The rewriting of a Tantric tradition: from the Siddhayogeśvarīmata to the Timirodghāṭana and beyond *

Judit Törzsök

The earliest surviving scriptural sources that teach the Hindu tantric worship of goddesses and female spirits (yoginīs), the Siddhayogeśvarīmata and the Brahmayāmala (composed around the 7th century CE), belong to a corpus of texts called Bhairavatantras. 1 The main rituals they prescribe have the same structure as those of the śaiva Siddhānta and Tantras teaching the cult of Bhairava; but their pantheon, their mantras and some of their additional rituals are different, all of them involving mantra goddesses as opposed to male deities. These texts also teach the worship of numerous female spirits, yoginīs or yogeśvarīs, some of whom are goddess-like beings, others are rather human witch-like figures.

Subsequently, a new current, kaulism, developed from these yoginī cults, perhaps around the 8th or 9th century CE. It internalised the whole ritual system as well as the pantheon: the yoginīs became the goddesses of the senses in the body (kula) of the practitioner, and the rituals, such as pūjā or fire rituals, all came to be performed as internal worship in the body, based on yogic practices and meditation. Kaulism also lay much emphasis on possession (āveśa), although this phenomenon was already present in the early yoginī cults.

In what follows, I shall focus upon borrowings, changes and transformations that occur between an early text of the yoginī cult, the Siddhayogeśvarīmata ('The Teaching of Powerful Yoginīs') and an early kaula text, the Timirodghāṭana ('The Removal of the Darkness [of Ignorance]'), whose codex unicus was discovered and transcribed by Somdev Vasudeva. I hope to show that despite the fact that some of the textual changes seem minor, they often imply significant transformations of doctrine and practice. In addition to these two texts, I shall draw upon other parallels of related sources, with the help of which the relative dating * This article is dedicated to the memory of N.R. Bhatt, whose editions of śaiva texts constitute a milestone in the study of Āgamas and Tantras. The scriptures discussed here belong to a more esoteric tradition than what he worked on; but the method to interpret them is the same: a philological inquiry into the ways in which they were read, understood and rewritten, without which no serious investigation about their history can be made. I would like to thank Somdev Vasudeva, who not only discovered and transcribed the Timirodghāṭana, but made his etext available immediately to others working in the field. I am also greatly indebted to Dominic Goodall, who has kindly shared several of his transcripts and draft editions, of which I used the Niśvāsa, the Mohacūḍottara and the Sarvajñānottara in this paper. I am also grateful to Shaman Hatley and Csaba Kiss for sharing their work on the Brahmayāmala, and to Olga Servaeva and Prof. Alexis Sanderson for their etext and draft edition of the Jayadrathayāmala.

1 For the first, more detailed, account of how the yoginī cult was transformed in kaulism, see Sanderson 1988: 679ff., on which this short introductory summary is based. 1 of some kaula scriptures can perhaps be established, at least tentatively.

