The Progenitor of all Dharma Protectors.

⦁ Introduction

This article aims to contextualize and summarize the opening chapter of Sle lung bzhad pa’irdo rje’s (1697-1740) text, the Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho’i rnam thar (The Liberation Stories of the Ocean of Oath-Bound Dharma Protectors, hence- forth “DCTS”). This text is especially fascinating and unique in pre-modern Tibetan literature for a number of reasons.

One of its more interesting features is how the opening chapter focuses on the nominally non-Buddhist god Śiva, whom Sle lung identi- fies as a supreme dharmapala, or protector of the Buddhist Dharma. While space does not allow for a full translation of this chapter, I will give a summary overview of it, in particular high- lighting the scriptural sources Sle lung draws from, as well as analyzing his specific theological arguments. Finally, I will argue that the choice to place Śiva first in this text, and Sle lung’s extended theological treatment of him, was motivated by Śiva’s particular connection to a specific Rnying ma tantric lineage in which Sle lung was an initiate and practitioner.

Bzhad pa’i rdo rje was a high-ranking Dge lugs pa sprul sku, thought to be the fifth “Sle lung” incarnation, the first of whom was Grub chen Nam mkha’ rgyal mtshan (1326- 1401), the Dge lugs pa founder Tsong kha pa’s (1357 - 1419) Rnying ma and- most important Bka’ gdams pa master. By Bzhad pa’i rdo rje’s time sectarian divisions had hardened between the Dge lugs pa and Rnying ma schools, and much of his life’s work seems to

have been dedicated to reconciling Gsar ma and Rnying ma teachings from a ris med (“unbiased” or “non-sectarian”) ap- proach despite objections from some of his Dge lugs pa colleagues. The DCTS strongly reflects the fifth Sle lung’s non-sectarian approach, combining and attempting to reconcile differing Rnying ma and Gsar ma canonical sources and deity forms. However, Sle lung clearly gives primacy to Rnying ma sources and deities, foremost by placing Śiva(who is, as we shall see, worshipped more significantly in the Rnying ma school) first in his literary pantheon.

Most of the rest of the first half of the DCTS largely focuses on the four main dharma protectors of the Dge lugs school, namely Mahākāla, Dpal ldan lha mo (Śrī Devī), Dam can Chos kyi rgyal po]] (Yama Dharmarāja), and Vaiśravaṇa. Placing Śiva before all of them, underscoring his role in particular as the “progenitor” of all other protectors, and citing Rnying ma sources to do so, may represent Sle lung effec- tively subordinating Dge lugs pa to Rnying ma more broadly. However, it should also be noted that the three main Rnying ma protectors, Ekajaṭī, Rāhula, and Vajra Sadhu (Rdo rje legs pa), are also subordinated to Śiva by Sle lung.

Fig. 1. Lha chen Dbang phyug chen po (Mahādeva Maheśvara) and his consort Umā Devī as depicted in the 1979 Leh edition of the DCTS: vol. 1, p. 356.

Before focusing on Sle lung’s Śiva chapter in further detail, however, a few words discussing the DCTS as a literary artefact in general are in order. As has been argued elsewhere,1) the DCTS is the first systematic attempt to organize the huge repertoire of dharma protectors in the various tantric lineages and

cult traditions of Tibetan Buddhism into an explicit pantheon, in a literary formulation somewhat akin to Hesiod’s Theogony. Given the text’s attention to the past life narratives and what we might call "origin stories" of various protector deities, I have also characterized the DCTS as a kind of dharmapāla Jāta- kamālā, a collection of legends that represent dark inversions of the Buddha’s past life stories. However, the DCTS is not pre- cisely a finely edited digest of stories. Rather, at times, it reads more like Sle lung’s personal notes on dharma protectors, which he used perhaps during empowerments and other teaching en- gagements, that he simply compiled into a large collection. The narratives are often patchwork and contradictory, there is a staggering degree of conceptual osmosis from one deity to the next, and Sle lung originally wrote the text with no distinct sec- tion breaks or headings.

It is difficult to say exactly how many deities Sle lung discusses in the entire text, since it is written as a single continuous narrative, and the descriptions of the different deities (and their many subforms and emanations) are deeply nested within each other, creating a recursive labyrinthine effect that is often difficult to follow. Sle lung discusses at least forty major deities, and they range in rough order from cosmologically superior translocal Indic deities to more localized autochthonous Tibetan ones. The major deities are presented in kathenotheistic succession, meaning that each deity is in turn praised as, in some sense, supreme.

However, the fact that Śiva, here variously called Lha chen (Mahādeva), Dbang phyug chen po (Maheśvara), Rudra, and Legs ldan (a direct Tibetan translation of the name "Śiva") as well as a number of other monikers, is placed first in the collection, and that he is repeatedly lauded as the overlord, or even the progenitor, of all other protector deities is notable and striking. Furthermore, as we shall see, Sle lung goes so far as to "assemble much of the required background" of a study trac- ing the development of the Maheśvara subjugation myth in Buddhist literature,2) though he has his own, quite specific and personal theological motivations for this. However, the focus on Lha chen as the supreme protector deity at first might strike a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism as somewhat strange, given that in terms of art and textual output, Śiva has historically not been especially popular as a protector deity in Tibet, or in Indian Buddhism either for that matter. Another deity, Mahākāla (notwithstanding, of course, his historical, iconographic,and theological connection to the Hindu form of Śiva with the same name), would seem the more logical choice for Sle lung’s opening chapter of his encyclopedic chronicle of Tibet’s pantheon of protector deities.

If we examine other, close contemporary formulations of the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon by other masters, Sle lung’s focus on Lha chen stands out as unique. Klong rdol Ngag dbang blo bzang’s (1719-1794) Bstan srung dam can rgya mtsho'i ming gi grangs, which is essentially an exhaustive list of all the dharma protectors familiar to (or recognized as legitimate by) its author and was written close to the same time and place as Sle lung’s

⦁ According to Kapstein’s (2000: 165) assessment of Sle lung’s work in the DCTS.

DCTS, begins with Mahākāla, with no mention of Lha chen. Lcang skya Rol pa’i rdo rje’s (1717-1786) arrangement and tabulation of the Tibetan Buddhist pantheon for the Qing court via the media of statuary, block-print drawings, and paintings, consistently place Mahākāla first among the protector deities.3) Śiva only appears once or twice in Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje’s pantheons, and only as part of a comprehensively incorporated Hindu pantheon, placed well behind Māhakāla. Even more significantly, in the entirety of the massive Rin ’byung brgya rtsa, Snar thang brgya rtsa, and Rdor ’phreng (Skt. Vajrāvalī) collections of deity sādhanas, Maheśvara is only mentioned once as something other than a worldly deity being trampled upon. In the Rin ’byung brgya rtsa he appears as a minor retinue deity of Mahāsiddha Śāntigupta’s form of Four-armed Mahākāla.4) Also, in another collection of sādhanas, the Niṣpannayogāvalī, Śiva as "Rudra" appears as a retinue deity of Kālacakra.

⦁ See Clark (1965) and Lohia (1994). On Lcang skya rol pa’i rdo rje and his ac- tivities at the Manchu court generally, see Berger (2003) and Illich (2006). ⦁ Willson and Brauen (2000: 341).

⦁ Bhattacharyya 1949: 89. For more on various iconographic appearances of Śiva in Buddhist contexts, see the entry for "Maheśvara" in Chandra 1999-2005: vol. 7, pp. 2027-2038. See also Tanaka (2018) who notes a number of instances in which Maheśvara is included in a supportive role in Indian Buddhist mandalas at the head, or as a representative, of Hindu deities.

⦁ Śiva in Tantric Buddhism

Historically, tantric Buddhism owes much of its ritual technologies and "charnel-ground culture" to Śaivism. Buddhist wrathful and semi-wrathful deities are, for the most part, based on similar Śaiva forms. This debt is implicitly acknowledged in the Buddhist canonical myths of Maheśvara’s subjugation which first appear in the yoga tantras, such as the Mahāvairocana Tantra, and are then elaborated and expanded upon in ever greater graphic detail in the Mahāyoga tantras of the Tibetan Rnying ma tradition and, to a lesser extent, the Gsar ma yoginī tantras.6) As we will see below, and as Kapstein has noted, Sle lung chronicles this literary evolution in his chapter on Śiva.

On one level, the Rudra subjugation myth is a continuation of the long tradition within Buddhism of “transtheism,”7) a centrally important aspect of Buddhist theology and soteriology, as well as the “demon devotee” trope of Indian cultic myth in general.8) Buddhist authors have developed and elaborated upon this transtheistic and “demon devotee” trend since the ear-

⦁ See Sanderson (1994, 2009) for Śaivite influence on Buddhist tantra.

⦁ See Zimmer 1989: 182, who uses the term "transtheistic" in relation to Jainism, though I believe it applies equally well to Buddhism.Transtheism, in brief, is a theological position that acknowledges the existence of gods, but holds that they are soteriologically irrelevant or superfluous, and a liberated individual has by definition transcended the power of gods. In the present context I would further expand the term to also mean that, not only has an enlightened being passed beyond the influence of the gods, but that the gods are also either willingly or forcibly made explicitly subordinate to them.

⦁ See Mayer (1998: 115) for this Indological interpretation of the Rudra myth.

liest Buddhist texts and sculpture, in which the Buddha and his successful followers (arhats, bodhisattvas, etc.) are consistently and invariably depicted as having automatic power over all oth- er super-human beings of the world, from the lowliest ghost to the most powerful god, transforming them into servants of the Buddha’s teachings and his followers, i.e., Dharma protectors.9) In early Pāli Buddhism, the cosmologically highest Dharma pro- tectors are Indra and Brahma of Vedic and Brahmanical Hinduism. In later tantric Buddhism, Śiva-Bhairava of the Śaivite Kāpālika sects takes the place of the cosmologically most powerful worldly deity.

However, Maheśvara in Buddhist tantric myth is depicted in far more starkly negative terms than any other conquered god in Buddhist lore before him, the great Buddhist adversaries Māra and Yama included. As scholars have noted and studied for years,10) the subjugation of Rudra/Maheśvara myth is the foundational myth (or working off of Mayer, using Malinowski’s terminology, the “charter myth”) of Vajrayāna.11) As such, the myth explains and justifies the origins of highest yoga tantric ritual technologies which employ (at least theoretically) techni-

⦁ See DeCaroli (2004) for more on the importance of worldly deities in early Indian Buddhism. To underscore my point, with regards to the spirit beings depicted at early Buddhist stūpa sites, DeCaroli comments: “By assembling these spirit-deities...only to represent them in positions of secondary importance, the saṃgha was making a bold statement that challenged the very foundations of spirit-deity worship in India” (76).

