṣasahasrāyur bhavati | jvalitena sarvavidyādharo bhavati | 138 Note for instance the following passage from Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa ch. 29: kapilāyāḥ samānavatsāyāḥ ghṛtaṃ gṛhya tāmrabhājanaṃ saptabhir aśvatthapatraiḥ sthāpya tāvaj japed yāvat trividhā siddhir iti | taṃ pītvā śrutidharam antardhānākāśagamanam iti || My attention was drawn to this use of aśvattha leaves by Harunaga Isaacson at the Third International Workshop on Early Tantra in Hamburg, July 2010. Compare with a procedure for preparing magical pills (guḍikā) in Brahmayāmala 66.4–5: kṛtayatnaḥ sudhīrātmā patrair aśvatthasaṃbhavaiḥ | tribhis tu rocanāliptair vistṛtai rugvivar[j]itaiḥ || saṃsthāpya guḍikāṃ tatra cchādaye[t] tu tataḥ punaḥ | caturbhir upariṣṭā[t] tu rocanāmbuyutais tathā || 139 As mentioned previously, this comes into evidence as early as the sixth century (Sanderson 2009, 50, 129–30). 30 perhaps exhibit the closest affinity to the Buddhist Kriyātantras—suggest that much of this history is likely to remain opaque. 31 Works Cited Primary sources Abhidhānottara. Institute for Advanced Studies of World Religions, Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts film-strip no. MBB-1971-100. ———. Lokesh Chandra, ed. Abhidhānottara-tantra: A Sanskrit Manuscript from Nepal. Śatapiṭaka series, vol. 263. New Delhi: 1981. Amoghapāśakalparāja. “Transcribed Sanskrit Text of the Amoghapāśakalparāja. Part II,” Annual of the Institute for Comprehensive Study of Buddhism, Taisho University, 21 (1999): 81–128. Uḍḍāmareśvaratantra. Pandit Jagad Dhar Zadoo, ed. The Uddamareshvara Tantram (A Book on Magical Rites). Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 70. Srinagar: Research Department of Jammu and Kashmir State, 1947. Kulasāra. National Archives of Kathmandu ms. no. 4-137; Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project reel no. A40/11. Electronic transcription of Somadeva Vasudeva. Kaulajñānanirṇaya. Prabodh Candra Bagchi, ed. Kaulajñānanirṇaya and Some Minor Texts of the School of Matsyendranātha. Calcutta Sanskrit Series, no. 3. Kolkata: Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House, 1934. Kṛṣṇayamāritantra. Samdhong Rinpoche and Vrajvallabh Dwivedi, eds. Kṛṣṇayamāritantram, with Ratnāvalīpañjikā of Kumāracandra. Rare Buddhist Texts Series, no. 9. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1992. Kriyākālaguṇottara. Draft edition of Michael Slober. Guhyasamājatantra. Benoytosh Bhattacharya, ed. Guhyasamāja Tantra or Tathāgataguhyaka. Gaekwad Oriental Series, no. 53. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1967. ———. Yūkei Matsunaga, ed. The Guhyasamāja Tantra. A New Critical Edition. Osaka: Toho Shuppan, 1978. Guhyasamājatantrapradīpoddyotanaṭīkāṣaṭkoṭīvyākhyā of Candrakīrti. Chintaharan Chakravarti, ed. Bhoṭadeśīyasaṃkṛtagranthamālā, no. 25. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, 1984. Cakrasaṃvarapañjikā of Jayabhadra. Tsunehiko Sugiki, ed. “On the Making of Śrīcakrasaṃvaratantra—with a critical Sanskrit text of Jayabhadra's Śrīcakrasaṃvarapañjikā,” Journal of Chisan Studies 50 (2001/3): 91–141. Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇatantra. Christopher S. George, ed. The Caṇḍamahāroṣaṇa Tantra, Chapters IVIII. A Critical Edition and English Translation. American Oriental Series, no. 56. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1974. Jayadrathayāmala. Electronic transcription prepared by Olga Serbaeva. Jayadrathayāmala, Yoginīsañcāraprakaraṇa. Draft edition of Alexis Sanderson. Tantrasadbhāvatantra. Marc Dyczkowski, ed. “Partially and provisionally edited” e-text available from the Digital Library of the Muktabodha Indological Research Institute. http://www.muktabodhalib.org/digital\_library.htm. Tārātantram. Girīśacandra Vedāntatīrtha, ed. Tārātantram. Śrīgirīścandravedāntatīrthasaṅkalitam. With an Introduction by A. K. Maitra. Reprint, Delhi: Bani Prakashan, 1983 [1913]. Niśvāsakārikā. Institut Français de Pondichéry Transcript nos. 17, 127, and 150. Electronic transcriptions by S. A. S. Sarma, Nibedita Rao, and R. Sathyanarayanan. Niśvāsatattvasaṃhitā. Electronic transcription and draft edition by Dominic Goodall, Peter Bisschop, Diwakar Acharya, and Nirajan Kafle, based on National Archives of Kathmandu ms. no. 1–227 (Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project reel A41/14), and two apographs: NAK 5–2406 (NGMPP reel A159/18), and Wellcome Institute Sanskrit ms. I.33. 