Although acknowledged as important, the BraY¯a has received relatively little schol- arly attention. Its oldest manuscript was described more than a century ago by Harapras¯ad ´S¯astr¯ı, in his partial catalog of the collection of the former Durbar Li- brary, Nepal.66 ´S¯astr¯ı says little concerning the BraY¯a’s content, but provides an incomplete list of chapter colophons. Decades later, Prabodh Candra Bagchi penned several pages concerning the BraY¯a in an appendix to his 1939 book, Studies in the
Tantras. In this, he summarizes chapters one and thirty-eight,67 providing also the text of several passages.68 I am not aware of further scholarship substantively ad- dressing the BraY¯a in the decades which followed. After a gap of half a century, Teun Goudriaan wrote on the BraY¯a in his history of the literature of Hindu Tantra—an
66A Catalogue of Palm-leaf and Selected Paper Manuscripts Belonging to the Durbar Library Nepal, vol. ii,
60–62. Reprinted in Reinhold Grünendahl, A Concordance of H. P. ´S¯astri’s Catalogue of the Durbar Library
and the Microfilms of the Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project.
67Following the colophonal numbering in the ms, Bagchi labels the latter chapter “thirty-nine.”
68Studies in the Tantras, Part i, 102–5 (appendix: “Detailed Notices on Manuscripts”). This book is
a compilation of articles Bagchi published in the early 1930s, and I do not believe a second part ever appeared. His accounts of the BraY¯a are frequently inaccurate. Note, for example, that Bagchi refers to BraY¯a i, the ‘sambandhapat.ala’, as having the title Aks.aravidh¯ana; this he presumably culls from the text’s epithet Nav¯aks.aravidh¯ana. He would also have ¯I´svara rather than Bhairava teaching the tantra to the Goddess.
ambitious undertaking considering how little of the early material had been studied carefully. After making some preliminary observations on the BraY¯a and the y¯amala-
tantras as a genre, Goudriaan provides a precis of the text’s subject matters, as well
as an excerpt from chapter xxiv in translation.69 Although offering little insight into the historical position and significance of the text,70 he noted that “a closer study of the Picumata, although certainly not an easy task on account of its cryptic ways of expression, rambling style and bad grammar, is necessary for better insight into early Hindu Tantrism.”71
The first attempt at more detailed study of the BraY¯a was made by the late S. N. Ghoshal Sastri of Vi´svabh¯arat¯ı University. Sastri drew heavily upon the BraY¯a in his ambitious multi-volume series, Elements of Indian Aesthetics. Unfortunately, he had at his disposal only a single incomplete ms of the work containing chapters four through seven, which I refer to as the “Vi´svabh¯arat¯ı ms,” and a transcription of chapter xlii from an unknown ms. Based upon the limited evidence available to him, Sastri believed the Picumata—an epithet of the BraY¯a—to be a section of the
BraY¯a, much as he considered the Pi˙ngal¯amata to be a section of the Jayadrathay¯amala;
incomplete mss of both the latter texts were also available to him in the Vi´svabh¯arat¯ı collection.72
Sastri’s primary interest in the BraY¯a was its material culture and “arts,” for he saw in its man.d.alas, iconometry, iconography, ritual, and ritual paraphernalia evidence for “primitive” Indian arts and crafts. He considered the Tantric tradition one of the principal streams of ancient Indian aesthetics, alongside the Vedic, and saw the BraY¯a, perhaps correctly, as a uniquely important source for study of early Tantra.73 Based upon connections of a most tenuous nature, Sastri claimed that the
69Hindu Tantric and ´S¯akta Literature, 40–44.
70Cf. for instance Goudriaan’s rather bland remark that “the Picumata is a typical representative of
the Bhairava current in ´Saiva Tantrism.” Ibid., 43.
71Ibid., 44.
72See the discussion of mss in the introduction to the critical edition in part ii. These manuscripts
were all apparently of Nepalese provenance, gifted by the monarch of Nepal to Rabindranath Tagore.