⦁ For various studies of the Rudra subjugation myth see Davidson (1991), Iyanaga (1985), Kapstein (2000), Mayer (1998), Stein (1995), and Dalton (2011). 11) Mayer (1998).

ques of extreme impurity, usually relating to sex and violence, for these were the only means by which the Buddhas were able to overcome the awful depredations of Rudra and his minions, and save sentient beings and the entire universe from them. There are numerous versions of this myth, told and re-told in a number of canonical Buddhist scriptures.

The most elaborate versions of the Rudra subjugation myth are all found in Rnying ma scriptures. In fact, as Mayer has clearly shown,12) the subjugation of Rudra has had an enduring importance within Rnying ma myth and ritual in a way that the subjugation of Maheśvara has not in Gsar ma scriptures.13) One of the few Gsar ma tantric cycles in which Maheśvara plays a significant role is the Cakrasaṃvara, but only in later (Tibetan) exegetical works, not in the root tantras themselves.14)

Davidson cites the example of Saskya Grags pa rgyal mtshan’s (1167-1216) codification of the Cakrasaṃvara Maheśvara subjugation narrative which is actually little more than an elaborate description of the spirit denizens of Maheśvara’s maṇḍala and where they dwell, which are then conquered and occupied by Heruka and his retinue of deities. This version of the myth reads less like a narrative per se, than like a sādhana visualization. Sle lung, as we will see, cites a somewhat similar narrative

12) Mayer (1998).

⦁ Rnying ma scriptures tend to use the name “Rudra,” the “Howler” of the Vedas, and in Hinduism one of Śiva’s forms, (see Srinivasan 1983) whereas Gsar ma texts use “Maheśvara,” “the Great Overlord,” one of Śiva’s titles, or “Bhairava,” the main wrathful form of Śiva in tantric Śaivism.

⦁ See Davidson 1991: 204, and Mayer 1998: 280.

from the Cakrasaṃvara cycle, written by Bu ston Rin chen grub (1290-1364).15) Here, neither Maheśvara nor Heruka are developed as characters at all nor engage in dialogue, as in the yoga tantra versions and Rnying ma Mahāyoga scriptures, nor is there much exposition to explain the context of what is going on. Thus, the elaborate Rudra/Maheśara subjugation myths as they developed in the later tantras (post yoga tantra) were primarily a Rnying ma innovation, probably during the so-called “dark period” of Tibet’s history after the collapse of the Tibetan empire in the ninth century.

Rudra/Maheśvara, as a character, is literarily developed and subsequently integrated into Rnying ma liturgy and ritual in a way that he never was in the Gsar ma tantras which were- translated into Tibetan in the phyi dar period a hundred years or so after the likely composition of the key Rnying ma tantras such as the Dgongs ’dus pa’i mdo and the Guhyagarbha.

In general, the Gsar ma root tantras themselves are much more rudimentary than their Rnying ma counterparts, without much coherent narrative in general, and in many cases appear to be scrambled compilations of disparate ritual instructions. Although, of course, the Gsar ma tantric deities and related ritual elements are based on Śaivite paradigms, again, as far as I am aware no Gsar ma root tantra contains a version of the Maheśvara subjugation myth. Gsar ma versions of this myth only appear relatively tangentially in commentarial literature or oral traditions related to various Gsar ma tantric cycles, in particular Cakrasaṃvara, Vajrabhairava, and Kālacakra.

In origin myths of the Cakrasaṃvara and Vajrabhairava cycles, Maheśvara appears merely as one-dimensional stock foe to be subdued and has no practical importance after his subjugation. For instance, in a Vajrabhairava version of the myth which, according to Tāranātha (1575-1634), comes from the Rwa lineage of Vajrabhairava, Maheśvara is not even the primary opponent of the Buddhist hero of the story (rather it is Śiva’s son Kārttikēya), and Vajrabhairava is not consciously mimicking his form (as the subduing deity does in the Rnying ma and Cakrasaṃvara versions of the myth).16) Furthermore, according to Tāranātha, this Vajrabhairava narrative was in fact influenced by the Rnying ma Rudra subjugation myth.17)

In the Kālacakra eschatology mythos, Śiva, along with all the Hindu gods, is prophesized to join the Buddhist side against the Muslim forces in the final end-times battle, but this is the only Gsar ma myth of which I am aware in which Śiva takes on therle of a dharmapāla. There are instances in certain Gsar ma texts in which Śiva appears as a fully enlightened meditational deity, most notably in Virūpa’s and Avadhūtacandra’s Amṛtasiddhi practices.18) But these appear to be simply cases of direct borrowings from Śaiva practices transferred wholesale to Tibei

t.19) While there are a few scattered instances of Śiva or an

⦁ For a summary of the Vajrabhairava myth see Cuevas 2015: xviii. ⦁ Bryan Cuevas, electronic communication, 6/13/2019. ⦁ Schaeffer 2002. ⦁ According to a recent, as yet unpublished article by James Mallinson (forthcoming), the Amṛtasiddhi was originally a Buddhist text that was later adapted

by Śaiva tradents. This would mean that the Amṛtasiddhi as preovertly Śaivite deity appearing as a protector deity in Gsar ma contexts, these are all exceptions that prove the rule; generally speaking, in Gsar ma sources, Śiva has no practical importance as a source of power or object of worship in his own right.

⦁ The Rnying ma Rudra as the Anti-Buddha

One aspect of the elaborate and developed Rudra myths found in Rnying ma literature that has so far been overlooked by scholars is the fact that the mythemes of Rudra’s lifestory appear to intentionally invert or reverse those found in the life story of the Buddha. In other words, the Rnying ma Rudra myth structurally inverts the popular Mahāyāna myths of the Buddha to create a mirror image of the Buddha, effectively the Buddha’s dark twin.

To illustrate this point, I will briefly compare the structure of the most detailed version of the Rudra subjugation myth, that found in the Gathering of Intentions Sūtra (Dgongs pa ‘dus pa'i mdo), with occasional reference to a similar version of the myth found in O rgyan gling pa’s(b. 1323) treasure text, the Padma Bka’ thang, with an elaborate Mahāyāna version of Buddha Śākyamuni’s life story found in the very popular Lalitavistara Sūtra.20)

served in the Tibetan canon were Śaiva adaptations of a Buddhist practice re- integrated into a Buddhist context, maintaining Śaiva elements. On the adoption of these Buddhist practices into Śaiva traditions see also Mallinson 2019.

⦁ All references in this section are taken from the translations of the Rudra

For organizational and heuristic purposes, I will be using a so-called "twelve-act structure" to compare the Buddha and Rudra myths. This is inspired by the popular Tibetan convention of dividing the Buddha’s life up into twelve great acts (mdzad pa bcu gnyis), namely:

1) descent from the Tuṣita heaven;

2) entering his mother’s womb;

3) taking birth;

4) becoming skilled in various arts;

5) delighting in the company of royal consorts/taking a wife;

6) developing renunciation and becoming ordained;

7) practicing austerities;

8) proceeding to the foot of the bodhi tree;

9) overcoming Māra’s hosts;

10) becoming fully enlightened;

11) turning the wheel of dharma; and

12) passing into mahāparinirvāṇa. This twelve-act structure of the Buddha’s life story is attributed to a praise hymn attributed to Nāgārjuna,21) and the Play in Full version of the Buddha’s life story does not specifically highlight twelve acts.

However, eleven of the twelve acts are represented in the Play in Full (the Buddha’s death or parinirvāṇa is the only one not mentioned in the scripture). My main point here is to show that the Rudra subjugation myth has a very clear equal but opposite version of each of the twelve acts, with the possible exception of one, as we shall see. Much could be said on the fact that the Rudra subjugation myth also begins with an inverted jātaka or avadāna-style "tale from the past" which depicts the primordial myths in Dalton(2011: 159-206) and Douglas and Bays (1978: 26-46), and the 84000 project’s recent translation of the Lalitavistara Sūtra (LVS). For a study of the history of the Gather ingof Intentions scripture in the history of the Rnying ma school, see Dalton 2016.

crime that led to his downfall and eventual rebirth as the supreme cosmic villain, mirroring the Buddha’s own acts of virtue in past lives that lead to his eventual enlightenment. Here, however, I will mainly restrict myself to discussing the Buddha’s and Rudra’s life stories from the point of their taking birth in their latest lives.

The first act of the bodhisattva is his descent from the Tuṣita heaven where he had been living as a powerful god. This is the last of a series of fortunate rebirths over countless eons during which he accumulated a limitless amount of merit, enabling him to achieve Buddhahood in his final life. Rudra, by contrast, according to the Gathering of Intentions, begins as a lay follower of Buddhism named Thar pa nag po who lives in Akṣobhya’s pure land of Abhirati.

After misunderstanding the Buddhist teachings and committing a number of terrible sins, including abusing his guru, in a Luciferian-like Fall he is reborn in hell as well as a series of countless other extremely unfortunate re- births as various inauspicious animals and evil spirits, during which he further accumulates a mass of bad karma. Eventually, however, he ascends back to earth where he is finally reborn as a demon. The Buddha, according to the Play in Full and his other hagiographies, was immaculately conceived in the womb of a chaste, virtuous queen. Rudra, on the other hand, was born to a demoness prostitute. According to the Padma Bka' thang version of the story, he was born after she had sex with three different types of demons, explaining the origin of Rudra’s three different colored heads.

In the third act, when the bodhisattva takes birth, he is born cleanly and painlessly from his mother’s side under a tree which spontaneously bursts into bloom. Seven days later his mother dies, but the Play in Full makes clear that this was not a result of the birth. Rudra’s mother, however, does die in childbirth, and the community buries the newborn alive with his mother’s corpse underneath a dead, poisonous tree. To survive, Rudra eats his mother’s corpse over the course of several days which gives him the strength to crawl out of the grave.

Thus, the motif of birth under a tree is present in both stories, but with completely opposite significance. Also, while the bodhisattva is born with marks of ideal beauty, the Gathering of Intentions describes at great length how much of a hideous mutant Rudra is, with three fearsome heads, wings, dirty claws, and scaly skin. In his fourth act, the bodhisattva makes a show of learning various martial and intellectual skills, including religious knowledge, though the Play in Full assures us that the bodhisattva is automatically competent in all of these.

During the bodhisattva’s childhood there are also numerous scenes of vast hosts of worldly gods spontaneously paying homage to him because of his innate power and virtue. Rudra, as he grows, learns and practices evil mantras and engages in various taboo-breaking behavior, such as eating corpses and wearing their garments. These actions enable him to gain power over the evil spirits that dwell in charnel grounds, and eventually all the worldly gods. Both the bodhisattva and Rudra, at a certain point, take many consorts. In Rudra’s case these are the wives of the gods whom he conquers after he takes over the world. The Play in Full also goes into significant detail on the bodhisattva taking a wife, with whom he has a son.

