Judit Törzsök

Whose Dharma? Śaiva and Śākta Community Rules (samayas) and Dharmaśāstric Prescriptions *

In the tantric context, samayas are the rules a Śaiva or Śākta neophyte is to follow after he is introduced into his new community and receives an initiation name. The samaya rules are therefore part of what defines the Śaiva or Śākta Śaiva tantric community, at least according to the scriptures. This paper attempts to see what these rules are, how they are related to mainstream brahmanical rules prescribed by Dharmaśāstras and in what way they may actually demarcate various Śaiva and Śākta communities. Before turning to the samayas themselves, a nontantric Śaiva story is presented, which clearly shows that in spite of their overall conformity to traditional brahmanical prescriptions, lay Śaivas also saw themselves as following a different set of laws and rules. Then three different types of samaya sets will be examined: those of the Śaiva Siddhānta, the heterogeneous lists of early Śākta scriptures and the strictly 'nondualist' rules of later Śāktas. While these rules cannot reveal the exact relation of the respective communities to their contemporary society or to each other, they may betray something about the way in which these communities saw themselves within a larger context.

Introduction

Shared rules, whether they are explicit or implicit, are among the characteristics that define any given community. In this paper I propose to examine different 1 sets of rules of conduct that various Śaiva tantric communities claimed to follow, or rather, rules that their scriptures prescribed them to follow. There are several limitations of such an investigation. As it is commonly pointed out, scriptures-as many other types of written sources-are prescriptive and therefore cannot be taken to reflect the social reality of their time. This is true in more than one sense. Scriptures and the rules they define may represent an ideal state of affairs, thus they may include injunctions that were never actually followed in reality. At the same time, there may have been additional rules that were left unmentioned for various reasons: because they went against some of the principles established in the scriptures or elsewhere, because they were not considered worth mentioning (no matter how interesting they may be for us now) or because they had a limited sphere of application, in the case of certain local rules for instance.

And there are additional pitfalls. Tantric scriptures, just as nontantric ones, were meant to be applicable eternally, without any restrictions as to time and place. This implies, first of all, that they are notoriously diffiult to date or to locate. But it also means that we cannot always know what is particular in them chronologically or geographically. In the case of community rules, it would be difficult to tell where and when particular injunctions were to be applied or whether certain rules were pan-Indian or local.

With these problems in mind, what one can actually study in scriptural sources is not some factually verifiable historical reality but rather the self-representation of certain religious groups who composed or tried to follow certain scriptures and their prescriptions. It may be disappointing not to stumble upon hard-and-fast historical data. However, such self-representation is actually part of the historical reality that we are trying to understand.

The picture appears to be even further removed from what may have been real when we attempt to compare tantric prescriptions to brahmanical orthopraxy. Orthopraxy as laid down in the Dharmaśāstras seems to have been a theoretical framework, or, in any case, one could say that most Dharmaśāstric rules 'were considered normative within particular Brahmin circles at particular times, though we cannot now know where or when exactly.' (Lubin 2014:5) This leaves us with a very vague basis indeed: comparing tantric prescriptions with Dharmaśāstric ones may seem like comparing two ghosts. However, I would again argue that the situation is not as bad as it seems. First, similarly to Tantras, Dharmaśāstras can also be read to see how certain religious groups represented themselves. Thus, we compare the self-representations of different religious communities, not what they actually were or what they did. Second, concerning Dharmaśāstras, it has been observed that their terminology was also used in inscriptional sources that were to define local or regional law. Whatever the full implications of this are, the use of Dharmaśāstric terminology in epigraphical legalese shows that Dharmaśāstric prescriptions had more than a mere theoretical existence, even if they provided a framework or a normative model rather than a law-code proper.

In what follows, I shall limit my investigations to certain community rules called samayas that figure in tantric scriptures; but one must bear in mind that there is a corpus of texts that establishes Śaiva rules for the so-called lay (laukika) Śaivas who did not receive tantric initiation: the Śiva-dharma corpus. [START_REF]A critical edition and annotated translation of the Mūlasūtra[END_REF] The Śiva-dharmas were perhaps the first body of texts that attempted to define a particular set of rules for Śaiva communities; and tantric scriptures may in fact presuppose their existence and application. I do not intend to discuss the Śivadharma texts here, which are being edited and studied; 2 but, by way of introduction, in order to show how lay Śaivism proposes different solutions compared to orthodox brahmanical procedures, I would like to present a purāṇic example.

Śiva versus Manu: a Purāṇic Example

The example comes from the Skandapurāṇa, datable in its earliest form around the end of the sixth century CE. I have chosen to present this case because it shows very clearly how Dharmaśāstric principles may have been and probably were opposed by distinctly Śaiva ideas and solutions. The story is related in chapter 52 of the text, which forms part of a series of chapters dealing with hells and how people can be saved from suffering in hell, particularly by their sons. 3 The idea of the son saving his ancestors agrees with brahmanical ideology. However, the way the birth of the son is ensured is not according to traditional prescriptions. The story runs as follows.

A brahmin of the Gautama lineage called Bhūmanyu marries an ātreyī woman called Yaśā. They do not succeed in having a son, and Bhūmanyu is getting old. Bhūmanyu, dejected, talks to his wife one day about a solution. He says: 'People desire to reach a better world and to get rid of their debt towards their ancestors by having a son. I am already very old and still have not got a child. With my full consent, you should resort to someone in my lineage (gotra) to have a son. With folded hands, I beg you to do this.' 4

In his request, Bhūmanyu applies a well-known principle taught for instance by the Manusmṛti (9.59), which precribes that if a couple fails to have a son, another male member of the family may replace the husband, provided the necessary authorization has been obtained:

If the line is about to die out, a wife who is duly appointed may obtain the desired progeny through a brother-in-law or a relative belonging to the same ancestry. 5 (Trsl. Olivelle) Now in our story, the wife replies the following: 'I can't believe my ears! You cannot have said this! How could someone like me even think of such a terrible thing? I was born in the noble family of Atri and came, through marriage, to the eminent Gautama family. How could someone like me commit such a shameful act, condemned by the virtuous? Those who desire wealth, happiness, sons, a family or a better rebirth, practice asceticism. So go and practice asceticism yourself, great sage!' 6

After this, the wife gives several epic and purāṇic examples of sages who managed to have a son thanks to their asceticism, and then concludes:

You should also practice asceticism with full absorption of your mind, and you shall obtain an eminent son who will have extraordinary yogic powers. When Atri, Brahmā's son himself, saw me once he said: tasya putro 'bhavat khyāto Bhūmanyur iti nāmataḥ / tasya patny abhavat subhrūr ātreyī nāmato Yaśā // sa kadācit kṛtodvāho Bhūmanyur nāma gautamaḥ / nāvindata sutaṃ tasyā jarayā cābhisaṃvṛtaḥ // sa bhāryām āha duḥkhārta idaṃ vacanakovidaḥ / "putreṇecchanti lokāṃś ca anṛṇāś ca bhavanty uta / jarāpariṇataś cāhaṃ na ca me dṛśyate sutaḥ // sā tvaṃ kaṃcit sagotraṃ me anujñātā mayā śubhe / abhipadyasva putrārthaṃ yāce tvāṃ prāñjalir nataḥ" (Skandapurāṇa 52.29-32) 5 devarād vā sapiṇḍād vā striyā samyaṅ niyuktayā / prajepsitādhigantavyā saṃtānasya parikṣaye // Cf. On failure of issue (by her husband) a woman who has been authorised, may obtain, (in the) proper (manner prescribed), the desired offspring by (cohabitation with) a brotherin-law or (with some other) Sapinda (of the husband). (Trsl. Bühler.) Thus, the wife not only rejects Manu's solution to the problem, but finds it even outrageous. She argues that the replacement of the husband is a custom condemned by the virtuous. By saying this, she justifies her rejection through the Dharmaśāstric principle according to which 'an activity that the Āryas praise is righteous (dharma), and what they deplore is unrighteous (adharma)' (Āpastamba Dharmasūtra 1.20.6-7. Trsl. Olivelle 2000: 57.) 8

Let us remark here that the rejection of the levirate is not unknown to the Manusmṛti either. Contradicting rules are given as to whether the levirate is an approved or rejected practice, and whether it should be stopped after begetting the first son or having a second one is also permitted. However, the prohibition appears to concern the remarriage of widows rather the replacement of a living husband.9

In any case, using the authority of the virtuous, the wife argues against the replacement of her husband. She proposes a particularly Śaiva solution to the problem, which obviously does not come from mainstream Dharmaśāstric authorities. Obtaining a son through tapas is certainly not condemned by any authority either, therefore such a solution is a legitimate supplement to what is dharmic. The concluding sentence adds the Śaiva element already expected all along the argument but not yet overtly expressed: the tapas accumulated should be used to worship Rudra, who shall then bestow one's wish.

The story shows that, while lay Śaivism certainly did not claim to go against the norms of orthopraxy, it had its own solutions that did not necessarily follow what was laid down in Dharmaśāstras.

It is also interesting to note that in the above extract the man represents the traditional brahmanical solution borrowed from Manu and the woman defends the better, more virtuous, Śaiva one. Women, along with Śūdras, were certainly better treated in Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism than in mainstream brahmanism. It may not be accidental in our story that it is the woman that proposes the Śaiva solution.

Whose Pledges?

After this detour to purāṇic Śaivism, let us turn to the so-called samaya rules or pledges. They are recited at the end of the so-called samaya rite that introduces new members to the Śaiva tantric community. Now who were to follow these rules?

It is often reiterated that women, along with children, the elderly, the sick and the like are to be given a so-called 'seedless' initiation (nirbīja-dīkṣā), which excludes the obligation to follow the post-initiatory rules (samaya). The king, who is too busy to deal with these obligations, is also included in the list. As it is stated in the locus classicus: bālabāliśavṛddhastrībhogabhugvyādhitātmanām / eṣāṃ nirbījikā dīkṣā samayādivivarjitā // Children, fools, the elderly, women, kings and the sick -for these, initiation is seedless [i.e.] it excludes [the obligation to follow] postinitiatory rules etc. (Svacchandatantra 4.88.)10 All these categories of people are considered to be unable to follow the rules of the community, therefore they are given an easier version of initiation, which is also less powerful.

