THE JOURNAL
OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

BUDDHIST STUDIESo>l-* I**1<T-••-"•Vs

III

w
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF\\

Roger Jackson
Dept. of Religion
Carleton College
Northfield, MN 55057
USA

0 3.

EDITORSPeter N. Gregory
University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA

Ernst Steinkellner
University of Vienna
Wien, Austria

Alexander W. Macdonald
University de Paris X
Nanterre, France

JikidO Takasaki
University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan

Steven Collins
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois, USA

Robert Thurman
Columbia University
New York, New York, USA

Volume 14

1991

Number 2

CONTENTS

I. ARTICLES
1. Reflections on the Mahesvara Subjugation Myth:Indie Materials, Sa-skya-pa Apologetics,
and the Birth of Heruka,x by Ronald M. Davidson
2. A Newar Buddhist Liturgy: Sravakayanist Ritual in
Kwa Bahah, Lalitpur, Nepal, by D.N. Gellner
3. Chinese Reliquary Inscriptions and the
San-chieh-chao, by Jamie Hubbard
4. An Old Inscription from AmaravatI and theCult of the Local Monastic Dead in Indian
Buddhist Monasteries, by Gregory Schopen

197
236
253
281

II. BOOK REVIEWS
1.

Buddha in the Crown: Avalokitesvara in the Buddhist
Traditions of Sri Lanka, by John Clifford Holt

(Vijitha Rajapakse)
2.

High Religion: A Cultural and Political History of
Sherpa Religion, by Sherry Ortner(Alexander W. Macdonald)
3.

331
341

Mddhyamika and Yogacara: A Study ofMahayana

Philosophies, by Gadjin M. Nagao(Paul J. Griffiths)
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

345
349

Reflections on theMahesvara Subjugation Myth:Indie Materials, Sa-skya-pa Apologetics,
and the Birth of Heruka*

by Ronald M. Davidson

Perhaps one of the least examined topics in Buddhism is theutilization of myth in service of clerical values. Myth, of course,
is intimately connected with all the varieties of praxis, yet toread many descriptive analyses of the Buddhist dispensation,
the nonspecialist might rapidly come to the conclusion that
Buddhism has few concerns outside of doctrine. This impression is reinforced by both the Eurocentric proclivity to see religion in doxographical terms and by the modern Buddhist
apologia—especially prevalent in the Theravada world—that
Buddhism is in reality not a religion but a philosophy. Buddhist specialists have frequently been seduced by either the
Judeo-Christian models, which continue to exert influence inthe quest for underlying unity in religious phenomena, or by
the modern Buddhist desire to appear outside the pale of theset of behaviors subsumed under the term "religion." Thus, theexploration of Buddhist myth—along with ritual and otherforms of activity—has taken a back seat to doctrinal formulations, many of which are recast in a twentieth century philosophical diction that can be quite misleading in its implicationof set and setting.
Myth, in fact, has been and continues to be extraordinarily
important to Buddhists. Yet the mythic functions are not precisely those found in the Near Eastern religions—Judaism,
Christianity, or Islam. Specifically, the ideology of an encapsulated temporal sequence, involving a definite creation event, aclosed revelation, and an approaching miilenium, are all foreign to Buddhist mythic processes, which verify an open-ended
197

198

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

spatio-temporal system wherein all phenomena continuallyparticipate in the expression of truth. In general, Buddhist
myth does not reveal a cosmology of creation and judgement,with all the attendent personality issues of creator and soul.
Instead, it seeks to focus the attention of the audience onparadigms exemplifying the potential for immanent rectification, irrespective of eschatology. Thus, as may be seen in mostinstitutional religions, Buddhist myths partly reinforce and arepartially informed by the doctrinal structure; for the Mahayana this frequently invokes mythic expressions of the interpenetration of the relative and absolute spheres.
Such an ideology lends a peculiar poly valence to Buddhist
myths. They tend to serve an astonishing variety of functions,and, perhaps in keeping with the doctrine of existence without
essence, Buddhist myths freely float from one milieu toanother, sometimes being caught in the act of simultaneously
serving multiple masters. The myth under consideration here—
the subjugation of Mahesvara and the birth of Heruka—is oneof these. We will see that it developed out of a source myth of
Vajrapani taming Mahesvara in the Tattvasamgraha and wasused in service of establishing authenticity for another body ofliterature, the Cakrasamvara complex. It completed the cycle ofhermeneutics in Tibet by affirming the authoritativeness of an
entirely different system, the Hevqjra, itself the scriptural basefor the Lam-'bras system of Sa-skya-pa meditative praxis. The
first part of this paper will examine these three forms of ourmyth, tracing the development from one form to the next, starting with the eighth century Indie locus classicus and finishingwith fifteenth century Tibetan materials. The second part of thepaper, Interpretive Strategies, will present an analysis of the Indie
and Tibetan forms according to a tripartite consideration ofhistory, literature, and doctrine, followed by final conclusions.

The Locus Classicus: Sarvatathagata-tattvasamgraha
All three source traditions— Tattvasamgrahay Cakrasamvara, andHevajra—are members of the larger set of Buddhist systems
known as the [Guhya-]Mantrayana, the Path of Secret Spells,or the Vajrayana, the Lightning Path, in turn considered an

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

199

extension of the Great Vehicle, the Mahayana. Like otherfacets of the Buddhist tradition in Asia, the Mantrayana
attempted to justify the inclusion of its scriptures into the open
Buddhist canon. For acceptance as the "word of the Buddha,"literature must verify that it represented the direct perceptionof absolute truth by the (or a) buddha, that it was preached bythat buddha to a specific assembly, that it was collected by anauthentic master of the dispensation, and that it was received
by a current representative of the tradition through an
authoritative lineage of Buddhist masters, however these latterare understood. 1
Frequently, the crux of the matter was the verification of
the circumstances of a scripture's preaching and collection.
Buddhist innovators commonly identified a narrow range ofdramatic moments when a new scriptural genre was expounded
to an assembly and ultimately compiled into an authentic pronouncement. One of the more curious facts of the Mantrayanais that, unlike most other Indie Buddhist traditions, it came up
with multiple scenarios which purported to identify the circumstances of the preaching of the system's scriptures—known
as sutra, tantra, mahdkalpa, dhdrani, etc., depending on the genre
or period of composition. Most of these scenarios are lineagespecific; they discuss the preaching of the great central scripture (in later literature known as mula-tantra), often followed bya summary scripture (which is the received text) and the ancillary exegetical scriptures (dkhydna-tantra) utilized by the members of a specific contemplative tradition. The lineages of the
Guhyasamdja, for example, established the preaching of the tantras in conjunction with the myth of Indrabhuti, the legendary
king of Uddiyana in the Northwest of India. 2 The lineages of
the Kdlacakra maintained two traditions: that the primordial
buddha preached the great scripture to King Sucandra of Sambhala at the stupa of Dhanyakataka—thus tying the proclamation of the faith to the fabled land of Sambhala—or that thebuddha preached the Mahdkdlacakra in Sambhala itself.3
The most commonly employed Mantrayana myth, however, is developed from various sections of perhaps the mostinfluential text of esoteric Buddhism; the Sarvatathdgata-tattvasamgraha, the Summary of All Tathdgatasi Reality (abr. Tattvasamgraha), codified in the early eighth century. Traditionally,

200

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

the text is understood as the complex interweaving of myths
and ritual, all under the directorship of the cosmic buddha, Vairocana. Of particular interest to those in the business of
Mantrayana apologetics are chapters one, six, and the epilogue. Chapter one delineates the culmination of the career ofthe bodhisattva Sarvarthasiddhi. 4 He has reached the apex of his
natural ability to attain supreme awakening and has proceeded
to the tree of awakening. All the buddhas then appear to him
and break the news that he cannot achieve his goal through hiscurrent concentration: he needs the consecrations obtained by
the contemplations transforming his body, speech, and mind
into adamant (vajra). These he secures, and accordingly
becomes the buddha Vajradhatu, with all the rights andprivileges pertaining thereto. Subsequently, he follows all thetathdgatas back to the Adamantine Jeweled Palace at the summit of Mt. Sumeru to take his rightful place. The body of the
Tattvasamgraha discusses the rituals and mystic circles (mandala)focused on enlightenment and concludes, some twenty-six
chapters later, with Vajradhatu turning the wheel of the dharma
and returning to the tree of awakening to perform the acts of
the Buddha in accordance with the worldly understanding of
the Buddha's progress. 5 Most importantly for us, chapter six
introduces what was to become perhaps the most influential
myth of esoteric Buddhism—the subjugation of the god Siva
(Mahesvara).
Synopsis: Tattvasamgraha6
On the peak of Mt. Sumeru, all the tathdgatas requested thebodhisattva Vajrapani, the master of mysteries, to produce thedivinities of his clan (kula) for the mandala. Vajrapani, however,declined, saying that there yet existed criminals, such as
Mahesvara and other gods. So Vairocana uttered the mantra
OMSUMBHA NISUMBHA HUM... VAJRA HUMPHA T, andforms of Vajrapani issued forth from the hearts of all the assembled tathdgatas, coming together to create the body ofMahavajrakrodha. Vairocana intoned the mantra OM TAKKI
J J AH, which is known as the disciplinary ankus of all the tathdgatas. By this utterance the criminals, Mahesvara and the like,were all dragged to the Adamantine Jeweled Palace on Sumeru.
Vajrapani then commanded them to accomplish the Buddha'sTHE MAHESVARA MYTH

201

teaching by taking refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and thesamgha, and by obtaining the gnosis of omniscience.
But Mahesvara replied to Vajrapani, "Hey, you're just a
local spirit (yaksa)\ I'm the creator and arranger of the triple
world, the master of all spirits, the highest God of gods. Why
should I do as you, a local ghost, command?" So Mahesvara
turned to Vairocana, "Just who does he think he is, giving
orders to God?"
Vairocana responded, "I'd really do what he says, friend,and go for the refuges! Don't make Vajrapani, this cruel, mean,
angry spirit, destroy the whole world with his flaming vajra."
Mahesvara, however, decided to show Vajrapani what fearis all about, so he displayed his great wrath and cruelty in theform of Mahabhairava, flames spurting out, with Maharaudra's
laugh, together with all of his minions: "Hey, I'm the Lord of
the Triple World! You do what / command!"
They then exchanged more mutual challenges and insults
and Vajrapani returned to Vairocana. "Well, Lord, he's notpaying homage to the teaching, being God and all. Now what
do I do?"Again Vairocana intoned the mantra OM
NISUMBHAVAJRA HUM PHAT, and Vajrapani added his own adamantine
HUM. Immediately, all the gods, Mahesvara, etc., fell down on
their faces, uttering a cry of pain, and went for refuge to the
Lord Vajrapani. Mahesvara alone remained fallen on the
ground, unconscious, and there he perished. Vairocana lectured the other gods about the virtues of the Buddhist perspective and they became entirely restored, happy and virtuous.
Then Vairocana addressed Vajrapani: "If we revive His
Deadness, he couldbecome a real person." So Vajrapani intoned
the correct VAJRAYUH, and Mahesvara was brought backfrom the dead.
He wanted to stand up but couldn't, and demanded,"W r hat are you trying to teach me?"Vairocana responded, "You still haven't done what he said
to do. It's his business, not mine.""But aren't you supposed to protect criminals like me?"Mahesvara asked.
Vairocana replied, "I can't. He is the Lord of All Tathagatas."
Vajrapani then intervened: "Why don't you just do what I
tell you?"202

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2
When Mahesvara heard Vajrapani, he again became
incensed and violent, displaying his form as Maharaudra, saying, "I can endure death, but I will not do as you command!"With that Vajrapani uttered the appropriate mantras, andwhile the world laughed, Mahesvara and his consort, Uma,
were both dragged stark naked feet first before Vajrapani, who
stepped on Mahesvara with his left foot, while standing on
Uma's breasts with his right. Then he uttered the mantra OM
VAJRAVISA HANAYA TRAM TRAT and Mahesvara started
beating his own thousand heads with his own thousand arms,
while all his minions outside the palace gave a great roar oflaughter and said, "Look at our Lord being disciplined by thisgreat being!"
Then Vairocana took pity on Mahesvara and, with themantra OM BUDDHA MAITRI VAJRA RAKSA HUM, thetouch of Vajrapani's feet became the consecration whichallowed him to obtain the level of the Tathagata. Abandoning
his form of Mahadeva, Mahesvara passed beyond countlessworld systems and was reborn into the world known as Bhasmacchanna as the tathagata Bhasmesvara-nirghosa.7
At that point, Vajrapani commanded all the other gods,"Friends, enter into the great circle of the adamantine assemblyof all tathagatas and protect that assembly!" And they replied inassent, "As you inform us, so we will perform!" Then all thegods and goddesses—Mahesvara, Uma, and the others—were
given new names and positions in the mystic circle.