Bhairava's description and iconography

The first and most striking parallel can be found at the very beginning of the Timirodghāṭana. The description of Bhairava at the beginning of the first chapter is almost entirely taken over from chapter 20 of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, in which it is not a description but a prescription, given for the visualisation (dhyāna) of Bhairava in his half male half female form (ardhanārīśvara 'The god holds a garland of (or a tiara decorated with) skulls and shines forth with four -› five3 heads. The black deity has sixteen arms and twelve eyes, his dreadlocks are bound into a headdress above and his head bears the moon. His hair is reddish brown, he is very ferocious, blazing like fire. His brahmanic thread is made of a snake and huge serpents form his earrings. The king of snakes is around his waist and he is decorated with divine serpents for bracelets and anklets. -› He has the king of snakes instead of bracelets, armlets and waistbands. 4 Thus does the ruler of the gods shine forth, with half of his body being the goddess Umā. The god carries a skull-topped staff and brandishes a trident in his hand. He is frightening, carrying a hairless human head5 , a Vajra, a sword, a spear, and a battle-axe. He is decorated with a garland of human bodies -› rosary. Instead of beautiful lotuses, human hands deck his ears; his upper garment is an elephant hide. This very strong -› terrifying god carries a bell in his hand, wears a tiger-skin for a loin-cloth, and is hard to behold even for the gods. His eyes are hollow, he holds a huge dagger and is decorated with ornaments made of human bone. His enormous tongue flickers in and out to devour the world. His left hand carries a human skull, and he also holds an hour-glass shaped drum, a disc and a bow with an arrow in a raised hand. He bears a lotus, a Vīṇā and scissors. He smiles, chuckles and makes a boisterous, terrifying laughter -› is terrifying with a boisterous laughter.' Before looking at the more important changes, some general remarks concerning the language of these texts may not be out of place. Both texts are written with numerous tantric irregularities of language (aiśa). Interestingly, while there are instances in which the Timirodghāṭana replaces the irregular original with a grammatically correct form,6 in many other cases it changes the original to a grammatically less correct version. 7 Therefore, unlike in some other cases of a later recension or borrowing, here it is not possible to affirm that the earlier source went through a grammatical and stylistic purification to produce the later, grammatically more correct version. 8 Apart from some differing expressions, aiśa forms, and a shortened passage (whose shortening may be due to textual corruption) there are two places in which the Timirodghāṭana seems to have rewritten its model deliberately and significantly. First, Bhairava has only four heads according to the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, while he has five in the Timirodghāṭana. As I have shown elsewhere,9 other texts also adopted the five-headed form of Śiva and changed their sources accordingly. The change from four to five heads is not so remarkable in itself, given that it was identified in the iconography of Śiva long ago. 10 What is remarkable is that several texts and prescriptions were deliberately rewritten to accomodate the newer, fiveheaded form of Śiva, based on the iconography of Sadāśiva. The Timirodghāṭana's author or redactor did this without making the necessary changes in other details: most notably, he left the number of eyes twelve, which was obviously not adequate in the new context.

The other detail that became altered is the garland Bhairava wears. The Siddhayogeśvarīmata gives him a garland of dead bodies (śavamālā), which the Timirodghāṭana transforms into a simple rosary (akṣamālā). That the Siddhayogeśvarīmata has the original reading is evident not only because it could be considered the difficilior reading in that a garland of bodies (śavamālā) occurs rarer than a rosary (akṣamālā), but also because there are several parallels to confirm this. 11 The Siddhayogeśvarīmata itself (6.23) provides the most important parallel, with a context very similar to the above passage, for it mentions again, immediately after the garland of corpses, the ear ornaments made of the hands of the dead instead of lotuses: mahāpannagasaṃvītām śavamālāvibhūṣitāṃ // mahāśavakarāmbhojacārukarṇāvataṃsakām 'she has a huge snake for a sacred thread and is decorated with a garland of corpses; she wears the hands of dead bodies instead of lotuses as charming ear ornaments'.

Finally, it must also be remarked that the compound akṣamālāvibhūṣita, lit. 'decorated with a rosary' is a hapax, for a deity is never decorated with a rosary -he or she holds one. Therefore, texts use such compounds as akṣamālādhara 'holding a rosary' (Svacchanda 2.75c) or akṣamālākara 'having a rosary in his hand' (Sarvajñānottara 5.65d), but never akṣamālāvibhūṣita.

In this case, one could argue that since akṣamālā is a more often seen expression than śavamālā, this is an accidental scribal corruption.12 This is indeed possible; but given the difference between the words śava and akṣa both in pronunciation and in script, it is perhaps more likely that this is the result of a deliberate change.

Finally, it must be remarked that the context in which this ferocious Ardhanārīśvara is found is also different in the two texts. The Siddhayogeśvarīmata prescribes a visualisation (dhyāna), which explains why we have such a detailed account of all the attributes: the practitioner had to be able to create a precise mental image of the deity. Such visualisations were part of the standard quadripartite ritual in tantric texts of various currents. The four elements included visualisation (dhyāna), worship (pūjā), recitation of mantras (japa) and fire ritual (homa). 13 The kaula currents questioned the efficacity of these rites and therefore no prescriptive passage on visualisation is to be found in the whole text of the Timirodghāṭana. 14 Indeed, the Timirodghāṭana repeatedly affirms that it offers practices that exclude deity visualisation (dhyāna) and meditation based on visualized elements (dhāraṇā) (dh[y]eyadhāraṇavarjitaḥ (8.1b), dhyānadhāraṇavarjitaṃ 11.8d). And that seems to be the reason why it does not borrow the above passage in its original function for visualisation, but uses it rather as a mere description of Bhairava, thus introducing the dialogue between the Lord and the Goddess.