It is nevertheless surprising to see here that women are considered unable to follow the samaya rules. For the so-called samaya ritual itself, which is a preliminary to initiation proper (dīkṣā) and which ends with the recitation of the rules to be observed, can also be performed for women, who receive their own, female initiation names in some systems. It seems quite absurd to perform the samaya ritual for everybody, to recite the rules to be observed in front of every neophyte, only to declare later a large number of them unable to follow these rules. Indeed, this category of reduced initiation is absent from the earliest surviving Tantras of the Śaiva Siddhānta11 as well as from Śākta scriptures. The 'seedless' initiation was most probably introduced at a relatively later point. I would therefore argue that samayas, at least initially, were in fact meant to be observed by all initiates.

Samayas in the Śaiva Siddhānta

Scriptures of the Śaiva Siddhānta list relatively few samayas and they tend to cluster around four major topics (as numbered below). Traditionally, eight such rules are given, which figure already in the Nayasūtra of the Niśvāsa.

(1) A set of rules concern different types of nindā, i.e. defamation or criticism. This is mainly a Śaiva application of the brahmanical rule that forbids vedanindā, reviling the Vedas, and gurunindā, reviling the guru. 12 In Śaivism, those who must be treated with respect are the deity (deva), scripture itself (śāstra) that comes from him, the guru, through whom the deity can act, and other Śaiva initiates (termed variously as sādhakas, putrakas, dīkṣitas, bhaktas). These four nindās are formulated in four traditional samayas. Fire, which is also identified with the deity, can also be included in the list. Moreover, it is also added sometimes that one must always obey one's guru.

(2) It is always mentioned that nirmālya, i.e. what has been offered to the deity and been touched or consumed by him (devajagdham), should not be eaten. According to Bhojadeva, the eight traditional samayas also include that one should not step over the nirmālya, and this is also mentioned for instance in the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha, which adds that the nirmālya should not be given away either.

At this point, the Niśvāsa Nayasūtra (1.104ab) adds something difficult to interpret: nirmālyabhakṣaṇe vāpi balidāne paśor api (MS: balidānapaśor api). Perhaps it means, as it is understood in Goodall et al. 2015, that one must do a reparatory rite 'if the nirmālya is eaten or if it is given to an animal as a bali offering'. However, I propose that one could also understand that the transgression the Niśvāsa condemns here is the eating of an animal offered in sacrifice, if we read balidānapaśor api with the MSS, and construe it with -bhakṣaṇe as a sāpekṣasamāsa. In other words, one must do an expiatory rite if one eats either the nirmālya or the animal given in/destined to a bali sacrifice. I suspect that the prohibition to eat the animal offering was later forgotten because nobody would have thought of eating meat anyway, whether prepared as an offering or not. However, this injunction is in accordance with the frequently repeated rule which forbids the touching or eating of any offering (naivedya). 13 The Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha's parallel, which is also difficult to understand, seems to say something along the same lines, 14 but it is also possible that 12 See e.g. Manusmṛti 4.163 for vedanindā, and 2.200 for gurunindā. 13 See for instance Mataṅgapārameśvara Caryāpāda 1.7: niveditaṃ vā yatkiṃcid devadevasya śūlinaḥ / na ca tat svopayogāya kartavyaṃ manasāpy atha // 14 10.24cd-25ab: nirmālya-laṅghanaṃ [-]dānaṃ [-]bhojanaṃ ca vivarjayet // tatrāviplavanaṃ (for tantraviplāvanaṃ?) dānam avinītabaleḥ paśoḥ. Perhaps understand 'one should avoid stepping over, offering or eating the nirmālya, as well as divulging scripture and offering (dāna) a sacrificial animal (paśu), whose sacrifice (bali) has not been performed (avinīta) or has not been performed properly'.

a different transgression is meant here. 15 In any case, the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha clearly continues by saying that such things should not be done even when one is in great danger, 16 in other words the nirmālya is not to be used or consumed even if there is a famine or some similar situation in which one may be allowed to resort to āpaddharma. Such rules about nirmālya seem to be specifically Śaiva ones.

(3) Some samayas forbid initiates to accept food touched by certain categories of women: mainly by those who have their period or by those who have recently given birth. The traditional eight samayas mention only women during their menses, 17 but scriptures often include women in the post-partum period (sūtikā). 18 Such samayas reproduce faithfully the brahmanical principle according to which one is not to accept food from these women (Manu 4.232). The Manusmṛti (5.85) also points out that touching such women, just as touching an outcaste or a corpse, defiles one and requires a purificatory bath. In the same vein, the Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha's version adds that one is also to avoid food touched by someone who has gone to heaven. 19 (4) Finally, one should not step on the shadow of a liṅga. By extension it is also enjoined sometimes that one should not step on the sacrificial area (catvara). 20 These four types of rules-nindā, nirmālya, not accepting food from certain women, not stepping on (Śaiva) sacred space-cover the eight traditional samayas and many other, extended lists in the Śaiva Siddhānta. Most of them are either taken from brahmanical rules of conduct or are Śaiva versions of such rules, except rules concerning the nirmālya and the liṅga, which appear to be particular Śaiva ones. 21 Although, as is obvious from the above rules, the Śaiva Siddhānta certainly offered a form of Śaivism that conformed to orthopraxy and assimilated Dharmaśāstric principles in its samayas, it saw itself as different from the orthodox mainstream and defended its own territory and validity against Vaidikas, at least at the initial stages represented by the Niśvāsa. For the Nayasūtra (1.106cd-108ab, just after the mention of the samayas) clearly warns against returning to Vedic ritual and turning one's back to the Śaiva community:

15 One could read tantraviplāvanaṃ dānaṃ avinītābale paśau 'divulging the Tantra or giving it to an uninitiated person (paśu) who lacks any decency or strength.'

16 10.25cd: nācarec chivamārgasthaḥ mahātayagato 'pi san (clearly corrupt for mahābhayagato 'pi san).

17 See ārtavispṛṣṭam in the Niśvāsa Nayasūtra 1.104cd.

18 See Sarvajñānottara 15.26a sūtikāyānnasaṃspṛṣṭaṃ; Svāyambhuvasūtrasaṃgraha 10.24b: saṃspṛṣṭaṃ puṣṭavatyānnaṃ (for puṣpavatyānnaṃ) svaryātānāñ ca sautikam. 19 See svaryātānāñ in the above citation. 20 Sarvajñānottara 15.26b: cchāyācatvaralaṃghanam.

If someone studies the Śaiva scripture and performs Śiva worship, [but then] sacrifices with Vedic rites, reviles devotees of Śiva and venerates and praises Brahmins with other religious affiliations, then Hāṭhakuṣmāṇḍa-rudra shall punishes that evilminded person. 22 And in the same vein, the Nayasūtra (1.105cd-106ab) also warns against following other, possibly tantric prescriptions:

If someone undertakes a solemn religious observance, but then abandons that Śiva-observance and takes up an observance taught in another [=non-śaiva] scripture, Devī shall punishes him for that.' 23 These prohibitions show that there must have been people who did not refrain from changing affiliations. Perhaps turncoats or renegades were not so uncommon, for the boundaries between Śaiva and Vaidika or Śaiva and non-Śaiva may not have been as strict for common people as more ardent Śaivas (or Vaidikas) would have liked. It was probably not considered impossible to try out (Saiddhāntika) Śaivism and then turn back to vedic ritual or to try out yet something else, probably remaining, by and large, within the rules and boundaries of orthopraxy. 24

Eclectic Samayas of Early Śākta Tantras

Since Śākta Tantras prescribe nondual tantric practice such as the offering of alcohol and meat and the use of various impure substances, one would expect that their samayas also prescribe whatever goes against orthopraxy. It is therefore surprising to see that earlier Śākta Tantras appear to give a very heterogeneous list of samayas: they mix some rules taken over from Dharmaśāstras with those that enjoin the very violation of Dharmaśāstric rules.

The short recension of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (of around the 7th century), 25 which is otherwise rather concise on many topics, gives a fairly detailed list of 22 śivatantram adhītvā tu śivayajñaṃ prakurvvate // yajate vaidikair yajñaiḥ śivabhaktāṃś ca nindate / viprāṃś caivānyaliṅgasthāṃ pūjayet stunateti ca // hāṭhakuṣmāṇḍarudras tu taṃ vai badhnāti durmmatim.

23 pratijñāvratam ārūḍho punas tyaktvā śivaṃ vratam // anyattantravrataṅ gṛhṇed devī tena nibandhati. I would like to note here that my translations of the Niśvāsa passages are indebted to Goodall et al 2015. In most cases, I follow the interpretations given there and alter the translation only slightly, mainly to fit better in the context of this paper. 24 In this context, it must be remarked that converts are a recognized category of Śaiva initiates, who normally have not got the right to become ācāryas or sādhakas. They are called 'the reborn' punarbhū-, see the entry in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa vol. III. by Dominic Goodall. This category, however, comprises prāgliṅgins, i.e. those who had a previous [sectarian] mark. The expression suggests that they were vaiṣṇava or saura or bauddha, and did not simply belong to the nonsectarian/mainstream brahmanical tradition (vaidika).

25 See Törzsök 1999 and Törzsök forthcoming.

such samayas; and the list has many parallels in related texts. With regard to their conformity to Dharmaśāstric prescriptions, there are three kinds of rules here.

First, there are samayas that are in total agreement with orthopraxic prescriptions and are practically taken over from mainstream brahmanical sources. We have seen that those samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta that forbid people to accept food from women in periods of impurity also belong to this category. The Siddhayogeśvarīmata and the Tantrasadbhāva, however, add many other such samayas: one should not perform fruitless acts, 26 one must not look at naked women, 27 one must avoid having sex during daytime if one wishes to obtain success, 28 one is not to urinate in certain places such as in a field, on the road, in a cremation ground etc. 29 All these rules have their equivalents in the Manusmṛti, either fully agreeing with the tantric ones or having only some minor variations. Although they are rather generic rules of conduct, their inclusion in the samayas suggests a certain adherence to general Dharmaśāstric principles. It also betrays perhaps the intention of the authors to become as authoritative in a particular Śākta community as Manu was among the orthodox-or to create their own Dharmaśāstra as it were.