32 Netratantra. Madhusūdan Kaul Shāstrī, ed. The Netra Tantram, with Commentary by Kshemarāja. 2 vols. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, nos. 46, 61. Bombay: the Research Department of Jammu and Kashmir State, 1926, 1939. Pradīpoddyotana. See Guhyasamājatantrapradīpoddyotanaṭīkāṣaṭkoṭīvyākhyā. Brahmayāmala/Picumata. National Archives of Kathmandu ms. no. 3–370; Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project reel no. A42/6. ———. See Hatley (2007). Brahmayāmalasāra*. Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project reel no. E1527/6 (private collection). ———. National Archives of Kathmandu ms. no. 1–1557; Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project reel no. A165/16. Incomplete manuscript. Bhāgavatapurāṇa. Electronic text input by Ulrich Stiehl, 2001 (edition unknown). Mañjuśriyamūlakalpa. T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī, ed. The Âryamanjusrîmûlakalpa. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, nos. 70, 76, 84. Trivandrum: Government Press, 1920–1925. Mahāmāyātantra. Janardan Pandey, et al., eds. Mahāmāyātantram Guṇavatīṭīkāsahitam. Rare Buddhist Texts Series, no. 10. Sarnath: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1992. Mahāvairocanābhisaṃbodhisūtra. See Hodge (2003). Revākhaṇḍa (attributed to the Skandapurāṇa). Oṅkārānanda Giri, ed. Bṛhat Śrīnarmadāpurāṇam Revākhaṇḍam. 3rd edition. Hoshangabad: Jñānasatra Prakāśana Nyāsa, 1994. Laghuśaṃvaratantra. Janardan Shastri Pandey, ed. Śrīherukābhidhānam Cakrasaṃvaratantram, with the Commentary of Bhavabhaṭṭa. 2 vols. Rare Buddhist Texts Series, no. 26. Sarnath, Varanasi: Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 2002. ———. Oriental Institute of Baroda, ms. 13290. ———. David Gray, ed. The Cakrasamvara Tantra (The Discourse of Śrī Heruka): Editions of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Columbia University Press, forthcoming. Laṅkāvatārasūtra. Bunyiu Nanjio, ed. Bibliotheca Otaniensis, no. 1. Kyoto: Otani University Press, 1923. Saṃvarodaya. Shinichi Tsuda, ed. The Saṃvarodaya-Tantra. Selected Chapters. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1974. ———. Tokyo University Library ms. no. 404. Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha. Isshi Yamada, ed. Sarva-tathāgata-tattva-saṅgraha Nāma Mahāyāna-sūtra. A Critical Edition Based on a Sanskrit Manuscript and Chinese and Tibetan Translations. Śatapiṭakam: Indo-Asian Literature, vol. 262. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1981. ———. Kanjin Horiuchi, ed. 2 vols. Sarva-tathāgata-tattvasaṃgrahaṃ nāma Mahā-yāna-sūtram. Koyasan University, Japan: Mikkyo Bunka Kenkyujo, 1983. Siddhayogeśvarīmata. See Törzsök (1999). Hevajratantra. D. L. Snellgrove, ed. The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study. 2 vols. London Oriental Series, vol. 6. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Secondary literature Bhattacharya, Benoytosh (ed.). 1925–28. Sādhanamālā. 2 vols. Gaekwad Oriental Series, nos. 26, 41. Baroda: Oriental Institute. ———. 1930. “Buddhist Deities in Hindu Garb.” In Proceedings and Transactions of the Fifth Indian Oriental Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1277–98. Lahore: University of the Punjab. 33 Bisschop, Peter. 2006. Early Śaivism and the Skandapurāṇa. Sects and Centers. Groningen Oriental Studies, vol. 21. Groningen: Egbert Forsten Publishing. Bühnemann, Gudrun. 1996. “The Goddess Mahācīnakrama-Tārā (Ugra-Tārā) in Buddhist and Hindu Tantrism.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 59, 3: 472–493. Dalton, Jacob. 2005. “A Crisis of Doxography: How Tibetans Organized Tantra during the 8th– 12th Centuries,” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 28, 1: 115–181. Davidson, Ronald. 1981. “The Litany of Names of Mañjuśrī: Text and Translation of the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṃgīti.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R.A. Stein, edited by Michel Strickmann, pp. 1–69. Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises. ———. 2002. Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement. New York: Columbia University Press. Dyczkowski, Mark S. G. 1987. The Canon of the Śaivāgama and the Kubjikā Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition. Albany: State University of New York. Edgerton, Franklin. 1953. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. 2 vols. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998. English, Elizabeth. 