Possession by the Power of Rudra (rudraśaktisamāveśa) and seeing the past and the future

Another shared feature of the two texts is the way in which both emphasize that the practitioner must be possessed by the Power of Rudra (rudraśaktisamāveśa). This emphasis is of course common in other kaula texts too: the Ciñciṇīmatasārasamuccaya mentions the expression twice (7.202a and 9.53c) and the Ūrmikaulārṇava once in connection with initiation (2.291c). However, the compound 'possession by the Power of Rudra' (rudraśaktisamāveśa) seems to occur more frequently in the Siddhayogeśvarīmata and the Timirodghāṭana than elsewhere: the Siddhayogeśvarīmata has it six times (1.17c, 2.4a, 2.5a. 2.10c, 2.11a and 20.78c), while the fragmentary Timirodghāṭana five times (end of chapter 2, 4.15a, 4.16c, 8.4c and 9.16a). 15 These occurrences, one could argue, do not prove much on their own, for they are not very numerous in any case. However, they occur in very similar contexts in the two Tantras. Compare, for instance, the following passages, both of which stress that mantras and rituals will not work without the power of Rudra, more precisely, without the practitioner being possessed by the power of Rudra: 16

13 For the set of dhyānaḥ pūjā japo homaḥ, see e.g. Siddhayogeśvarīmata 29.6ab and Tantrasadbhāva 7.123ab, 1.122cd and 14.128cd, Kubjikāmata 25.41cd and Svacchanda 7.166. A fifth element is often added, which varies in different passages. Moreover, the first element is sometimes also different, such as in Mohacūḍottara fol.35v, which reads snānaḥ for dhyānaḥ. See also Sanderson 2009: 62 for the series nyāsa, pūjā, japa and homa. 14 The Timirodghāṭana explicitly opposes the teaching of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata and similar texts when it states (fol. 45v) that there should be no invocation of yoginīs (na yoginīmelakaṃ caiva) and that the sacred places are to be found in the body, it is not necessary to wander elsewhere (dehasthaṃ pīṭhakṣetre tu nānyakṣetraṃ paryaṭate). 15 Only the Mālinīvijayottara comes close to this with four occurrences, but two out of those are the repetition of the same line: 2.13a, 2.17a, 8.42a (8.42ab is almost identical with 2.13ab) and 20.29c.

16 I highlight the parallels in bold in this case. Here, both texts state that various mantras and Tantras do not function because of a lack of power. The power of mantras is called the 'virility of mantras' (mantra-vīrya). Only he who is possessed by the Power of Rudra can have access to this mantric energy and succeed. Although there is no trace of direct borrowing here, several elements of the wording correspond, and they do so rather closely. The similarity of the main idea and wording here, coupled with the frequent occurrences of the compound rudraśaktisamāveśa, point to a particular doctrinal and redactional closeness of these two sources on this subject.

The same chapter of the Timirodghāṭana has a closer parallel with the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, this time concerning supernatural effects the practitioner can obtain with the help of various female powers. The passage is interesting not only because the similarity of wording shows us again the textual closeness of the two sources, but also because it reveals once again the way in which the Timirodghāṭana adapts its source to a new context.

The reconstruction of each version needs to rely on the testimony of both texts, for they were transmitted in a rather corrupt form: The Siddhayogeśvarīmata has this passage after describing a special maṇḍala, a worship involving skulls, blood etc, and the invocation of yoginīs who must be offered the practitioner's blood. Seeing everything is one of several supernatural abilities the practitioner is promised. Accordingly, the text stresses the easy use of this ability: the sādhaka will see everything as if on the palm of his hand.

lokālokagataṃ
The Timirodghāṭana places the passage after a description of supernatural powers one can obtain thanks to yogic practice (abhyāsa), including such effects as becoming infinitely short, tall etc. It transforms the passage to suit better this context, and mentions that one needs to be in yogic trance (samādhi) and employ the inner power of the supreme Śakti to see the past and the future.