Second, several samayas are Śaiva inflections of Dharmaśāstric rules, just as the nindā rules are in the Śaiva Siddhānta. Similarly, the deity or the scriptures are not to be reviled in Śākta Tantras either. 30 One must mentally invoke and worship the deity at the three junctures of the day 31 and one must worship one's ācārya. 32 Third, many samayas are completely unparalleled in Dharmaśāstras. Some of 30 In the Siddhayogeśvarīmata for instance śāstranindā is mentioned in 6.45c, while 45ab enjoins naivedya for the deities whenever one eats (as does the Tantrasadbhāva in 9.531a).

31 Śakti in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata (6.49ab traiḥkālaṃ cintayec chaktiṃ sakalīkṛtavigrahaḥ); deva in the Tantrasadbhāva (9.565c: traiḥkālyaṃ pūjayed devaṃ).

32 See Siddhayogeśvarīmata 6.49cd: vanded ācāryam āsannaṃ dūrasthaṃ dhyānayogataḥ.

them are merely specific to certain Śākta texts, for instance that the words ḍākinī 33 or rere 34 should not be uttered, probably because they carry particular power and are therefore considered dangerous. But other samayas clearly go against Dharmaśāstric prescriptions, for instance that one should not revile alcohol or those who are unmanly (klībam). 35 The brahmanical aversion to alcohol is well-known. It is perhaps less often pointed out that those who are considered unmanly (whatever that means exactly, including the impotent, the effeminate, transvestites, hermaphrodites etc), designated with the generic word klība, 36 are also treated with much contempt. In Manusmṛti 3.150 klības are put in the same group as outcastes, thieves and atheists: 'Brahmins who are thieves, fallen from their caste, or impotent or who follow the livelihood of infidels-Manu has declared these unfit to participate at divine or ancestral offerings.' (Trsl. Olivelle) 37 Eunuchs are also said to have a polluting presence (if they watch a brahmin eat for example). 38 As to inheritence, Manu says: 'eunuchs [or rather, those who are unmanly, klība J.T.] and outcasts, (persons) born blind or deaf, the insane, idiots and the dumb, as well as those deficient in any organ (of action or sensation), receive no share.' 39 33 Siddhayogeśvarīmata 6.51ab ḍākinīti na vaktavyaṃ pramādān mantriṇā -m-api; the word śākinī is mentioned in the parallel in Tantrasadbhāva 9.533: śākinīti na vaktavyaṃ. 34 In Siddhayogeśvarīmata 6.46cd: rereśabdaṃ sadākālaṃ na prayuñjyā[t] kadācana. Similar injunction is formulated concerning the word hehe in Tantrasadbhāva 9.532ab rereśabdaṃ na coccāryaṃ heheśabdaṃ tathaiva ca.

35 Siddhayogeśvarīmata 6.45cd: surāṃ klībaṃ na nindyāt, with a parallel in the Tantrasadbhāva 9.542cd ff. Svacchanda 5.48 also includes other commonly avoided substances that one should not be disgusted of: meat, fish and so on. Moreover, those who do or do not obey general rules of conduct (ācāra) should not be treated with disgust either.

36 See Olivelle's note on Manu 3.150 (p. 263-4): [T]he term klība has been subject to widely different interpretations. It probably did have a range of meanings, and in different contexts may have assumed somewhat different meanings. In general, it refers to males who are in some way sexually dysfunctional or deviate from the culturally constructed notions of masculinity. Such individuals include the impotent, the effeminate, transvestites, hermaphrodites and the like. This term does not refer to castrated eunuchs; I think the term ṣaṇḍha indicates such a person, although there is scholarly disagreement even with regard to this. A verse of Kātyāyana cited in the Dāyabhāga (5.8) gives a definition of klība: "If a man's urine does not foam, if his stool sinks in water, if his penis has no erection or sperm, he is called a klība."

37 Cf. 'Manu has declared that those Brahmanas who are thieves, outcasts, eunuchs, or atheists are unworthy (to partake) of oblations to the gods and manes' (Trsl. Bühler. ye stenapatitaklībā ye ca nāstikavṛttayaḥ / tān havyakavyayor viprān anarhān manur abravīt).

38 Manusmṛti 3.239: cāṇḍālaś ca varāhaś ca kukkuṭaḥ śvā tathaiva ca / rajasvalā ca ṣaṇḍhaś ca nekṣerann aśnato dvijān A Caṇḍāla, a pig, a cock, a dog, a menstruating woman, or a eunuch must not look at the Brahmins while they are eating. Trsl. Olivelle.

39 Trsl. Bühler. Manusmṛti 9.201 anaṃśau klībapatitau jātyandhabadhirau tathā / unmattajaḍamūkāś ca ye ca ke cin nirindriyāḥ Cf. Olivelle's translation (2005), who understands (against the commentators and Bühler) nirindriya also to refer to the absence of manly strength: 'The As the last verse (as well as other passages) of Manu show, people who have any physical defect also belong to the bottom of the brahmanical hierarchy-and it is precisely these people that should not be despised according to the longer list of samayas in the Tantrasadbhāva.

vairūpyaṃ duḥkhitaṃ śaṇḍhaṃ klībaṃ andhaṃ tathāturam ...na nindeta varārohe

The deformed, the depressed, eunuchs, the unmanly, the blind and those who suffer [from any illness] [...] should not be treated with contempt. (Tantrasadbhāva 9.552cd... 555a) Women, who-just as eunuchs and unmanly males-are considered potentially polluting in brahmanical orthopraxy, are also included in the list of those who should not be reviled in tantric sources. 40 Furthermore, in the Tantrasadbhāva many outcastes and low status members of the brahmanical society are enumerated among those who must not be treated with contempt: tribal people such as the bhillas and ḍombas, fishermen (kaivarta), foreigners (mleccha), wrestlers (malla), leather makers (carmakāraka) and so on. At the end of the list, the Tantrasadbhāva also mentions that in addition, others who have not been mentioned should not be reviled either. 41 This set of samayas thus appears to defend several categories of those who are marginalized according to brahmanical rules. Now was there some sense of social justice or equality that prompted our authors to establish such samayas? I am afraid there is no statement to this effect. There is, however, one passage in the Brahmayāmala that appears to give a theological justification which comes relatively close to revealing a certain sense of equality.

The passage in question starts with an enumeration of things and people that are not to be hurt or spoken ill of (na dūṣayet) according to Bhairava's command:

following receive no shares: the impotent, outcastes, those born blind or deaf, the insane, the mentally retarded, mutes, and anyone lacking manly strength.' 40 See 6.45cd in the very heterogeneous list of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata: striyaṃ śāstraṃ surāṃ klībaṃ na nindyāt kanyakām api.

41 See the following provisional edition of the passage kindly provided by Jung Lan Bang. Because of the focus of this paper, textual problems, which remain quite numerous, are not discussed here. kaivartaṃ kāndukaṃ mlecchaṃ dhvajaṃ sūnākaram priye / vairūpyaṃ duḥkhitaṃ śaṇḍhaṃ klībaṃ andhaṃ tathāturam // malla-vandina-kausadyaṃ cchippakaṃ carmakārakam / jaṭṭaṃ bhuṭṭaṃ mathīraṃ ca kāpotaṃ kulabhakṣakam // medaṃ bhillaṃ ca ḍombaṃ ca tathānyaṃ bhaṇḍakārakam / evam anye pi ye noktā mānavā varavarṇini // na nindeta varārohe vratinaṃ yad upasthitam / haṭṭanāryo na vaktavyā nākrośet kanyakāḥ sudhīḥ // See also a similar list in the Kubjikāmata 5.65cd-66ab: kandukaṃ mallakoṣāḍhyā chippakaṃ carmakārakam // dhvajaṃ sūnākaraṃ vāpi matsyaghātaṃ tu lubdhakam.

those who are unmanly, madmen, drunkards, those who are delirious, naked or are absorbed in sexual union, alcohol, women and so on. The text then goes on to say that since the goddesses and Śiva can be found everywhere, one should not revile anyone or anything subject to decay or old age, or someone or something deformed. A practitioner who abides in knowledge, 42 who has received the samayas and intends to follow them, must see different kinds of worship, the varṇas, various (ritual) acts, substances and bodies in the same way. 43 Let us note that the same sort of theological explanation is given to justify or explain the use of impure substances in ritual: since everything is made of Bhairava and the goddess, one must treat all substances alike. 44 Now a somewhat similar argument figures in the Svacchanda too in the context of samayas. It is, however, not about the equal treatment of substances or people, but about the validity of different śāstras. When the Svacchanda prescribes that Bhairava and his teaching should not be reviled, it adds the following:

sāṃkhyaṃ yogaṃ pāñcarātraṃ vedāṃś caiva na nindayet yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve hy apavargaphalapradāḥ

The Sāṃkhya, the Yoga, the Pāñcarātra and the Vedas should not be reviled either, for they all come from Śiva and they all bestow the fruit of final liberation. Thus, just as the Brahmayāmala argues for the equality of all substances and people because they are all Śiva's creations, so too the Svacchanda argues for the 42 More precisely, 'he who is in the stage of life for/of knowledge.' The text seems to create a fifth stage of life (āśrama) added to the traditional four. The name suggests that it is characterized by the knowledge of the doctrine it propounds. It may have been conceived of as an āśrama that is beyond the four, in the manner of the atyāśrama of the Pāśupatas.

43 This is not a full translation of the text, which has a few textual difficulties: guhyaṃ klībādi conmattam pramattaṃ vihvalaṃ priye / nagnaṃ suratasaṃsaktaṃ mṛto [ndha/tva] 45 Let us note the alternative reading given by Jayaratha in the Tantrālokaviveka (ad 1.18 and 13.302) (yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve śivadhāmaphalapradāḥ 'for they all come from Śiva and bestow the fruit of abiding in Śiva') and by Abhinavagupta himself in the Mālinīvijayavārttika (2.290 svacchandatantre tenoktaṃ sarvaśāstre śivaḥ phalam / yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve śivadhāmaphalā iti). The same reading in the singular (yataḥ śivodbhavaṃ sarvaṃ śivadhāmaphalapradam) is also mentioned ad loc by Kṣemarāja, who claims that some people read this version in old manuscripts (iti pāṭhaṃ purāṇapustakadṛṣṭam iha kecit paṭhanti). However, the Nepalese MS agrees basically with the edited Svacchanda here: sāṃkhyayogaṃ pañcarātraṃ vedāṃś caiva na nindayet / yataḥ śivodbhavāḥ sarve hy apavargaphalapradāḥ. validity of all śāstras, since they are also Śiva's creations. After this statement, the Svacchanda adds a last member to the list of teachings that should not be reviled: the prescriptions of Smṛtis, because they show the right way to behave and act (smārttaṃ dharmaṃ na nindet tu ācārapathadarśakam 5.45cd). This confirms, once again, an adherence to the generic smārta rules of conduct. Now there is yet another group of samayas that are worth pointing out in early Śākta Tantras: those that reproduce or are closely related to the special samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta.