This comical tale of direct competion between the Saiva
and Bauddha traditions recognizes the homogeneous nature ofmany of their rituals and symbols. As story, it was to proveextraordinarily successful: Mahesvara became one of the great
scapegoats of Buddhist Mantrayana literature, an evil buffoon
like Devadatta, the "gang of five bhiksus" in early Buddhist literature, and Mara in virtually all strata of the literate tradition.
Indeed, it is clear that Mahesvara became the " M a r a " of the
Vehicle of Secret Spells, and the similarities between the Buddha's conduct with M a r a and the treatment of Mahesvara werequite explicit, as we shall see.

THE MAHESVARA MYTH203

How Heruka Was Born—Cakrasamvara Mythology
The success of this myth is reflected in the multiple versions thatspread almost as quickly as the Mantrayana itself. Approximately the same stratum of the myth is found in the Trailokyavijaya-mahdkalpardja, whose Chinese translation is ascribed to
Amoghavajra (705-774). 8 This version is more benign, ending
with the submission of all the divinities; it completes the story
with the assurance that the gods obtain amnesty from execution by their enunciation of a specific mantra. y Alternatively, alonger rendering of the Tattvasamgraha version was added to the
Vajras'ekhara-mahdyoga-tantra, but without the frame story of Sarvarthasiddhi/Vajradhatu. 1 0 Presumably, these versions hearken back to an oral epic, which continued to develop in association with the written forms. Beyond this stratum was therendition of the Candraguhyatilaka-mafidtantrardja, which gives
more prominence to sex and violence." Chapter six of the Candraguhyatilaka identifies the protagonist as Mahasamantabhadra, who sends forth the wrathful VajrabhrkutTkrodha tosubjugate all the worldly gods and steal their women, finallybringing the gods back to life through the production of divine
nectar, while VajrabhrkutTkrodha laughs with Heruka's voice.
Clearly, this direction was mythically profitable, as the motifs
were further accentuated in the Guhyagarbha-tattvaviniscaya,
where chapter fifteen has Mahesvara spawned as one of thedenizens of hell.12 Heruka, the cosmic policeman, seizes
Mahesvara and his entire retinue, rips out their internalorgans, hacks their limbs to pieces, eats their flesh, drinks theirblood, and makes ritual ornaments from their bones—a modelof thoroughness. Having digested all these gods, Heruka
excretes them into an enormous ocean of muck, which one of
his henchmen, Ucchusmakrodha, drinks up. The gods arethen revived. Properly grateful for what can only have been an
extraordinary experience, Mahesvara and his minions beseech
Heruka and the divinities of his mandala to accept their wives,
mothers, and daughters as ritual consorts while they take theircorrect places as the seats of the divinities in the mandala. Apparently, the very vital forms of the myth found in the mDo dgongs
pa 'dus pa and the fourteenth-century Thangyig gter-ma cycles of204

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

the rNying-ma-pa take their impetus from the branch of thestory initially exemplified by the Candraguhyatilaka and the
Guhyagarbha.n
Yet another version of the myth verified the teaching of themost influential of the yogini-tantras: the Cakrasamvara. The birthof Heruka is taken in the Cakrasamvara system as the necessary
antidote for instability in the world, and Heruka has preached
the yoginl-tantras specifically to convert all those addicted toperversity. Heruka intentionally imitates their behavior andespouses its practice to win their commitment to the Buddhist
dispensation. The source for this version of the myth is actuallyquite curious; so far as I am able to determine, fully developed
forms occur only in indigenous Tibetan language materials,
and the text of a Tibetan author of the twelfth-thirteenth centuries appears to be the earliest version. 14
rje-btsun rin-po-che Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan (1167-1216),
the grandson of the founder of Sa-skya Monastery in southcentral Tibet, is accounted by the standard Tibetan representatives the third of the "five great teachers of Sa-skya," being theson of Sa-chen Kun-dga' snying-po (1092-1158) and the
younger brother of bSod-nam rtse-mo (1142-1182), the twoprior litterateurs of the monastery. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan was
also the codifier of much of the Sa-skya-pa understanding ofMantrayana as a whole. How Heruka Was Born—his verificationof the preaching and collection of the Cakrasamvara-tantras—
develops a version of the cosmic drama very different fromthose seen above in the previous Indie sources. Heruka as theprotagonist and Mahesvara as the antagonist are depicted inways dissimilar from the prior images. The plot, too, unfolds
in an entirely different manner, devoid of the fast dialogue ofthe preceding versions.
Synopsis: How Heruka Was Born*
There are three parts to his story: I. the eulogy of the goodqualities of the teacher Sakyamuni, II. the manner of the emanation of Sri Heruka, and III. how the tantra-rdja has beenuttered by him.
I. The Bhadrakalpika-Mahayana-sutra relates how the teacher
Sakyamuni generated the thought of awakening and then per-THE MAHESVARA MYTH

205

fected himself for three incalculable aeons through the accumulation of merit and knowledge. Overcoming the four Maras, heobtained complete awakening in the final reality (mtdrtha) of
Akanistha, where he worked for the benefit of bodhisattvas of thetenth level. At the level of provisional meaning (neydrtha), heemanated himself in different places and taught diverse teachings to beings of disparate capacities. In particular, there was his
manifestation as Sri Heruka.
II. At the beginning of this Kaliyuga, beings started contending with each other through their common animosity. As thebodies started piling up from their mutual slaughter, they were
removed to the various directions and the eight great charnel
grounds formed. From the corpses ran blood, and as its vaporrose into the sky, the eight clouds evolved. When the clouds
gave off rain, the eight rivers developed, and in them the eight
divine snakes (ndgas) arose. Mists came from the rivers and theeight trees grew, each of them with its own protector.
Then, to the south of Sumeru, in the continent ofjambudvlpa, Mahesvara's emanation arose. Now in the various directions, there are twenty-four self-originated places. Within eachof these, twenty-four ferocities {bhairava) arose, each with his
own consort:
A. The four chief gods (deva) and four attendant gods were emanations from the mind of Mahesvara and came to operate in
Jambudvlpa from out of the sky, thus identified as the eight skygoing ferocities (*asta-khecara-bhairava)."'They were blue because
they represented a predominance of anger and were located in
specific self-originated places:17
East—Pulllra Malaya
North—Jalandhara
West—Oddiyana
South—Arbuda

Places of the four gods.
In the language of thegods, these places arecalled pitha.

SE—Godavari
SW—Ramesvari
NW—Devlkota
NE—Malava

The four attendant
gods. In the languageof the genii (gandharvas),these are called upapitha.

B. The two chief local spirits (yaksa), the two attendant jyaksa,
the two chief demons (rdksasa), and the two attendant rdksasa
were emanations from the speech of Mahesvara and came tooperate in Jambudvlpa on the surface of the earth, thus iden-JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2
tified as the eight earth-going ferocities {*asta-bhucara-bhairava).
They were red because they represented a predominance of
desire.
2 chidyaksa, from the north.18
East—Kamarupa
Called ksetra'myaksalanguage.
North—Odra
2 attendantyaksa. Called
West—Trisakuni
upaksetra in yaksa language.
South—Kosala
SE-Kalihga
SW—Lampaka

2 principal raksasas. Called
chandoha in raksasa language.

N W - Kanci
NE—Himalaya

2 attendant raksasas. Called
upachandoha in raksasa language.

C. The two chief divine snakes {naga), the two attendant naga,
the two chief demigods [asura) and the two attendant asura were
emanations from the body of Mahesvara and came to operate
in Jambudvlpa from below the surface of the earth, thus identified as the eight below-the-earth-going ferocities (*asta-pdtalacara-bhairava). They were white because they represented a predominance of ignorance.
East—Pretapuri
North—Grhadevata

I

West—Saurastra
South—Suvarnnadvlpa 1\

2 chief ndgas, from the ocean.
Called melapaka in naga
language.
2 attendant ndgas. Called
upamelapaka in naga language.

SE—Nagara
SW-Sindhu>

2 chief asuras, from below Sumeru.
Called s'masdna in asura language.

NW—Maru-desa
NE-Kulata} upas'mas'dna in asura language.

2 attendant asuras. Called

D. Following the emanation of these twenty-four bhairavas andtheir consorts, Mahadeva arose on the peak of Mt. Sumeru,
having four heads, twelve arms, naked, black, with his hair tied
up in matted locks and smeared with ashes. His consort, Uma
Devi, was red with one face and two arms, and they were in sexual union.
E. In conjunction with Mahesvara, his four Uma and eight
Matrka emanated. The four Uma derived from the qualities(guna) of Mahesvara and were yellow because of a predominance of malignity.19

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

207

Front—*Nilarahu (sGra gcan sngon mo)20
Left—*Haritoparahu (Nye ba'i sgra gcan ljang gu)
Behind—*Raktandhika (Mun pa dmar po)21
Right—* Pitopandhika (Nye ba'i mun pa ser po)
F. The eight Matrka came from the activity of Mahadeva. They
were variously colored because of a predominance of envy.22
East—Kakasya (Raven-headed mother)
North—Ulukasya (Owl-headed mother)
West—Svanasya (Dog-headed mother)
South—Sukarasya (Pig-headed mother)
The four intermediate directions were occupied by the four
*Ardha-manusya-mukha-rupim (mother having a half humanheaded form?).
As a shrine (caitya) for each of these bhairavas, Mahesvara
gave them twenty-four lihgams in the forms of self-produced
stones, each in different shapes, from the shape of the top of hishead in Pulllra Malaya to the shape of his knee in Kulata.
Offerings were continually made to these bhairavas inhabiting
the twenty-four lihgams.
Once established in Jambudvlpa, Mahesvara and his minions began to conduct themselves in a most irregular manner.
For food they ate human flesh and drank human blood as theirdrink. They made ornaments of human bone—circlets, earrings, necklaces, bracelets, and belts—all smeared with theashes of human bone. From human hair they wove their brahminical threads and fashioned garlands of human skulls.
Now in order to bring them under control, the "causal
form of Vajradhara"—the experiential body (sambhogakdya) in
Akanistha heaven—manifested sixty-two varieties of the emanation body (nirmdnakqya) as the "resultant Vajradhara."23 In
opposition to Mahesvara and Uma Devi were Heruka and his
consort. In opposition to the four Uma were the Mahasukhadevl. In opposition to the twenty-four bhairavas and their consorts were the twenty-four pairs of heros and heroines, in physical, vocal, and mental grades (manovdk-kdya-vtrdvtra).24 And in
opposition to the eight Matrka were the eight Samayadevi. For
each of these manifestations of Vajradhara, the color and number of heads and arms were in accordance with the demonic
entity to be tamed.
The actual effecting of their conversion was brought about
in three stages: behavior, absorbtion, and subjugation. First,
Heruka and his retinue imitated the behavior of these fiends—