While not discussed in the Play in Full itself, in other sources his son is reported to have become one of his spiritual disciples later in life. Rudra, on the other hand, does not conceive a son himself, but is made a cuckold by Vajrapāṇi who as part of a skillful method to sub- jugate Rudra, disguises himself as Rudra and copulates with his main consort, producing a son. This son, in the Gathering of Intentions version of the myth, goes on to be the main deity to subjugate Rudra.

In the sixth act, the bodhisattva abandons the palace and worldly life in order to seek enlightenment in the wilderness. Rudra, in perhaps the clearest thematic inversion of the Buddha’s myth, begins life by practicing austerities in the wilderness and this gives him the power that enables him to take over the world. Ultimately, however, he takes up residence in a palace on the isle of Lanka. The bodhisattva moves from palace to wilderness while Rudra moves from wilderness to palace. The bodhisattva’s seventh act, the practicing of austerities, has a less obvious parallel in the Rudra story. However, it is notable that in the various legends of the Buddha the bodhisattva tries several methods for achieving enlightenment which ultimately are inadequate.

In the Play in Full version specifically the bodhisattva trains in the meditative absorption of neither perception nor non-perception with the teacher interestingly named "Rudraka". Then, when this meditation technique proves in- sufficient to achieve enlightenment, he practices intense self-deprivation with a group of five other ascetics. This too is insufficient for attaining awakening. The probable parallel to these episodes in Rudra’s life is the fact that two different Buddhist teachers, each representing lower vehicles of Buddhism, attempt to tame the demon lord, but are insufficient to the task.

Acts eight through ten (proceeding to the seat of enlightenment, conquest of Māra, and enlightenment) in both myths make up a continuous set that happen in quick succession. In the bodhisattva’s case he proceeds to the foot of the bodhi tree, where he meditates until he is attacked by the demonic hordes of Māra, his final obstacle. He peacefully subdues them, barely lifting a finger, and at last gains ultimate supernormal knowledge and full spiritual awakening, specifically realizing the truth of karma and the law of interdependent origination.

Rudra has a similar spiritual realization in which he remembers his past evil actions and understands the law of karma, which gives rise to a feeling of profound regret. In his case, however, the "seat" of enlightenment is in the belly of the main wrathful Buddhist deity to conquer him, Vajra Demon, after he has been ripped apart and eaten. Thus, while the Buddha peacefully subdues obstacles, Rudra, himself the obstacle, is violently subdued. Their ultimate spiritual realization, however, is virtually the same.

In act eleven, the newly awakened Buddha goes on to teach the Dharma, the spiritual truths that he has just personally realized. Rudra, on the other hand, realizing the error of his ways, requests teachings from the buddhas that have just conquered him. In act twelve (again, not actually in the Play in Full version of the Buddha’s story), the Buddha utterly transcends conditioned existence with his mahāparinirvāṇa. Rudra, on the other hand, while he is assured final enlightenment, in- definitely remains in cyclic existence as the lord of all dharma protectors.

Thus, virtually every significant mytheme in the life story of the Buddha is inverted in the myth of Rudra. It seems unlikely that this is coincidence and it is tempting to speculate that the authors of the Gathering of Intentions myth consciously formulated Rudra as the anti-Buddha.

⦁ Śiva Worship in Rnying ma Sources

When exactly Śiva came to be worshipped or invoked as a protector by Tibetan Buddhists is unclear. I have not found any Tibetan texts devoted to Lha chen prior to the eleventh century, so it may be that the Tibetan worship of him does not predate this. A very early golden libation (gser skyems) liturgy attributed to Gnubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes (c. 9th-10th century), which includes a fairly extensive list of dharma protectors, makes no mention of Mahādeva, Rudra, Maheśvara, or any other overtly Śaivite deity form (though Mahākāla is mentioned).22) In his chapter on Śiva in the DCTS Sle lung mentions that he

⦁ My thanks to Cathy Cantwell for providing me with her unpublished translation of this text. It appears in volumes one and two of O rgyan rtsa gsum gling pa’s (1694-1738) Gter chos. Indra, not Śiva, is designated as the lord of the gods in this text.

received teachings on the deity from a treasure cycle revealed by a Gnyal pa nyi ma shes rab, a master of Yoga tantra trans- mission who dates to the eleventh century. I have yet to find any actual Śiva text attributed to this figure, however.

In any case, Mahādeva appears in several fairly advanced ritual and iconographical forms as the "lord of the lha" in Rnying ma treasure literature at least as early as the thirteenth century, in a cycle attributed to Guru Chos dbang (1212-1270).23) In the following centuries, ritual texts focused on overtly Śaivite protectors with names like Lha chen, Dbang phyug chen po, Rudra, Thar pa nag po, and Mu stegs pa gu lang nag po would appear in the treasure cycles of such Rnying ma luminaries as Rig ’dzin rgod ldem (1337-1408)24) and Padma gling pa (1450-1521),25) and from this period on Lha chen would consistently appear at the head of the thirty generals of the worldly dregs pa deities in Rnying ma Bka’ brgyad literature.

But the seventeenth century in particular appears to have been a kind of high water mark, so to speak, of Rnying ma Śaivism, with important Lha chen ritual cycles appearing in that century in the treasure revelations of Bdud ’dul rdo rje (1615-1672), Gnam chos Mi ’gyur rdo rje (1645-1667), and, most significantly for our present purposes, Gter bdag gling pa’s

⦁ The text in which, according to Nebesky-Wojkowitz (1996: 269), Maheśvara is mentioned is the Bka’ brgyad kyi mngon par dregs pa’i dbu phyogs, which according to Henk Blezer is part of Guru Chos dbang’s Bka’brgyad gsang ba yongs rdzogs cycle (electronic communication, 3/3/2014). 24) See Boord (2013: 42).

⦁ Mu stegs gu lang nag po (or Black Infidel Maheśvara) is the third of Padma gling pa’s "three black cycles" (Harding 2003: 142-144).

Thugs rje chen po bde gshegs kun 'dus yab yum (TCKD), which focuses on a particular form of Avalokiteśvara in union with consort. Lha chen is in fact the main protector deity of the latter treasure cycle, and Sle lung was an initiate and avid practitioner of these teachings, particularly the yum, or female, yi dam in the cycle, Avalokiteśvara’s consort named Guhyajńānaḍākinī or Gsang ba ye shes mkha’ ’gro (Secret Gnosis Ḍākinī). Sle lung was compiling a large cycle of teachings focused on Gsang ba ye shes in the early 1730s, around the same time that the DCTS was written.26) Sle lung’s personal connection to this particular cycle of teachings undergirds his presentation of Śiva in the DCTS.

Furthermore, Sle lung seems to have been a fairly dedicated worshipper of Śiva himself. While there are a vast number of ritual texts dedicated to many different protector deities in Sle lung’s collected works, and only a few of them focus on Lha chen Dbang phyug chen po specifically, several that do are Sle lung’s own pure vision (dag sngang) revelations. Interestingly, one of these texts by Sle lung recreates the Indian Śaivite convention of Siva-liṅga worship. In Sle lung’s text, the primary sku brten (physical support) of Lha chen that a practitioner is instructed to construct prior to the invocation of the deity is a gtor ma in the shape of a liṅga. However, as is the case with most Buddhist protector deity ritual, the primary goal is not self-identification with the deity, or devotionalism for its own

⦁ See Bailey 2017: 84 – 120 for a detailed analysis of Sle lung’s work related to Gsang ba ye shes mkha’ ’gro.

sake but, on some level at least, trans-theistically coercing the deity to carry out the yogin’s will. The text instructs:

...in a copper bowl mix together various grains and wholesome barley meal with the three sweets (honey, sugar, and molasses), place a very large erect red liṅga surrounded by three layers of precious jewels, ornamented by a red ritual arrow, together with outer and inner offerings. Abiding in the generation stage of a meditation deity such as Hayagrīva, bless the offering substances.

Purify the liṅga. From within emptiness, amidst raging red light, [appearing in] the primary form of the Excellent Great Chief, Ancestor of the World, his (feet) rooted in the nāga realm and his legs flexing in the human realm, his head reaching the Brahma realm. The light rays radiating from his luster are difficult to fathom...‘Om Mahā deva Akarsha Yadza’ thus recite offering incense and music...exhort with light rays from one’s own heart and imagine [him] performing the four activities without obstruction.27)

⦁ zangs gzhong du ’bru sna bzang po’i phye mngar gsum gyis sbrus par ling+ga dmar po shin tu che ba gyen du ’greng zhing/ mtha’ nor bu rin po che sum brtsegs kyis bskor ba mda’ dar dmar pos brgyan pa phyi nang gi nyer spyod dang bcas pa bshams/ rta mgrin gsang ye sogs skabs babs kyi yi dam gyi bskyed rim la gnas pas/ mchod rdzas brlabs/ lin+ga bsang sbyangs/ stong pa’i ngang las ’od zer dmar po ’khrug pa’i dbus su legs ldan tshogs rje chen po srid mes kyi rnam pa can rtsa ba klu yul du zug cing/ rkeng pa [149] mi yul du ldem pa/ mgo po tshangs pa’i yul du slebs pa/ gzi brjid dpag par dka’ ba las ’od zer ’phros/...Om ma hā de wa a karsha ya dza% zhes spos rol bya/...rang gi thugs ka’i ’od zer gyis bskul bas/ las bzhi thogs med du mdzad par bsams la/ (Dag snang lha chen gyi sgrub skor las tshogs rdzogs rim gcig chog srog sdud chen po BRGB: vol. 10, pp. 148-149). A similar ritual is described in Mi ’gyur rdo rje’s Lha chen cycle with an illustration of the liṅgaṃ gtor ma.

Now that we have this basic background understanding of Śiva in Buddhism more generally and in Rnying ma practice more specifically, we can better appreciate the significance of the deity’s presence in the DCTS. We now turn to a summary and analysis of Sle lung’s chapter.

⦁ Maheśvara, Chief of All the Haughty Ones

Immediately putting an emphasis on Rnying ma sources in

⦁ Mi ’gyur rdo rje. [[Gnam chos thugs kyi gter kha snyan brgyud zab mo’i skor]].TBRC: W21578. 5:133. 13 vols. Paro, Bhutan: Dilgo Khyentsey Rinpoche, 1983.