The Tantrasadbhāva for instance mentions that one should not step over the shadow of a liṅga. 46 It extends this samaya to the various attributes (āyudhas) of gods that one also must not step over or touch with the foot either (9.562-8 ending with: pharakaṃ vāpi khaḍgaṃ vā anya vāpy āyudhaṃ priye / pāde naiva spṛśen mantrī na tu laṅghet kadācana).

The Brahmayāmala also includes what resembles the samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta in two passages. In the first (62.123cd), it overtly refers to the rule of those who follow dualist practice: dvaitamantre tu nirmālyaṃ nābhakṣaṃ bhakṣayet kvacit 47 One should under no circumstances consume the nirmālya, which is not to be consumed according to the dualist 48 Mantra(mārga) tradition.

The second passage mentions the eight samayas, some of which recall those of the Śaiva Siddhānta, although the Brahmayāmala gives its own version and certainly fewer than eight:

There is no higher god than Śiva. And in this Tantra, the respectable persons are the ācārya, the mothers, the practitioners and the pious. They are not to be despised or insulted, they must be worshipped as well as one can. These are the eight samayas that increase devotion and faith. Obeying these rules of conduct is the cause of all success. 49 46 Varṣās tu navabhiś caiva liṅgacchāyāṃ na laṃghayet 9.550. I am not sure how the first half of the verse is to be understood, perhaps it means that the rule applies from age nine of the person (the idea being that younger children may not comply with such rules and may be allowed to skip over the shadow of a liṅga).

47 Transcription kindly provided by Shaman Hatley. 48 The term 'dualist' always refers to ritual dualism in this text, cf. Törzsök 2013.

49 Brahmayāmala (86.3-5): na śivasya paro devaḥ ācāryo mātaras tathā / 3 asmin tantre tu guravaḥ sādhakāḥ sādhur eva vā / nāvamānyā nadhikṣepyā pūjanīyāś ca śaktitaḥ / 4 aṣṭau tu samayā hy ete bhaktiśraddhāvivarddhakāḥ / siddhīnāṃ kāraṇaṃ hy etat samayācārapālanaṃ / 5

It is possible that the idea of having precisely eight samayas was more prevalent in the Śaiva Siddhānta than in Śākta texts (which had numerous ones), and mentioning the samayas as being eight in number may have implied that the samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta were alluded to. In any case, in this passage they include only those that correspond to existing Saiddhāntika samayas, without the numerous additional Śākta ones.

The Brahmayāmala, however, does not end the list of samayas at this point. It goes on to give another set of eight (with the counting being somewhat problematic again, here we have perhaps more than eight), this time a set that does not resemble those of the Siddhānta. While the previous eight were simply said to cause success if one maintains them, the second set is labelled 'the eight supreme samayas,' distinguishing them from the first, presumably ordinary, set.

ananyadevatāsaṅgo hy avikalpo hy alolupaḥ / advaitaś cāpramādaś ca samayācāraceṣṭita[ḥ/ṃ] // nārīcaryasamutthānaṃ brahmacaryaṃ tathā yamaḥ / akrodha srotasañcāra ity aṣṭau samayā parāḥ // The eight 'supreme samayas' are these: one must not be attached to another deity, one must have no qualms or hestitation [concerning the use of impure substances] 50 and be free of greed. One must be nondual [in the ritual sense] and careful, observing the rules of conduct. One must observe the yama of maintaining celibacy while actively consorting with women. 51 One must be free of anger when transmitting/and transmit [this tantric] tradition. (Brahmayāmala 86.6-7.) This complete recreation of the eight samayas points to a new development: to the establishment of nondual Śākta samayas that have nothing to do with those of other Śaiva currents, and even less with prescriptions of Dharmaśāstras, although they may intend to underline some remote relationship to the eight samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta, by the mere fact that there are eight of them. 52 50 This would be the natural interpretation of vikalpa in the Brahmayāmala's nondualist ritual context. However, as the parallel of the Jayadrathayāmala pointed out below shows (3.32.6cd: tantroktaṃ guruvākyaṃ vā vikalpair nāvatārayet One should not transmit the teaching of the Tantra or the guru's words with vikalpas.) it could also refer to a different/fancy interpretation [of scripture or of the guru's teaching].

51 Interpretation suggested by Shaman Hatley (in a personal communication). Csaba Kiss has adduced a parallel, 24.108-110, which may point to the expression meaning an alternation between celibacy and sexual relationship with women. He has also kindly pointed out that 68.69ab appears to support Shaman Hatley's interpretation of the two things happening at the same time: nārīcaryasamāyukto brahmacaryasamanvitaḥ 52 In other passages, the Brahmayāmala still includes elements of the original eight Saiddhān-

To summarize the situation in the above examined early Śākta Tantras: they include smārta rules of conduct in their samayas as well as prescriptions that appear to go against Dharmaśāstric ones. These may be considered somewhat selfcontradictory, but some of them may also be understood as alternatives, possibly for different kinds of practitioners. In some cases, they also cite, include or refer to the samayas of the Śaiva Siddhānta. I take this apparent eclecticism to suggest that these Śākta Tantric currents did not intend to cut themselves off completely from brahmanical society and its norms, nor from the Siddhānta, despite the fact that they clearly defined themselves, in their ritual and theology, as following different or even opposite principles. Even if the inclusion of Dharmaśāstric rules was only a way to pay lipservice to Manu and involved only generic rules of conduct, it was apparently thought to be necessary, and establishing the rules of the community happened to some extent still along Dharmaśāstric lines.

The Extreme Nondualism of Later Śāktas

This seems not to be the case in later Tantras, in particular of the Kaula and the Krama. Their samayas are exclusively nondual, no Dharmaśāstric or Saiddhāntika influence is discernible here.

Concerning the samayas, the Yoginīsaṃcāra represents a transition between what we see in earlier Śākta Tantras and in later Kaula or Krama ones, for some of its samayas are close to those of the Brahmayāmala (a parallel pointed out by Shaman Hatley in his transcription of the Brahmayāmala), but it retains mainly those samayas of the Brahmayāmala that are particularly Śākta.

It starts with the set of nindā rules. These are still somewhat reminiscent of the first four samayas of the Siddhānta. One must not revile but worship and respect Śiva, the different gods, the guru, the teaching, (other) practitioners and Yoginīs. The text seems to call these rules the three precepts (padatrayam) of the three other Tantric currents (trayasyānyasya bhedasya lit. 'of the three other divisions') that should be taught. 53 tika samayas as well as rules coming from the Dharmaśāstra literature, as shown above (as in 62.121ff. na nagnāṃ vanitāṃ pasye na cāpi prakaṭastanīṃ / nālokayet paśukrīḍā kṣudrakarman na kārayet). It must also be noted that in this paper I do not deal with the various prescriptions concerning meat eating and which meats are not to be consumed. These samayas of the Śākta scriptures are possibly related to the animal-headed deities worshipped in these Tantras.

53 Jayadrathayāmala 3.32.3-5, which is 9.3-5 of the Yoginīsaṃcāra. I am grateful to Alexis One must not be attached to another deity even for fun, one is not to transmit the words of the Tantra or of the guru with an alternative interpretation. One must not covet the objets of the senses and one should serve She Who Takes [Them] Away with the optional observances. One must always maintain the samayas unfailingly. One is to see one's self everywhere with a nondual state of mind and observe the Vrata(s), the vow (saṃyama) that comes from engaging with women (?). 54 One must do the same on the tithi days, but with special restrictions. The traditional teachings of the Lāmās [may] cease because of one's own error. One must always be without anger when transmitting trayasyānyasya bhedasya etac chikṣet padatrayam //

54 The text may be corrupt. In any case, the parallel with the Brahmayāmala suggests that here too, celibacy combined with being with women is meant.

the teaching. These are the eight samayas of the Lāmās, which bestow success. 55 The next set of samayas is called those of Śākinīs (śākinīnāṃ maheśāni samayāṃ śṛṇu sāṃpratam 3.32.11.1), and the last set perhaps belongs to Yoginīs (adhunā saṃpravakṣyāmi yogīnāṃ yogasiddhidā 3.32.24.1). One of the last sentences of the passage summarizes adequately these numerous rules: one must follow left-hand practice in all actions (vāmācāreṇa varteta sarvakarmasu suvrate 3.32.44.1).

Kaula and Krama texts indeed seem to have a tendency to prescribe only 'left-hand' rules. They may mention, among other things, that the guru must be respected or daily ritual is to be observed, but these rules are more or less lost among samayas that require a particular Kaula attitude and behaviour.

The Devīpañcaśatikā (6.5-12ab) has the following samayas for instance: One should not revile Kaula conduct or its substances. One is not to pronounce the words 'Kālī' and 'Ḍāvī'. One must always worship 55 This translation is very tentative, for the text is sometimes very terse or ambiguous, and sometimes the constuction may not be regular (or there may be a corruption). On two occasions, the Brahmayāmala appears to establish different rules. The first is the above mentioned avikalpa. The second is in the last line, for the Brahmayāmala could be interpreted to denote two rules ('one must orally transmit the teaching and one must be without anger'), while the Jayadrathayāmala seems to prescribe only one ('one must be without anger when transmitting the teaching orally'). If the latter is understood in the Brahmayāmala too (although this seems a rather unlikely rule), then the Brahmayāmala passage may have the required eight samayas. 56 The MIRI edition has ḍārī for ḍāvī. 57 Ed. M. Dyczkowski (MIRI). Square brackets enclose my minor additions, for better understanding of the irregularities.