Possession as a sign of success

Since possession by the Power of Rudra is the cause of success, signs that could commonly be considered signs of possession also function to indicate that the practitioner shall certainly succeed. This is a shared doctrine in many Tantras, whether kaula or not. However, the following parallel shows a remarkable closeness in wording too, so much so that the Siddhayogeśvarīmata in fact helps us to reconstruct the illegible or lost syllables in the Timirodghāṭana. 19

18 The Siddhayogeśvarīmata has a symmetrical contruction: all the future and all the past. The Timirodghāṭana has a variant that may be partly the result of corruption. It mentions, rather superfluously, the future three times (bhaviṣyam, anāgatam, bhavyam), while the past only once (and even that single mention is completely corrupt in the manuscript). 19 It is again the parallel that is highlighted in bold. Both passages affirm that through the recitation of the appropriate mantra with breath control (uccāra), the proofs of possession or success (pratyaya) will be produced: the body shall tremble and levitate immediately (according to the Siddhayogeśvarīmata) or tremble and become paralysed (according to the Timirodghāṭana). A further, somewhat longer, parallel can be added from the Tantrasadbhāva, another Trika scripture, which shows a slight variation again: both immediate levitation and paralysis is promised, in addition to the knowledge of mantras and mudrās within seconds.

uccāre tu kṛte tasya pratyayaś copajāyate / udghātaiḥ pañcabhiś caiva svayaṃ jānāti tatkṣaṇāt // mantramudrāgaṇaṃ caiva nātra kuryād vicāraṇāt / śarīre stobham āyāti drutaṃ cotpatate kṣaṇāt // Tantrasadbhāva 4.53-54

A few other signs of possession also occur in both texts, in suspiciously similar wording and in the same metrical conditions; see for instance the fact that one becomes capable of entering another person's body, an expression occurring in even pādas: paradeheṣu saṃkramet (Siddhayogeśvarīmata 25.90d) and paradehe tu saṃkrame[t] (Timirodghāṭana 6.5d) against saṃkramet paradeheṣu, always occurring in odd pādas in the Niśvāsa, the Svacchanda and the Tantrasadbhāva. Nevertheless, some of the signs of possession in the Timirodghāṭana agree with those of the Tantrasadbhāva rather than of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. Both text signal for example that the eyes of a person possessed will roll upwards: ūrdhvadṛṣṭi[ḥ] prajāyate (Tantrasadbhāva 3.164b), which is altered and corrupted in the Timirodghāṭana (6.6d) to ūrdhvasṛṣṭi varānane.

Some expressions not related to this topic are also shared by the Timirodghāṭana and the Tantrasadbhāva rather than the Siddhayogeśvarīmata. One such expression is used in the context of worshipping or serving the guru: one can serve him 'through one's self or by one's wealth.' While the Timirodghāṭana uses an aiśa extended form of the first word ātmanena dhanena vā (6.9b), the Tantrasadbhāva transmits a morphologically right form, albeit with a slightly awkward verse-filling tu: ātmanā tu dhanena vā (7.155d). 20 The additional parallels from the Tantrasadbhāva are less striking, but confirm the close relation of the Timirodghāṭana not only with the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, but perhaps more generally with the Trika.

The ideal guru and the Power of Rudra

Being possessed by the power of Rudra is also one of the requirements a real guru must fulfill. In this context, another parallel can be adduced, in which, in addition to an identical pāda, the purport of the sentence also corresponds. Furthermore, both the Siddhayogeśvarīmata and the Timirodghāṭana mention in the immediate context the guru and the gurutara, the latter meaning the mantra that the guru transmits. Although the text of the Timirodghāṭana does not construe easily, 22 both passages clearly affirm that a practitioner shall not attain success if he has a guru without power (śakti); and both speak about the gurutara in the sense of mantra, which should be transmitted by such a guru. The simultaneous mention of the guru and the gurutara (in the sense of mantra) is again a particular feature of these two texts: the Siddhayogeśvarīmata mentions them twice using the same pāda (guruṃ gurutaraṃ caiva 1.15c and 2.1c), while the Timirodghāṭana three times. 23 Although this does not amount to much by itself, it is the relative rarity of these terms occurring together and the similarity of the contexts that make these parallels notable. More striking than this example is that the first verse cited above occurs in almost the same form in the Timirodghāṭana and the Kubjikāmata.