⦁ This title is taken from the table of contents imposed by the editors of the 1979 Leh edition of the DCTS, the edition I drew from primarily for my (still tentative) translation of the chapter. "Haughty ones" (dregs ldan, literally "[those] with haughtiness") is a term that usually refers to all unenlightened spirit beings, from the most powerful gods down to minor ghosts.

the DCTS generally, and this section specifically, Sle lung begins the Śiva chapter with two basic descriptions of Lha chen from two different treasure cycles. The first is a single line from what he identifies as a Northern Treasures text entitled The Great Magical Power of the Haughty [[[Spirits]]] (Dregs pa’i mthu dbang chen mo) which simply identifies Śiva and Umā, his traditional consort in Indian mythology, as the chieftains of the eight classes of gods and demons. This is reinforced by a much more interesting and significant description attributed to Gter bdag gling pa’s TCKD:

"Avalokiteśvara emanated the Great God [[[Lha chen]]] Iśvara, who is the ancestor of the three realms of the world, the god who bestows all power and perfects all attainments. Praise to you, Great Sorcerer,30) attendant of the Buddha." And: "From the maṇḍala of Powerful Great Bliss, from the creative energy of the Excellent Glorious Horse,31) Avalokiteśvara, great Gu lang,32) supreme deity, Lord Srī with matted hair."33)

⦁ mthu chen.

⦁ Hayagrīva (Tib. Rta mgrin). In tantric Buddhism generally and the TCKD specifically Hayagrīva is understood to be a wrathful form of Avalokiteśvara.

⦁ Normally a term for Brahma. Possibly in this case acknowledging Śiva’s role as a demiurge deity.

⦁ spyan ras gzigs sprul dbang phyug lha chen po: ’jig rten mes po khams gsum kun gyi bdag: dngos grub mchog ster yon tan rdzogs pa’i lha: rgyal ba’i bka’sdod mthu chen khyod la bstod: ces dang/ bde chen dbang gi dkyil ’khor nas: dpal chen khrag ‘thung rta mchog dpal: thugs rje chen po’i rol pa las: gu lang chen po lha yi lha: dbang phyug shrI la pa can: [4.9 - 4.14]. All number references indicated in brackets from now on refer to the page and line numbers in volume one of the 1979 edition of the DCTS. Secondarily, I also consulted the 2003 Beijing edition of the text when spellings or wording was con-

Opening with a citation from the TCKD indicates the importance of this cycle to Sle lung’s project here, since this was a key part of his own main practice lineage. Sle lung goes on in the next paragraph to buttress the claim in Gter bdag gling pa’s treasure text that Lha chen is an emanation of Avalokiteśvara by appealing to an early Mahāyana scripture, the Kāraṇḍvyūha Sūtra.

This text is essentially Avalokiteśvara’s main devotional scripture and Sle lung cites the passage which asserts that for the sake of beings the Buddhist deity emanates the various Hindu deities, starting with Śiva himself, but also including Brahma, Viṣṇu, and Saraswatī [4.17-5.1].34) This section is especially interesting because it appears to be an apologetic defense of the truth of the Rnying ma treasure texts and their claims regarding Lha chen specifically, by connecting them with a Mahāyana sūtra the authority of which would be beyond dispute in a Tibetan Buddhist cultural context.

Sle lung continues by citing numerous scriptural sources to assert the idea of the fundamental unity of all enlightened fusing or questionable. The first quote is from the Bka’ srung lha chen gyi bstod pa (Praise of the Dharma Protector Mahādeva) in the first volume of the TCKD (p. 342) in a group of texts all devoted to Lha chen. The second quote that connects Lha chen (Lord Srī) with Hayagrīva, however, is not in this praise text and I have been unable to locate it.

⦁ Sle lung paraphrases the line in the scripture in which the Buddha describes the different Hindu deities that were born from different parts of Avalokiteśvara's body. Not mentioned specifically by Sle lung, the sūtra specifies that Maheśvara emerged from Avalokiteśvara’s forehead: "dpral ba las ni dbang phyug chen po." See ’[[Phags pa za ma tog bkod pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo D 116: mdo sde, ja 200a3-247b7 (vol. 51), 207a.4. On the Kāraṇḍvyūha Sūtra and its Śaivite influence see Studholme (2002) and Bisschop (2018).

beings. I will not review his entire argument and all the scriptures he cites for it here, but he ends by citing a passage from a "detailed ritual" (cho ga zhib mo) text devoted to Avalokiteśvara which asserts that all the Buddhas of our current Fortunate Eon are manifestations of Avalokiteśvara. Thus, Sle lung argues, since Lha chen is simply a form of Avalokiteśvara as well, Lha chen is ontologically inseparable from all the buddhas.

To further strengthen his point, Sle lung in this section also quotes a passage from the Hevajra Tantra ) which states in effect that the deity is the teacher, the teaching, those being taught, and in fact the whole world and beyond the world as well.36) This panentheistic, non-dual vision of reality is, according to Sle lung, supported by the teachings of all tantric deities, from the Rnying ma Bka' brgyad deities to the 100 peaceful and wrathful Mahāyoga deities, as well as the Gsar ma deities of Cakrasaṃvara, Vajrabhairava, and so forth.

Underscoring his radical universalist and altruistic (ris med) attitude, Sle lung next makes the point that, no matter what type of spirit a being is, they are all equally suitable to act as a protector of the Buddhist Dharma. He supports this assertion with an unsourced quote from Padmasambhava from a treasure text that "Brahma and the gods of the desire realm, Iśvara and so forth, even all the great gods of haughtiness are attendants

⦁ Referred to simply as the brtag gnyis (DCTS 5.13), the "two-chaptered" Hevajra Tantra, for which see Farrow and Menon (2001).

⦁ ’chad pa po nga chos kyang nga/ rang gi tshogs ldan nyan po nga/ ’jig rten ston pa bsgrub bya nga/ ’jig rten ’jig rten ’das pa nga/ [5.13-5.15]. Hevajraḍkinīja- lasaṃara Tantra (Kye’i rdo rje mkha’ ’gro ma dra ba’i sdom pa’i rgyud) D 418: rgyud, nga 13b5-30a3 (vol. 80), 15b.5.

and honored servants."37) Sle lung then adds the comment that enlightened beings take illusory, worldly forms as a pedagogical tool to train the truly unenlightened who are in need of training. This is a theme [[Sle lung returns to again and again, not only in this section, but throughout the DCTS. In this specific context, the suggestion, and the point Sle lung wants to emphasize, is that Lha chen, despite his appearance as a world- ly, unenlightened, "outsider" god, is in fact enlightened and Buddhist, or even a Buddha.

⦁ The Yoga Tantra Myths

Having cited the Kāraṇḍvyūha Sūtra, Sle lung continues his survey of Buddhist Śiva mythology by citing two stories which he first attributes generally to "the Yoga Tantras". Later, on page 10, he seems to attribute the main story he tells to the Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sūtra.38) However, the story he mentions

⦁ tshangs dang ’dod lha dbang po sogs: dregs pa’i lha chen thams cad kyang: khyod kyi ’khor dang g.yog lags te: [7.3-7.5].

⦁ "Rnam snang mngon byang gi rtsa rgyud." This seems like a reference to Rnam par snang mdzad chen po mngon par rdzogs par byang chub pa rnam par sprul pa byin gyis rlob pa shin tu rgyas pa mdo sde dbang po’i rgyal po (Skt. Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi-vikurvatī-adhiṣṭāna-vaipulya-sūtra) D 494: rgyud, tha 151b2-260a7 (vol. 86). On this scripture see Giebel 2005 and Hodge 2003. However, the Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi is technically classified as a Caryā Tantra, not a Yoga Tantra. Also, it lacks a Maheśvara subjugation myth. So either Sle lung made a mistake, confusing the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃraha with the Mahāvairocanābhisambodhi, or he is simply using the phrase "the

is not in that scripture, but rather appears to be a summary of Vajrapāṇi’s subjugation of Śiva found in the Sarvatathāgata- tattvasaṃraha Sūtra.39) To summarize Sle lung's telling briefly, the story begins with Vairocana, the cosmic Buddha, and all the buddhas of the ten directions, requesting Vajrasattva/Vajrapāṇi to tame all sentient beings, essentially asking them to be converted to Buddhism. Vajrapāṇi understands that this is impossible as long as Śiva remains unconverted.

So, emanating as the particularly wrathful Vajrahūṃkara, he forcibly summons Śiva, who arrogantly tries to assert that he is the true lord of the universe, deriding Hūṃkara as nothing but a mere yakṣa spirit. Most of the narrative is concerned with the extended battle be- tween Hūṃkara and Mahādeva, who is also supported by a vast retinue of other gods, such as Viṣṇu and Indra.

Of course, Hūṃkara ends up winning, but Mahādeva puts up a surprisingly good fight, breaking free of the shackles the Buddhist deity tries to bind him with multiple times. Finally, however, with a rain of weapons and blasts of apocalyptic fire, Hūṃkara succeeds in killing Mahādeva and all the other gods but revives them again once their ghostly spirits become penitent. Sle lung supplements the main story with a summarized passage from the Vajraśikhara Tantra ) which describes the various blazing root tantra of the full enlightenment of Vairocana" to refer to the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃraha.

⦁ D 479: rgyud, nya 1b1-142a7 (vol. 84). The passage Sle lung summarizes runs from approximately folios 49a-53a. For this version of the Maheśvara subjugation myth see Iyanaga 1985 and Davidson 1991: 200 - 202. Davidson cites Sle lung’s chapter in a note in reference to his summary of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃraha myth (229, n. 6).

weapons that emanate from the various parts of Hūṃkara’s body, from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, which ultimately shoot from the pores of his body to subdue all wicked beings in the universe.41) This yoga tantra section of Sle lung’s chapter runs from pages 7 to 13. Sle lung’s concluding commentary to these yoga tantra myths is particularly interesting. Noting the good fight that Mahādeva put up, he argues:

If [[[Mahādeva]]] was not an authentic, perfect Buddha, but an ordinary, mundane god, how would he have been capable of breaking the vajra noose and vajra shackles which arose from the manifestations of the tathāgatas? Both the one tamed and the tamer had equal intentions, establishing manifestations and performing like that in order to teach... As for the view that he is a mundane god, this is a fool’s opinion.42)

⦁ "Rdo rje rtse mo." Full title Gsang ba rnal ’byor chen po’i rgyud rdo rje rtse mo (Skt. Vajraśikhara-mahāguhyayoga-tantra) D 480: rgyud, nya 142b1-274a5 (vol. 84). The name Vajrahūṃkara is barely mentioned in the Sarvatathāgata- tattvasaṃgraha and Sle lung seems to be conflating the myth from that scripture with certain details from the Vajraśikhara Tantra, an explanatory tantra of the Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha (Giebel 2001: 9), where Vajrahūṃara is mentioned frequently, specifically in connection to the subjugation of Maheśvara.

⦁ This seems to summarize a passage in the Vajraśikhara that runs from approximately folios 242b-247b.