Kumārī/a young girl and cultivate one's knowledge of the Self. One must be ready to abandon one's life, wife, land and possessions for the sake of one's guru. One must perform the regular recitation of mantras and never omit the daily ritual. One should not be disgusted by what women or heroes (i.e. male or female practitioners) do or do not do. One must not disobey one's guru and one must worship the Kula teaching. One must avoid acting as a bound soul and being excessively arrogant. One must not feel aversion to Kula scriptures, neither to their argument nor to their expression. One must give up dualist Śaivism and embrace nondualism. One should worship autonomous Lāmās and should not revile those who are clad in black. One should not be disgusted by whatever has been taught by the Supreme Lord or by the Emaciated Goddess herself, one should worship their teaching as Hara is worshipped. Those who observe these samayas and are devoted to Kālī, o great lord, will obtain success shortly and reach the heavenly realm.

Sometimes elements of earlier Śākta samayas recur in a combined form. The Ūrmikaulārṇava, for instance, prescribes not just the worship of women or Yoginīs, but also the worship of women who are blind or crippled. Furthermore, it clearly goes against orthopraxy by enjoining the worship of women who have their period, a rule that was not yet among the samayas of early Śākta Tantras, even if the Brahmayāmala, for instance, does include the worship of women who have their period in its chapters on ritual.

sahajā pīṭhajā vātha vṛddhastrī bālakanyakā // kulavratadharā nagnā bhagnanāsā rajasvalā / mātaraḥ siddhayoginyaḥ kālikācārapāragāḥ // pūjayet sādhakendreṇa dīnāndhā vikalāḥ tathā / Ūrmikaulārṇava (4.29cd-31ab) The eminent practitioner must worship Mothers, perfected Yoginīs who know the Kālikā conduct, whether they are naturally born ones or are born in sacred places, old women as well as girls, those who observe the Kula vow, who are naked, flat-nosed, those who have their period. He must also worship them if they are destitute, blind or crippled. These Kaula or Krama rules do not seem to be related to other, non-Śākta sets of samayas. They appear to betray a much more radical antinomian standpoint, and a much more categorical rejection of orthopraxy than early Śākta Tantras. Nevertheless, the lack of any Dharmaśāstric rules may also signal that it was no longer felt necessary to define the samayas along Dharmaśāstric lines, because the authority of Dharmaśāstras had perhaps faded to some extent.

Conclusion

Four different forms of Śaivism have been examined here, in order to see what community rules they establish and how they demarcate themselves from orthopraxy. These four are, in order of increasing distance from mainstream brahmanism: noninitiatory lay Śaivism, the Śaiva Siddhānta, early Śākta Tantras and later, more esoteric Kaula and Krama Tantras.

Lay Śaivism, although it adheres to mainstream brahmanical orthopraxy and prescribes no samaya-type rules of its own,58 proposes particular, Śaiva solutions to problems such as infertility. In this way, it marks its difference, without nevertheless going against any basic rules of orthopraxy.

The Śaiva Siddhānta most commonly establishes a set of eight community rules, to be observed after initiation. These include borrowings from mainstream brahmanical rules of purity (mainly concerning the avoidance of female impurity) or Śaiva applications of brahmanical prescriptions (respect of the teaching and the guru for instance). They also include a few special rules of their own system: (1) concerning the nirmālya or offering made to Śiva that should not be reused, and (2) concerning the shadow of a liṅga and Śaiva sacred spaces, which must not be stepped upon/over.

The post-initiatory community rules are surprisingly heterogeneous in early Śākta Tantras (around the 7th-8th centuries CE?). They include several samayas of the Siddhānta and a number of Dharmaśāstric rules, to which they add their own ones, even though they clearly go against Dharmaśāstric principles in most cases. These Śākta samayas often appear to be in favour of those who are not particularly well treated in Dharmaśāstras: women, those who are considered genderless or unmanly, the handicapped, the outcast. The theological argument that supports these rules is that everybody is created by Śiva and must therefore be treated with respect.

The inclusion of many Dharmaśāstric rules, however, seems to suggest that these Śākta communities probably did not want to separate themselves from those who represented mainsteam orthopraxy and the Śaiva Siddhānta. They had an inclusivistic attitude towards other religious forms and currents. The theological justification was, once again, the fact that all teachings originated in Śiva.

By contrast, the Niśvāsa, which is the earliest surviving tantric scripture (whose earliest stratum may be from 550-650 CE), insists on delimiting its own territory as opposed to Vaidika religion and warns against following other teachings. This attitude may be explained by the religious context of the period: for the Niśvāsa was composed when Śaivism was about to establish itself as a new initiatory religion and it was perhaps important to show in what way it proposed something

  This woman shall have a true son. This prediction should come true. Whatever ascetic power I have been able to accumulate, through god's grace, you shall have it. Armed with my tapas and yours, you must worship Rudra. 7

	6 Skandapurāṇa 52.33-35
	na mayā śrutam etat te tathā noktaṃ tvayānagha /
	mādṛśī katham etad dhi manasāpy abhicintayet //
	atrīṇāṃ tu kule jātā gautamaṃ kulam āgatā /
	madvidhā katham etad dhi kuryāt sadbhir vigarhitam //
	tapasā dhanam anvicchej jīvitāni sukhāni ca /
	putrān kulaṃ ca lokāṃś ca tapaḥ kuru mahāmune //

  Cf. Manu 4.63a na kurvīta vṛthāceṣṭāṃ, 4.70c na karma niṣphalaṃ kuryān. Manu 11.174 maithunaṃ tu samāsevya puṃsi yoṣiti vā dvijaḥ / goyāne 'psu divā caiva savāsāḥ snānam ācaret. See Tantrasadbhāva 9.547cd-548 śayanaṃ naiva kartavyaṃ ekavṛkṣe catuṣpathe // kṣetre caiva śmaśāne ca vane copavaneṣu ca / devāgāre nadītīre bhasmagomayamadhyataḥ // viṇmūtraṃ naiva kartavyaṃ ṣṭhīvanaṃ maithunaṃ tathā. Cf. Manu 4.45cd-46 na mūtraṃ pathi kurvīta na bhasmani na govraje // na phālakṛṣṭe na jale na cityāṃ na ca parvate / na jīrṇadevāyatane na valmīke kadācana.

26 6.46a (= Mālinīvijayottara 8.133a) niṣphalaṃ naiva ceṣṭeta. (See also Tantrasadbhāva 9.531c niṣphalāṃ varjayec ceṣṭāṃ.) 27 6.47c na nagnāṃ vanitāṃ paśyen (= Tantrasadbhāva 9.532cd). Cf. Manu 4.53b nagnāṃ nekṣeta ca striyam.

28 6.48cd grāmadharmaṃ sadā varjyaṃ vāsare siddhim icchatā (See Tantrasadbhāva 9.534cd grāmadharma na kartavyaṃ vāsare siddhim icchatā.) Cf. 29 6.51cd-52ab kṣetramārgaikavṛkṣeṣu śmaśānāyataneṣu ca / viṇmūtra[ṃ] śayan

[aṃ]

vāpi na kuryān mantravit kvacit.

  ntaṃ surā striyaḥ // (Perhaps read mṛto 'ndhaṃ or mṛtoddharantaṃ?) na dūṣaye['] †vase † vātha yantranā bhairavasya tu / sarvvatas tu tato devyaḥ śivaś ca labhate priye // ato na nindayet sarvvaṃ jarāsthan tu virūpakaṃ / jñānāsramī makhāṃ varṇṇāṃ kṛyādravyāṃ tathā tanuṃ // tulyabhāvena pasyeta samayī samayārthinaḥ / (Brahmayāmala 62.124-127ab. Transcription kindly provided by Shaman Hatley.) 44 For various usages of this argument, see Törzsök 2013.

  Sanderson for making available his draft edition of the Yoginīsaṃcāra.After these nindā rules, the Yoginīsaṃcāra gives a more explicit and elaborate version of the Brahmayāmala's set of Śākta samayas, renamed here as the eight samayas of the Lāmās. I have put the equivalents of the Brahmayāmala in parentheses.

	anyasmiṃ devatāsaṃgo
	hāsyenāpi na kārayet /
	tantroktaṃ guruvākyaṃ vā
	vikalpair nāvatārayet //
	viṣayeṣv alolupas tiṣṭhen
	niyamair hy apavāhinīm /
	samayācāraceṣṭāsu
	apramādī sadā bhavet //
	ātmānaṃ sarvataḥ paśyed
	advaitaparibhāvitaḥ /
	nārīcaryāsamutthena
	saṃyamo vratapālanam //
	tithau tathaiva tat kuryān
	niyataiḥ paribhūṣitam /
	svavikalpena lāmānāṃ
	sampradāyo nivartate //
	śrotrasaṃcaraṇe caiva
	nityam akrodhano bhavet /
	ity aṣṭau samayā proktā
	lāmāvargasya siddhidā //
	(Yoginīsaṃcāra 9.6-10 /
	Jayadrathayāmala 3.32.6-10)
	samayān tāva vakṣyāmi ye 'smiṃs tantre sudurlabhāḥ /
	śivā parāparā devā ācāryo yaḥ sa eva tuḥ //
	ye tantre guravo devi sādhakā ye mahāmate /
	yāni śāstrāṇi siddhāś ca yoginyo yā divaṃgamaḥ //
	na nindyā nāpy adhikṣepyāḥ pūjayet tāṃ tu nityaśaḥ /

For the texts belonging to this corpus and their place in Śaiva literature, see Sanderson

2014:2-4.2 Several people are working on various texts belonging to this corpus, such as Peter Bisschop, Florinda de Simini and Paolo Magnone.3 For the edition and synopsis of this chapter, see Skandapurāṇa vol. IIB. 4 I give a summary rather than a translation above. For reference, here is the Sanskrit text: Gautamasyānvaye vipro nāmnā Kṛṣṇa iti prabhuḥ /

Skandapurāṇa 52.38-40 tathā bhavān api tapaḥ karotu susamādhinā / lapsyase tvaṃ sutaṃ śreṣṭhaṃ mahāyogabalānvitam // māṃ hi dṛṣṭvā purā prāha Atrir Brahmasutaḥ svayam / satputriṇī bhavitrīyaṃ na mithyā tad bhaviṣyati // tapo 'sti mayi yat kiṃcit tvatprasādāt samārjitam / tena svena ca saṃyukto Rudram ārādhaya prabho //

yat tv āryāḥ kriyamāṇaṃ praśaṃsanti sa dharmo yad garhante so 'dharmaḥ. The same Dharmasūtra in fact goes on to warn readers that some of the conduct depicted in scripture is not legitimate in the present day, since the ancients had "extraordinary power" (tejoviśeṣa) that people lack in later ages (2.13.7-9).