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2
they began to drink human blood and eat human flesh in theritual assemblies (ganacakra), thus securing them the epithet of
Glorious Bunch of Blood-drinking Divinities (dpal khrag 'thunggi lha tshogs : *sriherukadevagana). Then, stealing all the ornaments, Heruka and his retinue decked themselves out like
Mahesvara and his minions, with garlands of human heads,
dhotis of tiger skins, etc. They then supressed Mahadeva andhis minions by causing their consciousnesses to be absorbed
into the clear light, so that in the future Mahadeva would
become the tathdgata *Bhasmesvara, as the Buddha had predicted. Then, in order to demonstrate their victory, Heruka
and his retinue each took the cadaver of his opposite number
as a platform, which is why it is said that they reside on a preta
platform."
Yet all these distinctions of subjugater/subjugated or converter/converted operate only in the realm of provisional
meaning {neydrtha)\ according to the definitive meaning(mtdrtha), they are to be understood as non-differentiated.2"
Thus the Guhyasamdja-tantra states:
As physically adamantine, he has become Brahma;
As the vocal teacher, he is Mahesvara;
As the mental teacher, he is Visnu.27
So all the bhairavas and everybody else are emanations ofMahesvara, whereas Mahesvara himself is an emanation of
Vajradhara. All the converting divinities are emanations of Sri
Heruka, who is himself an emanation of Vajradhara. Thus,
according to the definitive meaning of this story, all the characters are essentially {svabhdvatas) Mahavajradhara.
III. Finally, there is the teaching of the lantra-rdja and the unlocking of its intention by the lineage of exegetes. Having conquered Mahesvara, Vajradhara first preached to the five familiesof heroes and heroines a version of the scripture in one hundred
thousand chapters. But during the time of the Kaliyuga, hesummarized it into a version in one hundred thousand verses.
Finally, because these could not be accomplished during thisKaliyuga, he preached a version of one hundred thousand letters, collected into fifty-one chapters. In addition there are
thirty-two explanatory tantras and innumerable ancillary
scriptures. All of these, Vajrapani collected into texts andrendered into letters following their preaching. Eventually, theteaching survived in the literature of the four major systems of
Cakrasamvara exegesis—those of Luhipada, Ghantapada, Kan-

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

209

hapada, and Savara. Each of them has utilized the three principal scriptures of the system, the Tantraraja-Laghusamvara (To.
368), the Abhidhdnoltara-tantra (To. 369), and the Yoginisahcaryatantra (To. 375). This elucidation of the birth of Sri Heruka wasculled from the speech of the teacher.
Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's reporting of the myth in the Cakrasamvara arena is reflective of a number of concerns which will
be explored below (Interperative Strategies) when the three applications of the myth will be discussed in conjunction with eachother. In his framing of the narrative, we notice the decidedlack of identified antecedents; it is simply "culled from the
speech of the teacher."^8 The only sense we get that his version
follows a Buddhist textual format is in its reference to the Bhadrakalpika-mahdydna-sutra. While the use of frame and embedded
story is similar to that in the classical versions, the plot structure follows meditative materials closely, giving the impressionof an oral explanation of the mandala praxis.

Lam-'bras and Ngor-chen's synthesis
The tradition of the Path/Fruit was one of many extraordinarily fragile yogic systems that found their way into Tibet in theeleventh century. Ostensibly, the Lam-'bras was based on the
Hevajra-tantra and its ancillary scriptures, the Samputodbhdvakalpa-rdja (To. 381) and the Ddkini-vajrapanjara-tantra (To. 419).
We have no sense, however, that the Lam-'bras enjoyed the
popularily or prestige in India accorded to those meditative
practices developed out of the scriptures of the Tattvasamgraha,
the Guhyasamdja, or the Cakrasamvara—quite the opposite, infact, since the Lam-'bras was a secret set of practices which purportedly passed through relatively obscure figures. Moreover,it was decidedly later than most of the widely disseminated systems and was initially not given in Tibet the esteem and acceptability granted those more popular traditions.
Accordingly, the Lam-'bras utilization of the Mahesavra
subjugation myth followed a more tortuous path than did the
Cakrasamvara version. Each of the Lam-'bras strata was verified
by a systematic hermeneutic of authentication. Such hermeneutics marked the system's movement into an increasingly

210

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

complex institutional milieu. The earliest Lam-'bras hermeneutic on the Hevajra was a minor work by Sa-chen Kun-dga'snying-po, a primary exegete of the Lam-'bras. His Heruka'sPrior Epiphany is focused on the mythic explanation of themandala, rather than an explicit justification of the preaching of
the Hevajra-tantra.
Synopsis: Heruka's Prior Epiphany™
During the practice of generating the visualization of themandala {ulpattikrama), one should be aware of three specificteachings: the way that such visualization purifies the personality processes, how the goal is accomplished, and the manner inwhich that epiphany previously occurred. While the former
two were explained elsewhere, this opportunity is now taken to
explain the latter.30
Within the three realms of existence, the formless realm
had no master, whereas the realm of form was ruled by Brahma,
and the realm of desire by Kama-Mahesvara. While Mahesvara's minions executed his rule throughout, he stayed in
Isana, overseeing his domain extending from the top of Mt.
Sumeru to the four continents. Primary among his retinue were
his eight "Big Worldlies" {'jig-rten chen po brgyad), each with his
own consort and incalculable henchmen, all of whom jeered atand challenged the emanation body {nirmanakdya) of theTathagata. In order to subdue this ungodly army, the Lord manifested his wrathful form and the eight goddesses, these latter
having the same names as the eight consorts of the "BigWorldlies": Vetali, Gaurl, Caurl, Ghasmarf, PukkasI, Savarl,
Candall, and Dombini. The major retinue of Mahesvara wasovercome by Heruka while Mahesvara himself and the sevenremaining "Big Worldlies" and their consorts were overcomeby the the eight Buddhist goddesses. The subsidary minions
were all finally collected into the eight great charnel grounds atthe periphery of the mandala. This being done, each of the Buddhist goddesses had the title "Adamantine" prefixed to her name,so that they become Vajra-Gauri, and so forth. The goddesses'
names indicate their representative castes; Vajra-Ghasmari
was the actual subjugatrix of Isana-Mahesvara, while Heruka
converted Indra, Brahma, Mara, and the like: thus their positions as seats of the deities in the mandala™ This arrangement isin accord with the explanations of the teachers of the tradition,and the chronicle is derived from the Tattvasamgraha, the Vajrasekhara, the Trailokyavijaya, and the Candraguhya-tilaka.

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

211

Missing from Sa-chen's discussion are the many particulars
which have made this myth powerful: there is no discussion of
the preaching of scripture or its collection by a coterie of disciples; we lack any sense of a drama unfolding. Furthermore, thebifurcation into levels of reality, seen earlier in Grags-pa rgyalmtshan's version of the myth, is entirely absent. Into this hermeneutical breach stepped Ngor-chen Kun-dga' bzang-po(1382-1456), the founder of Ngor E-wam chos-ldan Monastery (1429) and the most influential Lam-'bras figure of the 15th
century.
While still at Sa-skya in 1405, Ngor-chen wrote a shortwork which already displayed his penchant for harmonizing
the exegesis of all his available sources, rejecting outright thosewhich did not fall into the range of acceptable variation. In his
usage, "acceptable" primarily denoted material reproduced by
the great teachers of the early Sa-skya-pa: Sa-chen, bSodnams rtse-mo, and Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan. 32 The text Ngorchen produced, the Amazing Ocean, delineates that aspect of theLam-'bras tradition particularly concerned with the exegesis of
its putative scriptural source, the Hevajra Tantra. Traditionally,
Sa-skya-pa scholars have considered this the "Exegetical System" ('grel-lugs) of the Path/Fruit tradition; it relied on scriptural exegesis rather than on the meditative instructions (manngag) of the "root" text (Lam-'bras rtsa-ba, To. 2284) which
properly belongs to the other branch of the Lam-'bras, the "Instructional System" (man-ngag lugs).33 Both, though, traced
their lineage to the siddha Virupa, the legendary source for theLam-'bras. As a chronicle of the Exegetical System, the Amazing
Ocean orders itself along the lines of traditional certifications ofauthenticity: it explores the circumstances of the preaching of
the Hevajra-tantra, its collection, the transmission of its exegesis
in India and Tibet, and the manner of its proper explanation.
We will be concerned with the earlier sections of the work, since
they preserve the mythic materials concerning Mahesvara.
Synopsis: Amazing Ocean"

The absolute body of the Buddha (dharmakdya) is Hevajra(Heruka) who is the penetration of naturally occurring exalted
gnosis into all aspects of reality, pure and impure. The tantra is
the absolute, being preached by the absolute to the absolute

212

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2
through the presentation and dissolution of all events withinreality.
In the pure realm of Akanistha-Ghanavyuha, the experiential body {sambhogakdya) of Vajradhara known as *Candrakantamaniprabha resides, with eight heads and sixteen arms,
surrounded by tenth-degree bodhisattvas like Vajragarbha, continually teaching them the holy scriptures of Hevajra.
Now Isana-Mahesvara is the lord of this realm of desirefrom the summit of Sumeru on down and has an inner circle offour principals (gtso-bo bzhi) and an outer circle of eight arrogant
henchmen and sultry goddesses. Because they are so insatiable,
they spend all of their time—walking, sitting, standing, or lying
down—in sexual embrace. Because they are so perversely angry,
they sport in killing humans, playing in their blood. They areutterly ignorant about the ethical law of cause and effect, andare entirely given to excess. They control all the people of thisworld system and spend their time touting their superior power.
Not willing to leave well enough alone, Heruka as the experiential body (as depicted above) entered into the contemplation of "Playful Adamant" in order to subdue Mahesvara andhis gang. From each of the pores of his body he emanatedmandalas of divinity into the four islands of a billion worldsystems. In this Jambudvipa, he especially manifested as theemanation body (nirmdnakdya), the resultant form of Heruka:
Hevajra with eight faces and sixteen arms.35 "Just as Sa-chen
had explained," Rudra himself was overcome by Ghasmari
while the four worldly gods of his inner circle were overcome by
Heruka, and the rest of the retinue were overcome by the otherseven of the Buddhist goddesses.36 By assigning Mahesvara's
incalculable retinue to the eight great charnel grounds at the
periphery of the mandala, Heruka overcame their anger. By kissing, fondling, and other forms of great bliss, he suppressed their
desire.37 By mantras and all varieties of speech, he tamed theirignorance.
Then, immediately following this subjugation, the teacher
Bhagavan Hevajra took residence in the palace found in the
Vagina of Adamantine Women, and to his supramundane retinue he preached the Hevajra Tantra in 700,000 verses and in
500,000 verses, as well as the ancillary scriptures: the Mahdmudrdtilaka (To. 420), the Jhdnagarbha (To. 421), the Jhdnatilaka(To. 422), the Samputa, and so forth. According to the commentary on the Dakar nava-tantra (To. 1419) there were preached six"root" tantras: the Ocean of Yoga, (yogdrnava) the Ocean of Gnosis,