24
21 This is explained in Siddhayogeśvarīmata 2.2. 22 There are several problems, among which the most disturbing one is perhaps priyed. As a very conjectural solution, I would propose something along these lines: rudraśaktisamāveśād guruḥ gurutaraṃ param viditātmāpnuyād yuktaḥ [yaḥ] sa guruḥ mokṣadaḥ smṛtaḥ 'the guru [who] knows his self, is devoted and obtains (āpnuyāt) the supreme mantra thanks to being possessed by the Power of Rudra, is known to be one who can bestow liberation'. However, priyed may be accepted as meaning 'propitiate' and yuktaṃ may also refer to the mantra which is 'employed.'

23 gurugurutarasvinam at the end of ch. 2 (I cannot interpret this expression, which may be corrupt), durlabhaṃ sa guruḥ devi durlabhaṃ gurutaraṃ mahat 9.21cd (Somdev Vasudeva suggests that one should correct sa guruḥ to sadguruḥ, but this is not necessary, for there must have been a relative clause before, which has been transmitted in a fragmentary state), and guruḥ gurutaram param 11.19cd. 24 Bold highlights the words that became changed. The version of the Kubjikāmata seems secondary for several reasons. It attempts to improve on the grammar by replacing the aiśa -ādiṣu with -ādikam. 25 It tries to make the parallelism more explicit by introducing the relative pronoun yathā. The Timirodghāṭana's two pādas mentioning the tree are certainly somewhat corrupt, but the Kubjikāmata interferes more than necessary, probably to make the image more appropriate by replacing 'is destroyed' (naṣṭa) with 'is cut off' (chinna). And most importantly, it replaces the promise of success in general or of supernatural powers (siddhi) with the promise of liberation (mukti) -a clear indication of rewriting, making the text oriented to a more general public rather than to the somewhat eccentric wandering practitioners who aspire to obtain supernatural effects.

Although the direction of borrowing and the details of the textual transformation seem to be clear, the situation is somewhat less straightforward than it appears. For the Kubjikāmata has an important variant that cannot be ignored: two of its manuscripts, F and G, read siddhi for muktiḥ. 26 This variant cannot be easily discarded as representing only a deviating minority of the manuscripts. As Sanderson 2002: 9 remarks: 'in this highly contaminated manuscript transmission truth and error have permeated everywhere in approximately equal measure.

[...] Where all, some or one of the manuscripts of the Kubjikāmata agree with the source text, that reading should be adopted as original, except where there may be independent error.' Here, if the Timirodghāṭana was indeed the source text, F and G agree with its reading.

Moreover, among the variants Sanderson examines in this article, there is one case in which the same two manuscripts, F and G, agree with the source text, in that case the Tantrasadbhāva. The source as well as F and G read dhyānāc cakrasamo against dhyānāc ca kramaśo, the latter being a rather unambiguous case of corruption (and simplification).

The case of siddhi replaced by mukti or vice versa is, however, different, for it shows a deliberate change in one direction or the other. Given the fact that, as Sanderson (2002: 9) notes, 'HJK (the editors' third recension) and CD (their second) have very little in the way of interpolation compared to AB and EFG', it cannot be excluded that F and G have interfered on purpose here to bring in a potentially more general siddhi. The change from siddhi to mukti is nevertheless much more likely, for it can be motivated by the desire to upgrade the text and to attribute a more noble aim to its teaching. It also corresponds to a shift of emphasis often remarked elsewhere in the history of śaivism. 27

The history of the passage becomes yet more difficult to reconstruct when considering an unattributed citation or paraphrase in the Tantrāloka that seems to be a recast fusion of the two versions discussed above.

śaktihīnaṃ guruṃ prāpya mokṣajñāne kathaṃ śrayet / naṣṭamūle drume devi kutaḥ puṣpaphalādikam // Tantrāloka 13.336

'If one has a guru without power, how can one rely on him for knowledge of liberation? How could one have flowers, fruit and the like on a tree whose root has been destroyed?'

The passage is claimed to reproduce Śiva's words (tathā coktaṃ śivena tat 13.334d) without naming the scriptural source. The wording of the third pāda shows that the Timirodghāṭana is the most likely source, but the second pāda suggests that the Kubjikāmata's secondary reading is paraphrased here. There are at least two possibilities: if we assume that the Kubjikāmata that Abhinavagupta had access to read muktiḥ, then Abhinavagupta may have deliberately chosen a conflated reading and decided not to name his sources; or he may have cited the Timirodghāṭana, changing the third pāda of his own initiative. The latter solution is perhaps more likely, for he does not simply take up the Kubjikāmata's muktiḥ, but rewrites the whole second pāda. Whichever is the case, Abhinavagupta definitely relied on the Timirodghāṭana's wording more heavily, which shows, in addition to other pieces of evidence, 28 that the text was known to him, roughly in the form in which we have it. 29

Conclusion

An important conclusion to be drawn independently of what exactly Abhinavagupta cites is that judging from the parallel verses the Timirodghāṭana's version seems to predate the Kubjikāmata's. This is true whether one accepts the reading of siddhi in the Kubjikāmata as the 27 On the shift from siddhi to mukti, see for example Brunner (1975). 28 Somdev Vasudeva points out in his transcript / draft edition that Abhinavagupta cites a passage in his Parātriṃśikāvivaraṇa (p. 210) which is also quoted by Kṣemarāja in his Śivasūtravimarśinī ad 1.4. Kṣemarāja names the Timirodghāṭana as his source. Although this citation cannot be found in the text, it may have been on one of the missing folios, as Somdev Vasudeva remarks. 29 It is of course also conceivable that he quoted this verse from a third source we no longer have access to, but the verse is less proverbial than it seems and does not occur frequently.

original one, or one retains mukti of the majority of the manuscripts, arguing that this reading is proper to this text. Now it would be too big a leap to conclude with certainty that the Timirodghāṭana as a whole predates the Kubjikāmata. Nevertheless, the Timirodghāṭana's doctrinal and stylistic closeness to the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, the earliest Trika Tantra, suggests that it may be one of the earlier kaula scriptures, one that was rewriting an early Bhairavatantric scripture to create its own doctrine. This is all the more significant since the Timirodghāṭana does not belong to the Trika and does not assimilate the Trika's pantheon. 30 In the light of the above parallels, it can be tentatively concluded that the Timirodghāṭana could well be one of the earliest kaula scriptures. It certainly relies rather heavily on the Trika's stock phrases, especially on those of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, and purposefully rewrites its source in several places: it comes to lay emphasis on yogic practices that exclude visualisation in particular. Judging from a parallel verse, it is quite possible that it predates the Kubjikāmata. It is to be hoped that closer analysis of the kaula corpus will shed more light on the relative dating of these texts and confirm the tentative conclusion proposed here.

Works cited

Abbreviations

  GRETIL = Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages. E-texts available online at http://fiindolo.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil.html IFI / IFP = Institut Français de Pondichéry KSTS = Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies MIRI = Muktabodha Indological Research Institute. E-texts available online at http://muktalib5.org/digital_library.html NAK = National Archives, Kathmandu NGMPP = Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project Sanskrit texts Ūrmikaulārṇava edited by Mark Dyczkowski on the basis of NAK MS no: 5-5207 (sic. 5-5202); NGMPP reel no: B 115/9. MIRI. Kubjikāmatatantra ed. Goudriaan, T. and Schoterman, J. Leiden: 1988. E-text by Somdev Vasudeva, GRETIL.

  ). 2

	kapālamālābharaṇaṃ	kapālamālinaṃ deva[ṃ]
	caturvadanaśobhanam /	pañcavaktraṃ ca śobhitaṃ //6//
	bhujaiḥ ṣoḍaśabhir devaṃ	bhujaṣoḍaśasaṃyuktaṃ
	kālaṃ dvādaśalocanam //24//	kālaṃ dvāda[śa]locanaṃ /
	jaṭāmakuṭabaddhorddhaṃ	jaṭābaddhordhvamakuṭaṃ
	śaśāṅkakṛtamūrdhani /	śaśāṅkakṛtaśekharam //7//
	piṅgakeśaṃ mahāghoraṃ	piṅgakeśaṃ mahāghoraṃ
	jvalantam iva pāvakam //25//	jvalantam iva pāvakam /
	nāgayajñopavītaṃ ca	nāgayajñopavītī ca
	mahāgonāsakuṇḍalam /	mahāgonāsakuṇḍalam //8//
	kaṭisthaṃ nāgarājānaṃ	kaṭakanāgarājendra-
	devadevavirājitam //26//	keyūraiḥ kaṭisūtrakaiḥ /
	gonāsair divyarūpais tu
	kaṭakair nūpurais tathā /
	śobhate devadeveśam	śobhate devadeveśaṃ
	umādehārdhadhāriṇam //27//	umādehārdhadhāriṇam //9//
	khaṭvāṅgadhāriṇaṃ devaṃ	khaṭvāṅgadhāriṇaṃ devaṃ
	śūlapāṇibhayānakam /	śūlapāṇibhayānakam
	mahāmuṇḍadharaṃ vīraṃ	mahāsa*dharaṃ vīraṃ
	tathā vajrāsidhāriṇam //28//	tathā vajrāsidhāriṇam //10//
	śaktihastaṃ ca paraśuṃ	śaktiparaśuhastaś ca
	śavamālāvibhūṣitam /	akṣamālāvibhūṣitam /
	mahāśavakarāṃbhoja-	mahāśavakarāṃbhoja-
	tatkṛtakarṇapūraṇam //29//	sukṛtakarṇipūritaṃ //11/
	gajacarmottarīyaṃ syād	gajacarmottarīyaṃ ca
	ghaṇṭāhastaṃ mahābalam /	ghaṇṭāhastabhayānakaṃ /
	vyāghracarmāmbaradharaṃ	vyāghracarmaparīdhāno
	duṣprekṣaṃ tridaśair api //30//	duṣprekṣaṃ tridaśair api //12//
	koṭarākṣaṃ mahāśastraṃ	koṭarākṣamahāśastraṃ
	mahāmudrāvibhūṣitam /	mahāmudrāvibhūṣitam /
	lelihānamahājihvaṃ	lelihantamahājihvā
	saṃsārocchittikārakam //31//	saṃsārocchittikārakaḥ //13//
	kapālaṃ vāmahastasthaṃ	kapālaṃ vāmahastasthaṃ
	tathā ḍamarukaṃ kare /	tathā ḍamarukaṃ kare /
	cakrapāṇiṃ sadhanuṣaṃ	cakrapāṇi-dhanuś-caiva
	śarodyatakaraṃ tathā //32//	śarodyatakaraṃ tathā //14//
	padmahastaṃ savīṇaṃ ca	padmahastaṃ savīṇaṃ ca
	tathā karttarikākaram /	tathā karttarikā kare /
	hasantaṃ kilikilāyantaṃ	hasantaṃ kilakilāyantaṃ
	mahābhīmāṭṭahāsinam //33//	mahābhīmo 'ṭṭahāsinam //15//
	Siddhayogeśvarīmata 20.24-33.	Timirodghāṭana 1.6cd-15

through the power of the supreme Śakti.'

	lokālokagataṃ vāpi	lokālokagataṃ sarvaṃ
	yad vṛttaṃ yena yat kṛtam /	yad vṛttaṃ yena yat kṛtaṃ //
	yad bhaviṣyam aśeṣaṃ tu	yad bhaviṣyam anāgataṃ
	sarvaṃ vā yat purātanam /	bhavyam vā yat purātanaṃ /
	hastastham iva tat sarvaṃ	tat samādhisthitaḥ paśye'
	paśyanty ātmānacakṣuṣā //	parāśaktiprabhāvataḥ //
	Siddhayogeśvarīmata 25.93	Timirodghāṭana 8.17cd-18
	'They -› he shall see anything that happened in this world or beyond it and
	anything that has been done by anyone, the whole future and the (whole) 18 past
	as if on the palm of his hand, with his own [inner] eyes -› being established
	in yogic trance,
	vāpi	lokālokagataṃ sarvvaṃ
	yad dhṛtaṃ yena yad dṛtam /	yad vṛtta yena yat kṛtaṃ //
	tad bhavivyapaśeṣaṃ tu	yad bhaviṣyam anāgataṃ
	sarvaṃ vā yat purātanam /	bhayam vā yat parābhekaṃ /
	hastastham iva tat sarvaṃ	tat samādhisthitaḥ paśye
	paśyanty ātmānacakṣuṣā //	parāśaktiprabhāvataḥ //
	Siddhayogeśvarīmata 25.93	Timirodghāṭana 8.17cd-18
	The reconstructed texts run as follows, including a few conjectures: 17
	17 Bold signals the part of the text that was rewritten in the Timirodghāṭana.

I would like to thank Olga Serbaeva-Saraogi and Csaba Kiss for pointing out this parallel to me simultaneously. I am also indebted to Olga Serbaeva-Saraogi for discovering another parallel (starting with lokālokagataṃ, see part 2. of this paper) thanks to a computer generated list of parallels she kindly shared with me. The program which compiled the list was created by her father and herself.

Arrows indicate the change of meaning from the Siddhayogeśvarīmata's to the Timirodghāṭana's reading. Variant readings that do not affect the meaning substantially are in italics, while more important differences are in bold. Variants that are synonymous are not signalled in the translation.

The Timirodghāṭana has a shorter and problematic reading, which is probably partly the result of corruption.

Here, the manuscript of the Timirodghāṭana is not fully legible. It perhaps reads mahāśaṅkha, which would be a code word for human skull.

E.g. it replaces śaśāṅkakṛtamūrdhani with śaśāṅkakṛtaśekharaṃ.

E.g. lelihānamahājihvaṃ, which is lelihānaṃ mahājihvaṃ in the manuscripts of the Siddhayogeśvarīmata, is changed to lelihantamahājihvā in the manuscript of the Timirodghāṭana. There are more instances of aiśa forms than what appears in the above edited passages. I have corrected and emended both texts in several cases and conjectured words in places where parallels could clearly show how the corruption occurred. Since these changes do not affect the meaning, I have not reproduced the apparatus here. The edition of both passages with the apparatus will be published in Törzsök forthcoming A.

Such is the case, for instance, of the earlier and later recensions of the Svacchanda, for which see e.g.Törzsök 1999: 198.

Törzsök forthcoming B.

See for instance[START_REF] Kreisel | Die Śiva-Bildwerke der Mathurā-Kunst Stuttgart[END_REF]: 64 note 202, Sharma 1976[START_REF] Hanneder | Abhinavagupta's Philosophy of Revelation Groningen: Egbert Forsten[END_REF]: 15. Bakker 2002 shows, among other things, that the four-headed representation certainly precedes the five-headed one.

See Tantrasadbhāva 4.17d and Jayadrathayāmala 2.20.60d: śavamālāvibhūṣitām.

One could of course argue that the akṣaras broke off at the edge of a leaf and that a later scribe tried to fill in the lacuna.

This could point to the fact that the Tantrasadbhāva's version represents a later, corrected form of this expression. However, this does not imply that the Tantrasadbhāva itself is later, for the correction may have happened in the transmission of that text. Moreover, more evidence would be needed to establish such a relative dating.

Several cases of the locative plural -ādiṣu is found in the Brahmayāmala in the sense of -ādikam or for yet another case. It seems that the compound ending -ādi attracts somehow the locative plural case ending in aiśa. See e.g. (the spelling has been standardized) 25.283cd: pādādiṣu samārabhya śikhāntāṃ yāvat sādhakaḥ; 45.210cd-211ab kharamānuṣakūrmoṣṭraśvaśṛgālahayādiṣu // tanubhiś ca varāhaś ca ity eṣāṃ phalguśais tathā (for phalguṣais tathā); 45.596cd-597ab vyālasya vānarasyaiva śarabhasya varānane // uṣṭrakasya tu citrasya vijakādiṣu caiva hi. (The unrecorded word vijaka may be corrupt or stands perhaps for ajaka, goat.)

 26 B has mukti without the Visarga. There are also some additional variants in other manuscripts: chinnamūle for mūlacchinne and kathaṃ for kutaḥ.

This is again impossible to affirm with certainty, since the text has many lacunae. In some fragmentary passages, it speaks about three goddesses (9.10ff), but their names do not seem to be those of the Trika goddesses.