BraY¯a represents the cultural legacy of Indo-Tibetan tribal peoples of the northeastern
regions of the subcontinent—specifically, the G¯aro tribe of Megh¯alaya, a region in which a district headquarters bears the name “T ¯ur¯a.” This he connected with the word t¯ura for skull, used often in the BraY¯a, which appears to have been his only evidence linking the BraY¯a to the G¯aro tribe.74 In addition, he considered the BraY¯a improbably ancient.75
The distinction of first publishing a complete chapter of the BraY¯a is Sastri’s, the only chapter to have appeared in print prior to the present dissertation.76 Sastri considered this forty-second chapter of the BraY¯a,77 the mudr¯apat.ala or “Chapter on Mudr¯a,” to be one of the most ancient treatises of “Indian Gesturology.”78 He pub- lished his edition on the basis of Harad¯as Mitra’s transcription of a manuscript be- lieved to have once been in the Vi´svabh¯arat¯ı collection. I suspect that the manuscript in question transmitted BraY¯a xlii independently, whether alone or in a composite manuscript. It is possible but by no means certain that its readings reflect a trans- mission distinct from that of the oldest Nepalese ms, nak 3-370.79 Sastri’s edition reproduces this transcription with several proposed emendations, providing also an English rendering which, at times implausible and at times incomprehensible, con-
74Elements of Indian Aesthetics, vol. ii, part 4, 41.
75In ibid., vol. ii, part 1 (p. 98), Sastri opines for a date of the third century or earlier on the basis of
a dubious relative chronology of the N¯at.ya´s¯astra, K¯alid¯asa’s Meghad¯uta, the BraY¯a and Pi˙ngal¯amata, and
Matsyapur¯an.a. Yet in vol. ii, part 4 (p. 3), he claims the BraY¯a was composed between the third and fifth
centuries, for which he refers the reader back to the above discussion in vol. ii, part 1!
76Elements of Indian Aesthetics, vol. ii, part 3, 297–305. Note that the edition’s title page misleadingly
refers to this as the first chapter in the BraY¯a/Picumata’s “Caturtha-s.at.ka (4th Part of the 6th unit).” The
BraY¯a might possess two “s.at.kas—see chapter 4, section 2—but this chapter is the first of neither. The
expression caturthas.at.ka means in fact “the fourth division of six-thousand verses.” Appparently Sastri confuses the BraY¯a with the Jayadrathay¯amala, the latter of which is divided into four s.at.kas.
77Following the colophon, Sastri refers to this as chapter forty-three; but it is forty-second in order
of occurrence. The numbering in the ms goes awry from chapter xxix until lxxx.
78Sastri remarks,
We find no other earliest extant evidence of Aesthetic Gesturology than the N¯at.ya´s¯astra. On the other hand, no earliest Tantra and Pur¯an.a than the Brahma-y¯amala-tantra is yet known to us. On the above postulation, the Mudr¯adhikaran.a of the Picumata and the Pi ˙ngal¯amata, may be considered the prime documentary source of Indian Gesturology and to that end in the original texts of two Mudr¯adhikaran.as are annexed to the Part iii of the present volume. [sic]
Elements of Indian Aesthetics, vol. ii, part 3, xiv. 79See the introduction to part ii.
tributes relatively little to the interpretation of the text.80
Mark Dyczkowski makes more meaningful use of the BraY¯a in his 1988 mono- graph on the ´Saiva scriptural canon.81 Reading from its oldest Nepalese ms, he cites passages from the BraY¯a as supporting evidence on a variety of subjects. In partic- ular, Dyczkowski draws upon BraY¯a xxxviii’s account of ´Saiva revelation—the very chapter which had interested Bagchi. Making several useful observations,82 he does not however attempt a detailed analysis of the BraY¯a or advance a hypothesis on its historical position.83
As with so much of tantric ´Saiva literature, significant strides in the study of the
BraY¯a commenced with the works of Alexis Sanderson. In “´Saivism and the Tantric
Traditions,” his monumental 1988 essay mapping the cults and canon of Tantric ´Saivism, Sanderson advanced a compelling hypothesis concerning the position of the BraY¯a within ´Saiva traditions. He notes several significant ways in which the text appears archaic. Seeing within the Bhairava-stream of esoteric ´Saivism an historical
80Note for example his text and translation of the opening verse, BraY¯a xvii.1: atah.param. pravaks.¯ami karasam.sk¯ara-´sodhanam |
mudr¯an.am. laks.an.am. caiva sarvak¯am¯arthas¯adhanam ! 1 !
“Let me now tell how we could sanctify and purify our hands. What is the definition of the mudr¯a (Gesture) and which are their common characteristics. These mudr¯as may lead to the way of success all noble works and fulfill all desires of a man.”
Elements of Indian Aesthetics, vol. ii, part 3, 297.
81The Canon of the ´Saiv¯agama and the Kubjik¯a Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition, especially 36–53.
82Note for example the following remark:
The BY makes use of this [four-p¯ıt.ha] system of [scriptural] classification, integrating it somewhat awkwardly with a division of the scriptures into Left, Right and Middle cur- rents. The BY’s account of the p¯ıt.has is sketchy and unsystematic—a sign that this system of classification is still at an early stage of development.