See in particular Manu 9.64-66.

According to Kṣemarāja's commentary, the word 'etc' refers to other ritual obligations, such as the annual reparatory pavitraka rite (ādiśabdāt pavitrakādividhis). On this rite, see the entries pavitraka and pavitrārohaṇa/pavitrāropaṇa in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa vol. III, where it is also pointed out that the earliest Tantras do not describe this rite. Thus, it is possible that the Svacchanda's author(s) had something different in mind than Kṣemarāja.

See the entry nirbījadīkṣā by Dominic Goodall in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa vol. III.

Note that different rules for the nirmālya apply in Pāñcarātra scriptures, for which see the entry in Tāntrikābhidhānakośa vol. III.

Again, the Śiva-dharma corpus and purāṇic śaivism do prescribe their own set of injunctions concerning devotion to and worship of Śiva, but these are not comparable to the tantric samayas.

better than mainstream brahmanism.

The eclectic samaya sets of early Śākta Śaiva Tantras seem to disappear in later, more esoteric Śākta branches, in the Kaula and Krama systems. Many explanations of this are possible. One is certainly that they simply define themselves more categorically as following left-hand or antinomian practice. But it is also possible that by the time of their composition it was not felt necessary to use the authority of the Dharmaśāstras, because by that time Śaivism itself had become the dominant form of religion. 59 Tantrāloka of Abhinavagupta, with a commentary -viveka by Jayaratha. 8 vols 59 I refer to the main thesis about the 'Śaiva Age' in Sanderson 2009.

Works Cited

Abbreviations


Judit Törzsök

Why Are the Skull Bearers (Kāpālikas) Called Soma? *

The Kāpālikas or Skull Bearers, who formed the third group of the Atimārga next to the Pāśupatas and the Lākulas, 1 were perhaps the most notorious Śaiva ascetics in classical India. They were known for their cremation ground rituals and for wandering around with a skull for an alms bowl. The skull (kapāla), their most conspicuous attribute, also provided their name. But the Kāpālikas are also mentioned as "Those of the Soma Doctrine" or Somasiddhāntins 2 or the "Soma People with the Skull." 3 These appellations seem to have been of some importance because their initiation names also included or ended in -soma in most cases (e.g. Satyasoma, Devasomā, 4 Somibhat . t . āraka 5 ). What was this Somasiddhānta, doctrine of Soma or teaching about (the) Soma? In what way * The first version of this paper was delivered at the Symposium Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions held in honour of Prof. A.G.J.S. Sanderson at the University of Toronto, on the 26th of March, 2015. I am grateful to the organizers for inviting me to this memorable event, in particular to Srilata Raman and Shaman Hatley. I would like to thank all the participants for their questions, comments and criticism, in particular Prof. Sanderson and Prof. Bakker. I am also indebted to Csaba Kiss for comments on and corrections of the final draft. This paper reproduces some aspects of the oral presentation stylistically. Needless to say, it builds on Prof. Sanderson's important discoveries about the Kāpālikas and is dedicated to him.

1 For these distinctions within the Atimārga, the term Atimārga itself and the Kāpālikas as being an Atimārgic group, see [START_REF] Sanderson | Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions[END_REF]2006. 2 This term figures in the Paus . karavr . tti of Jñānaprakāśācārya IFI transcript 110 p. 591. They are also called "Knowers of the Doctrine of Soma" (somasiddhāntavedinah . in Sarvajñānottara 14.4 ed. Goodall), which could be corrupt for somasiddhāntavādinah . , "Those who Profess the Doctrine of Soma."

3 Or "Skull-Bearers Who are the Soma People," somajanakāpālī in Jayadrathayāmala 3.35.33c. There may be an attempt here to distinguish the skull-bearing Soma ascetics from other skull-bearers such as those who follow a Bhairava tantra or a Kaula tantra. 4 The names of the two Kāpālikas in the Mattavilāsaprahasana. 5 The name or title of a Kāpālika in the Kannada inscription of ancient Kol . l . ipāke, Andhra, in 1050 CE, cited by Lorenzen 1989: 233-4. This Kāpālika is said to be mukha-kamala-vinirggata-Sōmasiddhāntābhiprāya-parāyan . am 'devoted to the meaning of Somasiddhānta issued from the lotus mouth [?of Śiva]' (Lorenzen's translation). While this implies that the Somasiddhānta or Soma teaching was ultimately considered Śaiva revelation (if we accept Lorenzen's suggestion of supplying Śiva), it does not tell us anything about its nature and content, nor about the meaning of the word soma itself. The wording suggests, nevertheless, that it is not Śiva who is called Soma.

1

was it typical of Kāpālikas? Why did -soma figure in their initiation names? I am afraid I will not be able to answer most of these puzzling questions. However, I propose to look at a few passages about the Kāpālikas which may shed more light on what the word or name Soma possibly meant for them. Now I am not the first to ask this question. An ingenious answer can already be found in commentaries on the Prabodhacandrodaya of Kr . s . n . amiśra (itself dating from 1041-73): commentators understand soma to mean sa-umā, i.e. "with/accompanied by Umā", with reference to the fact that a male Kāpālika normally had a consort, just as Śiva is accompanied by Umā. 6 This understanding seems rather forced. Female Kāpālikas or tantric consorts are not normally called Umā and this interpretation does not seem to figure at all in earlier sources. It also fails to explain how we are to understand the element -soma in female initiation names (such as Devasomā), in which it cannot mean 'with Umā/with a female consort'. Nevertheless, the sa-umā explanation of soma higlights an important trait of the Kāpālikas, namely that they were exceptional in the Atimārga in that male and female initiates performed rituals together7 and they were obviously not required to maintain celibacy, unlike (most probably) the ascetics of the Pāśupata and Lākula groups.

David Lorenzen has proposed a different hypothesis.8 He identified a Kāpālika called Kāpāli-śarman in a (probably) sixth century inscription from Karnataka. This Kāpāliśarman is said to have performed vedic Soma sacrifices. Therefore, Lorenzen suggests that Kāpālikas were perhaps dedicated vedic Soma sacrificers. This is also rather unlikely, for at least two reasons. First, Kāpāliśarman may not have been a Kāpālika in the strict sense, for his name does not include Soma and does not appear to conform to other kinds of Kāpālika names either.9 Second, nowhere else is it said that Kāpālikas performed vedic Soma sacrifices. However, as we shall see they were particularly interested in other kinds of essences than the vedic Soma, and in a metaphorical sense they perhaps did perform their own kind of Soma ritual.

Somaśarman and the Moon Image

We reach firmer ground when we turn to the often-cited Malhar or Junwani copper plate inscription (647 CE, see Bakker 2000 and 2015; Sanderson 2012), which lists a lineage of Kāpālikas as identified by Prof. Sanderson. It mentions Somaśarman, and the 'line of tradition starting with Soma' (continuing later with Rudrasoma, Tejasoma, Bhīmasoma). It is in Somaśarman's house that Lakulīśa, founder of the Pāśupata order, is said to have been born as an incarnation (avatāra) of Śiva. Lakulīśa was then initiated into or through the mahāvrata, perhaps by Somaśarman himself.

[...] adhunā kali-kālam āsādya śrīmal-Lakulīśa-nātho 'vatīrya Somaśarmākhya-brāhman . a-kule jātah . mahāvrate (te?)na dīks . ito jagad-indus tenāpi Musalīśas tatah . Somādi-pāramparya-kramen . a sthānaguru-śrī-Rudrasoma-praśis . ya-śrī-Tejasoma-śis . yebhyah . Before examining the question of Soma and related questions, I would like to point out some details concerning the word mahāvrata or Great Observance. Lakulīśa and others were most probably initiated into the mahāvrata (mahāvrate) and not with/by the mahāvrata (mahāvratena), for this observance is not known to be used as a rite of initiation in any Śaiva system. 10 By the beginning of the seventh century, this certainly meant the imitation of Śiva's expiation for cutting off Brahmā's fifth head. According to this wellknown story, Śiva must wander with a skull he uses as an alms bowl, for he has committed the sin of killing a brahmin, i.e. Brahmā. Wandering with a skull for twelve years is in fact the expiatory observance for killing a brahmin as prescribed in the Dharmasūtras,11 but there it is not yet called mahāvrata.

Although most attestations of the mythological story come from late puranic sources, the myth12 already figures in the (original) Skandapurān . a (chapters 5-7), dated around the end of the sixth and beginning of the seventh century.

Moreover, the Kāpālika Satyasoma in the Mattavilāsaprahasana (600-625 CE) mentions that it was thanks to the practice of the mahāvrata that his Lord bearing the crescent moon on his head was purified of his sin, which he had committed by cutting Brahmā's head. 13 The verse clearly identifies Śiva's mahāvrata as an expiation of the brahmin killer and it also shows that Kāpālikas were practising the mahāvrata in imitation of Śiva. In fact, the Skandapurān . a (6.5-6) also seems to associate this observance with sanguinary practices such as those of the Kāpālikas. For, when Śiva-Nīlalohita starts looking for suitable alms, Vis . n . u tries to fill his kapāla bowl with his own blood-a very odd, rather Kāpālika, notion of what alms should consist of. Now turning back to the question of the Soma lineage: Lakulīśa, whether he was indeed initiated by Somaśarman or not, is said to have been born in Somaśarman's house. According to the inscription, the Kāpālikas belong to the spiritual lineage starting with Soma, and their initiation names therefore seem to be derived from the founder's name. The name Soma can naturally be understood as a short form of Somaśarman. Thus, Kāpālikas are the Soma people because they follow the tradition started by Somaśarman.

Our investigation could stop here. For the name Soma seems to be sufficiently explained in this way. However, several things remain unexplained. It is not clear whether Somaśarman was a historical person. If he did exist, it still remains uncertain whether he was indeed the founder of the Kāpālika movement or whether Kāpālikas claimed retrospectively that he was their founder. Thus, we cannot take it for granted that the Soma name indeed comes from him.