⦁ yang dag par rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas min par ’jig rten gyi lha rang ga ba zhig (yin) na de bzhin gshegs pa’i rnam ’phrul las byung ba rdo rje zhags pa gcod pa dang/ rdo rje lcags sgrog gcod pa sogs ji ltar byed nus/ gdul bya dang ’dul byed gnyis ka dgongs pa myam pa’i rnam sprul gyi bkod pa ston par bzhed nas de ltar mdzad pa yin no/ [14] dus de phan chad lha chen so skye rang ga ba

In other words, the idea is that Hūṃkara and Mahādeva were both enlightened manifestations of the Buddha, and that their combat was simply didactic play-acting. Otherwise, an unenlightened, worldly god would never have been able to the break the shackles with which the Buddhist champion had tried to bind him. This echoes the point Sle lung made earlier with the passage from the Hevajra Tantra, which states that the teacher and the disciple are equal manifestations of the enlightened deity.

⦁ The Highest Yoga Tantra Myths

Next, Sle lung shifts focus to yoginiruttara yoga tantra sources, first citing the Maheśvara subjugation story associated with the Cakrasaṃvara mythos which he attributes to a history of the Dharma (chos ’byung) by a Don kun mkhyen bu, which refers to Buton Rinchen grub. Davidson (1991: 203-213) has already discussed this Sa skya school understanding of the Maheśvara subjugation story in relation to Cakrasaṃvara in good detail. However, to summarize Bu ston’s history, Sle lung describes the different manifestations of Maheśvara and Umā Devī in sexual union that were said to have resided, at some

yin pa’i dbang du gtong na yang/ dng sang ni rdzogs pa’i sangs rgyas yin par rgyud sde rin po che de dang nas gsungs pas ’jig rten gyi lha rang ga bar ’dzin pa ni blun po’i lugs so// [13.16 - 14.3].

point in the mythic past, on and around Mount Meru. The various forms of the central couple were surrounded by various types of worldly spirits such as nāgas, yakṣas, and rākṣasas who resided in the tantric holy places like the eight great charnel grounds. Sle lung notes how the central couple, the "male and female overlords," which is to say Maheśvara and Umā, magically emanated liṅga and bhaga effigies in these holy places to bless these retinue spirits. The central couple and their hordes of daemons are completely drunk with the passions of lust and hatred, engaging in uncontrolled sex as well as violence by slaughtering and eating the flesh of sentient beings.

They are also overwhelmed by ignorance, it is said, because they "ignored karma and its fruit and confused the meaning of the natural state."43) It is said that in this way they conquered the entire world and led all beings to behave like this. Fortunately, the "Buddha himself" emanated as Heruka (Cakrasaṃvara) who, blessed by the various powers of the five Buddha families, came to our world and put an end to the evil of the worldly gods by crushing Maheśvara and Umā, here in their forms as Bhairava and Kālaratrī, beneath his feet. He then emanates a series of other deities, the retinue deities of the Cakrasaṃvara maṇḍala such as the 24 wrathful consorts and the four female gate- keepers, to subdue the surrounding worldly spirits in the vari- ous tantric charnel grounds [15].44)

⦁ This recalls Thar pa nag po’s misunderstanding of the Buddhist teachings in the Gathering of Intentions version of the myth (see above), indicating that the Cakrasaṃvara version of the myth may come from Rnying ma influence as well.

Following this, Sle lung immediately turns to a Rnying ma source, namely the Guhyagarbha Tantra, regarded as the root scripture for Rnying ma Mahāyoga tantra. Sle lung describes a similarly structured Maheśvara subjugation myth found in the fifteenth chapter of this tantra.45) The basic "plot" is basically the same as the Cakrasaṃvara story, namely that the worldly gods, led by Maheśvara, are routed by wrathful emanations of the Buddha. One main difference is the names and forms of the deities and spirits involved. For instance, the main subjugating deity here is Vajrarakśa, "with nine heads, eighteen arms, and eighteen legs," although he is also referred to simply as "Heruka." That Sle lung chose to place the Gsar ma and Rnying ma sources parallel to each other like this shows his ris med in- tent, and his implicit point is that there is no contradiction between the old and new schools on the point of Maheśvara's subjugation. That said, however, Sle lung does quote more ex- tensively from the Guhyagarbha than he does from the

⦁ See Rin chen grub, Rin chen rnam rgyal, Lokesh Chandra. "Bde mchog gi chos ’byung." In Gsung ’bum Rin chen grub (Zhol par ma ldi lir bskyar par brgyab pa). TBRC: W22106. 6: 13 - 130. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1965-1971. http: /tbrc.org/link?RID=O4CZ16925|O4CZ169254CZ16 95$W 2106. A discussion of Maheśvara’s subjugation is found on pages 60-65. For more de- tail on the origin myths of the Cakrasaṃara Tantra see Gray 2001: 431-505. On the structure of the Cakrasaṃara maṇḍala, see Tanaka 2018: 215 - 221.

45) NGB (M) 417: wa, 152.6-218.7 (vol. 20), 195-206. For a translation of the Guhyagarbha Tantra as well as its most famous commentary, Dpal gsang ba snying po de kho na nyid nges pa’i rgyud kyi ’grel pa phyogs bcu’i mun pa thams cad rnam par sel ba (A Commentary on the Guhyagarba Tantra Dispelling the Darkness of the Ten Directions), by Klong chen rab 'blams pa (1308-1364), see Lama Chönam and Sangye Khandro 2011, especially 91-105 and 569 - 609 for the fifteenth chapter. See also Dorje 1987.

Cakrasaṃvara mythos. While this may partially be because the Guhyagarbha chapter is simply longer than the relevant section in Don kun mkhyen bu’s chos ’byung, I suspect it may also be because of Sle lung’s Rnying ma preference. The initial Cakrasaṃvara version is summarized in only two pages [14-15], whereas the following Guhyagarbha section lasts at least ten pages [16-26].

Thus, as might be expected, the Guhyagarbha version of the myth contains far more detail, including graphic descriptions of Heruka's subjugation of the worldly gods. For instance, it’s said that "in order to purify the three poisons, he ate all their flesh of ignorance, drank all their blood of desire, and gnawed all their bones of hatred," and furthermore that he "liberated [killed] the males, taming them. Then, in order to tame the females, he united [in sexual intercourse] with them."46)

There are also interesting bits of commentary interjected throughout the Guhyagarbha narrative. In fact, in one section, at the bot- tom of page 23, Sle lung cites what he says is a passage from a commentary on the Guhyagarbha Tantra (though he does not specify by whom this commentary was written), which is meant to explain the true meaning of the Maheśvara subjugation story, namely that "[the Buddhas] bring forth outer displays to represent the taming of the four inner Māras".47) Thus, Sle lung and

⦁ dug gsum dag par mdzad pa’i phyir du gti mug sha kun zos/ ’dod chags khrag kun ’thung/ zhe sdang rus pa kun ’chos so/ de nas pho rgyud bsgral te btul ba de nas mo rgyud sbyor bas ’dul ba'i phyir [17.15 - 17.19].

⦁ nang du bdud bzhi btul ba’i rtags phyi rol du bstan par ’brongs de zhes [23.18-23.19].

the unnamed commentator provide here what is essentially, at least in part, an emic, pre-modern proto-psychological inter- pretation of the Maheśvara subjugation myth.

What follows from here is largely just a list of deities that are included in Buddhist tantric maṇḍala most of which are apparently worldly gods that have been converted to Buddhism and provide supportive or protector functions, such as the four guardian kings, the ten directional protectors such as Indra, Yama, Vāyu, and Agni, and so forth. Sle lung specifies other groups such as the eight great nāgas, the eight great planets, and the nine bhairavas. Occasionally Sle lung will give asides to provide more information about some of these deities.

For example, after mentioning the nine bhairavas he gives more detail about them in particular (likely because he is particularly concerned with focusing on explicitly Śaivite deities), citing a text entitled the Great Life-Force Entrustment of the Haughty Spirits (Bka’ srung dregs pa’i srog dbang) from the Bla ma dgongs ’dus treasure cycle, to give the names and iconography of the nine bhairavas.48) Sle lung then mentions the mural paintings of the nine bhairavas at Gnas chung monastery [27]. Soon after, Sle lung also lists the 30 chieftains of the haughty, worldly spirits, which significantly are headed by Śiva and Umā [28].

This list of primarily worldly protector deities (at one point Sle lung numbers their total at 77) goes on for so long, in fact,

⦁ The text cited is "Bka’ srung dregs pa’i srog dbang gnam lcags ’bar ba’i rgyan can " In Bla ma dgongs ’dus. TBRC:W23445. 7: 309 - 328. Paro: Lama Ngodrup and Sherab Drimey, 1981-1984.

that the editors of the Leh edition of the DCTS apparently became confused and assumed that the Śiva chapter had come to an end in the middle of it. According to their table of contents, the Śiva chapter ends in the middle of page 30, to be succeeded by a chapter on Sa yi lha mo bstan ma (Skt. Bhūmī Devī), the goddess best known for helping the Buddha overcome Māra during the night of his enlightenment. The Leh editors incorrectly attribute an entire chapter in Sle lung’s text to her, running from pages 30 to 67, making it longer than the pages they allot to the Śiva chapter.

In fact, Sle lung does mention Sa yi lha mo on page 30, but only in passing, in the context of applying an animistic deified pure vision to the four elements, noting that Bhūmī Devī suffuses all earth, Agni all fire, Varuṇa all water, and Vāyu all air. Then in more explicitly Buddhist fashion he also mentions that the female Buddhas of the five families embody the five elements, including space. Sle lung then moves on to discussing mountain deities [31] and Sa yi lha mo is not mentioned again.

Thus, labeling pages 30 to 67 as a Sa yi lha mo "chapter"is a complete error. We can somewhat forgive the editors of the Leh edition for becoming confused at this point, however, because Sle lung has seemingly lost his focus on Śiva in favor of this host of other deities. However, Sle lung occasionally makes comments indicating that he thinks of all these other worldly deities as being subordinate to Śiva in some way or another, such as being either emanations of him or being his offspring. On page 33, for example, he says that "the eight great gods are all explained to be his sons,"49) with the chief among them being Mahākāla.

Sle lung next cites the Guhyagarbha commentary of "Mkhen chen Lo tsā ba Dharma Śrī," which is Lo chen Dharmaśrī (1654-1717).50) Here, Sle lung quotes Dharmaśrī referencing Rudra’s past life as Thar pa nag po, an element of the Rudra subjugation story found in the Gathering of Intentions Sūtra version of the myth (see above) which is described later in the chapter in more detail, although here the Gathering of Intentions is not mentioned directly by name.