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

213

(jhdndrnava) the Ocean of Discipline (samvardrnava), the Ocean of
Ritual (kriyarnava), and the Ocean of Reality (tattvdrnava), these
five being collectively equivalent in size to the large Ddkdrnava(Ocean of Dakas) in 3,600,000 verses. The Hevajra-tantra in
500,000 verses was the text identified as the Ocean of Gnosis, thus
being one of the vast scriptures revealed to the goddess Vajravarahi and others.
Sakyamuni was the emanation body preaching all of thesescriptures in a former time, later pretending to pass throughthe stages of a buddha in this world system to demonstrate theproper method for obtaining enlightenment. The great scriptures (Hevajra and the rest) were preached at the former time
when the Buddha really obtained his enlightenment, and thereceived texts are but mere shadows of the source versions(mulatantra). The process of collection was effected, naturally,
by a supernormal being who was not subject to the little meritof this degenerate age: the Hevajra and Samputa-tantras were collected by the bodhisattva Vajragarbha, who acted as interlocutor,
while the Vajrapanjara was brought together by Nairatmya.
These, of course, represent the extensive versions—at least for
the Hevajra—which have not been revealed during this time
when life spans are short and beings are addicted to study andconsideration, but without ever arriving at the experience of thetaste of deep contemplation. Thus, the source versions of the
grand scriptures have remained hidden so that beings will not
be seduced into scholarship without meditative practice.
Finally, all the ideas of who preached what, where it waspreached, who collected it, and so forth are details. From theperspective of reality's direct expression (nitdrthatas), all the
beings—teacher, audience, gods, devils, ghosts and saints—are
merely manifestations of the teacher Sakyamuni's gnosis. Thus
Hevajra II.ii.39:
I, the teacher; I, the teaching; I, the listener with fine
retinue. I, the proposition; I, the instructor of the world; I
am the world and the things of the world. 38
N g o r - c h e n treats the episode in almost as offhanded am a n n e r as Sa-chen. H e is m u c h m o r e concerned with the entire
c o s m i c relation a m o n g the v a r i o u s bodies of the buddha, a n d
the tantra as a fragment of a n o c e a n i c text expressing i n n a t egnosis. T h e formal m y t h merely serves as d o o r for the manifestation of gnosis in the w o r l d .

214

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

Interpretive Strategies

Tucci, Stein, and Iyanaga have made contributions to ourunderstanding of the various moments in the myth, whether inIndia, Tibet, or China and Japan. 39 All three have rightly
remarked on the theme of the transmutation of Mahesvara's
hubris into the position of buddhahood. Both Stein and Iyanaga, however, have questioned the prima facie explanationthat the story reflects the opposition of Buddhism to Hinduism
and was developed to demonstrate the superiority of the Buddhist dharma™ Furthermore, having maintained that extrapolating doctrinal significance based on a modern perspective
appears impossible—and is in any case illegitimate—Iyanaga
appears to subvert his own rule by maintaining that the characters depicted in the story are symbolic or allegorical representations, allegory also being a primary theme in Stein's
interpretive strategy. Iyanaga goes even further. He proposes
that, as Mahesvara passes through moments—from being an
obstruction to the dharma to becoming a buddha—Mahesvara's
submission graphically demonstrates the nonopposition of
Buddhism and other religions. Following this approach, theBuddhist and the nonbuddhist, Mara and the Buddha, the passions and the wisdoms, are all fundamentally identical. Thus,
far from being a tale of the irreconcilable opposition of the two,the myth demonstrates their essential equivalence.
While there is much in these explanations that appears justified by the data, I believe that the conclusions could befurther refined and I would resist the assumption that modern
assessments are illegitimate. I propose an analysis of the versions of the myth by milieu: I. the Tattvasamgraha in India andII. the Cakrasamvara and Lam-'bras systems in Tibet. In eachcase, the analysis considers the myths from three perspectives:a. socio-historical, b. literary, and c. doctrinal.
/. Indian Myth: Tattvasamgrahaa. There can be little doubt that the Indie story indicates thereal tension between Buddhist and Saiva factions. Buddhism
in India has had a long history of weaving tales of the conversion of heretical leaders, beginning with Uruvilva Kasyapa,

THE MAHESVARA MYTH215

the leader of five hundred mat-haired ascetics who performed
the fire sacrifice.41 Furthermore, no one familiar with thehagiographic literature of India could doubt that Saiva andSakta ascetics—in particular, the Kapalikas—were the primary targets of the Buddhists' competitiveness. 42 Buddhist
monasteries at this period had become enormous landed institutions that controlled great economic resources but had atenuous relationship to the wider society, somewhat likemedieval Christian monasteries and modern universities. The
literature of the Vajrayana, however, does not reflect the valuesof these institutions, but stems from village and hermitagebased locales where wandering Buddhist ascetics were but
another variety of sddhu found in many of the same environments as Saiva and Sakta yogins. At this level of society, theperception of superiority is informed by oral literature, the ultimate source of the genres of written literature such as theavaddnas, the purdnas, the epics, etc. While the episode is clearlypatterned after similar episodes in purdnas such as the DevTmdhdtmya—particularly noticeable in the mantric invocation of
Durga's great antagonists, Sumbha and Nisumbha—the circumstances of the utilization of the myth are quite different.
For example, the religious position of Mahesvara is unlike thatheld by the foes of Devi. 43 Thus, at the socio-historical level, we
should understand the Mahesvara myth in the Tattvasamgraha
as a straight-forward defensive technique of the Buddhists toestablish the superiority of their gods over Mahesvara,
Brahma, Visnu, etc., in an attempt to retrieve some of their lost
position in unsophisticated circles in India, whether at Devlkota, VaranasI, Patna, or wherever. T h e noticably increased
mythic and symbolic orientation of the Vajrayana brought withit both the strength of dramatic images and the weakness of
having to follow pre-established models of myth, which were
often Hindu. Thus, this strategy vitiated Vajrayanists' efforts
at increasing their visibility and position, since they began toappear homogeneous with the more extensive Hindu mythic
systems. We realize that they were ultimately unsuccessful intheir endeavor and may appreciate the threat by considering
either the displacement of Buddhist cave structures in Ellora
by the more mythically-oriented Saiva and Vaisnava versions
or the intrusion of Vaisnava brahmans into the Mahabodhi
temple at Bodhgaya.

216

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

b. The literary techniques employed, as Iyanaga has rightly
observed, include material from both the Devimdhdtmya and theBuddha's subjugation of Mara. Like these, of course, the mythworks at several levels, including a literal one. Essential to theIndian understanding of story is that it be predicated as real,
not regarded as a spiritualized allegory. Indeed, one could
make the case that traditional India does not recognize a strict
distinction between ideals and reals, the supposition being, forexample, that the Meghaduta and the Lokaprajnapti reflect thereal landscape of the world, their cosmology indicative of theway things really are, despite appearances.
By the same token, events, in order to be real, must fall into
certain ideological frameworks. Should events in the world notcorrespond to the ideology, then the world is out of balance
and must be brought into harmonic resonance with the ideal.
Concerns of this variety motivate mythic cycles of world renewal, and Hindu renewal myths—such as the Devimdhdtmya—
are devoted to the rectification of the imbalance among thedemons, gods and humans. Differences, of course, abound,
and we note that the Buddhist version, in which Mahesvara isincluded into the mandala and eventually liberated, differentiates Hindu themes of naked power from Buddhist models ofcompassionate activity. Buddhist systems of reform, moreover,go back at least as far as the purdnas, and the principle of economy would ask us minimally to examine Buddhist literature for
prototypes.
The correspondence between Mahesvara and Mara canbe seen from internal scriptural statements—as in the
Mahdvairocana-abhisambodhi-sutra—and from later hermeneutics,

which we will see when we turn to the Hevajra materials,
below.44 However, the Mara story is that of the unenlightened
Bodhisattva overcoming the threats and temptations of theLord of Desire. "Mara," of course, is derived from the root
Vmr, to die, so that the Bodhisattva becomes awakened byovercoming the potential for death and subsequent rebirth.
Mara never becomes converted, and in Buddhist legend remains until it comes time for him to talk the Buddha into passing into final nirvana. Conversely, early Buddhist literature is
replete with examples of demonic individuals who became converted and who subsequently won either nirvana or extraordi-

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

217

nary greatness—Angulimala, Asoka, etc.—as opposed to
Devadatta, who is like Mara in his intractability.
The Mahesvara episode, in fact, sets up two levels of story.
First, there is the frame story of the obtainment of enlightenment by the bodhisattva Sarvarthasiddhi, who needs the worldly
gods integrated into the mandala to complete his activity as abuddha and teach the world. Then, there is the conversion ofMahesvara, who keeps the world out of balance by his activity.
The first is brought to fruition by the resolution of the second,
embedded, story. In a sense, the interrelation of the two—whatever their prototypes—is patterned after the episodes in thelegend of the Buddha, and particularly those of the Vinaya,
where teaching can only be effected following the dispersal ofa behavioral aberration, in this case, Mahesvara's unattractive habits.
Just as important is the retention of struggle and resolution
in the Vajrayana context. The universalization of buddhaness(buddhata) in the form of the cosmic buddha Vairocana obviates
any immediate personal difficulties—Vajrayana, with its concern for postulating an enlightened ground, could not include
Mahavairocana in an individual struggle against his own
obscurations. He could, however, become involved in the elimination of other beings' difficulties by reason of his great compassion, but his activity is mediated through Vajrapani—
Mahavairocana does not himself subjugate Mahesvara. Thus,
the dramatic requirements of cosmic mythology are fulfilled in
the Tattvasamgraha by the scripture's refusal to depict
Mahavairocana as an abstract entity. Instead, he works
through Vajrapani for the salvation of beings from their own
rude behavior—even if such behavior is as degenerate as thatof Mahesvara—insisting finally on their integration into thebalanced array of reality's mandala.
c. Doctrinally, the Tattvasamgraha is not complex, and clearly
does not invoke the multi-valued structure Iyanaga would have
us believe. We get no sense from the text of a dual-truth structure, as is explicit in the exegesis of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan
and Ngor-chen. The simple doctrine is that the dharmadhatu
mandala is the essential means for obtaining enlightenment,that any being—Mahesvara included—may obtain the enlightened condition, and that the mandala is the direct expression of

218

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

salvific reality, established by the eternally awakened Buddha
himself. The means for their conversion is the extraordinary
power of the living word, the mantra, which is the key to unlocking the palace of awakening. A subtext is that even thosekilled in the name of religion will be saved in the next life, anidea strictly accepted by early Tibetan religious, and one that
may be inferred in India by the subsequent reembodiment ofMahesvara as the buddha Bhasmesvara. Iyanaga was certainly
correct in interpreting Mahesvara's death and resurrection as
a dramatic symbol for the transformation of defilement into
gnosis, but this, too, is a symbolic subtext to the main story
line of world-reform through the mandala display.