For this reason, I suggest we look at some other details more closely. Lakulīśa, after his initiation in Somaśarman's house, is called the Moon of the Word jagadindu in the inscription. There are at least three interpretations of jagadindu: 1. A natural understanding of the moon as having cool rays. 'Moon [whose cooling rays have calmed the fever] of the world' (trsl. Sanderson Śaivism and Brahmanism Handouts, 2012) 2. Moon on Earth, i.e. having a white body (sitā ṅga) because of the ash-bath. Bakker 2000 and 2015: 153. This understanding is backed up by the description of Lakulīśa in the Skandapurān . a as being white-bodied when covered with ashes. 14 3. Without going against either of these interpretations, of which both could well be intended, I propose that, in addition, the expression jagadindu may also allude to an indirect Kāpālika affiliation if we take it to be a syn. of *Jagatsoma, suggestive of a Kāpālika initiation name. This may imply two things. First, it is possible that the Kāpālikas derive their name Soma from Lakulīśa who is considered the Moon of the World. Second, the sequence of events as presented in the inscription may also suggest that Lakulīśa himself came to be called the Moon of the World (possibly representing an initiation name) because of Somaśarman. Whatever is the case, the moon image is emphatically present in the name or epithet of both founders as well as in the initiation name of Kāpālikas. Now naming Lakulīśa the 'Moon,' in the manner of a Kāpālika, may be more than a coincidence. It may well be understood as an attempt to present Lakulīśa as a true Kāpālika, perhaps via his association with another 'Moon person,' Somaśarman. Or, from another point of view, by presenting Lakulīśa as a Kāpālika initiate, the text may suggest the preeminence of the Kāpālikas over the other two Atimārga groups, the Pāśupatas and the Lākulas.

But no matter how we understand the hidden agenda of the above inscription (if there is one), it is undeniable that the Kāpālikas' initiation name ending in -soma is understood to recall both their founder(s)' name and the image of the moon.

The Moon and the Nectar of Immortality (amr . ta) in the Skull(s)

The moon also forms an important part of Pāśupata yogic practices. As we learn from the Skandapurān . a (179.28ff. pointed out by Bakker 2015: 141), their 'accomplishment in yoga' (yogasiddhi ) comes about through a withdrawal of the senses until the practitioner can see a moon disc (somaman . d . ala) in his heart. From the light inside his body, yogic powers, omniscience and the like are produced. They also include being safe from diseases (vyādhayo nāviśanty enam) and having a divine body (divyam . vapuh . ).

Speaking of the moon and practices related to its visualization, the Kāpālikas appear to share the pan-Indian idea that it also contains the nectar of immortality. 15 In one passage of Bhavabhūti's Mālatīmādhava (5.23) an invocation is addressed to the fierce goddess, Cāmun . d . ā, which describes her violent tān . d . ava dance. The verse is uttered by the two Kāpālikas in the cremation ground. During this dance, the goddess inadvertently slashes the moon, from which the amr . ta flows down and fills her garland of skulls. The skulls are thus resurrected and start emitting a loud and harsh laughter. 16 Soma name figures elsewhere, in seventh century South India (in the names of Kāpālikas of the Mattavilāsaprahasana), where no such parallel can be assumed, therefore such implications seem unlikely.

15 This idea perhaps also contributed to the spread of various visualization practices centered around the image of the moon.

16 pracalita-kari-kr . tti-paryanta-cañcan-nakha-āghāta-bhinnendunih . syandamānāmr . ta-ścyota-jīvat-kapālāvalī-mukta-can . d . āt . t

. ahāsa-trasad-bhūri-This image is not particularly significant in itself. However, it seems that Kāpālikas were particularily interested in a special sort of ambrosia. In their quest for the amr . ta, they probably joined a large group of ascetics or yogins of the period who, in various ways and through different practices, were all searching for the same magic essence. 17 So what was exactly the amr . ta of the Kāpālikas and how did they expect to find or to produce it?

4. What is the Kāpālikas' Nectar (amr . ta/soma)?

We can turn again to the Kāpālikas of the Mālatīmādhava. At one point in the story (5.2), the female practitioner mentions that she can extract the so-called 'five nectars' (pañcāmr . ta), which are five vital essences of the human body. They have a powerful, invigorating effect (as one would expect from such a nectar), so much so that the female Kāpālika can fly a great distance in a few seconds.

The extraction of the five nectars (pañcāmr . tākars . an . a), as well as other, Kāpālika-type cremation ground practices, also figure in the Brahmayāmala, as Hatley 2007: 143ff points out. The five substances are not listed in a systematic way, but they usually seem to include these four: semen (śukra), blood (rakta), fat/marrow (medas) and sneha (see also Tāntrikābhidhānakośa III).

Other sources also describe Kāpālikas as making use of various parts of the human body. Kāpālikas use human flesh (mahāmām . sa), brain (mastis . ka), intestines (antra), fat (vasā) and blood (kīlāla) in ritual, and drink alcohol (surā), according to Prabodhacandrodaya 3.13.

In addition to the extraction of the five nectars, the Brahmayāmala also includes rituals which make particular use of human body parts and are to be performed in the cremation ground. A notable series of chapters prescribing such rites forms a small cluster around chapter 46. Since the practices prescribed seem very close to what Kāpālika rituals were supposed to be, these chapters could well be adaptations or assimilations of originally Kāpālika rituals, 18 although this remains a hypothesis in the absence of any surviving Kāpālika scriptures. It is also notable that the Brahmayāmala describes possession (āveśa) by Bhairava, stating that through possession one obtains Bhairavahood; and possession was, according to numerous Śaiva sources about the subject, the way in which Kāpālikas claimed to attain final liberation. 19 bhūta-pravr . tta-stuti śvasad-asita-bhujam . ga-bhogā ṅgada-granthi-nis . pīd . ana-sphāra-phullatphan . ā-pīt . ha-niryad-vis . a-jyotir-ujjr . mbhan . od . d . āmara-vyasta-vistāri-doh . -khan . d . a-paryāsitaks . mādharam / jvalad-anala-piśa ṅga-netra-cchat . ācchanna-bhīmottamā ṅga-bhrami prastutālāta-cakra-kriyā-syūta-dig-bhāgam uttu ṅga-khat . vā ṅga-kot . i-dhvajoddhūti-viks . ipta-tārāgan . am pramudita-kat . apūtanottāla-vetāla-tāla-sphut . at-karn . a-sam . bhrānta-Gaurī-ghanāśles . ahr . s . yan-manah . -Tryambakānandi vah . tān . d . avam devi bhūyāt abhīs . t

. yai ca hr . s . t . yai ca nah . . 17 Obtaining the nectar of immortality and, thanks to it, an immortal physical body is the main goal of the hat . hayogic and Nath yogic traditions, see Mallinson 2007 and Ondračka 2007. Mallinson 2015: 120 ff proposes that there may have been an early, nonsectarian tradition of ascetics, the precursor of what is later known as hat . hayoga, for which he finds traces already in the Pali Canon.

18 For more arguments, see [START_REF] Törzsök | Kāpālikas" In Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism[END_REF]2015. 19 On this, see e.g. Sanderson 2009:133 n. 311.

Now in chapter 46 of the Brahmayāmala, similarly to the Kāpālikas, the practitioner uses human flesh, hair (keśa), bones (asthi), body fluids (picu), particularly blood (rakta) and intestines (antra); moreover, he offers and drinks alcohol (madirā).

It is also in this chapter that the amr . ta is in the focus of the ritual again. For the main subject here is amr . tamanthāna, the churning and drinking of the amr . ta. Pots are made of clay obtained in the cremation ground, the sacrificial pavilion is constructed of bones, a corpse is placed underneath a cauldron. The Sādhaka is required to churn a mixture including mahāpicu (sexual fluids? or various human fluids?) with a piece of bone as churning stick, with a rope made of human hair, intestines and skin(?). The cauldron is identified with Aghorī and the churning stick with Bhairava. The cosmic churning of the gods is enacted by the Sādhaka, and the same miraculous objects appear (the Kaustubha gem etc) as during the mythological churning. Then the terrifying goddess, Can . d . ikā, is honoured. She appears in the form of Aghorī, offering the Sādhaka a boon. The practitioner chooses to drink Aghorī's milk from her breasts. The chapter ends by saying that having produced the amr . ta and having drunk left and right (probably meaning having drunk Aghorī's milk from both breasts), one becomes omniscient, Bhairava himself. Although Aghorī's milk and the amr . ta that the Sādhaka prespares are not identified, they could well be the same thing. 20 What transpires from this chapter is that the preparation of the nectar of But was the bodily amr . ta the only nectar the Kāpālikas collected and consumed?

Alcohol as the Nectar of Immortality

The Kāpālikas were also known for their use of alcohol in ritual. The Prabodhacandrodaya (3.20 and prose) presents a Kāpālika rite of initiation, in the course of which the Kāpālika offers alcohol to the initiands and calls it amr . ta, for, once again, it releases someone from the bondages of this word and of the state of being a bound soul. In this sense, amr . ta is not just used as a simple metaphor to denote a precious or delicious liquid. It is a real nectar of immortality, for it actually makes one immortal by bestowing final release, moks . a. 21

The Drinking of Alcohol Compared to the Soma Sacrifice

In a more satirical way, the Kāpālikas' alcohol is also treated as their equivalent of the vedic Soma. The Kāpālika in the Mattavilāsahasana cries out as follows, when he sees a pub: My darling, look. This pub resembles the vedic sacrificial ground. For its sign post could be the sacrificial pillar, then alcohol is the Soma, drunkards are the sacrificial priests, the wine glasses are the special cups for drinking Soma, the roasted meat and other appetizers are the fire oblations, the drunken babblings are the sacrificial formulae, the songs are the Sāman hymns, the pitchers are the sacrificial ladles, thirst is the fire and the owner of the pub is the commander of the sacrifice. Nobody would assume from this passage that the Kāpālikas were Soma sacrificers-the comic effect intended is quite evident. It is nevertheless interesting that once again, the Kāpālikas are presented as having a special nectar of their own, whether it is called amr . ta or Soma, and that the ritual significance of this nectar may be, it seems, comparable to that of Soma in vedic ritual.