Sle lung, citing Dharmaśrī, makes the point that Rudra in a past life badly misunderstood the Buddhist teachings, leading to his downfall and eventual rebirth as an evil, haughty worldly god. However, he ended up "becoming a disciple," which is to say was tamed and transformed into a protector of Buddhism, because of his previous karmic connection with the Buddhist teachings, regardless of his earlier misunderstanding [33-34].51)

Sle lung then returns to Bu ston’s dharma history and the Cakrasaṃvara mythos. Here he simply notes that, similar to Rudra’s taming in the Guhyagarbha, after Bhairava is subdued by either Heruka, Vajravārāhī, or Vajrapāṇi (depending on the specific scripture from the Cakrasaṃvara cycle, which Sle lung

⦁ lha chen brgyad kyang ’di'i sras yin par bshad [32.17 - 32.18].

⦁ Gsang snying ’grel pa gsang bdag dgongs rgyan (The Lord of Secrets’ Adornment of Realization, a Commentary on the Guhyagarbha). In Gsung ’bum/_d+harma shrI. TBRC: W9140. 8: 183 - 678. Dehra Dun: D.G. Khochen Tulku, 1999. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O2CZ9798%7CO2CZ97982CZ9870$W9140. Lo chen Dharmaśrī’s summary of the Rudra subjugation myth ranges from ap- proximately 286-296.

⦁ Klong chen pa gives a very similar abbreviated summary of the Gathering of Intentions version of the myth in his commentary as well (see Lama Chönam and Sangye Khandro 2011: 573-575).

asserts are without contradiction despite the differing central deity), he and his retinue are established as part of the maṇḍala [36]. Sle lung then raises the issue of when exactly Heruka, in pseudo-historical time, tamed Maheśvara, and what is the relation and exact chronology between the Buddha’s emanation as the tantric form of Heruka and as the exoteric form Śākyamuni. From the several texts Sle lung cites such as the Extensive Tantra of the Ocean of Ḍākinīs (Mkha’ ’gro’i rgya mtsho’i rgyud rgyas pa), most sources seem to generally agree that Maheśvara's subjugation occurred in the Kali Yuga, which is to say our present age.52)

They seem less clear, however, whether or not Śākyamuni emanated Heruka, or the other way around. For instance, according to Sle lung, citing several texts such as the Extensive Saṃvara (Bde mchog rtsa rgyud rgyas pa), "Heruka fiercely tamed the wrathful Bhairava [38] and subsequently having emanated as Śākyamuni had a wish to come to Jambudvīpa".53) But then he cites a "root commentary" attrib-

⦁ The main verse Sle lung cites here is found in the Dpal mkha’ ’gro rgya mtsho rnal ’byor ma’i rgyud kyi rgyal po chen po (Glorious Ocean of Ḍākinīs, the Great Tantra of the Yoginī), D 372: rgyud, kha 137a1-264b7 (vol. 78), 264a.2-4. Sle lung also cites at least one source which says that the subjugation occurred in the "age of half-perfection" (gnyis ldan gyi dus) [37.5], which would correspond to the Tretā Yuga, so it seems there was not universal agreement on this point.

⦁ de’i shugs kyi he ru kas drag po ’jigs byed chen po btul ba ches snga [38] zhing/ de’i rjes su shAkya’i rgyal por sprul nas ’dzam bu’i gling du byon par bzhed pa ’grub/ [37.19 - 38.2]. The wording here appears to be Sle lung’s own commentary, and I have not found this information given in any canonical text. However, this general discussion about the timing of Maheśvara’s subjugation appears to also be taken, or inspired, from Bu ston’s chos ’byung. See for instance 64-65 where Bu ston mentions the event occurring in the Kali

uted to Indrabhūti that seems to say the opposite. Sle lung concludes this section by simply stating that "Śākyamuni having come to Jambudvīpa, is said to have tamed Maheśvara. Not only in this world system, but with various displays he tamed Iśvara in as many world systems as there are atoms in the universe, such as one billion Jambudvīpas."54) Ultimately, he says, one cannot "establish the limit of his displays" with ordinary notions of historical or chronological time [40.15-40.18].

Sle lung continues citing texts connected to the tradition of Cakrasaṃvara that give further references to Heruka taming Maheśvara, his retinue, taking over their holy places, and establishing them within the Buddhist maṇḍala. On page 43 he quotes the Glorious Ocean of Ḍākinīs again to describe the abodes of the deities taken over.55)

Then on the next page he cites a tantra entitled Glorious Wrathful Vajra Mahākāla, the Secret Protector who gives rise to Accomplishments (Dpal rdo rje nag po chen po khros pa’i mgon po gsang ba dngos grub ’byung ba) in order to identify Mahākāla as ontologically identical with Maheśvara.56) Specifically, Sle lung comments that "Śiva (Legs ldan) and Four-Armed Mahākāla are one and the same that appear differently depending on the trainee" [46.4 - 46.6]. He also mentions in the same paragraph that this identification is supported by the Padma Bka’ Thang, a Rnying ma gter ma biogra-

Yuga.

⦁ shAk thub ’dzam gling du byon nas drag po dbang phyug chen po btul bar gsungs pa/ ’jig rten gyi khams ’dir ma zad/ ’dzam bu’i gling bye ba phrag brgya sogs... [40.12 - 40.15].

55) D 372: vol. 78, folio/line 178b.2-179a.1. 56) D 416: rgyud, ga 263b1-292a6 (vol. 79). See folio 264b.

phy of Padmasambhava, which indeed says that after his tam- ing, Rudra became Mahākāla.57)

At this point, over the past 30 or so pages Sle lung has been documenting references to Śiva’s subjugation and incorporation into Buddhism in highest yoga tantra sources, alternating smoothly between Rnying ma and Gsar ma sources. Now, on page 46, he explicitly makes his ris med case by asserting that "in the early translation (Rnying ma) tantras his name is recorded as ‘Rudra’ and in the later translations (Gsar ma) such as Cakrasaṃvara he is called ‘Drag po’ in Tibetan, and there is not even the slightest difference between them, they are both names of Śiva, the Lord of the Feast, the wrathful Maheśvara himself".58)

In a somewhat odd aside, Sle lung also notes at this point that, according to the "Old and New tantras, [[[Śiva]]] has a great many karmamudrā consorts such as Queen Sitātapatrā of the Knowledge Mantras".59) Sle lung does not cite any specific source to support this particular claim, (though he does later say that it comes from a Rnying ma Bka’ rgyad tantra but does not specify a title) and it seems like a bit of a non sequitur at

⦁ See O rgyan gling pa. "Rta phag gis rU tra btul ba’i le'u ste/ drug pa/ ." In Pad+ma bka’ thang. TBRC: W23711: 47.5. Delhi: Chos spyod par skrun khang. http://tbrc.org/link?RID=O1PD87565%7CO1PD875651PD87575$W23711. For a translation of this passage see Douglas and Bays 1978: 46.

⦁ snga ’gyur gyi rgyud lung rnams las sgra rang sor bzhag pa ru dra zhes gsungs pa nyid phyi ’gyur ’khor lo bde mchog sogs las bod skad du bsgyur pa la drag po zhes bshad pa tsam las don du tha dad cung zad kyang med cing don du legs ldan tshogs kyi bdag po drag po dbang phyug chen po ’di nyid kyi mtshan...[46.14 - 46.18].

⦁ gsar rnying gi rgyud sde chen po rnams las rgya cher gsungs shing yongs su grags pa rig sngags kyi [47] rgyal mo gdugs dkar mo las kyang/ [46.19 - 47.1].

this point in the text, although it is a fascinating detail. Sle lung is likely here simply attempting to underscore Śiva’s Buddhist identity by pairing him (or noting his pairing) with the thoroughly and particularly Buddhist goddess Sitātapatā.60) At this point, on page 48, Sle lung refers back to his citation of Lo chen Dharmaśrī’s Guhyagarbha commentary to specifically underscore that Śiva entered the Buddhist path. This is presumably a reference to his previous life as Thar pa nag po, the story of whom Sle lung now summarizes with direct reference to the Gathering of Intentions Sūtra. This detailed retelling of the Rudra myth lasts ten pages and I will not describe it in detail here, as I have already summarized this version of the myth above.

After the Gathering of Intentions summary, on page 58, Sle lung cites another scripture entitled The Wheel of Weapons, the Tantra of Glorious Mahākāla who Sports in the Manifest Charnel Ground (Dpal mgon po nag po dur khrod mngon par rol pa mtshon cha ’khor lo’i rgyud), giving a quote that refers to Thar pa nag po’s birth in the pure land of Akṣobhya during the time of the Kṛta Yuga, the Golden Age. Sle lung then comments that this tantra is in complete agreement with the Gathering of

Intentions version of the myth.61)

Following this, Sle lung references a series of sādhanas and Rnying ma tantras focused on Mahākāla whom Sle lung identi-

⦁ On Sitātapatrā see Shaw 2006: 276 - 290.

⦁ NGB (D) 407: ya, 97b7-131b7 (vol. 24). The passage quoted by Sle lung is on 128a2. Indeed, the 35th and final chapter of this scripture, which Sle lung specifically cites, appears to be an abbreviated retelling of the Gathering of Intentions Rudra myth.

fies with Śiva. Quotes from these texts provide varying icono- graphic descriptions of the deity. For example, in one he is said to have three green heads, six multicolored arms, and reddish hair. He stands in union with Krodheśvarī. In another text he is referred to as the "Lord of Death" (’Chi bdag), "Lord of the Charnel Grounds" (Dur khrod bdag), and "Great Black Sorcerer" (Nag po mthu bo che). Here he is described as being dark blue with dark brown hair wearing a black cloak. In his right hand he holds a sandalwood club and in his left a blood-filled skull bowl, also in union with a consort [59-60]. In another descrip- tion attributed to the Stack of Curved Blades Tantra (Gri gug brtsegs pa'i rgyud),62) he has dark skin, maroon robes, crowned with a skull, holding a curved knife and a blood-filled skull bowl [60].

Sle lung then switches back to narrative, relating a series of short myths of Śiva taken from Rnying ma tantras. The first is attributed to the Nag po chen po gcer bu’i rgyud (Tantra of Solitary Mahākāla)63) which tells of an asura who challenged the gods from a three-tiered city located northeast of Mount Meru. A son of the gods named Legs ldan nag po (Black Śiva) gains great power from Vajrapāṇi by practicing secret mantra, which he uses to destroy the asuras. This is a Buddhist retelling of the Hindu myth of Śiva’s destruction of the asura city of

⦁ This refers to the Man ngag rtseg pa gri gug gi rgyud, NGB (M) 925: mi, 142.7-162.2 (vol. 46). The passage cited by Sle lung is on 148.4-148.6.