II. Tibetan Modification—Cakrasamvara andHevajra

a. We can detect two primary motives for the mythic exegesis ofGrags-pa rgyal-mtshan and Ngor-chen: the desire for cosmological and ritual closure at the textual level, and verificationof scriptural-lineal authenticity that textual closure provides.
In the case of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, closure of mythic
and ritual holes in the heritage of the 'Khon family was of primary importance. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan was instrumental inputting together much of what is now considered the orthodox
Sa-skya-pa perspective on the Vajrayana, and integrated manyfragile meditative systems into the widely respected, if pugnaciously secretive, Lam-'bras. In this endeavor, he utilized therule already established by other early teachers in southern
Tibet, including his father and elder brother: orthodoxy is verified by a system's Indian antecedents. Where those antecedents
were accepted or unassailable, he paid scant attention. Where
the antecedents of his system might have been considered controversial, he takes some pains to demonstrate their validity.43
He did this in a quite systematic way for the Lam- 'bras, and thedevelopment of the Mahesvara subjugation myth appears tohave proceeded on similar lines. Clearly, Grags-pa rgyalmtshan did not invent the application of the myth to thepreaching of the Cakrasamvara. Although not cited by him, commentaries by both Indrabhuti and Suravajra make the subjugation of Mahesvara part of the lore surrounding the advent of

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

219

that tantra.^ Yet the jump from the paucity of Indie materials
to the well-developed scenario evident in Grags-pa rgyalmtshan's text is comprehensible if we surmise that the Indie
storytellers wove their tales on a speedy loom, for, as I havealready indicated, the author declared that he received thestory from his teachers. I believe that Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan—
already removed by some decades from the Indie and Nepalesesources of his tradition—found himself in possession of anenormous quantity of cosmological, hagiographical, ritual,and meditative material, as did most lineage holders in southern Tibet at this time. The resulting textual production was a
response to the fear for the imminent demise of the lore—Tibetans being quite aware of current Islamic incursions—the measure of its quantity, and the need to verify its authenticiy.47
This brings us to the second point: the validation of thesystem as a whole. Contrary to the stereotypes of popular literature, Tibetans have not always been benign, smiling mountaineers. Competition for economic resources traditionally has
been intense, and the early Tibetan hagiographical literatureclearly indicates an aspect of the culture obsessed with intrigue,
black magic, challenges, occasional religious wars, and hostility between certain members of the Buddhist hierarchy. Insuch an environment, the myth of Mahesvara's subjugation
was not, so far as I know, interpreted to allow the suppressionof personal enemies—as it might have been, given Christianeschatology of the Antichrist—but was utilized to bolster the
position of families and monastic institutions in specific ways.
There were, of course, no serious challenges to the organized monastic structure from devotees of Siva in Tibet. The
myth became instead a vehicle for verifying the greatest concernof institutional Tibetan culture: lineages of authority, a reflection of the extraordinary conservatism of Tibetan civilization.
The actual mechanism of verification must appear bizarre.
Each of the mandalas implicated in the myths under discussion—that is, the Sa-skya use of the Luhipada Cakrasamvara meditation and the Hevajra mandala of the 'Khon-lugs of Lam-'bras—
relate that the particular divinities are visualized trampling on
Hindu gods and goddesses, in particular Mahesvara. Additionally, Tibetans had passed down oral materials taken from
India and Nepal on the internecine strife among Bauddhas,

220

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

Saivas and Saktas, including oral and written information on
the mythology of Mahesvara's subjugation. Moreover, theapologia of the written myths of the scriptures' preaching certainly was communicated by the Indian and Nepalese sourcemonasteries. Consequently, Tibetans understood quite wellthat the verification of their own lineage of meditative praxis
was dependent in some measure on the utilization of this mythfor the verification of a specific lineage of exegesis. For theexegesis of a scripture to be viable, the scripture itself must be
tied to the great cosmic event of the tantrds preaching as a considered act of world reform. Tibetans thus quite handily madethe j u m p from Hindu gods appearing in their mandalas as
divine throw rugs to the verification of their familial andmonastic institutions as designated heirs of cosmic renewal.
Challenges made from one lineage to another in Tibet wereusually on exactly these lines: did the tradition in question
draw from an authentic Indie Buddhist background or was it
tainted with the pollution of heretical lineages through Hindu
rather than Buddhist teachers? Tibetans were quite aware thatwell-meaning members of the Tibetan clergy fell victim to
unscrupulous Indian and Nepalese teachers who represented
themselves in areas beyond their authority. For example,
Kayastha Gayadhara is said to have misrepresented himself to'Gos lo-tsa-ba Khug-pa lhas-tsas as being Maitripa in theflesh.4B Tibetans were equally aware that certain of their own
compatriots were not above misrepresenting what they hadlearned and from whom. Nag-tsho lo-tsa-ba was known tohave challenged the claim that Mar-pa studied directly with
Naropa. 49 Thus, the clergy in Tibet continued to question systems and lineages—a system might be authentic but the lineageof instruction questionable or fabricated, or the entire edificemight reflect non-Buddhist values. Moreover, the bickering evident between the Mar-lugs and the Rwa-lugs, between the
Rwa-lugs and the 'Gos-lugs, or between such teachers as dGebshes Khyung-po grags-se and Zur-chung Shes-rab grags-pa,
certainly must have presented the Sa-skya masters with the
motivation to limit their own vulnerability. 50
Although we appear to have no record of a direct challenge
to his Cakrasamvara lineage, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan, following
in the footsteps of his predecessors, did take some pains with

THE MAHESVARA MYTH221

the Cakrasamvara materials at his disposal. 51 He discussed thehagiography of the Indian teachers and their Tibetan followers
at some length in three separate works, devoted respectively tothe lineages of Kanhapada, Ghantapada, and Luhipada. V 2 The
result of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's mythic and hagiographic
writings was mixed. While gZhon-nu dpal's Blue Annals probably made use of his hagiographies, the mythic form of the origin of the Cakrasamvara explored by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan
was not the one to obtain widest currency in Tibet." Such currency derived from the textual and oral materials assembled
and amplified by Bu-ston Rin-chen grub (1290-1364); his version was followed by many subsequent authors. 54
If closure was Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's primary concern,
defense appeared to be Ngor-chen's. The Sa-skya-pa had enjoyed a special postion in Tibet since the middle of the thirteenth century, when Sa-skya Pandita was designated the firstmonk-ruler of the Snowy Mountain. While the Sa-skya hegemony fragmented around 1358-59 and the Yuan Dynasty collapsed in 1368, the Sa-skya-pa still enjoyed a special positionof power and wealth which attracted the criticism of otherorders, especially in the face of the excesses of privilege that
had occurred. 55 The backlash against the Sa-skya-pa—intellectual as well as political—must have been intense, and theSa-skya-pa themselves attempted to retain control of Tibet's
intellectual direction by polemics. It is between the years 1404—
1406 (ages twenty-two to twenty-four) that we* find Ngor-chen
involved in the first of his two periods of apologetics. In 1404
he wrote his defense of the superiority ofVajrayana enlightenment—the theory that buddhahood obtained by the Path of
Secret Spells is more exalted than that obtained by the standard Mahayana perfections. 56 In 1406, he defended theorthodoxy of the Hevajra-tantra itself against those who maintained that, because the scripture speaks primarily of allembracing gnosis and because Virupa is rumoured to havebeen the Vijnanavadin monk Dharmapala before his conversion to the lightning path, the Hevajra must be of the class oftexts reflecting the "mind only" conceptualization of reality
and therefore inferior to the orthodox Madhyamaka view. Although the chronologies are confused, Ngor-chen's hagiographies speak of his defending the Sa-skya-pa position in central

222

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

Tibet against vociferous critics.37 Doubtless, his Amazing Ocean,written in 1405, also reflected these same concerns, despite thefact that the text is not overtly polemical and does not specifically identify an antagonistic position, as do the 1404 and 1406
apologies.
Who were these pa~ramitd-ba,sed critics of the Sa-skya system? Modern Tibetan religious folklore often reifies all Saskya-pa critics into dGe-lugs-pa monks and, in the case of
Ngor-chen, into mKhas-grub dge-legs dpal-bzang-po (1385—1438).58 Certainly, mKhas-grub-rje was one of Ngor-chen's critics in his later life and clearly did maintain, for example, thedoctrine that there was no difference in result when buddhahood is obtained by either the perfections or the Path of Spells.59
However, the circumstances were more complex than reification into a single antagonist.60 For example, the dates themselves are difficult—in 1404, mKhas-grub-rje turned 19 yearsof age and was still a good Sa-skya-pa monk studying with
Red-mda'-ba; he did not even visit Tsong-kha-pa until 1407.61
Moreover, Tibetan proclivity towards oral exaggeration certainly exacerbated the problem, some members of the clergy
assuming that the refutation of a facet of a practice indicates awholesale condemnation of the tradition. Red-mda'-ba was a
prqjhdpdramita master and is said to have held that Dharmapala'sview was idealist, but we have no sense that he extended thiscritique to the Hevajra-tantra itself, although some of his morerash followers may have done so.62 Clearly, mKhas-grub did
not.63 Exaggeration, in fact, led mKhas-grub to complain thatpeople said he refuted the Lam-'bras, a charge he hotly denied—he had called into question two specific practices.64 However
the polemical stage was set: once Ngor-chen produced the verification of the Hevajra in its mythic setting, his sense of closure
became the standard for Sa-skya-pa savants. We find 'Jammgon A-mes zhabs, writing his masterpiece ofLam-'bras lore in
1621, specifically reproducing Ngor-chen's mythos, relying on
his prestige.65
b. The literary shift from the snappy dialogue of the Tattvasamgraha to the cosmic diagram of the Cakrasamvara mandala isin some measure dependent on the shift from an Indian milieu

THE MAHESVARA MYTH

223

to the Sa-skya-pa system in Tibet. Whereas rNying-ma-pa
authors continued the use of vital dialogue, Sa-skya-pa authors
eliminated it in favor of the codification into diagrams. Why
the difference? Again, social values and levels are at the heartof the issue. Village culture supports the wandering bard,
whose presence serves to alleviate oppressive boredom andwhose message imbues meaning into the lives of the audience.
Clearly, many rNying-ma-pa literary genres were closely influenced by oral and bardic literature. The Sa-skya-pas, conversely, made the transition to textually-based monastic
institutions; their myths directly expressed the importance ofverifying the presence of texts in the institution rather thandelineating the drama of unfolding awareness. For the rNyingma-pa, the drama of the struggle in multiple episodes was thefocus; for the Sa-skya-pa, the goal of the received text as theepiphany of gnosis was paramount.
Turning to the plot, we notice that Mahesvara and crew
are directly included into the dharmadhdtu mandala of the Tattvasamgraha, while neither the Cakrasamvara nor the Hevajra utilize
Mahesvara or other divinities as anything but adversaries.
Both Sa-skya-pa myths make allowance for the ultimate liberation of the Hindu divinities, but neither allows them a formal
position in the mandala as exemplars following the universal
pattern. The Sa-skya-pa formulation more closely follows theparadigm of the Buddha's victory over Mara, and the indebtedness of both the Cakrasamvara and Hevajra episodes to the Mara
myth is explicit. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan specificially introduces his version with a Mara-myth reference; the four figures
trampled on by Hevajra are Mara, Mahesvara, Indra, andBrahma, while HT I.iii.17 is explicit that Hevajra destroys thefour Maras. Thus, the dramatic device—of the contentious
dialogue among Mahavairocana, Vajrapani, and Mahesvara,
followed by the reincarnation and liberation as denouementis not essential to the plot. Rather, the given qualities of theindividuals, being the ground of conversion, are the essential
elements for the unfolding of the drama. Symbolically, this isplayed out in the direct imitation of one deity by another: Vajrapani does not imitate Mahesvara, but Heruka does. The
iconography is developed in recognition, specified time andagain in the texts of the Sa-skya-pa, that the tantras of the Anut-224

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

tara-yoga class have been preached to attract those beings filledwith all the various defilements and who do not wish to abandon their preferred behavior.
As a corollary, the later myths imply that the lowest variety
of behavior leads to the highest enlightenment. We have every
expectation that the tellers of such myths enjoyed the spectacleof the lowest fiends and their dastardly crimes, with the gallant
Heruka coming to the rescue of all beings. Clearly, Heruka andhis retinue do not enjoy acting in a manner similar to that ofMahesvara but have undertaken this form of divine activity to
attract those addicted to perverse behavior. We are thus impressed by how far the Buddha's compassion extends, including even degraded beings. As an antidote to personal guilt, thescenario is as attractive to the myth's listeners as Amitabha'ssaving power in another era—no one need feel irredeemable,
whatever their crimes may have been.
In the Cakrasamvara system, the exact locales are important, and their specification is an extension of that lineage's
concern for the integration of the macrocosm and microcosm,
each of the twenty-four external locales being identified withan internal locale within the body of the yogin. While the precise Indie source for identifying a system of twenty-four lingams
and bhairavas is obscure, it cannot be immediately assumed that
it was a popular Hindu system subsumed into the Buddhist
fold. Virtually none of the more famous "lingams of light"{jotirlihga) belong to the Cakrasamvara formula; I have encountered no list in puranic literature which corresponds to either
the number twenty-four or the places identified. Closest in
spirit are the various Buddhist places of pilgrimage specified
frequently in most of the tantras concerned with ddkinis: theCakrasamvara, Abhidhanottara, Hevajra, etc. 66 The Buddhist
mythic contention that these places were initially Saiva cannot
be accepted as fact, or even that they existed outside of theminds of the storytellers, although some clearly did. Instead,the list is developed out of such geographical lists of places
noted in esoteric Buddhist literature as early as theMahamayurl-vidya- rajni-dhdrani.67
As a meditative technique, the identity of macrocosmic
locales with microcosmic structures is striking. It allows the
meditator to understand the cosmic drama as internal as wellTHE MAHESVARA MYTH

225

as external, Mahesvara as an extension of his own proclivity
to defilement and Heruka as the resonance of the Buddha in
his own stream of being. As literature, the specification of
locales is equally dramatic and is a technique frequently usedin Indian and Tibetan tales, whether in the Purdnqs or the Epicof Ge-sar. For a village-bound audience with little opportunity
or resources for travel, the identification of all the places of the
known world by the wandering teacher must have seemed atleast as romantic and exciting as travel stories are for us today.68
To find, moreover, that the entire itinerary is located within
one's own psycho-physical continuum must have been a stunning validation of the listener's existence.
No such literary devices are available to Ngor-chen; hiswork invokes neither the quick repartee of the Tattvasamgraha
nor the grand schematism of Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's work.
In all fairness, the subjugation of Mahesvara is not his realconcern; Ngor-chen just wants to get the tantras preached andauthenticated, so that he can discuss the scriptural relations
and proceed to the hagiographies of the saintly lineage. We getlittle sense that Ngor-chen appreciates the literature of his
mythic inheritance. Rather, he appears solely concerned withverifying its reality on a scale of values developed by theinstitutional requirements of his day. As a result, Ngor-chen'sis the dryest expression of a juicy story.
c. The doctrinal framework of the Tibetan versions of the mythis explicit and, in the Hevajra telling, quite essential to the story.
Clearly, the expression of multiple levels of truth—further
trifurcated in the Cakrasamvara mandala into physical, vocal,
and mental—brings out the necessity of admitting the mythic
reality into the ordinary world. Here, Mahesvara and his
retinue really perform all their actions, which are countered by
Heruka and his mandala'. evil is supressed, defilement purified,
and the cosmos realigned into the universal form. Much moredifficult is the myth as the expression of absolute truth. Gragspa rgyal-mtshan stresses the drama of subjugation when heextends the movement of reality from Vajradhara to Mahesvara. Conversely, Ngor-chen emphasizes the process of teaching as an act of nondifferentiated communication, although heclearly includes Mahesvara in the ground of being asemblematic of defiled existence. The hermeneutic of mythic

226

JIABS VOL. 14 NO. 2

nondifferentiation raises a fundamental soteriological andontological question: If Mahesvara and the demonic horde are
merely facets of the teacher's gnosis, then does the absolutebody of the Buddha emanate evil?
Ngor-chen attempts to circumvent the problem by maintaining that both pure and impure elements of reality are penetrated by the dharmakaya. I find this explanation intellectuallyproblematic. If the entire process of defilement and awakening—either cosmically or personally—operates absolutely undifferentiated from the absolute body of the Buddha, then the
Buddhist has as little claim to solve the problem of evil as does
the theist. Indeed, the personality and activity of the eternal
Buddha come to center stage, since the drama is enacted at his
pleasure. If the Buddhist replies that such a drama is a play tolure beings away from defilement, then the equivalence of the
microcosm and macrocosm cannot be maintained. In this instance, external defilement is unreal while internal defilement
is real; the internality and symbolic reality of the myth are
futile and cannot be reenacted in the discharge of personal
awakening.
Buddhist soteriology has yet to come to grips with the
problems evoked by an open-ended cosmological system. The
apparent sophistication of its doctrine still masks an incomplete exploration of the philosophical implications of its mythic
structure, partially because it has recourse to a series ofsoteriological postulates buttressed by the irrefutable invitation to try it for oneself. Yet when the system attempts to identify itself with the ordinary-language images of the individual,
which are required in the mythic process, we obtain a curious
reversal: the system, as it were, meets itself coming and goingdenying the individual while relying on the individual's selfdelusion to eliminate the potential for further delusion. If there
are no real individuals, however, we revert to a soteriologicalautokinesis wherein the absolute deludes itself and awakens
itself.
So, while mythically powerful, this inversion of agent,from the individual to the absolute body of the Buddha, isproblematic in an intellectual culture of agentlessness. The
myth has drawn the tradition into the implications of the identity of the two levels of truth, but bringing the absolute into theTHE MAHESVARA MYTH

227

operation of relative truth, which reverses the vector of standard Buddhist hermeneutic. Traditionally, Buddhist thoughthas deconstructed the categories of relative truth to arrive at
the identity of the two truths. Here, Buddhist myth constructs
categories of the absolute truth in order to arrive at this identity, the absolute taking on characteristics of relative process.
So, while Ngor-chen has ignored the myth as literature, his
invocation of the doctrine of the Buddha's bodies is quite to thepoint—the problem is gnostic embodiment as a response of theultimate. Space prevents a more thorough examination of theissue, but we note that the requirements of textual authenticity
and closure propelled Tibetans to a land seldom visited. Exegetes found themselves hovering on the periphery of myth, attempting to manipulate images which did not invoke their ideas
while working in a curious twilight between symbol and theory.
Yet mitigating the tension between myth and doctrine is Buddhist literature's playful willingness to eradicate ultimate categories and turn the devil into a Buddha with the stroke of a pen.

Conclusions
The extraordinary popularity of the Buddhist myth of the
subjugation of Mahesvara—whether at the hands ofVajrapanior Heruka—has much to do with its ability to invoke several
levels of meaning simultaneously. As a story, it is a classic tale of
Buddhist values^ overcoming the power-oriented behaviors still
evident among Saiva and Sakta practitioners. As soteriology, it
implies that no depravity is irredeemable; indeed, it affirmsthat the defiled condition will be answered by the insistent
movement towards awakening, becoming finally the stuff ofenlightenment itself. As doctrine, particularly in Tibet, itaffirms the interpenetration of all elements of reality and theirmutual interdependence. And, as history, it leads us to understand the internal and external forces that affected the Buddhist
communities in India and Tibet, and gives us more insight into
the process whereby Buddhist communities developed tools ofidentity in the face of fissiparous forces.

J I A B S VOL. 14 N O . 2

228
NOTES

*A preliminary version of this paper was read at the Annual Meeting of the
Association of Asian Studies, San Francisco, February, 1988. Further researchon the Lam-'bras and the early Sa-skya-pa was supported in part by a grantfrom the American Institute of Indian Studies and a Fairfield University Summer Research Stipend. In a general vein, I must acknowledge my debt to Ngor
Thar-rtse mKhan Rin-po-che (1933-1987), who gave me the benefit of his
instruction in Sa-skya-pa and Lam-'bras traditions for over a decade. I also wish
to thank John Thiel for his excellent criticism of a preliminary draft of this paper.

ABBREVIATIONS
HT
TTP
SKB
T.
To.

David L. Snellgrove, The Hevajra Tantra, London Oriental SeriesVol. 6 (I/jndon: Oxford University Press, 1959).
Daisetz T. Suzuki, ed., Tibetan Tripitaka, Peking Edition (Tokyo:
Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1956).
bSod-nams rgya-mtsho, ed., The Complete Works of the Great Mastersof the Sa Skya Sect of the Tibetan Buddhism (Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 1968).
J. Takakusu and K. Watanabe, eds., Taisho Shinshu Daizokyo(Tokyo: Daizokyokai, 1924-1935).
Hakuju Ui, et al., A Complete Catalogue of the Tibetan Buddhist Cannons(Sendai: Tohoku Imperial University, 1934).

1. See R.M. Davidson, "An Introduction to the Standards of Scriptural
Authenticity in Indian Buddhism," in Robert E. Buswell, Jr., ed., Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), pp. 291-325.
2. Davidson, "Standards," pp. 312-315. For a convenient discussion of
the various lineages, see Kong-sprul Yon-tan rgya-mtsho, Shes bya kun khyab,
rDo-rje rgyal-po and Thub-bstan nyi-ma, eds. (Szechuan: Mi rigs dpe skrun
khang, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 366-371.
3. Compare the founding scenarios found in the Vimalaprabhd with thereferences in the Sekoddes'a-ttkd; Jagannatha Upadhyaya, ed., Vimalaprabhdtika of
Kalki Sri Pundarika, Bibliotheca Indo-Tibetica Series No. XI (Sarnath, India:
Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1986), pp. 22-31; Mario E. Carelli,ed., Sekoddes'afikd of Nddapdda, Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. XC (Baroda,
India: Oriental Institute, 1941), pp. 1-4. See Andre Bareau, "Le stupa deDhanya Kataka," Arts asiatiques 16 (1967): 81-88; Helmut Hoffman, Tibet—AHandbook (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Center for the Language Sciences,n.d.),pp. 143-145.
4. The text of the Tattvasamgraha is that edited by Isshi Yamada, Sarvatathdgata-Tattva-sahgraha, Satapitaka Series 262 (New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture, 1980) and reproduced in Lokesh Chandra, ed.,Sarva-Tathdgata-Tattva-Sahgraha (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987). Lokesh

T H E MAHESVARA M Y T H

229

Chandra's "edition" simply added misprints to Yamada's fine edition, which is
now unavailable. The Tibetan of the Tattvasamgraha is PTT. 112, vol. 4, pp. 218—
283; the standard Chinese text i s T 882.18.341-445. The Sarvarthasiddhi mythis pp. 4 - 5 of Chandra's text; Tibetan text is pp. 219.4-220.2; and pp. 341c342b of the Chinese.
5. Chandra ed. pp. 211-213; Tib. pp. 281.4-282.4; Ch. 443b-444c.
6. The following is a summary of the essential sections of the myth,
which is found at Chandra pp. 56-59; Tib. pp. 239.4-241.5; Ch. 370a-372c.
The critical reader will realize that I have taken some poetic license with thelanguage to reflect the quick repartee of the Sanskrit. The myth was firststudied by Giuseppe Tucci, who discovered the Tattvasamgraha manuscript in
Nepal; he edited and translated much of the text of the myth in Indo-Tibetica,
Reale Accademia d'ltalia Studi e Documenti I (Rome: Reale Accademia
d'ltalia, 1932), vol. 1, pp. 135-145. The myth has been considered in detail andsummarized by Nobumi Iyanaga, "Recits de la soumission de Mahesvara par
Trailokyavijaya—d'apres les sources chinoises et japonaises," in Michel
Strickmann, ed., Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R.A. Stein, Melanges
chinois et bouddhiques vol. X X I I (Brussels: Institut beige des hautes etudes
chinoises, 1985), pp. 633-745. Unfortunately, Iyanaga's excellent study does not
capture the snappy dialogue of the Sanskrit, being based primarily on the ponderous Sung translation into Chinese, T. 882. The material has been also considered by Stein, Annuaire du College de France 1972:499-510, 1973:463-470,
1974:508-517. A noted Tibetan discussion of the Mahesvara (Rudra) myth isthat by sLe-lung-pa bZhad pa'i rdo rje, Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho'i mam par
tharpa cha shas tsam brjodpa sngon medlegs bshad, Sman Rtsi Shesrig Spendzod vol.
104 (Leh, Ladakh: T.S. Tashigang and B.P.O. Nemo, 1979), pp. 1-103.
7. In using Bhasmacchanna, I am following Tucci's text, p. 145, andIyanaga, p. 675, who gives the readings of the edition of Horiuchi Kanjin, (BonZo-Kan taisho) Shoe-Kongo-cho-kyo no kenkyu Bompon Kotei-hen, jo (Koyasan,
1983), 11 la, p. 32. Chandra, p. 59, gives Bhasmacchatra. It is well-known that
Siva's conversion as Bhasmesvara occurs in Kdrandavyuha, in P.L. Vaidya, ed.,Mahdydna-sutra-samgraha, Part 1, Buddhist Sanskrit Text Series, No. 17 (Darbhanga: Mithila Institute, 1961), p. 304, but see Iyanaga's p. 675, n. 66, where
he indicates that, whatever its occurrence in the Nepali manuscript tradition, it
was missing in the recensions translated into Tibetan and Chinese.
8. T. 1171, 1172. The authenticity of Amoghavajra's translations is frequently disputed; see Iyanaga, "Recits," pp. 640-642. The Tibetan text is To.
482, and the myth is found in sDe-dge rgyud-'bum vol. ta, fols. 10a-12b. sLelung-pa, pp. 10.7 & 13.6, attempts to integrate the rather innocuous statementsof the Mahdvairocana-abhisambodhi-sutra (To. 494) into the full-blown form of themyth, but the sutra simply confounds Mara and Mahesvara, giving a mantra tobring him under control; sDe-dge rgyud 'bum, vol. tha, fol. 182a.
9. sDe-dge rgyud-'bum, vol. ta, fol. lib: gang 'di Ita bu'i sngags kyi tshig
smra ba ni khyod rab tu mi bgrongs so\.
10. To. 480; sDe-dge rgyud-'bum, vol. nya, fols. 237a-247b.
11. sDe-dge rgyud 'bum, vol.ja, fols. 281a-287a.
12. To. 832, rNying rgyud, vol. kha, fols. 124b-128a. R.A. Stein has considered this version in the Annuaire 1974, pp. 511.

230

J I A B S V O L . 14 N O . 2

13. To. 829; rNying-rgyud, vol. ka, chapters 20-31, fols. 135b-166a. This
material has been considered by Stein, Annuaire 1972:499-510, 1973:463-470.
See also sLe-lung-pa, Dam can bstan srung rgya mtsho, pp. 48-103.
14. Stein, Annuaire 1973, p. 468, mentions that there is a commentary
ascribed to Naropa which contains a fuller version, but I have no access to thePeking bsTan-'gyur at this time. This version is not cited by Grags-pa rgyalmtshan, Bu-ston, sLe-lung-pa, or other Tibetan savants whom I have studied,and so its influence was less than complete, yet Stein mentions that Pretapuri
in "Naropa's commentary" is identified with Pu-hrangs in Tibet, an identification that Bu-ston accepts, bDe mchog nyung ngu'i rgyud kyi spyi mam don gsal,
Lokesh Chandra, ed., The Collected Works of Bu-ston, Satapitaka Series, vol. 64(New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), pt. 6, pp. 54-61.
15. dPalhe ru ka'i byung tshul, SKB III.298.4.2-300.2.6.
16. The division of Mahesvara's retinue into celestial, terrestrial, and subterranean is evident in the Tattvasamgraha mythology also; Chandra, pp. 59-60.
17. I have edited the place names; the versions found in the text areclearly orally transmitted and are meant to reflect the widely accepted names
for the twenty-four locales found in the Cakrasamvara system. Confer H T
I.vii.10-18; Abhidhdnottara, P T T 17, vol. 2, pp. 48.1.1-4, 52.5.6-53.2.3, 56.1.656.2.3, 56.5.8-57.2.1, 58.4.4-59.2.8, etc.; Tucci, Indo-Tibetica, vol. 3, part 2, pp.
38-45; Shinichi Tsuda, The Samvarodaya-Tantra; Selected Chapters (Tokyo: The
Kokuseido Press, 1974), pp. 93-96, 260-263.
18. It is not clear why Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan specifies that these two
yaksa came from the north to take control of these two locales, or why he doesthat selectively in other instances {nagas, asuras). Most likely, it is the conservation of a prior association on his part (did all these figures have such associations?); it is less likely that he is selectively developing associations found in thesddhanas in question.
19. Color assignment here contradicts the names of the Uma, which identify each Uma with her own color.
20. I have not observed elsewhere the identification of a goddess withvicissitudes of the planet Rahu, rendering the stem feminine. The asterisked (*)
Indie forms of the names ascribed to the Uma and the Matrka are conjectural.
21. We note the irregular application of the feminine ending mo.
22. The first four Matrka names are available from the literature. See
Martin M. Kalff, "Dakinis in the Cakrasamvara Tradition," in Martin Brauen
and Per Kvaerne, eds., Tibetan Studies (Zurich: Volkerkundemuseum der Universitat Zurich, 1978), pp. 149-162, esp. p. 157; Tsuda, Samvarodaya XIII.30,
pp. 117, 285. According to these sources, the other four Matrka are most commonly identified as Yamadadhi, Yamaduti, Yamadarhstri, and Yamamathanl.
23. The numbering: 24 Bhairavas + their 24 consorts+ 4 U m a + 8
Matrka + Mahesvara + UmadevI = 62 divinities.
24. While the mandala utilized by Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan appears thegeneral synthesis of the four traditions mentioned at the end of the text, in the
1730-s edition of the SKB, our text follows the hagiography of Luhipada's
lineage, leading to the surmise that the Zhu-chen Tshul-khrims considered the
mandala to be based on Luhipada's Sri Bhagavadabhisamaya (To. 1427, sDe-dge

THE MAHESVARA M Y T H

231

rgyud 'grel, vol. wa, fols. 186b3-193al). This text is apparently the earliest
attested practice of the Cakrasamvara, having been translated by Rin-chenbzang-po (958-1055) and Sraddhakaravarman. It also enjoys two commentaries by Tathagatavajra, To. 1509-1510, the latter including a separate chronicle of Pandita dPal-'dzin and the teachers of the lineage. A form of the mandalais also given in Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, ed., Nispannayogdvall of Mahdpandita
Abhydkaragupta, Gaekwad's Oriental Series No. 109 (Baroda: Oriental Institute,1972), pp. 44-46, 26-29.
25. A preta is one departed, but usually a ghost rather than a corpse.
Here, as before, Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan is attempting to tie the myth to the language of the ritual.
26. This was a favored hermeneutic among the Sa-skya-pa. Sa-chen had
maintained that it was one of the signs of the superiority of the Vaj ray ana (SKB
1.122.3.3), an idea also utilized by bSod-nams rtse-mo in his commentary on
the Hevajra-tantra (SKB II.51.2.6-3.2). In the previous reference, however, Sachen quotes Padmavajra's Guhyasiddhi (To. 2217) in support of his idea, and we
see that Pundarika maintains the idea in his Vimalaprabha commentary to the
Kdlacakra, Upadhyaya ed., pp. 23-24. Decidedly, the Sa-skya teachers looked forIndie support of favored doctrines.
27. The received Sanskrit text of Guhyasamdja XVII.19, while discussing
Vajrapani, reads somewhat differently:
kdyavajro bhavet brahmd vdgvajras tu mahesvarah I
cittavajradharo raja saiva visnur maharddhikah 11
Being physically adamantine, let him be Brahma,
But as vocally adamantine, he is Mahesvara;
The king bearing the sceptre of mental adamant,
It is just he who is Visnu, of great majesty.
Yukei Matsunaga, The Guhyasamdja Tantra (Osaka: Toho Shuppan, 1978), p. 98.
28. Dpal he ruka'i byung tshul mam par gzhag pa bla ma'i gsung las cung zad
Atejte|.SKBIII.300.2.6.
29. sNgon byunggi mam 'phrul, SKB 1.388.3.4-389.1.3.
30. Sa-chen was doubtless considering his various commentaries to thebasic texts of the Lam-'bras (To. 2284), traditionally considered eleven in number; see Musashi Tachikawa, "The Tantric Doctrine of the Sa skya pa according
to the Selgyi me loh" Acta Asiatica 29 (1975): 95-106.
31. Actually, as is apparent from his gDan gyi mam dag (SKB 1.387.4.4388.3.4), Heruka tramples on Brahma, Indra, Kamadeva, and Mahesvara,
while Ghasamri tramples on Isana-Mahesvara, apparently considered theprincipal variety of the species Mahesvara.
32. The same method was utilized by Ngor-chen in his exegetical monument, the {dPal kye rdo rje'i sgrub thabs kyi rgya cher bshadpa) bsKyed rim gnadkyi zlazer, SKB IX.173.4-277, esp. see p. 179.3.6.
33. The standard work on the legends and concerns of the Lam-'bras
remains the Yongs rdzogs bstan pa rin po ch'i nyams len gyi man ngag gsung ngag rin poche'i byon tshul khog phub dang bcas pa rgyas par bshadpa legs bshad 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho
of'Jam-mgon A-mes zhabs (1597-1659; text completed 1621), The Tshogs Bsad
Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam-'bras vol. 1 (Rajpur, India: Sakya Centre, 1983), pp.

232

J I A B S V O L . 14 N O . 2

1-314; cf. Ngor-chen's introductory materials at the beginning of the bsKyed rim
gnad kyi zla zer (SKB.IX, pp. 174 ff.), and his own discussion of the central
Path/Fruit tradition, the Lam 'bras bu dang bcas pa'i man ngag gi byung tshul gsttng
ngag rin po che bstan pa rgyas pa'i nyi bd (SKB IX.108.3.1-126.4.3); this latter text
includes supplemental notes by Gung ru Shes rab bzang po.
26. rGyud kyi rgyal po dpal kye rdo rje'i byung tshul dang brgyud pa 'i bla ma dam
pa mams kyi rnam par thar pa ngo mtshar rgya mtsho, SKB IX.278.1-284.3.3. The
Synopsis addresses the material in pp. 278.3.2-281.4.5.
27. The resultant form of a divinity is that which is brought back from
integration with emptiness at a specific time in the meditative practice of theutpattikrama. See Ngor-chen's bsKyed-rim gnad kyi zla-zer, SKB IX.249.1.6251.1.3.
36. Ngor-chen's primary source for the myth is Sa-chen's text, which hepartially misquotes and identifies as gDan gyi dag pa, this latter being placed
before (387.4.4-388.3.4) Sa-chen's sNgon byung gi rnam 'phrul in the SKB edition,
the quote being from 388.4.3-4. Secondarily, he quotes from Grags-pa rgyalmtshan's commentary to the Hevajra-tantra, SKB III.151.4.6-152.1.1, itself adevelopment of HT11.v.5.
37. Ngor-chen's statement 279.3.4 is an obscure but definite reference to
Hevajra tantra II.v.5, which was not translated by Snellgrove:cumbayitvd tu Nairatmydm ksiptvd vajram kapdlake |mardayitva stanau devo mandalam samprakdsayet \ \Having kissed Nairatmya, having placed your vajra in her skull,
Having fondled her breasts, let the deity express his mandala.
38. vyakhydtdham aham dharmah srotdham suganair yutah |sddhyo 'hamjagatah s'dstd loko 'ham laukiko 'py aham 11
We should note that the Tibetan for H T II.ii.39cd reads as if sasta 'loko 'hamlaukiko: 'jig Hen 'jig rten 'das ma nga, but here following the Yogaratnamald, HT, vol.
2, p. 139.
39. See note 6, above.
40. Stein, Annuaire 1973, p. 467; Iyanaga, "Recit de la soumission dc
Mahesvara," pp. 731-743.
41. Andre Bareau, "Le Buddha et Uruvilva," in Daniel Donnet, ed.,lndianisme et Bouddhisme—Melanges offerts a Mgr Etienne Lamotte, Publications de
PInstitut orientaliste de Louvain 23 (Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut orientaliste,1980), pp. 1-18. Bareau has theorized that the Kasyapa episode was initially
non-Buddhist and became the mythic anchor which brought the identificationof bodhivrksa to the village of Uruvilva. His theory is interesting but exceeds thedata at this time and needs more verification than he has offered.
42. See Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's various Cakrasamvara lineage hagiographies listed in note 52. below; his bLa ma rgya gar ba'i lo rgyus (SKB 111.170.1.1174.1.6).
43. Cf. the treatment of these asuras in Thomas B. Coburn, Devi-Mdhdtmya—The Crystallization of the Goddess Tradition (Columbia, Missouri: South Asia
Books, 1985), pp. 230-249.
44. Mahdvairocana-abhisambodhi-sutra, To. 494, sDe-dge rgyud-'bum, vol.
tha, fol. 182a.

T H E MAHESVARA M Y T H

233

45. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan's great formulation of the Vajrayana is foundin his rGyudkyi mngon par rtogs pa rin po che'i Ijon shing, SKB III.1 -70.
46. See Sricakrasamvaratantrardjasambarasamuccaya-vrtti, To. 1413, rgyudgrel, vol. tsa fol. 4ab; Mulatantrahrdayasamgrahabhidhanottaratantra-mulamulavrtti,
To. 1414, rgyud-'grel, vol. tsa fol. 121a7.
47. See, for example, the rationale given in his gSung ngag rin po eke lam'bras bu dan bcas pa'i don gsal bar byedpa glegs bam gyi dkar chags, The Slob Bsad Tradition of the Sa-skya Lam-'bras (Rajpur: Sakya Centre, 1983), vol. XI, pp. 1-8, esp.
p. 1.3-2.1.
48. See the bLa ma brgyud pa'i mam par thar pa ngo mtshar snang ba of bLama dam-pa bSod-nams rgyal-mtshan (1312-1375), the first part of his extraordinary Podnag ma, TheSlob Bsad, vol. XVI, pp. 1-121, esp. p. 20.
49. Nag-tsho maintained that he visited Naropa (providing us with astunning portrait of Naropa as the Mahapandita) and that Naropa was said tohave passed away with great portents while Nag-tsho was accompanying Atlsa
in Nepal in C.E. 1041. Sometime later, Nag-tsho traveled with Mar-pa to central Tibet and heard nothing of a meeting. Finally, some of Mar-pa's disciples
denied that a meeting had taken place. Grags-pa rgyal-mtshan appears toagree in his reply to Byang-chub seng-ge's request for his opinion on the matter;rNal 'byor byang chub seng ge'i zhu ba dang I de'i dris Ian, SKB III.276.3.5-278.2.6.
50. George N. Roerich, The Blue Annals (Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1976), pp. 118-121. The biography of Rwa lo-tsa-ba rDo-rje grags byBande Ye-shes seng-ge, mThu stobs dbyang phyug rje btsun rwa lo tsa ba'i mam par tharpa kun khyab snyan pa'i mga sgra, (Lhasa xylograph: 1905) presents a wealth ofstories concerning early Tibetan religious intrigue, esp. fols. 22b 1-24a 1,
26bl-27a5, 39b6-40b3, 46a5-47a5, 62b2-63b2, 70a3-70b3, 74a5-75b4,
93a6-94b4, 97a 1, 99b 1-100a 1, 106a4-108b2, 112b5-114a2, 117a5-118a2,
121b3-122b2, 129a4-129b3, 135a3. We note that Rwa-lo's biographer has Rwalo claim to have killed 13 sngags-'dzin (holders of spells) by magic, fol. 136al.
Rwa-lo does become involved in a dispute with unnamed clerics at Sa-skya, fol.
56b 1-3, but the burden of proof is on him rather than them.
51. His father, Sa-chen Kun-dga' snying-po (1092-1158), had alreadywritten one hagiographical chronicle of his version of the Kanhapada lineage;bDe mchog nag po pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i lo rgyus, SKB 1.214.1.1-216.4.1.
52. Kanhapada's is hidden at the beginning of his Nagpo dkyilchoggi bshad
sbyar, SKB III.304.3.2-326.3.6, esp. 304.3.4-306.2.2; Ghantapada's is in sLob
dpon rdo rje dril bu pa'i lo rgyus, SKB III.345.1.1-346.1.4; Luhipada's is found inbDe mchog lu hi pa'i lugs kyi bla ma brgyud pa'i lo rgyus, SKB III.293.2-298.4. The
latter text is also apparently the final production, referring to the other two,
SKB III.295.1.2-3.
53. Cf. the bDe-mchog lu hi pa'i lugs with the Sarnvara section of Roerich,Blue Annals, pp. 380-82; Dung dkar blx>-bzang 'phrin-las, ed., Deb thersngonpo(Szechuan: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1984), vol. 1, pp. 460-464.
54. Found in his general introduction to the material in the Cakrasamvara,bDe mchog nyung ngu'i rgyud kyi spyi mam don gsal, Lokesh Chandra, ed., The Collected Works of Bu-ston, Satapitaka Series, vol. 64 (New Delhi: International
Academy of Indian Culture, 1971), pt. 6, pp. 54-61. 'Ba'-ra-ba (1310-1391,

234

J I A B S V O L . 14 N O . 2

according to the Blue Annals, p. 692), A Tibetan Encyclopedia of Buddhist Scholasticism: The Collected Writings of 'Ba'-ra-ba rGyal mtshan dpal bzang (Dehradun:
Ngawang Gyaltsen and Ngawang Lungtok, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 452-459. Kongsprul, Shes bya kun khyab, vol. 1, pp. 369-70. sLe-lung-pa, Dam can bstan srung rgya
mtsho, vol. 1, pp. 14-16 maintains that his source is Bu-ston's Chos-'byung, but I
have not located the myth there.
55. See Tsepon W.D. Shakabpa, Tibet: A Political History (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 75-82 for the fragmentation of Sa-skya power.
A close inspection of the Yuan/Sa-skya relation has been given by L. Petech,"Princely Houses of the Yuan Period Connected with Tibet," in Tadeusz
Skorupski, ed., Indo-Tibelan Studies—Papers in honour of Professor D.L. Snellgrove,
Buddhica Britannica Series Continua II (Tring, U.K.: The Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1990), pp. 257-269.
56. Zung 'jug rdo rje 'chang chen po'i sa mtshams mam par bshad pa log Hog ngansel, written at Sa-skya, SKB IX.164.2.5-172.2.6.
57. Primary is dKon-mchog dbang-phyug's sNyigs dus kyi rdo rje 'chang chenpo chos kyi rje kun dga' bzang po 'i mam par thar pa mdor bsdus pa, Lam 'bras slob bshad,vol. 1, pp. 432-473, esp. 462; also see the pasticcio of Sangs-rgyas phun-tshogs,
rDo rje 'chang kun dga' bzang po 'i mam par thar pa legs bshad chu bo 'dus pa'i rgya mtsho,sLob bshad, vol. 1, pp. 475-585, esp. pp. 537, 546.
58. Mark Tatz has encountered similar difficulties in attempting to discover Tsong-kha-pa's opponents, "Whom is Tsong-kha-pa Refuting in His BasicPath to Awakening?" in Lawrence Epstein and Richard F. Sherburne, eds., Reflections on Tibetan Culture—Essays in Memory of Turrell V. Wylie, Studies in Asian
Thought and Religion, Volume 12 (Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The
Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), pp. 149-163.
59. See his dPal brtag pa gnyis pa'i mam par bshad pa rdo rje mkha' 'gro mamams kyi gsang ba'i mdzod, in The Collected Works of The Lord mKhas Grub Rje Dge
Legs Dpal Bzang Po, rje yab sras gsum gyi gsung 'bum 27 (New Delhi: Mongolian Lama Gurudeya, 1980), vol. 9, pp 469-961, esp. pp. 481-515.
60. See, for example, Go-ram bSod-nams seng-ge's commentary on anddefense of the bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla zer, dPal kye rdo rje'i sgrub pa'i thabs kyi rgyacher bshad pa bskyed rim gnad kyi zla zer la rtsod pa spong ba gnad kyi gsal byed, in Kun
mkhyen go bo rob 'byams pa bsod nams seng ge bka' 'bum (Rajpur: Sakya College,1979), vol. 12, pp. 557-693, esp. p. 560, where Ngor-chen's primary opponents
are listed as sLob-dpon chen-po dPal chos-pa, mKhas-grub, and dPal 'jigsmed grags-pa.
61. See his biography, mKhas grub thams cad mkhyen pa'i mam thar mkhas pa 'iyid 'phrog, in The Collected Works of The Lord mKhas Grub Rje, vol. 1, p. 8.
62. Red-mda'-ba's name is identified with this position in a note {mchan)to Ngor-chen's bsKyed rim gnad kyi zla zer, SKB 9.176.3.2.
63. Everything mKhas-grub says in his dPal brtag pa gnyis pa'i mam par
bshad pa leads us to believe that he thought the Hevajra-tantra fully in conformity
with fifteenth-century Tibetan comprehension of Madhyamaka; see esp. pp.
559-560.
64. He relates the course of events in a letter included in his Thor-bu, Collected Works, vol. 7, pp. 775-808. In his discussion of Guhyasamaja meditation,

THE MAHE&VARA MYTH

235

rGyud thams bead kyi rgyal po dpal gsang ba 'dus pa'i bskyed rim dngos grub rgya mt
Collected Works, vol. 9, pp. 1 ff., esp. p. 238, he had generally refuted the Lam'bras ideas of the physical mandala (lus-dkyil) and the reception of consecration
during meditation {lam dus kyi dbang), without citing the system by name. He
complains (Thor-bu, p. 776-7) that everyone jumped to conclusions. Given the
inflammatory language mKhas-grub was wont to use, it is easy to see how suchan impression developed.
65. Lam 'bras khog phub, p. 70.5.
66. Confer HT I.vii.10-18, Abhidhanottara, PTT 17, vol. 2, pp. 48.1.1-4,
52.5.6-53.2.3, 56.1.6-56.2.3, 56.5.8-57.2.1, 58.4.4-59.2.8, etc.
67. Cf. T. 982-988. Shuyo Takubo, ed., Arya-Maha-Mayuri Vidya Rajni,
Tokyo: Tokyo Sankibo, 1972. Sylvain Levi, "Le Catalogue des Yaksa dans leMzha-mayuri" Journal Asiatique 1915: 19-138; PC. Bagchi, "The Geographical
Catalogue of the Yaksas in the Mahamayuri," Sino-Indian Studies III 1/2 (1947):
13-87.
68. I presume that there were village-level applications of the Cakrasamvara myth both before and after it entered the monastic milieu, even if the version under discussion is textual /monastic in form.