7. Inventors of a New Nectar (soma/amr . ta)? Or Simply the Best?

From the passages looked at here, no firm conclusion can be drawn as to why the Kāpālikas included the word Soma in their initiation names and what exactly they meant by the teaching of or about Soma. The most evident reason is found in the Junwani copper plate inscription, which associates the Soma name with the name of their alleged founder, Somaśarman. It is, nevertheless, possible that Kāpālikas identified Somaśarman as their founder only retrospectively and that this derivation of Soma from Somaśarman is secondary.

Conveniently, Soma as a proper name is also one of Śiva's names, although it does not necessary imply that he is accompanied by Umā (sa-umā). Soma is probably used metaphorically for Śiva, just as it is used for other gods such as Vis . n . u. In any case, somasiddhānta then could also simply mean ' Śiva's doctrine'. However, as a rather generic appellation of the god's teaching, it seems unlikely to designate the Kāpālika doctrine in particular.

Soma, meaning moon and more particularly, the nectar of immortality the moon is supposed to contain, is another possible explanation. Various kinds of nectar (amr . ta/Soma), whether it is alcohol or the essences of the human body, appear to be in the focus of attention in Kāpālika rituals. In particular the vital essences were considered to have an invigorating effect that provided the Kāpālikas with magic power they were apparently famous for. Concoctions of the vital essances were probably thought to bestow omniscience and Bhairavahood. Whether it was really this nectar or these nectars that were at the origin of the name Soma is impossible to tell; but whatever is the case, the bodily nectar of the vital essences was most probably a crucial element of Kāpālika doctrine and practice. 23 Given this rather wide range of possibilities, the Kāpālikas themselves may have intended to use the natural polysemy of the word Soma, although it is less likely that such polysemy was intended from the very beginning.

Finally, to add one more possible interpretation: Soma at the end of a compound can also mean 'the chief, the best'. In this sense, one could understand the Kāpālika names to imply that they considered themselves simply the best Śaivas around.

  Musalīśas conj. Sanderson : mugalīśas; sthānaguru conj. Majumdar : sthāne guru [...] reaching the present Kali age, the venerable Lord Lakulīśa took up an incarnation and was born in the family of a brahmin called Somaśarman. He was initiated into the Great Observance by him (?) [and became] the Moon of the World. Then by him, Musalīśa [was initiated], then, by the unbroken tradition starting with Soma, the local Master Rudrasoma, his disciple Tejasoma, whose pupil is the venerable Bhīmasoma [...]

	śrīmad-Bhīmasoma-pādebhyah . [...]
	(te) suppl. Isaacson;

20

  The following working edition is based on Shaman Hatley's transcription. Only the relevant verses are given here. mahāpicususam . pūrn . am . kuryāt sthālim . śavopari /44/ āyatasya tu nalakam . mahā-m-asthi śavopari / es . a manthānako devi asmin tantre praśasyate /45/ keśes . u netrakam . kuryād antraih . karttr . -vimiśritaih . / (karttr . in the sense of kr . was also an important way in which one could obtain Bhairavahood. Moreover, it involved worship of a fearsome goddess, Can . d . ikā or Aghorī, which again recalls the Kāpālikas in the Mālatīmādhava, who worship Cāmun . d . ā.

	tti?)
	navahastam . susam . pūrn . am . vidyāmālāniyojitam /46/
	suviśuddhamahībhāgam . rajasam . pātaśobhitam /
	mahāsthālī tu pārśve tu evam . kr . tvā mahātape /47/
	Aghoryā sthālirūpām . tu dhyāyen mantrī suśobhanām /
	śaktisthām . śaktirūpām . ca dhyāye somātmake sthitām /48/
	Manthānabhairavam . devam . śuddhasphat . ikanirmalam /
	sahasrabhujaparyantam . cinten manthānarūpin . am /49/
	....
	mahāmanthāna kurvīta yam . sthitvā tu Śivo bhavet /61/
	...
	namaskr . tvāsurīm . divyām . tatah . sādhanam ārabhet /62/
	...
	evam . mālais tu tām . dīptām . dhyātvā manthānamandiram /
	netrakam . ca tathaiveha cintayed Vāsukirūpin . am /66/
	ks . īrodam . sthāpayet sthāli ātmā bhairavarūpin . am /
	pūjayitvā tu manthānam . praks . ipet sthālimadhyatah . /67/
	...
	ks . an . amātram . mathed yāvac chaśā ṅkottis . t . hate priye /92/
	Kaustubham . ca tato tis . t . he vimānam . Pus . pakam . tathā /
	evam ādyāni siddhīni pūrvaśāstren . a bhās . itām . /93/
	uttis . t . hati mahābhāge śataśo [']tha sahaśraśah . / (mahābhāgo MS)
	...
	ks . an . amātram . mathed yāva namaskr . tvā tu Can . d . ikām . /
	tatrottis . t . hati vai devi Aghorī siddhidāyikā /107/
	...

immortality

  } ko nyo putratvam arhati / paris . vajya tato vīram . stanam . dadāmi sādhaka{h . } /116/ ... evam . kr . tvāpi vai devi -m-amr . tam . sādhakottamah . / savyāsavyam . tato pītvā sarvajño bhavate ks . an . āt /120/ (ks . an . ām . MS) bhairavo [']tha svayam . sāks . ā guhyakānām . prabhu[r] bhavet / (prabhu MS unmetr.) (Superfluous Visargas are printed in between curly braces. Square brackets indicate editorial additions. Comments, variants are given in parentheses. A hiatus-filling m is printed as -m-.) 21 Śraddhā: bhaavam . , sulāe pūlitam . bhāanam . [= bhagavan, surayā pūritam . bhājanam . ] Kāpālikah . (pītvā, śes . am . bhiks . uks . apan . akayor arpayati): idam . pavitram amr . tam . pīyatām . bhavabhes . ajam / paśupāśasamucchedakāran . am . Bhairavoditam // 20 // 22 Kapālī: priye! paśya paśya / es . a surāpan . o yajñavāt . avibhūtim anukaroti / atra hi dhva-jastambho yūpah . , surā somah . , śaun . d . ā r . tvijah . , cas . akāś camasāh . , śūlyamām . saprabhr . taya upadam . śā havirviśes . āh . , mattavacanāni yajūm . s . i, gītāni sāmāni, uda ṅkāh . sruvāh . , tars . o 'gnih . , surāpan . ādhipatir yajamānah . /

	22
	sādhakovāca //
	yadi tus . t . āsi mām . devi stanam . me dada Ambike /114/
	śrutvā vākyam . tato devyām . sādhakasya suśobhanam . /
	ehi ehi mahāsattva stana me piba putraka{h . } /115/
	tvam . muktvā tu mahāsattva{h .

For this and some other references to Kāpālikas associated with some Soma doctrine, seeLorenzen 1991: 83.

Two well-known literary examples are the Kāpālika man with his partner in the Mattavilāsaprahasana and the Kāpālika couple in the fifth act of Bhavabhūti's Mālatīmādhava.

 8 Lorenzen (1989: 235) citing K.V. Ramesh Inscriptions of the Western Gangas 70-74, n.19, inscription from Bangalore distr., 6th cent.? (sic!

). 9 Since Kapālin/Kāpālika can denote Śiva/Bhairava himself, the name could simply mean 'Protected by Śiva/Bhairava' without being markedly Kāpālika.

This supports the conjecture proposed by Isaacson, although the reading of mahāvratena is of course grammatically acceptable. However, it is also possible that the instrumental mahāvratena was understood to stand for the locative, and that no additional instrumental tena was meant. In that case, it is not expressed that Somaśarman initiates Lakulīśa, although it may again be implied. Bakker 2015: 143 opts for the instrumental, but assumes that it only implies the Pāśupata affiliation of Lakulīśa.

11 See e.g. Baudhāyanadharmasūtra 2.1.2-3: bhrūn . ahā dvādaśa samāh . kapālī khat . vā ṅgī gardabhacarmavāsā aran . yaniketanah . śmaśāne dhvajam . śavaśirah . kr . tvā kut . īm . kārayet / tām āvaset /saptāgārān . i bhaiks . am . caran svakarmācaks . ān . as tena prān . ān dhārayet. 'A man who has killed a learned Brahmin should do the following for twelve years. He should carry a skull and a post from a bed-frame; wear the skin of an ass; reside in the wilderness; and, using the head of a corpse as his flag, get a hut built in a cemetery and live in it. He should maintain himself by begging almsfood from seven houses while proclaiming his crime.' Translation by Olivelle 2000: 241. See Gautamadharmasūtra 22.4: khat . vā ṅgakapālapān . ir vā dvādaśa sam . vatsarān brahmacārī bhaiks . āya grāmam . praviśet / karmācaks . ān . ah . . 'Or else, for twelve years he should live a chaste life and, carrying the post from a bed-frame and a skull, enter a village only to beg for food while proclaiming his crime.' Translation by Olivelle 2000: 175, who explains in the notes to this passage that khat . vā ṅga must mean skull-staff (a staff topped with a skull) rather than the post of a bed-frame. See also Yājñavalkyasmr . ti 3.243: śirah . kapālī dhvajavān bhiks . āśī karma vedayan / brahmahā dvādaśābdāni mitabhuk śuddhim āpnuyāt.

The version related replaces the figure of Śiva with one of his ectypes, Nīlalohita. For this narrative device, which is used here to distance the supreme deity from such sanguinary practices, see[START_REF] Granoff | Śiva and His Gan . as: Techniques of Narrative Distancing in Purān . ic Stories[END_REF]

āsthāya prayato mahāvratam idam . bālenducūd . āman . ih . / svāmī no mumuce pitāmahaśiraśchedodbhavād enasah . 17ab.

It must also be noted that theSkandapurān . a (180.10) calls the mere ash-bath a/the great observance (mahāvrata). It also says that Somaśarman with his family received Lakulīśa's grace when he visited them in their house and that they were given yogasiddhi (167.125ff). The Skandapurān . a appears to represent an earlier(?)/pāśupata version of the story. (Cf. also Bakker 2015: 143ff.) Bakker 2015: 143-4 (note 442) also proposes that the Soma name suggests a parallel with the Soma-vam . śa dynastic affiliation of Mahāśivagupta. However, the

This may not be sufficient to explain what was meant by their 'doctrine of/about Soma,' but such 'doctrine' was not necessarily some abstract theory. The word siddhānta may be used in the sense of 'teaching' rather than 'philosophy' or 'philosophical conclusion'.