2002. Vajrayoginī: Her Visualizations, Rituals and Forms. A Study of the Cult of Vajrayoginī in India. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications. Ernst, Carl. 2005. “Situating Sufism and Yoga.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 15, 1: 15-43. Giebal, Rolf. 1995. “The Chin-kang-ting ching yü-ch'ieh shih-pa-hui chih-kuei: An Annotated Translation.” Journal of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist Studies 18: 179–82. Gray, David. 2005. “Eating the Heart of the Brahmin: Representations of Alterity and the Formation of Identity in Tantric Buddhist Discourse.” History of Religions 45: 45–69. ———. 2007. The Cakrasamvara Tantra (The Discourse of Śrī Heruka): A Study and Annotated Translation. New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Columbia University Press. ———. forthcoming. See Laghuśaṃvaratantra. Hatley, Shaman. 2007. “The Brahmayāmalatantra and Early Śaiva Cult of Yoginīs.” PhD thesis, The University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2012. “From Mātṛ to Yoginī: Continuity and Transformation in the South Asian Cults of the Mother Goddesses.” In Transformations and Transfer of Tantra in Asia and Beyond, ed. István Keul, pp. 99–129. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ———. forthcoming A. “Erotic Asceticism: the Knife’s Edge Observance of Brahmayāmala XL (the asidhāravratapaṭala), with a critical edition and translation.” Tantric Studies. ———. forthcoming B. “Goddesses in Text and Stone: Temples of the Yoginīs in Light of Tantric and Purāṇic Literature.” In History and Material Culture in Asian Religions, edited by Benjamin Fleming and Richard Mann. London: Routledge. Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. 1996. “The Good Woman’s Shadow: Some Aspects of the Dark Nature of Ḍākinīs and Śākinīs in Hinduism.” In Wild Goddess in India and Nepal, edited by Cornelia Vogelsanger and Anette Wilke, pp. 39–70. Bern, etc.: Peter Lang. ———. 2001. Ḍākinīs: zur Stellung und Symbolik des Weiblichen im tantrischen Buddhismus. Indica et Tibetica, band 20. Marburg: Indica et Tibetica-Verlag. Hodge, Stephen (trans.). 2003. The Mahā-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. New York; London: Routledge Curzon. Isaacson, Harunaga. 2007. “Language and Formulae in the Niśvāsa-corpus.” Presentation made at the Early Śaivism Workshop, Pondicherry Centre of the École française d’Extrême-Orient, January 2007. Matsunaga, Yūkei. 1978. See Guhyasamājatantra. 34 ———. 1985. “On the Date of the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R. A. Stein, edited by Michel Strickmann, vol. 3: 882–94. Newman, John. 1987. “The Outer Wheel of Time: Vajrayāna Buddhist Cosmology in the Kālacakra Tantra.” PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pandey, Janardan Shastri. 2002. See Laghuśaṃvaratantra. Ratié, Isabelle. 2010. “The Dreamer and the Yogin: On the relationship between Buddhist and Śaiva idealisms.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 73, 3: 437–478. Ruegg, David Seyfort. 2008. The Symbiosis of Buddhism with Brahmanism/Hinduism in South Asia and of Buddhism with ‘Local Cults’ in Tibet and the Himalayan Region. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sanderson, Alexis. 1985. “Purity and Power among the Brahmans of Kashmir.” In The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy and History, edited by Steven Collins, Michael Carrithers, and Steven Lukes, pp. 190–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1990. “The Visualization of the Deities of the Trika.” In L’Image Divine: Culte et Meditation dans l’Hinduisme, edited by Andre Padoux, pp. 31–88. Paris: Editions du CNRS. ———. 1994. “Vajrayāna: Origin and Function.” In Buddhism into the Year 2000. International Conference Proceedings, pp. 87–102. Bangkok: Dhammakaya Foundation. ———. 2001. “History through Textual Criticism in the Study of Śaivism, the Pañcarātra and the Buddhist Yoginītantras.” In Les Sources et le Temps. Sources and Time. A Colloquium. Pondicherry 11-13 January 1997, edited by François Grimal, pp. 1–47. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondicherry/École française d’Extrême-Orient. ———. 2002. “Remarks on the Text of the Kubjikāmatatantra.” Indo-Iranian Journal 45: 1–24. ———. 2003–2004. “The Śaiva Religion among the Khmers, Part I.” Bulletin de l’Ecole française d’Extrême-Orient, 90–91: 349–463. ———. 