⦁ NGB (M) 926: mi, 162.2-177.4 (vol. 46). Sle lung summarizes chapter one, the "history" (byung tshul) chapter of the scripture, running from 162.4-164.4.

Tripura, found in the Śiva Purāṇa.64) The next myth is taken from the Dpal nag po chen po me lce ’phreng ba’i rgyud (Tantra of the Garland of Flames of Glorious Mahākāla).65) This myth tells the origin of Lha chen, saying that once upon a time a rākṣasa stole a goddess from the Heaven of the Four Great Kings. They had a child together who grew up to be Legs ldan nag po.

As an adult, Śiva visited Mount Malaya (incidentally, where the Gathering of Intentions Sūtra is said to have been taught) and was there empowered by a monk identified as an emanation of Mańjuśrī. In an interesting reversal of the Gathering of Intentions version of the Rudra myth, Legs ldan nag po is initially (without violence) blessed by a representative of Buddhism, after which, in line with standard Hindu mythology, he becomes the lord of the gods, marries Umā Devī, and has two unnamed sons, presumably Gaṇeśa and Kārttikeya [61].

⦁ The History of Lha chen

Sle lung now gives more personal commentary, reminding the reader once again that Śiva takes many forms for the sake of disciples, thus explaining away the often wildly contradictory

64) Shastri 1950: vol. 2, pp. 802 - 849. 65) NGB (M) 922: mi, 38.4 - 64.5 (vol. 46). Sle lung summarizes the myth in the second chapter which runs from 39.4-43.1.

forms and myths Sle lung has been describing. Sle lung then as- serts that Śiva is a member of the Lotus Family of enlightened deities since he is, Sle lung emphasizes again, a manifestation of Avalokiteśvara. This reassertion of Śiva’s true ontological identity as Avalokiteśvara segues into the last myth of Śiva’s origins discussed in the chapter, which is taken from Gter bdag gling pa’s Avalokiteśvara-focused TCKD cycle.

Specifically, Sle lung quotes from the Bde gshegs kun ’ dus kyi bka’ srung lha chen gyi lo rgyus (The History of Lha chen, the Dharma Protector of the Embodiment of All the Sugatas).66) Since this is the final myth of the chapter and not prohibitively long, it is worth translating in full here. Note that as a gter ma teaching, this story is narrated by Padmasambhava.

In the world the protector of the teachings of Avalokiteśvara is the wrathful Maheśvara Mahādeva. Primordially, immutably enlightened as Avalokiteśvara, with the capacity of unobstructed space he appears in peaceful and wrathful modes. He exists as Śiva, a magical display of all-pervasive great compassion. Moreover, when the teachings of the Buddha were greatly flourishing in all of India, the non-Buddhist infidels could not bear this and did whatever they could to cause harm [to Buddhism] such as engaging in conventional debate and summoning hostile spirits with knowledge mantras. Then, in the southern direction, many powerful worldly gods and nāgas bestowed knowledge on the infidels and caused trouble for Buddhists.

66) TCKD: vol. 1, 319 - 325.

At that time, having known the time had come to subdue them, I went to the south [64] and debated with 500 [infidel] teachers. Having defeated them and broken them...they practiced knowledge mantras in a sandalwood forest. Then at midnight of the new moon day during the constellation rgyal, the earth shook, and the trees groaned. They produced various magical displays such as swirling red light the size of Potala.67) With the Vajra-like Meditation, having subdued [the light] with my power I brought it under my control. The light became a being with a passionate manner, ornamented with flowers. He said: "Bestow the teachings, I am your serv- ant" and paid homage. Then, although I knew [the answer], I asked what type of non-human he was and what was his magical power.

He replied "In the world I am a very powerful lord (Iśvara) called Mahādeva. I have been summoned here by the knowledge mantras of the infidel teachers in the san- dalwood forest. As for these magical displays, they are caused by my power. Other beings sometimes invoke my lesser power to kill. The spiritual master’s intention should not be to destroy [me]. If my frightful magical displays were terrifying, you were able to sublimate them with the universal splendor of all the Buddhas. I venerate and pay homage and will be [your] servant."

He offered a heart-blood tantra together with crucial pith instructions with straightforward speech which I set down in immutable writing. Having bestowed initiation

⦁ The mountain on which Avalokiteśvara is said to dwell. Presumably this is a way of indicating Śiva’s link to Avalokiteśvara.

upon him he was entrusted as a protector of the holy doc- trine and was given vows. Then with a peaceful mind and a skillful compassionate display from the sphere of basic space [65] I brought destruction down on the infidel teachers, causing a rain of meteorite iron, together with horrible magical displays, to fall on the sandalwood forest. The forest was set on fire and the infidel sect was burned, their name falling into disgrace. The Buddha’s teachings rose like the sun.68)

⦁ thugs rje chen po’i bka’i srung ma ’jig rten na drag rtsal che ba dbang phyug grub pa’i lha chen po ’di ni/ ngo bo gdod nas mi ’gyur ba spyan ras gzigs su mngon par byang chub pa’o/ rang bzhin ma ’gags pa’i rtsal zhi ba dang khro bo’i tshul cir yang snang ba’o/ thugs rje kun khyab kyi cho ’phrul las lha chen du srid pa’o/ de yang rgya gar gyi yul kun tu buddha’i bstan pa ches cher dar zhing rgyas par gyur pa na/ mu stegs rnams kyis ma bzod de tha snyad kyi rtsod pa dang rig sngags kyi sbyor bas dregs pa can ’gugs pa dang gnyen por spyod pa sogs thabs sna tshogs kyis gnod par byed do/ de las lho phyogs su ’jig rten gyi lha dang klu mthu bo che du mas kyang mu stegs can gyi rigs la dngos grub ster zhing nang pa rnams la ’tshe bar byed do/ de'i tshe bdag gis ’dul ba’i dus la bab par rig nas lho phyogs su song [64] ste ston pa lnga brgya po thams cad rtsod pas tshar bcad nas nyams par byas pas de dag yid khong du chud nas slar yang tsandana gyi nags su rig sngags kyi sbyor ba sgrub par byed do/ der rgyal dang ldan pa’i stong gi nam phyed na bdag nyid bzhugs pa’i gnas su sa g.yo ba dang ’ljon shing rnams ’khrug cing sgra ’byin pa dang/ ’od dmar po ta la tsam pa ’khil byed pa sogs cho ’phrul sna tshogs snang bar byed do/ bdag gis rdo rje lta bu’i ting nge ’dzin gyis zil gyis mnan nas dbang du bsdus pas ’od de nyid skyed bu bzhin dmar zhing chags pa’i tshul can me tog gi rgyan dang ldan pa zhig tu gyur nas bka’ ci stsal ’bangs su mchi’o zhe phyag byed cing zhabs la ’dud par gyur te: der bdag gis mkhyen bzhin du mi ma yin gyi rigs su gtogs pa ’dra mo zhig mchis na su zhig cho ’phrul ’di ni gang gi mthu zhes dris pas/ de na re/ bdag ni ’jig rten na che ba’i mthu rtsal grub pa dbang phyug ma hA de wa zhes bya ba ste/ tsandana gyi nags su mu stegs ston pa rnams kyis rig sngags kyi sbyor bas bskul ba las ’dir mchis pa’o/ cho’phrul ’di dag ni bdag gi mthu’o/ ’gro ba gzhan dag ni bdag gi cho ’phrul phra mo res kyang ’gugs shing gsod par byed pa’o/ slob dpon gyi dgongs pa ni bshig par ma nus pas bdag nyid mi bzad pa’i cho ’phrul gyis spa bkong bar

This story is fascinating in a number of ways. It is not as cosmically expansive in scope as the other Rudra and Maheśvara subjugation myths from the various other sources Sle lung has reviewed so far. But it links the Rudra/Maheśvara subjugation myth with the trope of Padmasambhava, while in India, using sorcery to kill recalcitrant heretics after defeating them in debate. This episode, or one like it, appears in a number of biographies of Padmasambhava, including the early Zang gling ma treasure biography revealed by Nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer (1124-1192).69) The History of Lha chen uses retroactive continuity to weave together the Padmasambhava mythos with the Rudra subjugation mythos, so that for the first time in Rnying ma literature (as far as I am aware) Padmasambhava is identi- fied as Śiva's subjugator.

In the final lines of Sle lung’s Śiva chapter he quotes more praise for the deity from the TCKD and gives some of his own.

gyur na khyod ni sangs rgyas thams cad kyi spyi dpal du nges pas gus shing ’dud pa lags bzod par mdzod cig ’bangs su mchi’o/ zhes srog gi snying po rgyud gces gnad dang bcas pa thams cad mdong gsol du phul lo/ der bdag gis mi ’gyur ba’i bka’ gtsigs su phab nas dam pa chos kyi srung mar gnyer gtad dbang bskur nas dam tshig gsos btab/ der bdag nyid thugs zhi ba chos kyi dbyings las rol pa snying rje chen po’i [65] thabs kyis mu stegs kyi ston pa rnams la rang gshed du phab pas tsandana gyi nags su mi bzad pa’i cho ’phrul sna tshogs dang bcas pa’i gnam lcags char bzhin du phab pas nags tshal me ’bar te mu stegs sde dang bcas pa tshar bcad nas ming mi grags par byas shing sangs rgyas kyi bstan pa nyi ma shar ba bzhin du gyur te/ [63.13 - 65.5]. This corresponds to TCKD: vol. 1, 320.1-323.3.

⦁ This similar episode is associated with a particular wrathful form of Padmasambhava named Seng ge sgra sgrog, a title bestowed upon him by other scholars after defeating the non-Buddhists. See Kunsang 2004: 50-51. For the Zang gling ma treasure biography and Nyang ral nyi ma ’od zer, see Hirshberg 2016.

In particular, he notes that accomplishing this deity is partic- ularly useful in the current degenerate era in which we live. Finally, before turning to focus more specifically on the next deity in the book, Mahākāla, he lists the great masters whose treasure teachings on Śiva he had received. He specifically men- tions Padma las 'brel rtsal (1291-1315), Gnyal pa nyi ma shes rab (11th century), and most importantly, Gter bdag gling pa. He says he received all of these teachings from a single master, mentioned throughout Sle lung’s writings on the TCKD as Rdo rje ’dzin pa che mchog ’dus pa rtsal (dates unknown) [66-67]. This seems to have been Sle lung’s main teacher at Smin grol gling monastery in 1716 or 1717.70)

The choice to bookend his discussion of Śiva with references specifically to Gter bdag gling pa’s treasure revelations on the deity is highly significant. Sle lung begins and ends his chapter on Śiva with excerpts from Gter bdag gling pa’s TCKD, un- doubtedly because of his personal connection to these teachings. After chronicling the complex literary history of Rudra/ Maheśvara in Buddhist myth, he interprets it through the lens of a very specific set of teachings that were part of his direct, personal practice.

As Sle lung shows in his extensive survey of myths, Śiva has always been conceptually of primary importance in Tantric Buddhist thought, holding the mythic position of primordial dharma protector. However, in Tibetan Buddhism his cultic importance did not diachronically match his mythic significance, except in a somewhat disguised or sublimated aspect as Mahākāla. Sle lung’s theological purpose in the opening section of the DCTS seems aimed at rectifying this, justifying the worship and invocation of the converted but clear- ly identified Indian god with a distinctive kind of Tibetan Buddhist Śaivism.

References

Primary Sources

D: Chos kyi ’byung gnas. Bka’ ’gyur (sde dge). TBRC: W4CZ5369. 103 vols. [[[sde dge]]]: [[[sde dge]] par khang chen mo], [18th cent]. BRGB: Sle lung Rje drung Bzhad pa’i rdo rje. 1983-1985. Sle lung rje drung bzhad pa’i rdo rje’i gsung ’bum. 13 vols. Leh: T. Sonam & D.L. Tashigang. DCTS: Sle lung Rje drung Bzhad pa’i rdo rje. Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho’i rnam par thar pa cha shas tsam brjod pa sngon med legs bshad. 2 vols. Leh: T.S. Tashigang, 1979.

—. Beijing: Nationalities Languages Press, 2003.

LVS: Dharmachakra Translation Committee. A Play in Full: Lalitavistara. Published by 84000.

NGB (D): Rnying ma rgyud ’bum (sde dge par ma). TBRC:W21939. 26 vols. [[[sde dge]]]: [[[sde dge]] par khang chen mo], [200-?].

NGB (M): Rnying ma rgyud ’bum (mtshams brag dgon pa’i bris ma). TBRC: W21521. 46 vols. Thimphu: National Library, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1982. TCKD: ’Gter bdag gling pa ’Gyur med rdo rje. 1975. Thugs rje chen po bde gshegs kun ’dus kyi chos skor. 4 vols. Dehra Dun, U.P.: Ven. D.G. Khochen Trulku.

Secondary Sources

Bailey, Cameron. 2016. “A Tibetan Protector Deity Theogony: An Eighteenth Century ‘Explicit’ Buddhist Pantheon and Some of its Political Aspects,” in Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines. 37: 13–28.

—. 2017. “A Feast for Scholars: The Life and Works of Sle lung Bzhad pa’irdo rje.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Oxford. Bhattacharyya, Benoytosh. 1949. Niṣpannayogāvalī. Baroda: Oriental Institute.

3. Empire of Emptiness: Buddhist Art and Political Authority in Qing China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Bisschop, Peter. 2018. “Buddhist and Śaiva Interactions in the Kali Age: The Śivadharmaśāstra as a Source of the Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra.” In Indo-Iranian Journal 61:396– 410.

Boord, Martin J. 2013. Gathering the Elements: Vajrakīla Texts of the Northern Treasures Tradition Volume One. Berlin: Wandel Verlag. Chandra, Lokesh, ed. 1999-2005. Dictionary of Buddhist Iconography. 15 vols. Śata-piṭaka Series: Indo-Asian Literatures vols. 601-616. New Delhi: International Academy of ndian Culture and Aditya Prakashan.

Clark, Walter E. 1965. Two Lamaistic Pantheons. 2 vols. NewYork: Paragon Book Reprint.

Cuevas, Bryan. The All-Pervading melodious Drumbeat: The

Life of Ra Lotsawa. New York: Penguin Classics.

Dalton, Jacob. 2011. The Taming of the Demons: Violence and Liberation in Tibetan Buddhism. New Haven, CT: Yale University. —. 2016. The Gathering of Intentions: A History of a Tibetan Tantra. New York: Columbia University Press.

Davidson, Ronald. 1991. “Reflections on the Maheśvara Subjugation Myth: Indic Materials, Sa-skya-pa Apologetics, and the Birth of the Heruka.” In Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 14.2:197-235.

DeCaroli, Robert. 2004. Haunting the Buddha: Indian Popular Religions and the Formation of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dhargyay, Lobsang. 1984. “The Twelve Deeds of the Buddha – A Controversial Hymn ascribed to Nagarjuna.” In The Tibet Journal 9:2, 3-12. Douglas, Kenneth and Gwendolyn Bays. 1978. The Life and Liberation of Padmasambhava. Cazadero, CA: Dharma Publishing.

Dorje, Gyurme. 1987. “The Guhyagarbhatattvaviniścayamahā tantra and its XIVth Century Tibetan Commentary: Phyogs bcu mun sel.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of London. Farrow, G.W. and I. Menon. 2001. The Concealed Essence of the Hevajra Tantra: With the Commentary Yogaratnamala. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Giebel, Rolf W.,trans. 2001. Two Esoteric Sutras: The Adamantine Pinnacle Sutra and the Susiddhikara Sutra. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

—. 2005. The Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sutra. Berkeley, CA: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. Gray, David. 2001. "On Supreme Bliss: A Study of the History and Interpretation of the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra."Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University. Harding, Sarah. 2003. The Life and Revelations of Pema Lingpa. Ithaca,NY: Snow Lion Publications.

Hirshberg, Daniel A. 2016. Remembering the Lotus-Born: Padmasambhava in the History of Tibet’s Golden Age. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Hodge, Stephen, trans. 2003. The Mahā-vairocana-abhi- saṃbodhi Tantra: with Buddhaguhya’s Commentary. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Illich, Marina. 2006. “Selections from the life of a Tibetan Buddhist Polymath: Chankya Rolpai Dorje (lcangskya rol pa’i rdo rje), 1717-1786.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University.

Iyanaga, Nobumi. 1985. “Recits de la soumission de Maheś vara par Trailokyavijaya, d’apres lessources chinoises et japonaises.” In Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of RA. Stein, vol. 3. ed. Michel Strickmann. Brussels: Institut Belge des Hautes Études Chinoises. Kapstein, Matthew. 2000. “Samantabhadra and Rudra: Myths of Innate Enlightenment and Radical Evil.” In

The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 163-177. Kunsang, Erik Pema. 2004. The Lotus-Born: The Life Story of Padmasambhava. Boudhanath: Rangjung Yeshe Publications.

Lama Chönam and Sangye Khandro. 2011. The Guhyagarbha Tantra: Secret Essence Definitive Nature Just As It Is. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion. Lohia, Sushama. 1994. Lalitavajra’s Manual of Buddhist Iconography. Śata-piṭaka Series: Indo-Asian Literatures vol. 379. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan.

Mallinson, James. 2019. “Kālavañcana in the Konkan: How a Vajrayāna Haṭhayoga Tradition Cheated Buddhism’s Death in India.”In Religions 10, 273. —. Forthcoming. “The Amṛtasiddhi: Haṭhayoga’s Tantric Buddhist Source Text.” In Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions: A Festschrift for Alexis Sanderson, ed. Dominic Goodall, Shaman Hatley & Harunaga Isaacson. Leiden: Brill.

Mayer, Robert. 1998. “The Figure of Maheśvara/Rudra in ther Ñiṅ-ma-pa Tantric Tradition.” In Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. 21:2, 271-310. Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Rene de. 1996. Oracles and Demons of Tibet: The Cult and Iconography of the Tibetan Protective Deities. Kathmandu, Nepal: Book Faith

India. Sanderson, Alexis. 1994. “Vajrayāna: Origin and Function.” In Buddhism into the Year 2000: International Conference Proceedings. Bangkok: Dhammakāya Foundation, 89-102.

—. 2009. “The Śaiva Age – The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period.” In Genesis and Development of Tantrism. Ed. Shingo Eindoo. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series, 23, 41-349.

Schaeffer, Kurtis R. 2002. “The Attainment of Immortality: From Nāthas in India to Buddhists in Tibet.” In Journal of Indian Philosophy 30,515-533. Shastri, J.L.1950. The Śiva Purāṇa. 4 vols. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Shaw, Miranda Eberle. 2006. Buddhist Goddesses of India.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Srinivasan, Doris M. 1983. “Vedic Rudra-Śiva.” In Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.3:543-556.

Stein, R.A. 1995. “La soumission de Rudra et autres contes tantriques.”In Journal Asiatique 283.1:121-160.

Studholme, Alexander. 2002. The Origins of Oṃ Manipadme Hūṃ: AStudy of the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra. Albany, NY: SUNY.

Tanaka, Kimiaki. 2018. An Illustrated History of the Mandala: From its Genesis to the Kalacakratantra. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications.

Willson, Martin and Martin Brauen. 2000. Deities of Tibetan Buddhism: The Zürich Paintings of the Icons Worth while to See (Bris sku mthoṅ ba don ldan). Boston: Wisdom Publications. Zimmer, Heinrich.1989. Philosophies of India. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

국문요약 모든 호법신들의 조상: 레룽 제뻬 돌제의 『담첸 텐숭 갸소 남타르(Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho’i rnam thar)』에 나타난 불교적 샤이비즘 연구

베일리, 카메론 / 동국대학교 불교학부 조교수

본 논문의 목적은 레룽 제뻬 돌제(Sle lung bzhad pa’i rdo rje, 1697-1740)가 저술한 담첸 텐숭 갸소 남타르(Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho’i rnam thar)의 도입부를 분석 및 요약하는 것이다. 이 생 소한 텍스트의 제목은 The Liberation Stories of the Ocean of Oath-Bound Dharma Protectors로 영역되어 서구학자들에게 연구되 고 있으며, 본 논문에서는 “DCTS”로 축약하여 지칭할 것이다.

이 문헌은 근대 티베트 문학에서 매혹적이고 독특한 문헌으로 알려져 있 다. 이 문헌과 관련하여 특히 흥미로운 점은, 이 텍스트의 도입부가 비불교 적 신격인 힌두의 쉬바(Śiva)에 초점을 맞추어 전개되고 있다는 것이다. 비록 지면의 한계상 이 도입부 전체에 대한 번역본을 바탕으로 포괄적인 논 의를 다룰 수는 없지만, 논자는 이 도입부에 대한 요약과 함께 텍스트 전체 개요를 분석함으로써 이 텍스트에 투사된 종교적 관점, 즉 불교와 쉬바신앙 간의 역학관계를 밝힐 것이다. 더 나아가, 논자는 이 담첸 텐숭 갸소 남타 르가 도입부에 쉬바를 배치했던 것이 모종의 종교학적 의도, 즉 기존의 딴 뜨라 전통과 밀접한 관련성을 바탕으로 의도적으로 이루어진 것이었음을 증명할 것이다.

• 주제어

티베트 불교, 쉬바, 護法(Dharma Protectors), 신화, 딴뜨라