Canon of the ´Saiv¯agama, 51. While the BraY¯a’s p¯ıt.ha system does seem undeveloped, its juxtaposition
with a system of streams is not however awkward: the four p¯ıt.has are divisions of a single stream, the daks.in.¯asrotas of bhairavatantras. I provide an edition of the relevant passages from BraY¯a xxxviii in chapter five.
83On one important historical matter Dyczkowski’s remarks warrant reconsideration: he suggests
that the BraY¯a must be younger than the Nity¯as.od.a´sik¯arn.ava, on account of the BraY¯a listing the Yo-
gin¯ıhr.daya in its description of the canon; Yogin¯ıhr.daya is a name of the Nity¯as.od.a´sik¯arn.ava. Canon of the ´Saiv¯agama, 47–48. While it is true that the BraY¯a lists a text called Yogin¯ıhr.daya, it is improbable that it
refers to the same Kaula scripture of the cult of Tripurasundar¯ı which survives by this name—a text which, as Dyczkowski points out, mentions several other Kaula scriptures, including the rather late
Kubjik¯amata. (On the date of the Kubjik¯amata, see Sanderson, “Remarks on the Text of the Kubjik¯amata,”
1–3.) Abhinavagupta makes no reference to a scripture called Yogin¯ıhr.daya, and according to Sanderson, the extant Yogin¯ıhr.daya displays substantial influence from the nondualist Kashmiri exegetical tradition. See “The Visualization of the Deities of the Trika,” 37.
trajectory towards increasing emphasis on goddesses, he finds in the BraY¯a an early window into this process. Ostensibly a text teaching the cult of a bipolar Godhead, a
y¯amala or god-goddess pair, in the BraY¯a, the goddess Aghore´svar¯ı in fact transcends
Bhairava, for her vidy¯a-mantra contains within its nine syllables the entire man.d.ala of mantra-deities. And in the ritual practices of the BraY¯a, Sanderson identified the rad- ical mortuary (k¯ap¯alika) and exorcistic rites forming the earliest stratum of the Yogin¯ı cult, which would undergo transformation as the Kaula movement came to permeate most cults of the bhairavatantras.84 Sanderson makes a number of other contributions to the study of the BraY¯a as well. Perhaps most noteworthy are his reconstruction of its nine-syllable vidy¯a-mantra, and demonstration that the BraY¯a is one of several ´Saiva sources redacted into the Buddhist Laghucakra´sam.varatantra.85 In addition, he first identified the reference to the BraY¯a in the old Skandapur¯an.a, discussed in chapter two, confirming the likelihood of the text’s early period of composition.
Several other contemporary scholars have begun to draw on the BraY¯a. In intro- ducing her fine critical edition of chapters from the Siddhayoge´svar¯ımata, one of the few other surviving scriptures of the early Vidy¯ap¯ıt.ha, Judit Törzsök makes reference to the BraY¯a and provides a transcription of a portion of chapter xxxviii (xxxix ac- cording to its colophon) from its oldest ms.86 Somadeva Vasudeva also makes limited use of the BraY¯a in his significant monograph on ´Saiva yoga and the M¯alin¯ıvijayottara-
tantra. He moreover has made available electronic transcriptions from the oldest ms
of two chapters of the text: chapter nine, called ‘laks.yabheda’,87 and forty-two, the same chapter published by S. N. Ghoshal Sastri.88
A somewhat different case is that of David Gordon White’s Kiss of the Yogin¯ı: 84Sanderson, “´Saivism and the Tantric Traditions,” 670–72, 679–80.
85Ibid., 672; and Sanderson, “History through Textual Criticism,” 41–46. On the relationship between
the BraY¯a and Laghu´sam.vara, see also chapter 3, section 5 in the present thesis.
86Törzsök, “Doctrine of Magic Female Spirits,” viix–x, 237 (appendix 9). Her remarks on the relative
chronology of the Siddhayoge´svar¯ımata and BraY¯a are mentioned in chapter 4, section 3. )
87On this complex and interesting subject see Vasudeva, Yoga of the M¯alin¯ıvijayottaratantra, 253–92.
Vasudeva’s references to the BraY¯a occur in this context.
88Along with much other interesting Indological material, these transcriptions are presently available
“Tantric Sex” in its South Asian Contexts, one of the most recent works drawing upon
the BraY¯a. White summarizes and partially translates two passages from BraY¯a lxiv,89material outlining radical ritual practices that involve sexual intercourse. His accounts of these two sections are however highly problematic.90
While the BraY¯a is not of central importance in the work of these authors, their references attest the wide range of subjects it could potentially illuminate. It is hoped
89Kiss of the Yogin¯ı, 248–50. White also makes reference to the BraY¯a on pp. 17, 23, 101, 163, and 322.
90White states that he reads from the oldest Nepalese codex, nak 3-370 (see Kiss of the Yogin¯ı, 332, n.
171), yet his bibliography confusingly lists instead a late, corrupt, Devan¯agar¯ı-script ms: “Brahmay¯amala. Nepal National Archives. mss no. 1-743. Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project reel a166/i. 439 folios.” Ibid., 337. The folio numbers provided (260b–65b—“b” apparently meaning “verso”) do not match the text he cites from chapter forty-four in nak 3-370 (which I report as “Bya”), but rather
the Devan¯agar¯ı-script ms (reported as “Byc” in my critical edition).
The shorter of the two passages White cites is from BraY¯a xliv (numbered xlv in its colophon). After arguing, quite implausibly, that mudr¯a can have the meaning “vulva,” White remarks,
. . . The term mudr¯a can, however, denote a substance to be eaten, rather than the vulva as “seal.” So, for example, a verse in chapter xlv of the Brahmay¯amala reads: “tva´sakty¯as¯adhako nityam. yath¯avibhavasa[mbh]av[¯at] mudr¯am. caiva yath¯any¯ayam. madhyañcaiva
prad¯apayet” (“But the practitioner who is without a consort [should] constantly [offer] ac-
cording to what is possible for him. One should also offer mudr¯a, according to the rule, as well as liquor.”)
Kiss of the Yogin¯ı, 82, 295 (n. 87). It is virtually impossible that an odd-numbered verse-quarter would
begin with the enclitic particle tu; White moreover prints madhya (“middle”) while apparently reading
madya (“wine”), and prints and translates a´sakty¯as¯adhako as though it could be a compound (an aluk-
sam¯asa?). He has in fact been misled by his choice of (the least reliable) manuscript—Byc—which reads
tva´sakty¯a s¯adhako nityam. yath¯avibhavasam.tavam. ! mudr¯am. caiva yath¯any¯ayam.maghañ caiva prad¯apayet. The
text of Bya, which appears original, is as follows:
is.t.v¯a y¯agam. yath¯any¯ayam. naivedy¯ani prad¯apayet ! 648 ! sva´sakty¯a s¯adhako nityam. yath¯avibhavasambhavam | mudr¯añ caiva yath¯any¯ayam arghañ caiva prad¯apayet ! 649 !
“Having worshipped the pantheon (y¯aga) as is befitting, the s¯adhaka, together with his consort (sva´sakti), should always make the food offerings to the extent of his capacity; and he should offer both mudr¯a, as is befitting, and the guest water.”
BraY¯a xliv.648cd–49. Substantial internal evidence in the BraY¯a clarifies that the expression mudr¯am. prad¯apayet (“one should offer the mudr¯a”) means “one should bind/display the mudr¯a,” mudr¯a here
having its normal sense of “gesture,” rather than something consumed. The ritual sequence of first binding a mudr¯a and then offering argha occurs repeatedly, and the phrasing usually leaves no am- biguity. Cf., e.g., xxxii.168cd (mudr¯am. badhv¯a tato devi argham. tasy¯ah. prad¯apayet), xxxiii.132ab (mudr¯am.
badhv¯a yath¯any¯ayam arghañ caiva prad¯apayet), and xvii (mudr¯abandham. tatah. kr.tv¯a arghañ c¯asya prad¯apayet,
exposure 95l). The more ambiguous expression mudr¯am. [. . . ] prad¯apayet occurs thrice in BraY¯a xii, and twice elsewhere in chapter forty-four.
Due to its length, I will not here reproduce and discuss in full the passage from BraY¯a xliv that White summarizes and partially translates (Kiss of the Yogin¯ı, 249–50). Suffice it to say that his account of this ritual of “viewing one’s [past] births” (svayonidar´sana) has numerous problems. Note for example White’s rendering of xliv.691ab: “He becomes a Virile Hero, surrounded by yonis.” Kiss of the Yogin¯ı, 250. This implies the Sanskrit v¯ıro bhavati so devi yonipariv¯aritah., presumably White’s emendation of Byc’s reading (f. 265v): v¯ıro bhavati s¯a devi yon¯ıpariv¯aritah.. This is of course unmetrical, and Byais surely
correct in transmitting v¯ıro bhavati so devi yogin¯ıpariv¯aritah.: “He becomes a hero, O goddess, surrounded by yogin¯ıs.”
that the critical editions provided in the present dissertation and planned for future publication will facilitate more extensive use of the text.