2005. “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in the Territory of the King’s Brahmanical Chaplain (with an appendix on the provenance and date of the Netratantra).” Indo-Iranian Journal 47 (2004 [issued in 2005]): 229–300. ———. 2006a. “The Date of Sadyojyotis and Bṛhaspati.” Cracow Indological Studies 8 (2006 [issued in 2007]): pp. 39–91. ———. 2006b. “The Lākulas: New Evidence of a System Intermediate between Pāñcārthika Pāśupatism and Āgamic Śaivism.” Ramalinga Reddy Memorial Lectures, 1997. The Indian Philosophical Annual 24: 143–217. ———. 2007. “The Śaiva Exegesis of Kashmir.” In Mélanges tantriques à la mémoire d’Hélène Brunner/Tantric Studies in Memory of Hélène Brunner, edited by Dominic Goodall and André Padoux, pp. 231–442. Collection Indologie, no. 106. Pondicherry: Institut Français de Pondichéry/École française d’Extrême-Orient. ———. 2009. “The Śaiva Age.” In Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo, pp. 41–350. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series, no. 23. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo. Serbaeva, Olga. 2006. “Yoginīs in Śaiva Purāṇas and Tantras. Their Role in Transformative Experiences in a Historical and Comparative Perspective.” PhD dissertation, Université de Lausanne. Sferra, Francesco. 2003. “Some Considerations on the Relationship between Hindu and Buddhist Tantras.” In Buddhist Asia 1. Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001, edited by Giovanni Verardi and Silvio Vita, pp. 57–84. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian Studies. Sircar, D. C., ed. 1965. Select Inscriptions Bearing on Indian History and Civilization, vol. I. 2nd edition. Kolkata: University of Calcutta. 35 Simmer-Brown, Judith. 2002. Dakini’s Warm Breath: the Feminine Principle in Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Shambhala Publications. Stapelfeldt, Sylvia. 2001. Kāmākhyā–Satī–Mahāmāyā: Konzeptionen der Groß en Göttin im Kālikāpurāṇa. Reihe/Series XXVII, Asiatische und Africanische Studien. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Sugiki, Tsunehiko. 2008. Review of: David B. Gray, The Cakrasamvara Tantra (The Discourses of Śrī Heruka): A Study and Annotated Translation (New York: The American Institute of Buddhist Studies/Center for Buddhist Studies and Tibet House, 2007). Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, 1–2 (2008 [issued in 2010]): 505–541. Tāntrikābhidhānakośa. Dictionnaire des terms techniques de la littérature hindoue tantrique, vol. III, edited by Dominic Goodall and Marion Rastelli. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (forthcoming, 2011). Tomabechi, Toru. 2007. “The Extraction of Mantra (mantroddhāra) in the Sarvabuddhasamāyogatantra.” In Pramāṇakīrtiḥ. Papers dedicated to Ernst Steinkellner on the occasion of his 70th birthday, edited by B. Kellner et al., Part 2, pp. 903–23. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, heft 70.1–2. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien, Universität Wien. Torella, Raffaele. 1992. “The Pratyabhijñā and the Logical-Epistemological School of Buddhism.” In Ritual and Speculation in Early Tantrism: Studies in Honor of André Padoux, edited by Teun Goudriaan, pp. 327–346. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Törzsök, Judit. 1999. “ ‘The Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits’. A Critical Edition of Selected Chapters of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata(tantra) with Annotated Translation and Analysis.” PhD dissertation, University of Oxford. ———. forthcoming. See Tāntrikābhidhānakośa. Tribe, Anthony. 2000. “Mantranaya/Vajrayāna: tantric Buddhism in India.” In Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition, by Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe. London; New York: Routledge. Turner, Sir R. L. 1962–66. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. London: Oxford University Press. Vedāntatīrtha, Girīśacandra, ed. 1913. See Tārātantram. Watson, Alex. 2006. The Self’s Awareness of Itself: Bhaṭṭa Rāmakaṇṭha’s Arguments Against the Buddhist Doctrine of No-self. Vienna: Sammlung de Nobili Institut für Südasien-, Tibet- und Buddhismuskunde der Universität Wien. 36

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

“Converting the Ḍākinī: Goddess Cults and Tantras of the Yoginīs between Buddhism and Śaivism”

“Converting the Ḍākinī: Goddess Cults and Tantras of the Yoginīs between Buddhism and Śaivism”

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS